WRBi innftftnfii n Rtttti n^ C C 3/3 Book - |3 5C-7 SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT. &g YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH ALBERT S. COOK, Editor SOME ACCOUNTS OF THE BEWCASTLE CROSS BETWEEN THE YEARS 1607 AND 1861 REPRINTED AND ANNOTATED BY ALBERT STANBURROUGH COOK PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN TALE UNIVERSITY 518515 NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1914 Monograph YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH ALBERT S. COOK, Editor SOME ACCOUNTS OF THE BEWCASTLE CROSS BETWEEN THE YEARS 1607 AND 1861 REPRINTED AND ANNOTATED BY ALBERT STANBURROUGH COOK PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN TALE UNIVERSITY 518514* AUG 3 1; NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1914 o 6 «P 4> \tbb libra*"*! l f COJJGB*** 1 WEIMAR : PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SOHN. PREFACE Since opinion concerning the date of the Bewcastle Cross has varied so widely, I have thought that the considerations brought forward in my monograph, The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses (1912), might fitly be supplemented by such a series of de- scriptions and opinions as would enable the student who might not have ready access to a large library to trace the history of antiquarian thought on this subject. The present selection will be found, I be- lieve, to contain the most important papers and pas- sages relating to this monument between the year 1607, when Nicholas Roscarrock, a guest of Lord William Howard's at Naworth Castle, touched upon it in a letter to Camden, and 1861, when Father Haigh resumed his earlier study in his Conquest of Britain. I shall not undertake here to deduce all the con- clusions which might be drawn from a comparison of these accounts. Some of them will be immediately apparent to the attentive reader ; others will be pointed out in the notes. Three or four facts, however, are sufficiently curious to be remarked. One is that the first two persons that deal with the cross, Roscarrock and Camden, refer it to the twelfth century. Another is that the chequers on the north side, on which they based their opinion, serve now, though for a different reason, to suggest the same general period. A third is that the two persons who are most responsible for creating the popular impression that the cross was erected in the seventh century, Haigh and Maughan, contradict each other and themselves on the most iv Preface essential points. A fourth is that nothing appears to have been more legible upon the monument two cen- turies and a quarter ago than at present: Cynnburug, for example, is as clear in the most recent photo- graph as it was to Nicolson in 1685. The engravings, if compared with the photographs in my recent book, will show how fancy rioted in the earlier delineations, and how inexactly the sculp- ture was rendered throughout the eighteenth century. With greater accuracy in the representation of the facts, and an exacter science in the interpretation of them, it may be hoped that the cross will soon be assigned to its proper historical place, where, instead of being a stumbling-block and cause of bewilder- ment, it may serve to illustrate the characteristics of the age to which it belongs. Yale University, July 9, 19 13. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE m Preface Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross ... 1 I. Roscarrock's Letter to Camden, 1607 . . 1 II. Camden's Account, 1607 2 III. Nicolson's Letter to Obadiah Walker, 1685 . 3 IV. Nicolson's Episcopal Visitation of Bewcastle, 1703 9 V. Cox's Magna Britannia, 1720 . . . . 11 VI. Smith's Letter to the Gentleman's Magazine, 1742 12 VII. Armstrong's Plate, 1775 17 VIII. Hutchinson's History of Cumberland, 1794 . 20 IX. Henry Howard's Account, 1801 . . . 24 X. Lysons' Magna Britannia, 1816 ... 27 XI. Maughan's First Account, 1854 .... 29 XII. Haigh's First Account, 1857 . . . . 36 Xin. Maughan's Second Account, 1857 ... 51 XIV. Haigh's Second Account, 1861 .... 123 XV. Notes 125 SOME ACCOUNTS OF THE BEWCASTLE CROSS I. ROSCARROCK'S LETTER TO CAMDEN, 1607. [The first mention of the Bewcastle Cross that I have found is in the following sentence from a letter by Nicholas Roscarrock, then residing in the family of Lord William Howard ('Belted Will'), written to William Camden from ' Nawarde ' (Naworth Castle) Aug. 7, 1607 (seeCamdeni Epistolce, pp. 90— 92, and Surlees Soc. Publ. 68. 506—7). Roscarrock calls Camden's attention to two errors in the latter's fifth edition of the Britannia, and evidently hopes that Camden (addressed as Clarenceulx king-of-arms) can utilize his sug- gestions in the sixth edition, which bears date the same year. On September 7 Camden had a fall from his horse, and during the con- finement of nine months which resulted, he put the last hand to the sixth edition (Diet. Nat. Biog.). Accordingly, Roscarrock' s letter must be earlier than Camden's edition of 1607. For further information concerning Roscarrock, consult Surtees Soc. Pub. 68. 505—9, and Diet. Nat. Biog. ,] Understanding (good Mr. Clarenceulx) that your Britayne ys at this present in printinge, and reddy to come forthe, I thought fitt (in a small showe of our ancient love) to geve you notice of twoe escapes in the last edition. . . . Yf you have any occasion to speak of the Cross of Buechastell, 1 I assure myselfe the inscription of one syde ys, Hubert de Vaux 2 ; the rather, for that the cheeky coate 3 ys above that on the same syde ; and on the other 4 the name of the Ermyt that made yt, and I canne in no sorte be brought to thincke it Eborax, 5 as I perceave you have been advertised. [1] II. CAMDEN'S ACCOUNT, 1607. [William Camden's (1551— 1623) Britannia was first published in 1586. As late as the fifth edition, 1600, there was no mention of the Bewcastle Cross, but in the edition of 1607 (p. 644) the following passage appeared. The first translation below is from Gibson's Camden, 1722 (practically identical with that of 1695), and the second from the second edition of Gough's Camden (1806).] In ccemiterio Crux in viginti plus minus pedes ex vno quadrato saxo graphice excisa surgit, & inscripta, sed Uteris ita fugientibus vt legi nequaquam possint. Quod autem ipsa Crux ita interstincta sit, vt clypeus gentilitius familise de Vaulx, eorum opus fuisse existi- mare licet. In the Church-yard, is a Cross, of one entire square stone, about twenty foot high, and curiously wrought. There is an Inscription too, but the letters are so dim that they are not legible. But seeing the Cross is of the same kind, as that in the Arms of the Vaulx, 1 we may suppose that it has been erected by some of that Family. In the church-yard is a cross near 20 feet high, of one stone, neatly wrought, and having an inscrip- tion, but the letters too much consumed by time to be legible. But the cross itself being chequered like the arms of the family of Vaulx makes it probable that it was their work. w III. NICOLSON'S LETTER TO OBADIAH WALKER, 1685. [William Nicolson (1655— 1727) was, when he wrote the subjoined letter. Archdeacon of Carlisle and Rector of Great Salkeld, Cumber- land. In 1702 he became Bishop of Carlisle, and in 171 8 Bishop of Derry, in Ireland. In 1678 he had visited Leipzig, ' to learn German and the northern languages of Europe ' (Diet. Nat. Biog.). He wrote various historical works and antiquarian papers, among the latter being an account of his visit to Ruth well Cross in 1703, for which see my paper in the Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 17. 367—374. The appended letter is from Philosophical Transactions 15 (1685). 1287—91. For Obadiah Walker (1616— 1699), Master of University College from 1676 to 1689, see Diet. Nat. Biog. He was, with others, author of a Latin version (1678) of John Spelman's life of King Alfred. Nicolson has an entry in his diary under date of Oct. 20, 1684, re- Cording the writing of a letter to Walker about the Bridekirk font, in which he promised ere long a fuller account of that and the ' Ped- estal at Bewcastle.'] A Letter from Mr William Nicolson, to the Reverend Mr Walker, Master of University Coll : in Oxford ; con- cerning a Runic Inscription at Beaucastle. 'Tis now high time to make good my promise of giving you a more perfect Account of our two Runic Inscriptions at Beau-Castle and Bridekirk. The former is fallen into such an untoward part 1 of our Country, and so far out of the common Road, that I could not much sooner have either an opportunity, or the Cour- age to look after it. I was assur'd by the Curate 2 of the place, (a Person of good sence & Learning in greater matters,) that the Characters were so miserably worn out since the Lord William Howard's time, (by whom they were communicated 3 to S r H. Spelman, & mentioned by Wormius, Mon. Dan. p. 161,) that they were now wholly defaced, and nothing to be met [3] 4 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross with worth my while. The former part of this Rela- tion I found to be true : for (tho' it appears that the forementioned Inscription has bin much larger 1 then Wormius has given it, yet) 'tis at present so far lost, that, in six or seven lines, none of the Characters are fairly discernable, save only II P "1* h R ; and these too are incoherent, and at great distance from each other. However, this Epystilium 2 Cruris (as S r H. Spel- man, in his Letter to Wormius, has called it,) is to this day a noble Monument ; and highly merits the View of a Curious Antiquary. The best account, S r , I am able to give you of it, be pleased to take as follows. 'Tis one entire Free-Stone of about five yards 3 in height, washed over (as the Font at Bridekirk,) with a white oyly Cement, 4 to preserve it the better from the injuries [1288] of time and weather. The figure of it inclines to a square Pyramid ; each side whereof is near two foot 5 broad at the bottom, but upwards more tapering. On the West side of the Stone, we have three fair Draughts, which evidently enough manifest the Monument to be Christian. The Lowest of these represents the Pourtraicture of a Layman ; with an Hawk, or Eagle, perch'd on his Arm. Over his head are the forementioned ruines of the Lord Howard's Inscription. Next to these, the Picture of some Apostle, Saint, or other Holy man, in a sacerdo- tal Habit, with a Glory round his Head. On the top stands the Effigies of the B. V. with the Babe in her Arms ; and both their Heads encircled with Glories as before. On the North we have a great deal of Checquer- work ; subscribed with the following Characters, 6 fairly legible. llrhnf-fBHRfl **|| Nicolsoris Letter, i68j 5 Upon the first sight of these Letters, I greedily ventured to read them Rynburu : and was wonderfully pleased to fancy, that this word thus singly written, must necessarily betoken the final extirpation and Burial 1 of the Magical Runce in these parts, reasonably hoped for, upon the Conversion of the Danes to the Christian Faith. For, that the Danes were antiently, as well as some of the Laplanders at present, gross Idolaters and Sorcerers, is beyond Controversy ; and I could not but remember, that all our Historians tell us, that they brought their Paganism along with them into this Kingdome. And therefore 'twas not very difficult to imagine that they might for some time practise their Hocus tricks here in the North ; where they were most numerous and least disturbed. This conceit was the more heightened, by reflecting upon the natural superstition of our Borderers at this day ; who are much better acquainted with, and do [1289] more firmly believe, their old Legendary stories of Fayries and Witches, then the Articles of their Creed. And to convince me yet further that they are not utter strangers to the Black Arts of their forefathers, I accidentally met with a Gentleman in the neigh- bourhood, who shewed me a Book of Spells and Magical Receipts, taken (two or three days before) in the pocket of one of our Moss-Troopers : wherein, among many other conjuring Feats, was prescribed a certain Remedy for an Ague, by applying a few barbarous Characters to the Body of the party dis- tempered. These, methought, were very near akin to Wormius's RAMRUNER ; which, he says, differed wholly in figure and shape from the common Runce. For, though he tells us, that these Ramruner were so called, Eo quod Molestias, dolores, morbosque hisce in- fligere inimicis soliti sint Magi; yet his great friend 6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross Arng : Jonas, more to our purpose, says that — His etiam usi sunt ad benefaciendum, juvandum, Medicandum tarn animi quam Corporis morbis ; atque ad ipsos Caco- dcemones pellendos & fugandos. I shall not trouble you with a draught of this Spell ; because I have not yet had an opportunity of learning, whether it may not be an ordinary one, and to be met with (among others of the same nature) in Paracelsus or Cornelius Agrippa. If this conjecture be not allowable ; I have, S r , one more which (it may be) you will think more plausible then the former. For if, instead of making the third and fourth Letters to be two It. JL. If. If. x we should suppose them to be %, Jf. E. £. the word will then be Ryeeburu ; which I take to signify, in the old Danish Language, Ccemiterium or Cadaverum Sepulchrum. For, tho the true old Runic word for Cadaver be usually written ♦R^-fr Hrae; yet the H may, without any violence to the Orthography of that tongue, be omit- ted at pleasure ; and then the difference of spelling the word, here at Beaucastle, and on some of the ragged Monuments in Denmark, will not [1290] be great. And for the countenancing of this latter Reading, I think the above mentioned Checquer work may be very available : since in that we have a notable Emblem of the Tumuli, or burying places of the Antients. (Not to mention the early custome of erecting Crosses and Crucifixes in Church-yards : which perhaps, being well weighed, might prove another encouragement to this second Reading.) I know the Checquer to be the Arms of the Vaux's, or De Vallibus, the old Propri- etors of this part of the North ; but that, I presume, will make nothing for our turn. Because this & the other carved work on the Cross, must of necessity be allow'd, to bear a more antient date 2 then any of Nicolson's Letter, i68f 7 the Remains of that Name and Family ; which cannot be run up higher then the Conquest. On the East we have nothing but a few Flourishes, Draughts of Birds, Grapes and other Fruits : all which I take to be no more then the Statuary's Fancy. On the South, Flourishes and conceits, as before, and towards the bottom, the following decay'd In- scription. II r / p. nBT l 'ITRM-rril The Defects in this short piece are sufficient to dis- courage me from attempting to expound it. But (possibly) it may be read thus. Gag Ubbo Erlat, i. e. Latrones Ubbo Vicit. I confess this has no Affinity (at least, being thus interpreted) with the foregoing Inscription : but may well enough suit with the manners of both antient and modern Inhabitants of this Town and Country. Upon your pardon and Correction, S r , of the Im- pertinencies and Mistakes in this, (which I shall hum- bly hope [1291] for,) I shall trouble you with my further observations on the Font at Bridekirk ; and to all your other Commands shall pay that ready obedience which becomes, Carlile, Your most obliged and Nov. 2. Faithfull Servant 1685. WILL. NICOLSON. Addition of (1695) 1722. [This letter is reprinted in. Gibson's edition of Camden's Britannia, 1695 and 1722, omitting the last paragraph, and substituting one 8 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross based upon Nicolson's (then and ever since) unpublished History of Northumberland, Part 6. This runs, in the edition of 1722 (2.103 1) :J Thus far of that ancient Monument ; besides which, there is a large Inscription on the west ; and on the south side of the Stone, these Letters 1 are fairly dis- cernible, iWRkMlhlArri* IV. NICOLSON'S EPISCOPAL VISITATION OF BEWCASTLE, 1703. [As stated above, Nicolson became Bishop of Carlisle in 1702. The next year he visited the various churches of his diocese, and noted in what condition they were. The results of the visitations in 1703 and 1704 are embodied in the Miscellany Accounts of the Diocese of Carlile, published in 1877 by the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. The subjoined account of Bewcastle is from pp. 56—7.] Beaucastle. Jul. 30. The Church * is built, Chapple- wise, all of a heighth, and no Distinction betwixt the Body and the Chancel ; onely there's a small Ascent towards the Communion -Table. No Rails. The Children of the parish are taught here by one John Morley ; who was brought hither by (the pres- ent Rector) M r Tong, 2 no such Education haveing been formerly known in these parts. The man has not yet any setled Salary ; nor is it probable that he will have any in hast. The pulpit and Reading-Desk are in a tolerable Condition ; & so are the Seats, being all lately furnished w th backs, uniformly clumsie. Nothing else is so. There's very little plaister on the Walls ; no Appearance of any such thing as y e Queen's Arms or y 9 Ten Commandments. No Bell, to call them in to Divine Service. The Font wants a pedestal, and looks like a Swine's Trough. The church-yard is pretty well fenced ; and a very small Charge will keep it so. M r Benson 3 and I try'd to recover the Runic Inscription on y e West Side of the cross : But, tho' it looked promiseing at a Distance, 4 we could not assuredly make out even so much as that single line 5 which S r H.Spelman long since Com- [9] io Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross municated to 01. Wormius. That Short one on the North (which I noted in my Letter to Ob. Walker, long since publish'd in y e Philosophical Transaction, & the last Edition 1 of Camden by D r Gibson) is as fair & legible as it was at first ; and stands exactly thus : 2 rhR+hJ3n/in X. Of which, and the Embroydery that's about it, and of the Imagery on the other Sides, I have no more to say than what I have said almost twenty years agoe ; save that, on the South, there's a many-headed Thistle, 3 which has not (probably) any Relation to the Neighboring Kingdom of Scotland, any more than the Vine w ch is (a little lower) on the same Side. [57] The Parsonage-House is lately rebuilt by M r Tong ; who has made it a pretty convenient Dwelling. Into this, M r Allen (the Curate, who also assists M r Culcheth at Stapleton) is now removeing his family. The Man's a poor ejected Episcopalian of the Scottish Nation. The Men of Beaucastle would be well content with him, if they had him wholly (as in Justice they ought) to themselves. V. COX'S MAGNA BRITANNIA, 1720. [In the Magna Britannia et Hibernia, Antiqua et Nova, published anonymously in 1720, but edited by Thomas Cox, there is a descrip- tion (1. 388-9) based upon Nicolson's letter, as republished by Gib- son. In the reproduction of the five runes which Nicolson found in the long inscription, the rune for S (next to the last) is here replaced by N. A novelty is the imaginary representation of the chequered (north) side of the cross, as given below. The inscription at the foot reems to be recut from that in Nicolson's letter. This figure is reproduced in Gent. Mag. 12 (1742). 319, opposite one of Smith's plates, and in Hutchinson's History of Cumberland 1. 83.] fhflTfBHRlt^ b VI. SMITH'S LETTER TO THE GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, 1742. [For the author, see Maughan's Memoir, below, p. 57. As we learn from other letters of his (see, for instance, p. 30 of this same volume), he lived at Boothby, a couple of miles northeast of Brampton „ The first plate is from p. 318 ; the second from p. 529 ; and the third (p. 15) from p. 132. The description is from pp. 368—9.] The Explanation of the Runic Obelisk, 1 (see p. 318) by George Smith, Esq; SIR, That part of Cumberland which lies beyond the Banks of the River Eden, Northwards, having been often exposed to the Waste of War, and the People ruined by almost continual Depredations ; the Barenness of it seems rather to proceed from the Neglect of Cul- ture than the natural Poverty of the Soil. Within the Embraces of the Frontier Mountains of this Tract lies Beu-Castle Church, on a Rivulet called Kirk-beck, near an old ruined Castle of the Proprietors of that Part of the Country before the Conquest ; and both Church and Castle are built on the Remains of a large Roman Fort. Opposite to the Church Porch, at a few Yards Distance, stands the Obelisk, of one entire Stone, 2 15 Foot and a half high, springing through an Octagon Pedestal, whose Sides were alternately equal. 'Tis nearly the Frustum of a Square Pyramid, each Side being 2 Foot broad 3 at Bottom, and one Foot and a half at Top, wherein a [369] Cross 4 was fixed, which has been demolished long ago, by popular Frenzy and Enthusiasm ; and probably its Situation in these unfrequented Desarts has preserved the Remainder from their Fury. In the Bottom and Top Divisions, of the North Side, (see p. 318) are cut Vine -Trees with Clusters of [12] Smith's Letter, 1742 13 The North and Weft Pro/peas of the famous Runic Obtli/k at Bcw- Caftle in Cumberland. Taken by G. Smith. A perfpeflive Vitw Top, wherein the Crofs was fat, from an Ele- varionofiheocuiar Ho rizon The PnfpeBt of the South and EaA Sida viil be m our next. See the Runic Infcriftlm on the mjl Side, p. 132. (Text continued on p. 15.) b2 14 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross • Scmh and Eaft ProfptSs of the famous Runic ObeHsk at '. Caftfe in Cuaiberiaad. -SyC Smith, 174s. MKWfWHFf Smith's Letter, IJ42 15 We jnfert the following In- script ion, not doubt- ing that it will fall into the Hands cf fome Gentleman who understands the Lan- guage, and will pleafe to give us the Explication. It is taken from a very cu- rious ObeliiJc, erefted for a Monument in a Church' yard in Cumberland. Grapes in Demi-relievo, probably the Danish Symbol of Fertility, as Amathea's Horn was amongst the Greeks. In a Fillet above the under Vine are these Charac- ters fairly legible [see fillet on the north side, p. 13], which the learned Bishop Nicolson expounds Ryn- buru, and thinks that it intimates the Expulsion of the magical Runce, and their Accession to Christianity. But if I may be allowed to dissent from so great a Name, I had rather believe it to be a Sepulchral Monument of one of the Danish Kings slain in Battle, and the Reading I think will sup- port my Conjecture. For there is no Instance of any Nation using the 1st Character for an R, nor do I remember to have seen it so explained in all the numerous Runic Alphabets of Olaus Wormius, but the Danes about the Sinus Codanus, 1 made Use of it for K. 2 Besides the R is Roman wherever it occurs, in this and other Inscriptions on this Monument. The 2d is the Mas- sagetic 3 U a People about the Tanais* The next two Letters are wrong copy'd by the Bishop, the first is a Q, or Scythian N, the other an I ; the 4 following are buru plain ; and the last is K Final, for the Initial and Final K differing in their Form was common in those Nations, as the Initial and Final M to the Hebrews. Upon the whole I read it Kuniburuk, which in the old Danish Language imports Sepulchrum Regis. And the checquer Work included Iff nt, frwtra mimiml mmm mm m 1 6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross betwixt the two magical Knots (the Scythian Method of embellishing Funeral Monuments) very much corrob- orates my Opinion. However I so far agree with the Bp that it may also seem to have been designed for a standing Monument of Conversion to Christianity, which might have happen'd on the Loss of their King, and each mutually celebrated by it. For Buchanan 1 tells us, that in the Reign of Donald- us (the Sixth 2 of that Name) the Danes having wasted Northumberland, were met and engag'd by the united Troops of England and Scotland, with such Uncer- tainty of Victory, that both Sides were equally glad of Peace, by which the Danes obliged themselves to embrace Christianity. This, therefore, was a very proper Monument for so great a Change, and the Figure on the West Side greatly contributes to favour this Conjecture, as I shall shew in my next Disser- tation 3 on the three other Sides. This Transaction happened about 850 Years ago, and none believe the Obelisk to be older than 900. 4 That the Monument is Danish appears incontestable from the Characters ; Scotish and Pictish Monuments having nothing but Hieroglyphick's, and the Danish both ; and, excepting Bride-Kirk 5 Font, it appears to be the only Monument of that Nation left in Britain. SIR, Your very humble Servant, GEO. SMITH. VII. ARMSTRONG'S PLATE, 1775. [This plate is found in the London Magazine for August, 1775 (44. 388). From references in other places (for example, Gough's edition of Camden's Britannia, 1806, 3. 455, note 1), we learn that the plate was furnished by Captain Armstrong, a native of Bew- castle parish, who had served in the army as private, corporal, sergeant, and finally captain, retiring about 1764 (see Hutchinson's Hist. County Cumberland, 1794, 1. 80). Whether the accompanying description is by his hand I have no means of knowing. At the bot- tom of the plate stands: ' Publish'd by R. Baldwin Sep? i B } 1775.'] An Account of a curious OBELISK, of one Stone, stand- ing in the Church Yard of Bewcastle, in the North East Part of Cumberland, about 16 Miles from Carlisle. (Illustrated with an elegant Engraving.) What is here represented is 15 feet high * ; besides there has been on the top a cross, 2 now broken off, part of which may be seen as a grave stone in the same church yard. The faces of the obelisk are not quite similar, but the 1st and 2d, and the 3d and 4th agree. The figures and carving are very fair, but the inscription which has been on the west face, is not legible. At the top of that face is a figure with a mitre ; below that, another in priests habit ; then was the inscription, and below that, the figure of a man with a bird, said to be St. Peter and the cock. On the 2d or south face has been a dial, 3 and many other ornaments. The north face has much rich carv- ing, and the chequers seem to point out the arms of some person, and probably to the name of Graham, that being part of their arms, and the present Mr. Graham of Netherby is lord of that manor, and the lawful heir of the last Lord Viscount Preston. On the east face is a running stem of a vine, with foxes 4 or monkeys eating the grapes. [17] 18 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross North. Weft. South. Eafl ' kA Curious Ojzelisx m£ewcafl-7e Churrh Yard (Text continued on p. 19.) Armstrong's Plate, iyjj 19 The whole carving has been done in a masterly manner, and beyond comparison it is the richest ornamented obelisk of one stone now in Britain : but by whom or on what account it was erected, there is not the least to be learned from history. Cambden, and other historians, mention this stone, though none of them ever saw it. They would gladly have it to be Roman, but the figures and cross plainly speak it to be Christian, and very likely it was erected as a monument near the burial place of the chief man of that place, as the remains of a very large castle are close by it. VIII. HUTCHINSON'S HISTORY OF CUMBER- LAND, 1794. [The following extract is taken from Hutchinson's History of the County of Cumberland 1. 85—87. The plate is much reduced from the original opposite p. 80.] Mm : A friend, at our instance, before we had seen this monument, took some pains to gain the inscription on the north side, in a manner we have often prac- tised with success, by oiling the stone and pressing in wax, and then with printer's ink, taking upon paper the character : it was very confused and imperfect, but ap- peared much in this form, 1 fBfKvVl-K^"BhRV\^ of which, we confess, we are not able to give a [20] Hutchinson's History, 1794 21 probable reading. The ornaments of knots, flowers, and grapes, evidently appear to be the effect of the sculptor's fancy 1 ; and we think it would be extending a desire of giving extraordinary import to works of antiquity, to suppose they were intended to carry any emblematical meaning : they are similar to the ornaments of the capitals and fillets in Gothic struct- ures of the eleventh century, 2 or near that time, and no one yet presumed to assert they were to be con- strued as hieroglyphics. Should we not attempt to object to the readings of the inscription on the north fillet, and admit it might imply that the ground was famous for royal sepulture ; in our apprehension it doth not advance the antiquity of the monument the least. The inscription itself is uncertain ; for the prelate and Mr. Smith took it variously, and the wax impression varied from both, and such, we conceive, would be most accurate ; the copies taken by the eye being subject to the effects of light and shade. Let us examine the work, and perhaps we may draw from thence a more convincing argument. The south front is decorated in the upper compartment with a [86] knot, the next division has something like the figure of a pomegranet, 3 from whence issue branches of fruit and foliage, the third has a knot, the fourth branches of fruit and flowers, beneath which is a fillet with an inscription, copied thus by Mr. Smith, but now appearing irrecoverable by any device : Here is reproduced, but inexactly, the inscription on the left on page 14, above. Beneath this, in the lowest compartment, is a knot. The east front is one entire running branch of foliage flowers and fruit, ornament- ed with birds and uncouth animals in the old Gothic stile. The crown of the pillar is mortaised to receive the foot of the cross. 4 The north side has, in the 22 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross upper compartment, foliage and fruit, in the next a knot, in a large space next succeeds the chequy, then a knot, beneath which, is the fillet with the inscrip- tion, treated of by the Prelate and Mr. Smith. The west front is the most ornamented, having the follow- ing sculptures: in the lowest compartment, well relieved, is the effigies 1 of a person of some dignity, in a long robe to the feet, but without any dress or ornament on the head: it is greatly similar to the chief figure on the north front of Bridekirk font, as to the fashion of the garment ; on a pedestal, against which this figure leans, is a bird, which, we conceive, is the raffen, or raven, the ensignia of the Danish standard. This figure seems designed to represent the personage for whom the monument was erected ; and though accompanied with the raffen, bears no other marks of royal dignity. Above this figure is a long inscription, which has consisted of nine lines ; Mr. Smith delineates the first three letters thus ; I H N. The S, in many old inscriptions, is formed like an inverted Z, and sometimes that letter, in its proper form, is substituted. Late visitors, as well as we, have great doubt whether any such characters were ever legible. Great care was taken to copy the in- scription, as it now appears ; which may perhaps afford a new construction. Immediately above this inscription is the figure of a religious person, the garments descending to the feet, the head encircled with a nymbus, not now appearing radiated, but merely a circular rise of the stone ; the right hand is el- evated in a teaching posture, and the other hand holds a roll ; a fold of the garment was mistaken by Mr. Armstrong, (who drew the monument, and had it engraved, through regard to the parish where he was born,) for a string of beads. We conceive this figure Hutchinson's History, 1794 23 [that of Christ] to represent St. Cuthbert, to whom the church, as Nicolson and Burn set forth, is ded- icated. The upper figures Mr. Armstrong represented like a mitred ecclesiastic ; but in that he was mani- festly mistaken, the effigies being that of the holy virgin with the babe. 1 There is no doubt that this was a place of sepulture, for on opening the ground on the east and west sides, above the depth of six feet, human bones were found of a large size, but much broken [8y] and disturbed, together with several pieces of rusty iron. The ground had been broken up before, by persons who either searched for treas- ure, or, like us, laboured with curiosity. Whether the chequers were designed or not for the arms of the family of Vaux, or de Vallibus, must be a matter of mere conjecture ; we are inclined to think that armorial bearings were not in use at the same time with the Runic characters. . . . The reason given in bishop Nicholson's letter, is applicable to our con- jectures on this monument, ' That the Danes were most numerous here, and least disturbed,' 2 which reconciles the mixture of Runic character in an in- scription of the eleventh century, as in such desert and little frequented tracks, that the character might remain familiar both to the founder and the sculptor : where the Danes continued longest and least disturbed, their importations would also continue unaffected by other modes, which were gaining acceptation and progress, in more frequented and better peopled situations. IX. HENRY HOWARD'S ACCOUNT, 1801. [The volume of Arch&ologia containing this (Vol. 14) was published in 1803, but the paper, ' Observations on Bridekirk Font and on the Runic Column at Bewcastle, in Cumberland, by Henry Howard, Esq. in a Letter to George Nayler, Esq. York Herald, F. A. S.,' was read May 14, 1801. The paper itself occupies pages 113— 118 (our portion pp. 117— 18), and the plate (considerably reduced) follows immediately. Henry Howard (1757— 1842), of Corby Castle, 4$ miles southeast of Carlisle, spent the most of his life as a country gentleman and antiquary. The monument to the memory of his first wife (d. 1789), in Wetheral church, is the theme of two of Wordsworth's sonnets, Nos. 39 and 40 of the Itinerary Poems of 1833.] Runic Column at Bewcastle. — Of this celebrated monu- ment I have seen several engravings, none of them accurate ; but I understand that Mr. de Cardonnel has published a faithful delineation ; which, however, I have not had an opportunity of seeing. I send you the vestiges of the inscriptions, the result of two days employment on the spot. The Runic Column, or Obelisk, stands a few feet from the church, within the precincts of an extensive Roman station, guarded by a double vallum. In one angle of this enclosure, a strong oblong building called Bueth Castle was raised at a later period, probably, from the form of the stones, out of the ruins of the Roman fort. The builder availed himself of the an- cient foss for two sides of his castle, and cut off the connexion with the remainder by a new foss. There is no account of this castle, which is situated in the wildest part of the borders, having been inhabited since the reign of Henry the second. The Obelisk is from the hand of a better artist than the Font at Bridekirk. It is quadrangular, of one entire grey free stone, inserted in a larger blue stone, which serves , [24] Fig. 2. 4- WW 'PFIMNH' nrafrw liHItttfRI! fllM'M i 7< An -+- -e! *! Howard's Account, 1801 25 as its base. The greater base 1 is 22 inches, diminish- ing to 21 ; the lesser 16 inches, and 12 only at the top : the shaft 14 feet high. To this a cross 2 appears to have been added, the socket of which is observ- able. It is unfortunate that the side of the Column containing two figures and the principal inscription, faces to the west, from which quarter the wind and rain are* most frequent. The lower figure seems to have been mutilated by accident or intent ; but the remainder seems to have suffered only by exposure to the weather. Some parts of [118] the inscription [d], probably owing to the stone being there softer, have been more affected than the rest. The third, fourth, and fifth lines, are the most perfect. Towards the lower part scarce anything is to be made out. On the whole, indeed, little more than the vestiges of this inscription remain ; the perpendicular parts of the letters are discernible, and have probably been deepened by the rain, but the horizontal and other parts, are nearly obliterated. In taking the inscrip- tion I followed the same plan as at Bridekirk, work- ing 3 the paper in with the finger, and afterwards following the finger at the edges of every part of the letters with the pencil, so that, in the paper I send, you have all that can be either seen or felt of this inscription. The north inscription of one line only [e], being completely sheltered by the church, has suffered very little injury from time ; and, I must say, that the difference observable in the engravings given to the public, must have arisen from want of attention and exactness. On the south side there is a fillet 4 like that to the north [f], but a few letters only can be made out, the rest are chipped off or worn away. 26 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross I request you, my dear Sir, to present to the Society the original tracery of these inscriptions taken by me on the spot. I have the honour to remain, Your faithful humble servant, HENRY HOWARD. Corby Castle, Carlisle, April 16, 1801. [d] See PI. XXXIV. fig. 2. [e] Ibid. fig. 3. [f] Ibid. fig. 1 X. LYSONS' MAGNA BRITANNIA, 1816. [The account of the Lysons (4. cxcix— cci) reposes largely upon Nicolson. Only a few sentences are here reproduced. The plate occupies two quarto pages, and is accordingly much reduced in our facsimile. The second N of the runic Cynnburug, on the north side, is imperfect, and resembles a vertical stroke, with a dot at the right.] Several very inaccurate figures of it have been published. It is of one stone, 14 feet 6 inches high. 2o£ inches in width at the bottom, and 14$ inches at the top on the north and south sides ; and 22 inches at the bottom, and 16 at the top, on the east and west sides. At the top is a socket 8£ by 7! inches, in which no doubt a cross has formerly been fixed. . . . [cc] Over this is another figure sculptured in bas- relief, which, from the nimbus round the head, has been supposed to represent some saint ; but as he holds a roll (the sacred volumeri) in his left hand, and the right hand is elevated in the act of benediction, we should rather suppose it was intended for our Saviour, who is frequently so represented in ancient works of art. Immediately above this figure are some faint traces of another inscription of two lines ; and over this, a third sculpture in bas-relief, which is de- scribed by Bishop Nicolson as ' the effigies of the B. V. with the Babe in her arms, and both their heads encircled with glories.' This description, which several succeeding writers appear to have copied, without inspecting the original, is very erroneous. The female figure is so defaced that nothing more than the general outline can be distinguished ; what she holds in her left arm is much better preserved, 28 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross and is evidently the holy lamb. 1 . . . Imme[cci]diately above the lowest knot on the south side was a Runic inscription 2 of one line, now so nearly obliterated, that except in a very favourable light, hardly a stroke can be distinctly made out. ni'.n i mi || fM'R rin| i j ,■ FlUfifni j . nfH Om j XI. MAUGHAN'S FIRST ACCOUNT, 1854. [According to my best information (for which I am indebted to Professor W. G. Collingwood ; Chancellor J. E. Prescott, Canon of Carlisle ; Rev. George Yorke, Rector of Bewcastle ; Rev. T. W. Willis, Vicar of Lanercost ; and Mr. John Maughan, of Maryport, Cumberland, nephew of the antiquary), Rev. John Maughan (pronounced Mawn, but locally now and then Maffan) was born at Lanercost Abbey Farm, April 18, 1806, and baptized at Lanercost Abbey, January 6, 1807. His grandfather, Nicholas Maughan, born in 1733, came to Lanercost from the County of Durham, and became the tenant of the Abbey Farm. He was married to Elizabeth Bowman, of Nether Denton, was churchward- en in 1789, and died May 14, 1798. He had a son John, the father of the antiquary, who was born at Lanercost in 1770, succeeded to the Abbey Farm, married Mary Moses, and died at Lanercost, April 28, 1830. The Rev. John Maughan, one of a family of thirteen children, was born as stated above, took bis degree of B. A. at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1830, was ordained by the Bishop of Chester in 1833, and became Curate of Melling, Liver- pool, in the same year. He was Rector of Bewcastle from 1836 to 1873, built the present rectory in 1837, and married Mary Twenty- man at Carlisle, July 21, 1840. He died without issue November 13, 1873, and was buried in the graveyard at Lanercost Abbey, next to his wife, who had died at Bewcastle Rectory, January 10, 1872, aged sixty-eight years. Besides his papers on the Maiden Way, from the second of which the following paragraphs are extracted, and the Memoir given below, he wrote many papers, chiefly on supposed Roman camps in North Cumberland, for the Cumberland and West- morland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, between its foun- dation in 1866 and his death in 1873. Considerable excerpts and adaptations from his Memoir were embodied in The History and Topography of the Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland, edited by William Whellan, i860. According to Collingwood, he was ' a qualified medical man, a schoolmaster, magistrate, and farmer.' Elsewhere Collingwood says, apropos of certain supposed runes near Bewcastle (Early Sculptured Crosses, Shrines, and Monuments in the Present Diocese of Carlisle, Kendal, 1899, pp. 52—3): ' Mr. Maughan had been for years the enthusiastic Runologist 30 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross of the countryside, eagerly expounding the Bewcastle Cross, circulating among his parishioners the story here retold, talking to all and sundry about his theories on Petriana and place-names. In some other antiquarian matters he is known to have been deceived. It was on his authority that the Maiden Way north of Bewcastle was laid down in the Ordnance-map, with many forts, etc., which recent investigation has shown to be imaginary. (Compare his paper on " the Maiden Way," Archceological Journ- al, no. 41, with Transactions, C. & W. A. & A. Soc, vol. XV., part II., p. 344, etc.) There is reason to think that he was the victim, especially in his later years, of a series of practical jokes. Old roads, pavements, ruined forts (cottages) were found for him, by the zeal or roguery of his neighbors; and these runes are their crea- tion. They are not the work of a Runic scholar ; they were con- cocted by a clever Cumbrian who had read the Rector's papers, heard his talk, perhaps used his books, and, like his countrymen, laughed at enthusiasm and loved a joke.' The following paragraphs are from Archceological Journal 11 (1854). 130—4. It is clear that Maughan was at this time inclined to date the cross after the death of Sweyn in 1014.] In the churchyard the Monolithic Obelisk, or shaft of an ancient cross, is still standing, but remains un- explained. I have recently cleared the inscribed parts from the moss with which they were thickly coated, but have not been able to decypher the characters in a satisfactory manner. The letters appear to be Anglo-Saxon Runes, and much the same as those on the Ruthwell monument in Dumfriesshire. On a fillet on the north side the follow- ing letters 1 are very legible. In the year 1685 these characters were somewhat differently read by Bishop Nicholson, and expounded by him to mean, ' Rynburn, the burial of the Runae,' or ' Ryeburn, Cemeterium, or Cadaverum Sepulchrum.' In the year 1742, an article appeared in the Gentle- man's Magazine communicated by Mr. Smith, who read it 'Kuniburuk, Sepulchrum Regis.' As however these interpretations appear to be based on an in- Maugharis First Account, 1SJ4 31 correct copying of the letters, I would suggest another reading. I suppose the second letter to be a Runic Y ; and the penultimate letter to be a compound of OU ; and I would propose to read Kyneburoug. The word Cyne or Kin of the Saxons was synonymous with nation or people ; and the Anglo-Saxon byrig, byrg, burh, burg, buroug, &c, was the generic term for any place, large or small, which was fortified by walls or mounds. The fortifications of the continental Saxons, before their inroads on the Roman Empire, were mere earthworks, for in their half-nomadic state they had neither means nor motive for constructing any other. But their conquest and colonisation of the greater part of Roman Britain put them in pos- session of a more solid class of fortifications, such as this at Bewcastle. I would suggest, therefore, that these Runes may signify the burgh or fortified town of the nation or people who occupied this district. It is probable that this was in early times a place of some importance. In the reign [131] of Edward I., 1279, J onn Swinburne obtained a fair and market to be held here. On a fillet on the south side appear to be the following characters. 1 What the first three may mean be the word DANEGELT. This term was first applied to a tribute of 30,000, or according to some writers, 36,000 pounds (A. Sax.), raised in the year 1007 during the reign of Ethelred the Unready, to purchase a precarious peace from the Danes. It was also some- times used to designate taxes imposed on other extra- ordinary occasions. On the western side are three figures, which, as Bishop Nicholson says, ' evidently enough manifest the 32 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross monument to be Christian.'(3) The highest may be, as the learned prelate suggested, the Blessed Virgin with the Babe in her arms. (4) The next is that of our Saviour with the glory round his head. In a compartment underneath this is the principal inscription, consisting of nine lines ; and underneath this is the figure of a man with a bird upon his hand, and in front of him a perch, which, in the absence of a better explana- tion, may possibly have been intended to represent Odin, or some Danish chieftain, and his dreaded raven : and we may suppose that he was placed at the bottom of the group to typify his conversion and subjection to the Redeemer, who was descended from the Blessed Virgin. The inscription appears to be as follows, so far as I have been able to trace the letters (see wood- cut, p. 132). The eighth and ninth lines are quite illegible. In the first line the three characters at the com- mencement probably form the monogram I H S, and (3) ' Camden's Britannia,' ed. by Gibson, vol. ii., p. 1028. (4) It must be admitted that this supposition is somewhat coun- tenanced by the fact that the Church of Bewcastle is dedicated to the Virgin. The representation, however, of these weather-worn sculptures, given by Lysons in his ' History of Cumberland,' p. cxcix, suggests the notion, that what has been supposed to be the Infant Saviour, may be the Agnus Dei, and it is so described by him. If this be correct, the figure must represent the Baptist, 1 and the two lines of characters, now defaced, under its feet, as shown in Lysons' plate, possibly comprised some mention of^ St. John. The figure at the base, as some have thought, most probably pour- trayed some person of note by whom this remarkable Christian monument was erected. The bird which he has taken off its perch, appears to be a hawk, 2 introduced, possibly, to mark his noble rank. In examining Lysons' plate, the best representation of the sculp- tures, hitherto published, attention is arrested by the introduc- tion of a vertical dial 3 on the south side, resembling those at Kirk dale and Bishopstone, described in this volume of the Journal, p. 60, the only examples of so early a date hitherto noticed.— Ed. 4 Maugharis First Account, 1854 33 being placed [132] immediately under the figure of our Saviour, show that the monument is of a Christ- ian character ; the last letter being evidently the Runic S, and not an inverted Z, as supposed by Mr. Smith. 1 The third line begins with the letters PATR : but it appears uncertain whether they are intended for pater, IM ftlMIIIIN HINJK Miimhw Mil HUM or part of some such word as fiatria, Patrick, &c. ; or whether the first letter is not W, in which case the word will probably be WAETRO, the plural of waeter. In the sixth line we find the word SUENO, which, taken in connection with the word Danegelt, on the south side, may indicate the period, as well as the object, of the erection of the monument. In the reign of Ethelred the Unready, a terrible deed was done in England. With a view of providing against the treachery of those numerous Danish families (especially such as had been permitted by Alfred the Great to settle in Northumberland and East Anglia), who upon any threatened invasion, were ready to 34 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross join their countrymen against those among whom they were allowed to reside, Ethelred, with a policy incident to weak princes, adopted the resolution of putting them to the sword throughout his dominions. On the 13th of Nov. 1002, in pursuance of secret in- structions sent by the king over the country, the in- habitants of every town and city rose, and murdered all the Danes, who were their neighbours, young and old, men, women, and children. Every Dane was killed, even to [133] Gunilda, the sister of the King of Denmark, who had been married to Earl Paling, a nobleman, and had embraced Christianity : she was first obliged to witness the murder of her husband and child, and then was killed herself. When Sueno, or Sweyn, the King of Denmark, sometimes styled the King of the Sea Kings, heard of this deed of blood, he swore he would have a great revenge. He raised an army and a mightier fleet of ships than ever yet sailed to England, and landing on the western coasts, near Exeter, went forward, laying England waste. Whereso[e]ver the invaders came, they made the Saxons prepare for them great feasts ; and when they had satisfied their appetite, and had drunk a curse to England, with wild rejoicings, they drew their swords, killed their Saxon entertainers, and con- tinued their march. For several years they carried on this war ; burning the crops, farm-houses, barns, mills, granaries, killing the labourers, causing famine and starvation, and leaving heaps of ruin and smoking ashes, where they had found thriving towns, hunting out every corner which had not been previously ran- sacked. Ethelred overwhelmed with such calamities, at length in the year 1007, agreed to pay the Danegelt to which I have before alluded. In the absence of accurate information, we may not unreasonably suppose Maugharis First Account, iSjj 35 this obelisk to have been raised in commemoration of some of the important events of this period. Sweyn was afterwards welcomed by the English people as their Sovereign, but died suddenly in little more than a month after he was proclaimed King of England. Can this have been his burial-place ? (5) The first letter in the second line is distinctly legible, and undoubtedly U. I sometimes fancy, that by tak- ing the last imperfect letter of the preceding line, we may possibly obtain the word DUNSTANO. 1 Dunstan, however, was dead before the time already mentioned, and though he lived to place the crown upon the head of Ethelred, and may without impropriety be classed among the contemporaries of that period, yet as he died in 988, he cannot have taken any part in the events above mentioned. [A paragraph here is of the same purport as the second in Note 14, below, p. 52.] [134] Uncertainty as to the forms of the other letters, prevents me from attempting further explanation of the inscription at present, but I am not without hope that in time I may become better satisfied as to the proper reading. (5) I may mention that a friend to whom I gave a copy of my read- ing of the inscription, suggests that in the second line is ' the word kisle, one of the cases of kisil, gravel.' It is difficult to conceive however, why such an immense stone should be brought from so great a distance and covered with the most elaborate sculpture, for the purpose of making any record about gravel. XII. HAIGH'S FIRST ACCOUNT, 1857. [The first part of Haigh's paper was read to the Newcastle Society March 2, 1856, and the second (concluding), April 2; it is clear that his main conclusions lay before Maughan when the latter composed his Memoir. Hence, though Haigh's paper was published in the same year as Maughan's, the former is here given precedence. Daniel Henry Haigh (pronounced Haig) was born August 7, 1819. He inherited a considerable fortune, and eventually became a Roman Catholic priest (April 8, 1848). He lived at Erdington, near Birming- ham, from 1848 to 1876, and died at Oscott, May 10,1879. 'Haigh's varied learning embraced Assyrian and Anglo-Saxon antiquities, numismatics, and Biblical archaeology. He was the chief authority in England on runic literature, and was of much assistance to Professor G. Stephens, who dedicated the English section of his work on " Runic Monuments " to him. The bulk of his literary work is preserved in the transactions of societies' {Diet. Nat. Biog.). The following paragraphs are taken from ' The Saxon Cross at Bewcastle,' in Archceologia JEliana, New Series, 1. 149—195. Much of the article is concerned with such subjects as the Ruth well and other crosses, other dials than that on the Bewcastle Cross, runic inscriptions on other monuments, Old English proper names, etc. The plate of runes is opposite page 192. In this same volume (p. vii) is the entry, under January, 1856 : ' Dr. Charlton. 1 — On the Bewcastle Cross.'] [151] The monument now stands alone, but once, in all probability, there were two, one at the head, the other at the foot of the grave, as in the example which still remains at Penrith. 2 If so, the other has disappeared, yet it may be still in existence, if the conjecture which will be hazarded in the sequel be considered under all the circumstances probable. The cross, as we have already observed, is gone, but all record of it has not perished. It appears from a note in the handwriting of Mr. Camden 3 in his own copy of his Britannia (now in the Bodleian Library), that Lord William Howard sent it to Lord Arundel, [36] Haigh's First Account, i8jj 37 Bewcastle. t& w * West Side M1HJT1 N m II hit ft h 8>i» lfi» L Ml n South Side. Hot* Side. fliifrtlWRM MM nil IT If [t>5 must (Text continued on p. 38.) 38 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross and he to Mr. Camden. It had an inscription on the transverse limb, which Mr. Camden gives from an im- pression he had taken (Fig. 2), and the reading is clearly ricjes drihtn^:. Another copy supplies an ' s ' at the end of the second word. Lord William Howard had previously sent to Olaus Wormius a copy of an inscription on this monument, which the latter publish- ed in his Monumenta Danica. 1 In this copy the word rices is plain, drihtn.es very much blundered, and after these, quite plain, the word stioeth, 2 of which traces still remain on the top of the western face of the monument. 3 These, taken in connection with the former, give us a meaning which undoubtedly alludes to the cross, ricjes drihtn.es stkxeth. ' The Staff of the Mighty Lord.' Beneath, in an oblong compartment, is the effigy of St. John the Baptist, pointing with his right hand to the Holy Lamb, which rests on his left arm. This figure had been supposed to be the Blessed Virgin with the Infant Jesus. Mr. Lysons, however, corrected this error in part, representing as a lamb what had been supposed to be the Holy Child, but the figure [152] which holds it, has in his engraving the appearance of a female. It is, though in flowing robes, decidedly a male figure, and the face is bearded. Below it is an inscription in two lines of Runes (Fig. 3) * GESSUS CRISTTVS written above an arched recess in which is a majestic figure of our Blessed Lord, who holds in His left hand a scroll, and gives His blessing with His right, and stands upon the heads of swine. Then follows the long inscription of nine lines of Runes, com- memorating the personage to whom this monument was erected. (Fig. 4) Haigh's First Account, 1SJ7 39 * THISSIGBEC UNSETTiEH W.ETREDEOM G^ERFLWOLD UjEFT^RBAR/E YMBCYNING ALCFRID^G ICEG^DHE OS VMSAWLVM 1 Lastly, in another arched recess is a fine figure in profile, holding a hawk in his left hand, above a perch. This doubtless represents the king whose name is mentioned in the inscription above it. The eastern side of this monument presents a con- tinuous scroll with foliage and fruit, amidst which are a lion, two monsters, two birds and two squirrels feeding on the fruit. Above these doubtless there was an inscription, but the stone is too much broken on this side to show the trace of even a single letter. On the northern side we read distinctly, in Runic letters nearly six inches long (Fig. 5), the Holy Name ^ gessu. Below this we have a scroll, then an in- scription (Fig. 6), oslaac ctning ; then a knot, another inscription (Fig.j), wilfrid 2 preaster ; an oblong space filled with chequers, a third inscription, read by the Rev. J. Maughan ctniwisi or cyniswid ; a second knot, a fourth inscription (Fig. 8), cyniburttg 3 ; and lastly, a double scroll. On the southern side, at the top, are the remains of the name cristus (Fig. 9), corresponding to gessu on the north. Below this is a knot, an inscription (Fig. 10), eanfljed cyngn ; a scroll, in the midst of which a dial is introduced, a second inscription (Fig. 11), ecgfrid cyning; another knot, a third inscription (Fig. 12), cyniburug cyngn ; another scroll, a fourth 40 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross inscription (Fig. 13), oswu cyningelt, and a third knot. Such is the Bewcastle monument ; a monument interesting in many [153] respects ; as one to which we can assign a certain date, and which, therefore, is a material help to us in ascertaining the age of others of the same class, that at Ruthwell in partic- ular ; as an evidence of the state of the art of sculp- ture in the seventh century, the three figures on the west side being equal to any thing we have until the thirteenth * ; as a monument of our language almost the earliest we have ; as belonging to a class of monuments, the memorials of the kings of England before the Conquest, which have almost entirely dis- appeared ; and as such, especially interesting, because the king to whose memory it was raised, played a most important part in the history of his times. The inscriptions claim our first attention. They are written in the early Saxon dialect of Northumbria, except the names of our Blessed Lord, which have a Latin form, since it was only from missionaries to whom the Latin language was as their mother tongue that our forefathers learned His name ; and down to the latest period of their history they followed the same rule, as the Germans do still of adopting, with- out alteration, into their language, Latin proper names. The spelling of the name gessus is particularly inter- esting, for I believe this is the only monument on which it occurs. Throughout the Durham Ritual and the Northumbrian Gospels, we find instead of it, the word Hcelend ' Saviour.' The initial g has the power of y, and the double s is probably not a false spell- ing since it occurs twice. The long inscription resolves itself into three coup- lets of alliterative verse ; thus, Haigh's First Account, iSjy 41 This sigbecun This beacon of honour (4) Settae Hwaetred set Hwaetred Eom gaer f[e]lwoldu in the year of the great pestilence /Eftaer barae after the ruler Ymb cyning Alcfridae after King Alcfrid Gicegaed heosum sawlum pray for their souls I have supposed the omission of a letter, e, between / and I. Fel, as a prefix, has the sense of ' much ' or ' many.' Woldu I take to be an adjective, derived, as well as wdl, a pestilence, from the same root as weallan ' to burn or boil,' and wyllan ' to make to burn or boil,' (just as fold, a flat surface, is derived from feallan k to fall,' and fyllan to make to fall), and therefore to have the sense of ' pestilential.' It does not, however, occur in the glossaries, having prob- ably fallen into disuse. The termination in u would not have occurred at a later period, but the Durham Ritual shows us that the declension of nouns and adjectives, and the conjugation of verbs, in the early Northumbrian dialect, dif[i54]fered in many respects from the later forms of the language on which our modern grammars are founded. This Ritual supplies us with many instances of adjectives ending in (which, as will be seen later, is the equivalent of u on these monuments) in the oblique cases ; as, for instance, in ceastre gihalgado, 1 'in civitate sanctificata,' in eco wuldur ' in aeterna gloria.' That there may, how- ever, have been a noun woldufo) and that this may have been the ancient form of wdl is not impossible, since from the verb swelan ' to burn ' we have not 4 Sig implies triumph. In composition it seems to imply special honour. Beg is a bracelet, which any one might bear, but Sigbeg is a crown. 5 Still I feel inclined to regard it as originally a participle, even if it did become a noun, just as fold and bold and other similar words, now nouns, seem to have been past participles. 42 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross only swol but also swoluth and swoleth, heat, fever, or pestilence, and from stcelan, to place, we have steald as well as steal, a station, place or abode. If it were so, I should read, without any alteration of the sense, ' in the year of the great pestilence.' I have read the letters l and w as they are in the rubbing with which I was furnished by the Rev. J. Maughan. If I could suppose that marks had been obliterated which would change these letters into ^(6) and b, I should propose another reading, eom gcsrfce boldu ' also carved this building,' supposing gcerfce the ancient form of cearf, from ceorfan to carve, and boldu, a building, the ancient form of bold. Verbs of the strong or complex order, to which ceorfan belongs, did not in later times add a syllable in the third person singular of the past tense, but the Durham Ritual gives us an example in the word ahofe 1 ' erexif which shows that in early times they did ; and we have other examples of nouns ending in u, which dropped this syllable in later times. The rules of alliteration rendered necessary the use of gicegced (a word which under a slightly different form, gicegath, 2 occurs in the Durham Ritual) instead of the more usual gibiddced. Heosum is another obsolete word, 3 the dative plural regularly formed from the possessive pronoun ' heora,'' their. I can find no trace of this word elsewhere, the indeclinable hiora* invariably occurring in the Durham Ritual ; but as in modern German the possessive pronouns of the third person are declinable, equally with those of the first and second, I think it not improbable that the same might be the case with the early Saxon lan- guage, and that the disuse of the oblique cases might be the effect of Latin influence. . . . 8 Mr. Howard's representation of this letter in the Archaeolo- gia (Vol. XIV) seems to give this letter M. Haigh's First Account, i I I. I A I » • wRprtwr npkwK mm hmh Roman. + [TH]ISSIGB[EA]CN [THU]NSETT[ON]H W[AET]REDW[AETH] GARALWFWOL [THU]AFTALCFRI [THU]EAN KYNIflNGl EAC OSWIUPG] + GEBID HE OSINNASAW[HU]LA. 2 dered the letters more distinct than the cast. I afterwards tried some rubbings after the following method which was partly recommend- 72 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross [18] I read the inscription thus — + THISSIG BEACN THUN SETTON HWAETRED WAETHGAR ALWFWOLTHU AFT ALCFRITHU EAN KYNIING EAC OSWIUING. + GEBID HEO SINNA SAWHULA— and it may be thus translated : + Hwcetred, Wcethgar, and Alwfwold (the names of three persons) — setton — set up— thissig thun beacn — this slender pillar — aft Alcfrithu — in memory of Alcfrid — ean Kyniing— ane King — eac Oswiuing — and son of Oswy. + Gebid — pray thou — heo — for them — sinna — their sins — sawhula — their souls. In this inscription the first character or mark is, I now believe, that of a cross, although it is not very distinct. I was for a long time 1 inclined to adopt the idea of Bishop Nicholson 2 that the inscription com- menced with the monogram IHS for 'Jesus hominum Salvator,' i. e., Jesus the Saviour of men. Good rubbings, however, and repeated examinations of the stone, and the frequent occurrence of this emblem on other parts of the cross, lead me to the conclusion ed by Mr. Way in March, 1854, and which was more successful than the other processes : I cut slips of white paper, such as is generally used by printers, rather broader than the length of the letters ; a separate slip for each line. I fastened these slips, one at a time, to the stone with strings to prevent them from slipping, having pre- viously pricked them well with a pin to allow the air to escape through them. With a large sponge I then saturated them well with water, and pressed them to the stone till they adhered closely to it. After allowing them time to dry, and while still sticking to the stone, I gave them a careful rubbing with a black-lead rubber. By this process I succeeded in getting some good rubbings ; and from these rubbings, combined with the previous processes, and a repeated dwelling of the eye upon the letters, and countless tracings of the depressions and marks with the point of the finger, I have succeeded in gaining such knowledge of the almost worn-out characters, that I now venture to offer a version of this interesting inscription. Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 73 that it has commenced with a cross. The word 1 thissig * is not an unusual form of the pronoun k this, 1 such a termination being often l affixed to ad- jectives and pronouns. The word ' beacn ' is vari- ously written ' beacen, beacn, bocn, bycn, becen, and been,' and denotes ' a beacon, sign, or token/(22) The word 'thun' 2 means thin or slender, and has probably some reference to the size and shape of the monument. The first letter in the word k thun ' is a Trirunor, or compound Rune, being composed of the letters k TH ' — p — and the letter U — Pj — and hence by combination we have the Trirunor THU — 3p| ( 2 3) The word ' setton ' is the third person plural of the perfect tense of the verb 'settan ' — to set or place, and agrees with the three nominative cases Hwaetred, Waethgar, and Alwfwolthu.(24) (22) These two words may possibly be read thus : ' this sigbeacn ' — sigbeacn being a compound word derived from ' sige ' — victory, triumph : and hence the word ' sigbeacn ' means a token of triumph or victory. But as we have no record of any triumph or victory gained by Alcfrid for which the monument was reared, this part of the inscription may perhaps be more correctly rendered thus, ' thissig beacn.' (23) The cross-bars in this letter were for a long time a complete puzzle to me, having been noticed by me from the first. At last it was suggested that it might possibly be the compound Runic character ' THU,' and from that time I experienced no further insurmountable difficulty in reading the inscription. From Mr. Howard's plate of the inscription it is evident that he had noticed these cross-bars. The same character appears in the words Alwfwolthu, Alcfrithu, and Ecgfrithu. (24) An old schoolfellow, the Rev. Thos. Calvert, of Norwich, visited Bewcastle for the purpose of inspecting the Monument, but had not an opportunity of seeing the inscription, as it was at that time covered with sods. He very shrewdly suggested that I might probably find the words ' beacon ' and ' setta ' upon it, as, in 74 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross ' Aft ' is the preposition, after or in memory of, and governs the word [19] Alcfrithu, to whom the monu- ment was erected. The word 'ean' 1 — one — is very- similar to our provincial word ' ane,' which is still in use in this district.(25) The word ' Gebid ' 2 stands for ' bid,' and is the second person singular of the imperative mood of the verb ' biddan' — to pray, to bid, or require. 3 The syl- lable ' ge ' is simply an expletive or augment, such an expletive being in common use. (26) The word ' heo ' is not an unusual form of the pronoun. ' Sinna ' is the plural form of ' sin ' or addition to the host of ingenious speculations already advanced as to the object of its erection, he thought it might have been a beacon or boundary cross set up to mark the extent of the fifteen miles around Carlisle granted by King Egfrid to the religious establishments at that city. After the monument was cleaned I sent him a copy of the inscribed part so far as I was then able to trace it. In letters which I afterwards received from him he favoured me with the fol- lowing acute observations. ' If the second word could be read sigbeakn it might mean a sign of victory ' ' Can the first part of the second line be ' upsetta,' i. e., set up." He also suggested that ' Hwaetred ' might be an appellative, ' brave in council ' ; and stated that it occurred in the Codex Exoniensis ; and that it might also be a Saxon proper name ; that ' thun ' might be for ' thegn or then,' a thane ; that the first word might be ' thissig,' an old form of ' this, ' analogous to ' aenig, ' one ; and that it might per- haps be read thus : ' thissig bealtun 4 setta, ' set up this funeral monu- ment. This latter suggestion, however, (although a very ingenious one) would destroy the alliteration of the verse, and does not occupy all the traces on the stone. (25) In Scott's ' Border Exploits ' we find a plate of a grave- stone with the following inscription — ' Heir LYES ANE WORTHIE person calit william armstrong of sark who died the io day of June 1658 ^etatis stle 56.' (26) Bos worth, in his Anglo Saxon Dictionary, on the word ' ge ' says— 'In verbs it seems sometimes to be a mere augment . . . it often changes the signification from literal to figurative ; as . . . biddan to bid, require ; gebiddan to pray.' Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 75 1 syn,' and signifies sins. ' Sawhula ' is the plural formation of the word ' sawl,' also written ' sawol ' and ' sawul,' the letter ' h ' being also introduced according to a very common Anglo-Saxon usage. 1 The inscription seems to consist of a few couplets of the alliterative versification of Anglo-Saxon poetry. Hence it becomes very important, and takes us far in advance of many of the preconceived opinions respect- ing our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. (27) It may be read in four couplets, 2 thus — 1. -f- Thissig beacn Thun setton 2. Hwaetred Waethgar Alwfwolthu Aft Alcfrithu 3. Ean Kyniing Eac Oswiuing 4. + Gebid heo sinna Sawhula. In the first couplet we have the compound letters TH as the alliterating letters : in the second couplet the letters A : in the third the letters E : and in the (27) Olaus Wormius, in the appendix to his Treatise de Literatura Runica, has given a particular account of the Gothic poetry, com- monly called Runic. He informs us that there were no fewer than 136 different kinds of measure or verse used in the Vyses. He says that the Runic harmony did not depend either upon rhyme, or upon metrical feet, or quantity of syllables, but chiefly upon the number of syllables, and the disposition of the letters. In each distich, or couple of lines, it was requisite that three words should begin with the same letter : two of the corresponding words being placed in the first line of the distich, and the third in the second line, frequent inversions and transpositions being permitted in this poetry. The curious in this subject may consult likewise Dr. Hickes's Thesaurus Linguarum Septentrionalium ; particularly the 23rd chapter of his Grammatica Anglo- Saxonica et Moeso-Gothica. It appears that the Anglo-Saxons admired, and, in some measure, followed the northern Scaldi or Runes in forming the structure of their verse by a period- f y6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross fourth the letters S. It is remarkable that these couplets rhyme with each other, and thus establish a probabil- ity (or perhaps something more) that both alliteration and rhyme have been made use of by the Anglo- Saxons from a very early period. Although we can- not actually produce any Anglo-Saxon poem in rhyme of that era, yet the Anglo-Saxon poets Aldhelm, a.d. 709 — Boniface, a.d. 754 — the Venerable Bede, a.d. 735 — Alcuin, and others — have left behind them Latin Poems in rhyme, which pre-supposes that this species of versification was anterior to, and commonly known in their time. A very interesting question arises, whether this Bewcastle specimen of Anglo-Saxon poetry is not the oldest on record, being nearly 1200 years old. My own impression is that no earlier example has been discov- ered. This circumstance considerably enhances the value and importance of this ancient cross. The only specimen of Anglo-Saxon poetry which can be sup- posed to compete with this is a fragment of a song ical repetition of similar letters, or by alliteration, and disregarded a fixed and determinate number of syllables. Rask, in his Anglo- Saxon Grammar, page 108, gives more specific rules for alliteration. Mr. Rask says — ' The Saxon alliteration is thus constructed : in two adjacent and connected lines of verse there must be three words which begin with one and the same letter, so that the third or last alliterative word stands the first word in the second line, and the first two words are both introduced in the first line. The initial letters in these three words are called alliterative. The alliterative letter in the second line is called the chief letter, and the other two are called assistant letters .... If the chief letter be a vowel, the assist- ants must be vowels, but they need not be the same. In short verses only one assistant letter is occasionally found. In Anglo-Saxon poetry the words followed each other in continued succession, as in prose, and were not written in lines and verses as in our modern poetry. The division into verses was made by the regular succession of the alliterating letters. Maugharis Second Account, iSjj 77 which was written by Ceedmon, a monk who accus- tomed himself late in life to write religious poetry : and who died a.d. 6S0. His song was inserted by King Alfred in his Translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History. In this brief fragment two of the couplets appear as rhyming with each other. This inscription also appears to upset some of the statements and theories of our best Anglo-Saxon grammarians with respect to what are called Dano-Saxon idioms and dialects, [20J throwing all their conjectures as to pecu- liarities introduced by the Danes topsy-turvy, and proving these supposed peculiarities to have belonged from the first to the Anglo-Saxon language. No doubt much ignorance prevails generally re- garding the habits of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, for both public and private documents are only few and scant}' which give us any insight into the general polity and social history of these our forefathers ; and yet there are certain salient points in them which may be interesting to a majority of readers. In this memoir I shall, therefore, endeavour to give a brief philological examination of the words, as well as a biographical sketch (so far as history supplies us with the necessary data) of the persons whose names occur on this monument ; from which the reader will be able to draw his own inferences as to the state and grade of morals and civilization twelve hundred years ago, when the institutions of the Britons were probably in a progress of perishing through their own corruption, and received fresh life and vigour re- infused into them through the sanctity of the more lofty morality of the Christian dispensation. Oswy. I shall commence my biographical sketch with Oswy, (as being the head of the family) whom I find de- fa y8 Some Accounts of the Bewcastte Cross scribed in the ' Britannia Sancta ' as a religious prince who omitted no opportunity of exhorting his friends to embrace the true way of salvation, and inducing them to submit to the sweet yoke of the faith and law of Christ. I find the name occurring as ' Oswiu,' which is simply an abbreviation 1 of the Latin termina- tion ' Oswius.' I also find the word written ' Osuiu,' and Nennius calls him ' Osguid.' The termination ' ing ' after a proper name, according to Anglo-Saxon usage, denoted ' the son of such a person ' ; hence the word ' Oswiuing ' means ' the son of Oswy.' By the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northhumbria we generally understand all the counties in England north of the river Humber, and the southern counties of Scotland nearly as far as Edinburgh. In the year 633, or, according to some historians, 644, after the death of King Edwin, it was divided into two parts, namely, the Kingdom of Deira under Osric, which compre- hended (nearly) the counties of York, Durham, Lan- cashire, Westmorland, and Cumberland ; and the King- dom of Bernicia under Eanfrid, which contained the county of Northumberland and the southern counties of Scotland. Higden (Lib. 1, De Regnis Regnorum- que Limitibus) says that the Tyne divided the King- doms of Deira and Bernicia.(28) These two kings, Osric and Eanfrid, being soon afterwards slain by Cadwalla, King of the Britons, (28) The following extract is from Sir F. Palgrave's interesting little book, History of the Anglo-Saxons : — ' The British kingdoms of Defyr and Bryneich— Latinised into Deira and Bernicia'— ex- tending from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, were divided from each other by a forest, occupying a tract between the Tyne and the Tees ; and which, unreclaimed by man, was abandoned to wild deer. Properly speaking, this border land does not seem to have originally belonged to either kingdom ; but, in subsequent times, the boundary between Deira and Bernicia was usually fixed at the Tyne.' Maughari s Second Account, jSjj 79 the Kingdom of Northhumbria came to Oswald, who is said to have held it nine years. In the year 642, Oswy, son of Ethelfrid, succeeded to the Kingdom of Northhumbria, on the death of Oswald, who was slain by Penda, King of the Mercians. Oswy reigned 28 years, and Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 2.) tells us that he subdued a great part of the nations of the Picts and Scots, and made them tributary. He also enjoyed the title of Bretwalda, which gave him an authority over all the other Anglo-Saxon kings. Oswy, during the early part of his reign, had a partner in the royal dignity called Oswin, of the race of King Edwin, a man of wonderful piety and devo- tion, who governed the province of the Deiri seven years in very great prosperity, and was himself beloved by all men. But Oswy could not live at peace with him. Oswin, perceiving that he could not maintain a war against one who had more auxiliaries than himself, took refuge in the house of Earl Hunwald, in Yorkshire, where he was betrayed by him, and slain in a cruel and detestable manner by the orders of Oswy, in the year 650. After the death of Oswin the kingdom of Deira probably devolved upon Alc- frid, the son of Oswy ; his father retaining the north- ern portion of the kingdom of Northhumbria. Not- withstanding this outrage, Oswy appears to have been a man zealous in the maintenance of the Christian faith, for when [21] Prince Peada, son of Penda, King of Mercia, came to Oswy in the year 653 requesting to have his daughter Elfleda given to him in marriage, he could not obtain Oswy's sanction unless he would first embrace the faith of Christ, and be baptized, with the nation which he governed. Oswy continued firm to the religious professions of his youth, probably influenced by the persuasions of 80 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross his Queen Eanfleda, the daughter of Eadwin, King of Deira, who had been driven from her native North- humbria in her infancy, and, after an education among her maternal relatives in Kent, returned into North- humbria as the wife of Oswy, inheriting (it is said) all the religious constancy of her mother and her grand- mother.(29) Alfrid or Alcfrid. The peculiar way in which the word ' Alcfrithu ' is spelt may seem somewhat objectionable, 1 but we ought to bear in mind that orthography has been very capricious, and at all periods has assumed the features of a constant tendency to change. In fact, it would now be quite impossible to settle the orthog- raphy which was prevalent at any given former period, or to reduce the various modes of spelling names, which we find in ancient charters and other documents, to any consistent form. The Latin ter- mination of proper names in ' thus ' (and its abbrev- iation ' thu ') instead of ' dus,' appears to have been quite common. As a proof of the numerous and irregular modes of spelling names among the Anglo-Saxons we may adduce the following instances. We find Ethelbirthum, Egelbrictum, and Egelbright- um (the h before the t) for Ethelbert : Oidilvaldo for Ethelwald : Edbrithum, Egbrithro, Egbirtho, Egberthus, Edbriht, Edbrit, and Edbrichtus for Egbert : and many others. In a charter of Coenulf, or Cynulf, King of the Saxons (a.d. 808, Ms. C. C Cantab., cxi. f., Jj) we find the signature ' Alhfrithi.' 2 In the Anglo-Saxon charters we also find the signatures Egfrido, Ecgfrith, (29) In Gale's Appendix i to our old British historian Nennius we read that Osguid (Oswy) had two wives— the one called Nemmedt the daughter of Roith the son of Rum, and the other called Eanfled. His first wife Nemmedt was also called Ricmmelth 3 in Nennius. Mangharis Second Account, iSjy 81 Egfrid, Ecgfrithi, Ecgfridus, Ecgferth, for Egfrid, the brother of the Alcfrid whose name is recorded on this monument ; and we also find the signatures Wil- fridus, Wilfrith, Wilfrid, Wilfrithus, for Wilfrid, a bishop, and friend of Alcfrid. Numerous other instances might be easily adduced. Cases, however, do sometimes occur where the variation of a single letter in the mode of spelling what is apparently the same name makes a very wide and important difference. We may take the word ' Alfrid,' as an example. Oswy had two sons, each of them a king, but at different periods, who in our English translations of Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical Historj- are generally called w Alfrid.' On referring, however, to Stephenson's x Latin edition of Bede, 2 we find a small but an essential distinction. The name of the first ' Alfrid,' who is the person to whom this pillar was erected, is in that edition written thus, ; Alchfrido.' (Bk. 3, ch. 14.) And a note upon this place sa}^s : — ' Ealhfrith, Saxon version. This individ- ual has frequently been confounded with Aldfrid, a nat- ural son of Oswy, who succeeded his father in 685. Upon this subject a note in Lappenberg, Gesch. v., Eng- land 1, 180, may be consulted with advantage. (30) Bede in other passages calls the first Alcfrid, and the second (30) Bede, in his Life of St. Cuthbert, ch. 24, states that Aldfrid was the illegitimate brother of Egfrid ; and that he subjected himself to voluntary exile in Ireland, during which he devoted himself to the study of the scriptures. It appears (from the Britannia Sancta) to have been customary for many of the English to leave their native country and retire into Ireland, either for the sake of improving themselves in divine learning, or to embrace there a more holy and continent life ; the Irish most willingly receiving them, and furnish- ing them with their daily sustenance, and supplying them with books, and teaching them gratis. In the library of the Dean and Chapter of Durham is preserved an ancient Ritual which is said to have belonged to Aldfrid. 3 Asser, in his Annals (anno 703), describes him 82 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross Aldfrid. In the Ang. Sax. Chron. the latter is styled 'Aldfrith,' and 'Ealdferth.' This Aldfrid succeeded his brother Egfrid in the kingdom of Northhumbria in the year 685, and died in 705. In Stephenson's edition of Bede we find the words Alchfrido, [22] Alch- fridi, and Alchfrid, for the first king ; and Aldfridi, Aldfrido, Aldfrid, and Alfrid, for the second king. In the Life of Wilfrid by Eddie, who flourished about 50 years after the erection of the monument, we find the name of the first Alfrid mentioned eight times, and it is remarkable that it is spelt in six different ways, none of them agreeing with the orthography of Bede ; thus, Aluchfrido, Ealfridus, Alucfridus, Al- fridus, Ahlfridus, Alhfridum. In the same work we also find the second Alfrid mentioned, and spelt thus — Alfridum, Alfredo, Aldfridum (with a note Ald- frithum). We may now pass on to a biographical sketch of the Alfrid, or Alcfrid, for whom this cross was erected. 1 History gives us very little intimation of the various rulers who within their petty territories assumed the names of kings, and exercised the regal power ; and just about as little of the extent and the nature of the authority and powers often claimed and exercised by the sons and brothers of the ruling sovereigns. Perhaps in the early periods of Anglo-Saxon history the very name of king ' Kyniing,' may have been as a monk when he died. He is also mentioned in Fordun, bk. 3, ch. 43. Alcwin, who, according to Gale, flourished about the year 780, calls him 'Altfrido ' — {Be Pontificibus, line 843)— and says that he was devoted to sacred studies from his early youth. In another passage (line 1080) he calls him 'Aldfridum.' According to Camden he was buried at Driffield, in Yorkshire. In the Saxon version of Bede he is called ' Ealdfrith.' This Aldfrid is also mentioned in the Chronicle of Holyrood, as succeeding to the king- dom a. D. 685, and dying A- d. 705. Maughan's Second Account, j8jj 83 assumed by the sons of sovereigns whether they ex- ercised the sovereign rights or not. The word ' kyni- ing ' or ' cyniing ' was derived from ' kyn ' or ' cyn,' which signified ' a nation or people,' and sometimes ' the head of the nation or people ' ; the termination 'ing' at the end of proper nouns denoted 'the son of such a person,' and hence the word ' Kyniing ' would mean simply 'the son of the head of the na- tion.' It is somewhat strange that scarcely any chart- ers belonging to the kingdom of Northhumbria have survived to the present day, and hence from such documents we can form no idea whatever of the style adopted by the kings of that country. It is very probable, however, that they carefully maintained the distinction between Deira and Bernicia, which has been overlooked by many historians of Anglo-Saxon England. Hence in the case of Alcfrid we have every reason to suppose that he was really and virt- ually king over Deira, and exercised all the rights and jurisdictions, and had all the appanages of an independent sovereign. According to the Ecclesiastical History of the Ven- erable Bede, from whom, of course, I derive the chief part of this biography, Alfrid was one of the sons of Oswy, and, according to Eddie, reigned along with his father.(3i) Of the early life of Alfrid little is recorded, except that ' he was instructed in Christianity by Wilfrid, a most learned man, who had first gone to Rome to learn the ecclesia[s]tical doctrine.' Eddie informs us that he entreated Wilfrid to reside with him, and (31) He could not be the son of Eanfleda, for we find him mentioned in the year 642, x nine years before the marriage of Oswy and Eanfleda, and yet he appears to have been warmly attached to his mother- in-law, and influenced by her Christian principles. 84 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross preach the Word of God to him and his people, and that Wilfrid complied with his affectionate request, and that they became attached to each other, even as the souls of David and Jonathan. Hence Alcfrid became attached to the customs of Rome, and thought that Wilfrid's doctrine ought to be preferred before all the traditions of the Scottish or native priests. Alcfrid probably became King of Deira about the year 650, 1 when his father Oswy slew Oswin, who was at that time king of that province. Of such a fact, however, we have no record, nor is there any record of the time and place of his death. So far as can be ascertained he disappears from history about the year 665, 2 *. e., nearly 1,200 years from this time. In the year 642 we find Alcfrid in rebellion 3 against his father. Oswy, having succeeded to the kingdom of Northhumbria, was (as Bede informs us, Lib. 3, ch. 14) harassed by Penda the Pagan King of Mercia, and by the Pagan nation of the Mercians, that had slain his brother, as also by his son Alcfrid, and by Ethelwald, the son of his brother who resigned 4 before him. (32) Alcfrid appears to have been firmly attached to Wilfrid, an able Englishman of the Roman party, whose attainments had been matured in southern Europe. He gave him a monastery of forty families at a place called Rhypum (Ripon) according to Bede (Lib. 3, ch. 25) ; which place he had not long before (32) Geoffrey of Monmouth (book 2, ch. 11) calls this Alfrid the brother of Oswy. As Geoffrey, however, did not write before the twelfth century (a few hundred years after Bede and the events narrated) we may presume that the statement of Bede is the more correct. From the narrative of Geoffrey we learn that this insur- 'rection was commenced in consequence of Oswy making large presents of gold and silver to Cadwalla, who was at that time possessed of the government of all Britain, and because Oswy had made peace with, and submission to him. Maughan's Second Account, iSjj 85 given to those that followed the [23] system of the Scots for a monastery ; but forasmuch as they after- wards, being left to their choice, prepared to quit the place rather than alter their religious opinions, he gave the place to Wilfrid. (33) From Bede's History of the Abbots of Weremouth we learn that Alchfrid was desirous to make a pilgrimage to the shrines of the Apostles at Rome, and had engaged Biscop to accompany him on his journey, who had just re- turned from that place ; but the King (Oswy) pre- vented his son's journey. At the request of Alcfrid, Agilbert (bishop of the West Saxons, who was on a visit to Oswy and Alcfrid in the province of the Northhumbrians) made Wilfrid a priest in his mon- astery at Dorchester, near Oxford. So says Bede, but Eddie 1 informs us that he ordained him priest at Ripon according to the King's command. Among the Ber- nicians was the episcopal seat of Hagustaldum, or (33) In reference to this monastery we find the following statement in Bede's Life of St. Cuthbert (sect. 12)—' And when some years after it pleased King Alcfrid, for the redemption of his soul, to give to the Abbot Eata a certain dominion in his kingdom called ' In Hrypum,' there to construct a monastery, the same Abbot taking some of the brethren along with him, amongst whom Cudberct was one, he founded the required monastery, and in it he instituted the same monastic discipline which he had previously established at Melrose.' Bede, in his history of the Abbots of Weremouth also says — ' Alchfrid gave Rippon to Eata, Abbot of Melross, to build a monastery there ; he afterwards gave this monastery to Wilfrid, and Eata with his monks returned to Mailros.' These statements are partly confirmed by Eddie in his Life of Wilfrid, who says — (ch. 8,) that ' Alcfrid's love for Wilfrid increased from day to day, and that he gave him the land of ten tributary families at Eastanford, and a short time afterwards the monastery In HRypis, with the land of 30 families, for the safety of his soul, and appointed him Abbot, and that all the people (noble and ignoble) looked upon him as a prophet of God.' 86 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross Hexham, which was bestowed by King Alcfrid 1 upon St. Cuthbert, which Malmesbury (somewhat mistaken in the scale of miles) placed but 50 miles from Yorke, and commendeth for 'beauty of structure before any building on this side the Alps.' In this church sat nine bishops, among whom the learned John of Beverley was advanced to that dignity by King Alc- frid, 2 and then swayed the pastoral staif, till he was translated to Yorke. About the year 652 (according to some authorities 644) we find Alcfrid and Oswy jointly presiding over a religious controversy 3 respect- ing the observance of Easter.(34) (34) Bede, in his account of this controversy, is considered by some to have been a zealous adversary of the Scottish and ancient British observance of Easter, and to have shewn at all points a leaning towards the church of Rome. Oswy, who had been instructed and baptized by the Scots or native priests, and was very perfectly skilled in their language, thought nothing better than what they taught, and kept the Easter festival according to the primitive British customs. His wife Eanfleda, however, who had been brought up in the Court of Kent, which had been converted to Christianity by missionaries from Rome, would not abandon the Kentish usages for those of Northhumbria, being in this probably supported by Alcfrid and his partizans. Hence Easter was celebrated at the Court of Oswy on different days ; one party enjoying its festivities, while the other placed in strong contrast with them the austerities of Lent. At length Oswy consented to purchase domestic peace by hearing a solemn argument in the monastery which he had recently founded at Whitby. The cause was conducted on the part of the British by Colman, then bishop of Northhumbria or Lindisfarne, assisted by Chad, bishop of Essex. On the part of Rome, or the Kentish usages, Agilbert was the principal, but he devolved the advocacy of his cause upon Wilfrid, on account of his own imperfect acquaintance with the Anglo-Saxon language. The British, or national divines, insisted chiefly upon a tradition, originating, as alleged, in St. John, our Lord's beloved disciple. The foreign party traced the Roman tradition to St. Peter, who was, as they said, intrusted by Christ with the keys of Heaven. ' Were they really intrusted to him ? ' asked Oswy. ' Undoubtedly so,' he was answered. ' And can Maugharis Second Account, iSjj 87 Bede informs us that the Middle Angles were con- verted to Christianity through the instrumentality of Alcfrid. Peada, their king, came to Oswy, requesting his daughter for a wife. Oswy refused to comply unless he [24] would embrace the faith of Christ. When he heard the preaching of truth, the promise of the heavenly kingdom, and the hope of resurrec- you allege the grant of any such privilege to an authority of yours ? ' Oswy then demanded. ' We cannot/ Colman replied. ' I must leave your party then,' said Oswy, ' for I should not choose to disoblige him who keeps the keys of Heaven. It might be found impossible to get the door open when I seek admittance.' Thus Oswy decided in favour of the Roman party in a way which reminds us of the language of one of Cooper's braves of the wigwam, and his decision was generally applauded. The result of this controversy was that the ancient usages of Britain were formally renounced as to the time of observing Easter. Colman and many of his adherents were disgusted, and retired to their brethren in Scotland. 1 Eddie gives a brief account of this Paschal controversy in the 10th chapter. It may be observed, however, that this triumph of the Roman party involved little or no change in articles of belief. We have no evi- dence that any papal peculiarities of doctrine were then established. Mosheim (century 7, ch. 3) says: — ' In Britain warm controversies concerning baptism, the tonsure, and particularly the famous dispute concerning the time of celebrating the Easter festival, were carried on between the ancient Britons and the new converts to Christi- anity which Augustine had made among the Anglo-Saxons. The fundamental doctrines of Christianity were not at all affected by these controversies, which, on that account, were more innocent and less important than they otherwise would have been. Besides, they were entirely terminated in the 8th century, in favour of the Anglo- Saxons, by the Benedictine Monks. It should also be noted that although Wilfrid appealed to the authority of the Roman See, as deserving respectful attention, yet he did not claim for it any right of deciding the controversy. In the opin[i]on of some the Roman party might have prevailed before had it not been for the uncommon merits of Aidan and Finian, and that its prevalence on this occasion arose from Colman being not equal to his predecessors. A principal reason, however, may have been the influence which Eanfleda exercised over the compliant mind of her husband Oswy.' 88 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross tion and future immortality, he declared that he would willingly become a Christian, even though he should be refused the virgin ; being chiefly prevailed on to receive the faith by King Oswy's son Alcfrid, who was his relation and friend, and had married his sister Cyneburga, the daughter of King Penda. Accordingly he was baptized with all his earls and soldiers. In the year 665 Alcfrid sent Wilfrid with a great multitude of men and much money to the King of France, to be consecrated bishop over him (Alcfrid) and his people. In Wilfrid, however, real excellencies appear to have been alloyed by levity and ostentation. He did not hasten to return after his consecration, but thoughtlessly displayed his new dignity amidst the tempting hospitalities of Gaul. Alcfrid, 1 his royal patron, became disgusted by this delay, and conferred the Northhumbrian bishopric upon another. 2 (35) From Bede, and others of our old British Chron- iclers, we find Alcfrid, in the year 655, fighting on the side of his father Oswy against his father-in-law Penda, the King of Mercia. Although the Pagans had three times the number of men, yet King Oswy, and his son Alcfrid, met them with a very small army, confiding, it is said, in the conduct of Christ, Oswy having previously vowed that, if he should come off victorious, he would ded- icate his daughter to our Lord in holy virginity, and give twelve farms to build monasteries. The engage- ment beginning, the Pagans were defeated, the thirty commanders, and those who had come to the assist- ance of Penda, were put to flight, and almost all of them slain. The battle was fought near the river Vinwed (Winwidfield), near Leeds, which then, with (35) Bede, Lib. 3, ch. 28. — Soames, p. 66.— William of Malmes- bury, Lib. 3. — Henry of Huntingdon, Lib. 3. Maughans Second Account, iSjj 89 the great rains, had not only filled its channel, but overflowed its banks, so that many more were drowned in flight than destroyed by the sword.(36) Such is the history of Alcfrid as it has been handed down to us by our British historians. We may now take a passing glance at his supposed death. Bede (Lib. 3, ch. 27,) tells us that in the year 644 1 a sudden pestilence (called by some the yellow plague) depop- ulated the southern coasts of Britain, and, extending into the province of the Northhumbrians, ravaged the country far and near, and destroyed a great multitude of men. The pestilence did no less harm in Ireland. This plague is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the same date ; in one of the man- uscripts of Nennius : and in Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 3). It has been presumed that Alcfrid fell a victim to this plague. If so, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he breathed his last in his Saxon city of Bewcastle, and that he was buried here. Against this supposed cause of his death, however, we must bear in mind that, in the year 665, 2 i. e., the year after the plague. Bede informs us that Alcfrid sent Wil- frid to France for consecration, and a similar state- ment had been previously made by Eddie. (37) (36) Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 3), speaking of this battle, says that ' the Almighty God was present with His people, and dissolved the fortitude of King Penda, and took away from his arms the usual strength of his nerves, and ordered his brave heart to pine with grief, so that he neither recognized himself in his blows, nor was he impenetrable to the arms of his enemies : and he was amazed that his enemies were such as he used to be to his enemies, while on the other hand he was such as they used to be. He, who therefore had always shed the blood of others, now experienced what he himself had done, while he tinged the earth with his own blood, and covered it with his brains.' (37) Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 3), and Bede, both relate that Tuda, the Bishop of Northumbria, fell a victim to its ravages, but go Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross [25] Hwcetred. The preceding sketch embraces every thing which I can find recorded in history respecting Alcfrid. Besides the names of Oswy and Alcfrid, the words Hwaetred, Waethgar, and Alwfwolthu seem to require a slight notice, as they resemble Anglo-Saxon names which we find recorded in history. The word Hwaetred is compounded of ' hwaet, wit, with, or wiht ' — ' quick or sharp ; ' — and of ' red, rede, rad, or rod,' (differing only in dialect), signify- ing ' counsel.' Hence Hwaetred means ' quick in counsel.' The word ' Hwaetred ' occurs in the Codex Exoniensis, 477, 5, in a poem called ' The Ruin.' Thorpe translates it as an adjective. Ethmuller, 1 in his Dictionary, gives the word as a proper name. A person named Withred, or Wihtred, is mentioned by Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 4), and by the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle, as King of Kent in the year 692. Higden mentions him as King in the year 686, and neither of them state that such was the death of King Alcfrid ; a strong presumption that the king did not perish in this plague. St. Chad is also said to have been taken with the contagion while on a visit to his beloved solitude of Lestingau, which put an end to his mortal life. Bede, in his life of St. Cuthbert, tells us that ' this great pestilence, which made such havoc in Britain and Ireland, visited also the monastery of Mailros, where St. Cuthbert was seized with it. All the brethren passed the night in prayer for him, as looking upon the life of so holy a man most necessary for the edi- fication of their community. In the morning they told him what they had been doing : at which, rising up, he called for his shoes and his staff, saying — ' Why do I he here any longer ; God will certainly hear the prayers of so many holy men.' And so it was ; for he quickly recovered.' It is also said that Boisil had foretold this plague three years before, and that he himself should die of it, which came to pass. (Ibid.) It seems strange, therefore, that so many deaths should be detailed, and yet that there should be no record of the death of King Alcfrid, if he perished in this plague. Maughan's Second Account, iS/7 91 calls him ' Whitred,' the legitimate son of Egbert. This person may possibly be the party whose name is here recorded. At all events he appears to have entertained religious views and aspirations similar to those of Alcfrid. Queen Eantieda had been brought up at the Court of Kent, and was sent for by Oswy in the year 651, 1 and became his wife. This Witred, who might at that time be one of the young princes 2 at that Court, may have attended her on her marriage journey to Northhumbria, or may have visited the Northumbrian Court at some subsequent period, and thus have formed an attachment to Alcfrid, and afterwards erected this Cross to his memory. Wcsthgar. This word is derived from ' with,' — ' quick or sharp' — and ' gar or gajr ' — ' a spear ' : hence it signifies ' quick or expert in the use of the spear.' It may be also a proper name. A person named ' Wihtgar ' (the h before the t) is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, anno 514, as Lord of the Isle of Wight. He was the first to establish an Anglo-Saxon colony there. He also was the founder of Carisbrooke Castle. Camden (p. 130,) says that it was called ' Whitgara- burgh," from him, and now by contraction ' Cares- brook.' Of course he cannot be the person whose name is recorded on this monument, but we may draw an inference that such a name was in use among the Anglo-Saxons. Alfwold. 1 Aelf.' which, according to various dialects, as Camden says, is pronounced ' ulf, wolph, hulph, hilp, helfe, or helpe,' implies ' assistance.' ' Wold or wald ' means ' a ruler or governor.' Hence the word 92 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross Alfwold means ' an auxiliary governor.' But it may also be a proper noun, occurring under a variety of modes of spelling.(38) William of Malmesbury men- tions a King of the East Angles named ' Elwold ' soon after the time of Alcfrid, who might possibly be the person mentioned here. 1 Bede says that Sige- bert, the King of the East Angles, often visited the Court of Northhumbria, and was converted to the Christian faith in a.d. 653, through the persuasion of Oswy. This Elwold may have attended Sigebert on some of these occasions, and thus have become ac- quainted with, and attached to Alcfrid, and hence from motives of friendship and regard he may have aided in erecting this pillar to his memory. We may now return to a further examination of the Cross. Below the chief inscription is a figure, which, as Bishop Nicholson says, 'represents the portraiture of a layman with a hawk or eagle perched (38) In Ingram's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A. D. 778, we find' ' Alfwold ' mentioned as a King of Northhumbria, and a note upon this passage says ' Alfold. Cot.' Again in a. d. 780, we find him called ' Alwold,' and a note says, ' A elf wold Lands.' In 789 he died and was buried at Hexham. Higden says that he was slain by his own people. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle also mentions a person of the name of ' Alfwold ' as bishop of Dorset, who died in A. D. 978. Henry of Huntingdon mentions one ' Owlfhold ' about A. D. 910. A King of the East Angles is mentioned by Roger de Hoveden as dying A. D. 749, whom he calls ' Elfwald.' He also uses the word ' Elwald,' ' Alfwald,' and ' Elf wold.' In the Anglo- Saxon Charters we find this name with the Latin terminations- ' dus ' and ' thus,' and their several inflections. Hence we have Alwfwolthu as an Anglo-Saxon corruption of Alwfwolthus or Alwf- wolthum. We often find the Latin termination dropped entirely, and the word ending in ' wald or wold.' The first syllable occurs in the Anglo-Saxon Charters under various modes of spelling. We find ' Alf, Elf, Olf, 2Elf; ' and in a charter 2 of Eadwig (a.d. 956, Ms. Lands. 417, fol. 11, b.) we have the name ' Alwlf,' which has; a great resemblance to the orthography of the Bewcastle Cross. Maughans Second Account, iSjy 93 on his arm.' [26] Hutchinson describes it as ' the effigies of a person of some dignity, in a long robe to the feet, but without any dress or ornament on the head : on a pedestal against which this figure leans is a bird, which, we conceive, is a raffen, or raven, the insignia of the Danish standard. This fig- ure seems designed to represent the personage for whom the monument was erected, and though ac- companied with the raven, bears no other marks of royal dignity.' In Lysons it is thus spoken of: 'At the bottom on the west side is sculptured, in bas- relief, the figure of a man bareheaded, habited in a gown which reaches to the middle of his legs, hold- ing a bird (most probably a hawk) on his hand, just above its perch.' To these nearly correct observa- tions of the Lysons I would only add that the figure is not bare headed, but appears to be covered with something resembling a close hood. South Side. The sculpture on the south side is divided into five compartments. In the bottom, central, and top divis- ions are magical knots. In the second are two vines intersecting each other, and in the fourth is another vine, in one of the curves of which a vertical sun- dial has been placed, somewhat resembling the dial placed over the Saxon porch on the south side of Bishopstone Church, in Sussex, and also resembling the Saxon dial placed over the south porch of Kirk- dale Church, in the North Riding of Yorkshire : a short description of each of which may be found at page 60 of the eleventh volume of the Archaeological Journal. In the Bewcastle Dial the principal divisions are marked by crosses, as on the fore-mentioned dials, which are considered examples of a very early date, g2 94 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross the Kirkdale Dials having been made, as it is sup- posed, between the years 1056 and 1065. On the plain surface near the top of the Cross we have the following characters : — llib LICE The word ' lie ' or ' lice ' is very distinct, but of the remaining letters we have only the lower part. On the east side of the Cross, where the sentence has probably been continued and completed, this plain surface is totally gone so as to leave no traces what- ever, so that this part of the inscription may be con- sidered as irreparably lost. The word 'lie,' or 'lice,' may perhaps be intended to express something re- specting ' a dead body.' In the Dream of the Holy Rood (Archseologia, vol. 30, p. 31,) the word ' lices ' occurs, and signifies the corpse of our Saviour. The word ' lice ' may also be part of the word ' liceman ' 1 — a body. Between the highest and the next compartment are traces of letters which I read thus : — nmm E C G F R I [THU] i. e.,' of Ecgfrid.' Ecgfrid was the son of Oswy, and brother of Alchfrid, and succeeded his father in the kingdom of Northhumbria in the year 670, according to the Ang. Sax. Chronicle. Eddie (ch. 20) speaks of him as king of both Deira and Bernicia. In the year 660 he married Etheldrida, the daughter of Anna, Maughan's Second Account, iSjy 95 king of the East Angles, who lived with him 12 years, and at last retired as a nun into the monastery of the Abbess Edda (the aunt of Ecgfrid) at Coludi (Cold- ingham), Berwickshire. Egfrid afterwards married Ermenburga. Eddie says that while Etheldrida lived with him he was triumphant everywhere, but after the separation he ceased to be victorious. Egfrid appears to have been instrumental in found- ing the monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow. (39) In 685 Egfrid rashly led his army to ravage the province of the Picts, much [27] against the advice of his friends, and particularly of Cuthbert, who had lately been appointed Bishop of Hexham by him. The enemy made show as if they fled, and the king was drawn into the straits of inaccessible mountains and slain, with the greatest part of his forces. Eg- frid is said to have carried his conquests to the west- ern ocean, and held Cumberland as a tributary prov- ince of his kingdom. Between the second and third divisions (from the top) of the decorated parts of the Cross we find traces of Runes, which I venture to read thus : — iwwp RICES [THjyES: (39) Bede, in his history of the Abbots of Weremouth, says that he bestowed on Biscop, of his own possessions, as much land as might maintain 70 families, ordering him to build thereon a monastery, which was accordingly performed. This monastery was built at the mouth of the river Were (thence called Weremouth) in the year 674. The king was so well pleased with the zeal and industry of Biscop, and with the fruits which began plentifully to spring from this pious foundation, that he afterwards added to his former donation a second gift of lands, on which Biscop built another monastery on the opposite side of the same river. This was the monastery of Jarrow. These monasteries were destroyed by the Danes, but a small priory was afterwards established at Jarrow. 9 6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross i. e., ' of this kingdom,' — the kingdom of Northhumbria. Between the third and fourth divisions we also find traces of characters : ftRtlwMH thus-KYNINGES, 1 i. e., 'King.' Between the lowest and second compartment is another line of Runes which has been noticed by Spelman and others as previously described. I would suggest that the line may be read thus : — lIIiMlil^ + F R U[MA]N GEAR, 2 i. e., ' in the first year.' The four lines on this side of the Cross are evidently connected with each other, and are to be read thus : — ' fruman gear Ecgfrithu kyninges rices thses,' — in the first year (of the reign) of Egfrid, king of this kingdom of Northhumbria, 3 i. e., a.d. 670, in which year we may conclude that this monu- ment was erected. The form of date used on this monument may be considered rather peculiar. Some are of opinion (perhaps without sound grounds) that the era of the Incarnation was not introduced into England till the time of Bede, i. e., about a century after the erection of this pillar. It is a remarkable fact that we have only two original charters of the seventh century, and that the date of the Incarnation does not appear in either of these documents. We cannot infer, how- ever, from this fact that such a mode of dating was then unknown. This would be pushing an argument to an unjust conclusion. Such an inference would Manghan s Second Account, iSjy 97 be an abuse of the rules of logic. It may be re- marked, however, that the mode of dating by the regnal years of the kings was frequently adopted, as must be well known to every one conversant in Anglo- Saxon diplomacy ; and I think there can be little question but such a mode has been adopted on this monument. North Side. On the north side are also five compartments oc- cupied by sculpture. In the highest and lowest divis- ions we find vines with foliage and fruit. Mr. Smith considers them ; as probably the Danish symbols of fertility, as Amalthea's horn was among the Greeks.' In the second and fourth divisions are two curiously devised, and intricately twisted knots, often called ' magical knots,' and by some considered the ' knot- work of Scottish and Irish sculptors.' The third di- vision is filled with a quantity of chequerwork.(4o) (40) This chequerwork is pronounced by Mr. Smith to be 'a Scythian method of embellishing funeral ornaments' ; and is regarded by Bishop Nicholson ' as a notable emblem of the tumuli or burying places of the Ancients.' Camden says — ' Seeing the cross is chequered like the arms of Vaux, we may suppose that it has been erected by some of them.' Hutchinson 1 thinks that ' the cross must of necessity be allowed to bear a more ancient date than any of the remains of that name ; which cannot be run up higher than the Conquest.' He also thinks that ' armorial bearings were not in use at the same time as the Runic characters.' It is probable, however, that this chequerwork had no reference to the family of Vaux or De Vallibus, as they were not really and legally possessed of the Lordship of Bewcastle until the reign of Henry the Second, or about the middle of the 12th century, which is too late a period for the decoration of this monument. The late ingenious Mr. Howard suggested that ' very possibly the family of De Vallibus took their arms from this column, being one of the most remarkable things in the barony.' The cheque appears to have been a device used by the Gauls and Britons long before the erection of this cross. The Gaulic manufactory of woollen cloth spoken of by Diodorus (Lib. 5), 98 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross [28] Immediately above the lowest compartment is one line of Runic characters of which Bishop Nichol- son in his letter to Mr. Walker says, ' Upon first sight of these letters I greedily ventured to read them ' Rynburn ' x ; and I was wonderfully pleased to fancy that this word thus singly written must necessarily betoken the final extirpation, and burial of the magical Runae, in these parts, reasonably hoped on the con- version of the Danes to the Christian faith.' The learned prelate also conjectured that the word might be 'Ryeeburn,' 1 which he takes in the old Danish language to signify ' a burial place of the dead.' The representation of these Runes given by the Bishop is inaccurate, and he has evidently comprehended in it some of the flutings of the pillar. It is difficult to imagine how the Bishop could fall into such an error, for the letters on this side of the monument are still perfect and legible, having been fortunately preserved and in Pliny's Natural History (Lib. 8, ch. 48), was woven chequer- wise, of which our Scottish plaids are perfect remains. Bishop Anselm's 2 Book concerning ' Virginity,' written about the year 680 — the era of the cross nearly — when the art of weaving in this country was probably in a comparatively rude state, contains a distinct indication that chequered robes were then in fashion ; and many of the figures in Rosselini's Egyptian work are dressed in che- quered cloths. The cheques are still retained in common use to this day among the inhabitants of Wales, the descendants of the an- cient Britons : and so great is their veneration for their ancient emblem that whenever a Welchman leaves his native mountains to reside in an English town, he is sure to carry this symbol along with him. Shops with the sign of the chequers were common even among the Romans, as is evident from the views of Pompeii present- ed by Sir W. Hamilton to the Antiquarian Society. A human figure in a chequered robe is sculptured on the side of an altar which was found in digging a cellar for the Grapes Inn, on the site of the Roman Station at Carlisle, thus establishing the probability that the cheque was used among the Romans in Britain. We read also of nets of chequer- work in the days of King Solomon, 1 Kings, vii., 17. Matighan's Second Account, jSjj 99 from the effects of the weather by their proximity to the Church, which has afforded them its friendly shelt- er j 1 and in the manuscript journal which the Bishop kept of his visitation in 1703 the Runes are more correctly traced by him. 2 Mr. Smith dissents from the reading of the Bishop, and rather thinks it to be a sepulchral monument of the Danish kings. He reads it " Kuniburuk,' which, he says, in the old Danish language, imports ' the burial place of a king.' Mr. Smith, however, agrees with the Bishop that it may also have been designed for a standing monument of conversion to Christianity which might have happened on the loss of their king, and each be mutually celebrated by it. But from the inscription on the west side it does not appear to have been intended for anything more than a memorial cross. Mr. Kemble, with Mr. Howard's plate as a guide, 3 who traced it thus, rM.w?nm pronounced the word to be ' Cyniburug ' or ' Cyni- buruk.' 4 the proper name of a lady ; and he attached some value to it as proving the inscription Anglo- Saxon — not Norse. 5 After repeated and careful examinations the letters appear to me to be — fWM&hfaftK KYNNBUR(THU)G, the name of the wife of Alchfrid. Eddie, who wrote about fifty years after the erection of the cross, does not mention the name of Alcfrid's queen ; but in Stephenson's edition of Bede 6 (who probably wrote his ioo Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross history about ioo years 1 after the erection of the monu- ment) we read of a lady whom he calls ' Cyneburga,' the daughter of Penda, King of Mercia, and the wife of Alcfrid. This is undoubtedly the same person, the name having somewhat changed in a century. In Ingram's edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in the year 656, we read of 'Kyneburg' and ' Kynesuuith,' the daughters of King Penda, and the sisters of Wulfhere who in that year is said to have succeeded his brother Peada in the kingdom of the Mercians. These ladies appear to have counselled their brother Wulfhere to endow and dignify the monastery at Medehamstede,(4i) which in the year 963 was named Peterborough, and in that year we read in the above-named chronicle that Elfsy, who was then Abbot, took up the bodies of St. Kyneburh and St. Kyneswith, who lay at Castor, and brought them to Peterborough.^) (41) It may appear strange that Wulfhere should have adopted the counsel of his sisters, but it must be borne in mind that the ladies were very important personages in the days of our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. Gurdon, in his Antiquities of Parliament, says — ' The ladies of birth and quality sat in council with the Saxon Witas.' The abbess Hilda, says Bede, presided in an ecclesiastical Synod. In Wighfred's great council at Becconceld, A. D. 694, the abbesses sat and deliberated ; and five of them signed decrees of the council. (42) William of Malmesbury (Lib. 1, ch. 4) tells us that Cyneberg retired to the monastery which her brothers Wulfhere and Ethelred had built, and that she and her sister Kyneswith were superior to others of their sex for the piety and chastity of their lives. Henry of Huntingdon (Lib. 3) calls this lady Chineburgam, and her sister Cinewissem. Ingulph of Croyland calls her Kynenburgam, and says that she and her sister were ' ambas sancta continentia praecellentes.' Kyneburg appears to have made large presents to the monastery at Medehamstede, for when it was destroyed by the Danes, A. d. 870, Ingulph says that ' the precious gifts ' of the holy virgins Kineburgae and Kinespitae were trodden under foot ; and in another passage he calls these gifts ' sacredrelics, ' and says that the Abbot took them Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 101 [29] In the 'Britannia Sancta 1 Cyneburg is spoken of as a devout and fervent Christian, whose heart was much more set on the kingdom of heaven than on her earthly diadem : insomuch that she had an impatient desire to quit the world and all its vanities, and to consecrate herself, body and soul, to Jesus Christ. By her means, in a short time, King Alch- frid's Court was converted in a manner into a mon- astery, or school of regular discipline and Christian perfection. After her release from the matrimonial bond by the death of her husband she returned into her native country of Mercia, and there chose for the place of her retreat a town then called Dormundcaster, afterwards from her Kyneburgcastor — now Castor or Caistor. Here she built, or (as others say) found al- ready built by her brother Wulfhere, a monastery for sacred virgins, over whom she became mother and abbess. To this monastery, as we learn from the author of her life in Capgrave, many virgins of all ranks and degrees resorted, to be instructed by her in rules and exercises of a religious life ; and whilst the daughters of princes reverenced her as a mistress, the poor were admitted to regard her as a companion : and both the one and the other honoured her as a parent. She was, says this author, a mirror of all sanctity. She had a wonderful compassion and char- ity for the poor, exhorting kings and princes to alms- giving and works of mercy. Henschenius is positive that she died before the year 680, but Higden says that she was appointed over the Monastery of Glovernia in 681. away with him in his flight. Ranulph Higden (Lib. 5, Anno 681) says thatOsric, King of the Mercians, built a monastery de Glovernia, 1 over which he appointed his sister Kineburgam. 102 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross Kyneswitha. Between the second and third compartments (from the bottom) is another very indistinct line of Runes which I venture to read thus — wmmm KYNESWIfTHJA 1 This was the name of the mother as well as a sister 2 of Cyneburg. Of the mother, nothing of note is re- corded. From the two sisters being so frequently mentioned together, and from the similarity of their religious views and feelings, we may presume that they were strongly attached to each other, and that the sister's name is recorded here. William of Malmes- bury (Lib. 4) says that she was dedicated to God from her infancy, and that she kept her glorious res- olution to her old age. Not content with saving herself alone, she prevailed also with King Offa, to whom she had (against her will) been promised in marriage, to devote himself to a single life. She after- wards retired to the Monastery of Dormundcaster, where she died, ' after having lived a pattern of all virtues for many years.' Wulfhere. Between the third and fourth compartments is another line of Runes which, though indistinct, appears to be — flMterf» MYRCNA KYNG, 3 *. e., King of the Mercians. Maugharis Second Account, iSjj 103 The above line of Runes appears to be connected with another line between the fourth and fifth divis- ions, which may be read thus — HWNMKM WULFHERE, 1 who was a son of Penda, brother of Cyneburg, and King of the Mercians. He succeeded his brother Peada in the year 657, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chron- icle.(43) [30] Eddie calls him Wlfarius, and says that he frequently invited Wilfrid (while Abbot at Ripon) to go into Mercia, and exercise the office of bishop there, and that he made many grants of lands, for the salvation of his soul, where he presently appointed monasteries. In the year 661 we find him instrumental in converting the people of the Isle of Wight : and in the year 665 he was a means of the reconversion of the East Saxons, who had begun to restore the temples that had been abandoned, and to adore idols, (43) He is respresented by Malmesbury as a man of great strength of mind and body, and although a zealous Christian yet his reputation was sullied by an act of simony, being the first of the kings of the Angles who sold the bishopric of London. In the year 657 we find him engaged in the foundation and endowment of the monastery of Medehamstede. He is said to have granted large tracts of lands and fens to this monastery. From the Life of his Queen Ermenilda in Capgrave, we learn that he was induced, through her influence, to root out of his dominions, the worship of idols, and all heathenish superstitions ; and to stock his kingdom with priests and churches for the worship of the true and living God. He is also said to have contributed liberally towards the foundation of a monastery for religious virgins at Wenlock in Shropshire. He also by his bounty enabled Bishop Chadd to found a monastery at a place called Barrow, in the province of Lindsey. 104 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross as if they might by those means be protected against the mortality, i. e., the yellow plague. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the year 675, Wulfhere and Escwin fought at Beadanhead ; and the same year Wulfhere died. On the plain surface near the top of the Cross are the following characters : The three Crosses may be emblematical of the cru- cifixion, the central one appearing rather higher than the others. The word ' Gessus ' is very plain, all the letters being quite distinct except the G, and the part where the U and the S approach each other, which appears to have experienced some injury. (44) The word ' Gessus ' is evidently connected with the fragments of the word ' Kristtus ' on the west side ; and has probably formed part of a sentence which has been completed on the two other sides, but of which only a small portion now remains. Having made this minute and, I fear, tedious attempt to explain the inscriptions on this cross, I may now leave the subject in the hands of those who are more versed in such recondite researches, hoping that if there be another and a better solution of the enigma, it may be found. (44) The letter S has a little peculiarity in its form, the last stroke being carried up nearly to the same height as the top of the other letters. The letter S in the word ' Oswiuing ' appears to have the same form ; as also some others on this monument ; and there is one somewhat similar to it on the Ruthwell pillar. There is also an S of a similar form in the Runic inscription in Carlisle Cathedral. Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 105 [31J MR. HAIGH'S VERSION. It is now my painful duty to make a few observa- tions on a different version of these inscriptions, which has been offered by the Rev. D. H. Haigh, of Erd- ington, near Birmingham, read before the Society of Antiquarians of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and since pub- lished in their transactions. I feel extreme reluctance in entering upon this course, but I also feel that I have been driven into it through the officiousness of certain parties, the patrons of Mr. Haigh's version. Mr. Robert White, 1 to whom I have already alluded, in a letter to the Gateshead Observer, dated Oct. 29, 1856, after acknowledging his own ignorance of Runes, throws out an insinuation that I am equally ignorant of the language and its characters. In a paper on Runes, read at the January meeting, 1856, of the Antiquarian Society, at Newcastle, Dr. Charlton introduced Mr. Haigh's version, and then alluded to one which had been suggested by myself, and although Dr. Charlton had never seen the Bewcastle pillar, and consequently could have had no opportunity of comparing either version with the original, yet he expressed an opinion that the version of Mr. Haigh was ' the more probable of the two, and nearer the truth.' 2 Other insinuations have been made against my version by parties who know nothing of the Runic language. I feel, therefore, called upon to enter into a minute detail, and to adopt a course which I should not have thought of adopting under other circumstances. My first acquaintance with Mr. Haigh arose from a letter which I received from him, in which he requested me to send him a rubbing of the chief inscription. In this letter, amongst other things, he stated that he had a ' suspicion that the long inscription, and one of the others, present us with the name of a king of 106 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross Northumberland,' without however mentioning his name. In my reply, promising him a rubbing, I asked him whether Alfrid was the Northumberland king to whom he alluded ; my attention having from an early period been directed to Alfrid, from the suggestion made by Mr. Howard 1 to the Antiquarian Society, and from a communication I received from another party in 1852 respecting Cyneburg, and also from Kemble's obser- vations on this name. In reply, he stated that he expected to find the name of Alcfrid, and also the name of Sighard, or Sigfrid, in the chief inscription. In another letter he said that he also expected to find the name of Alfrid in the bottom line on the south side, but before he came to the end of this letter he stated that a new suspicion had come across his mind, that the bottom line of the south 2 was more probably ' Oswiu Kyningk.' He had not then seen any rubbing of this line, and con- sequently his reading was merely guessing. I made a rubbing of the chief inscription, partly according to the process already described, except that (according to his instruction) it was made with two sheets of brown paper, placed one above the other, instead of one of thin white. The paper was thus too thick for such shallow letters and marks, and the rubbing was very confused, unintelligible, and illegible even by myself when standing by it, and making it, and having a tolerable idea of the letters beforehand. Having a lurking suspicion that his intentions were not altogether of a pure and disinterested character, I took special care that the rubbing should not be perfect and satisfactory in those parts where I had not decided as to the correct reading. In acknowledging the receipt of this rubbing of the chief inscription, he said — ' all traces of impressions Manghan's Second Account, i8jj 107 are effaced.'' He felt satisfied however '■that perfect im- pressions would enable him to read every letter ' — ' that he should have no difficulty in reading the whole if he could once get good impressions.'' But then here was the principal difficulty which every person has hitherto experienced who has made the slightest attempt to decipher these inscriptions. Mr. Haigh stated in direct terms that ' all traces of impressions were effaced." 1 After such a plain statement few persons would suppose that he would ever [32] attempt to impose a version of this inscription (from such a rubbing) either upon the Society of Antiquarians at Newcastle, or at any other place. Few persons, however, it would seem have any idea how sanguine some antiquarians become, and what confidence they assume in their own powers of success. In a few days he did actually give, and without the least hesitation, a version of this long-lost inscription. Within a fortnight after he had stated that all im- pressions were effaced, I received a letter from him saying that he could read the whole of them ; that he felt quite sure of most of them, and that the name of Roetbert was most interesting, because the monumental inscription to his memory had been found at Falstone, not far from Bewcastle. This, however, of course proved nothing. There might have been fifty stones found with the name of Roetbert inscribed upon them, and yet it would not follow that the fifty-first would necessarily have the same name upon it. In his letter, he gave me a part of his version, which commenced with the words ' thaes sigbecun.' I wrote to him by return of post stating that I had sometimes thought that the inscription might commence with ' a cross ' and the word 'this,' and stated some reasons both for and against it. I also stated some objections to the latter h 108 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross part of his word ' sigbecun ' ; more especially the letter C, inasmuch as I could not find that his traces of this letter corresponded with the marks now re- maining on the stone. A reading somewhat similar had been proposed long before I knew of the exist- ence of such a person as Mr. Haigh. In a few days I received another letter from him, which I thought to be of a somewhat snappish char- acter. He said ' the last letter of the first line is certainly OC> i. e., C or K 1 .' This word 'certainly' shows at least great confidence in his own power of reading the rubbings, especially when we recollect that he had so shortly before stated that ' all traces of impressions were effaced.' He said the letter C or K, of the form given by him, was found also on the Ruthwell pillar, which, however, I do not look upon as any proof that this form of the letter should occur on the Bewcastle pillar also. J have since very carefully examined the Ruthwell pillar, and I can find no letter upon it of the form given by him. There is no such letter given in the accurate drawings of the Ruth- well pillar by Dr. Duncan, and I have no hesitation in stating that when Mr. Haigh said that the letter C or K, of the form given by him, was found on the Ruthwell pillar, he was speaking without due caution.. I now assert, without the least fear of contradiction, that no such letter occurs either on the Ruthwell, or the Bewcastle pillar. He also sent me in another letter his reading of another rubbing which I had sent him. The bottom line of the south side, which I read + FRU(MA)NGEAR is read by him OSWU CYN(ING) ELT, i. e., Oswy King the elder — 'elf perhaps for ' aelter,' the elder or head of the family. Maugharis Second Account, i8jj 109 MAWMKfl He says that he was puzzled with this line at first, the rubbing was so black, but when he looked at the back of the rubbing he could read the impression of the letters distinctly. He had in fact (as appeared from one of his former letters) formed his own convictions as to this reading by anticipation, i. e., before he had seen the rubbing of it ; and rather than acknowledge him- self either beaten or in error, he professes to read it by the back of the paper where there never was any rubbing at all. It is evident that by such a mode any person would be capable of reading anything, or everything, just as his fancy might suggest. The first two letters of this line (the F and the R) are perfect ; as well marked as any letters on the stone. They are letters about which I never experienced any doubt or dif- ficulty, being distinctly visible at a considerable dist- ance as soon as the moss was removed. He converts the letter y — F — into an v\ — S— thus rejecting marks which are quite plain, and substituting marks where none are visible : and by rejecting the tail of the letter R — R — he contrives to convert it into the letter P — W. Some of the other letters in this line are not so plain and distinctly legible. [33] The following was his version of the long in- scription. I shall place mine by its side. The latter part of the woodcut represents his improved reading. h2 HO Some Accounts of fhe Bewcastk Cross Maughan's. Haigh's. mmm 7\y m\i it »■:■*:■ mttPHNn -f [TH]ISSIG:B[EA]CN : [THUjN : SETTON : H W[;ET]RED: W[^TH] GAR: ALWFWOL [THU]:AFT:ALCFRI [THU] : EAN : CYNI[ING] : EAC:OSWIU[ING]: -f GEBID:HE O: SINNA : SAW[HU]LA. + [TH]IS:SIGBEC UN: SETT/E:H W^ETRED :WIT G^ER:FLWOLD U:ROETB[ER]T: VMM : CYN[ING] ; ALCFRI[THJ^] : G EGID/ED: HISSUM:SAULE. X He says — ' If we find two false spellings in this in- scription — Flwold for Felwold, and Gegidaed, for Ge- bidaed, I can only say that from my experience of other inscriptions I only wonder there are not more. We have even in this monument three other inscrip- tions, and every line of them is blundered.' Thus it appears every thing must succumb to his concep- tions of right and wrong. He even professes to know better how things should have been 1200 years ago than the person who wrote the inscriptions, who, ac- cording to the general opinion as to the origin of Maug han's Second Account, 1S3J ill such Runic inscriptions, would be one of the learned ecclesiastics of that day. His version thus comprehends two false spellings and three other blundered inscriptions , while my version requires nothing of the kind. His reading was as follows : — -}- This sigbecun settae Hwsetred Witgaer Flwoldu Roetbert umse Cyning Alc- frithae. Gegidaed hissum saule, i. e., ' Hwastred, Wit- gaer, Felwold, and Roetbert set up this beacon of vic- tory in memory of Alcfrid. Pray for his soul.' Soon after he sent me his reading, [34] he wrote to me again, requesting me to enter upon all the trouble of making another set of rubbings for him at the inclement season of the new year — rubbings not only of the same parts which I had done before for him — but of some other parts — with fresh instructions as to the mode of proceeding, stating at the same time that his reading would be found to be correct. Before he could receive any answer from me, he arrived at Bewcastle. He immediately commenced mak- ing rubbings for himself, but after attempting in two or three places he gave it up— on what grounds he did not state. He then began to examine the stone with his eye and his finger. I shall now present the reader with a short review of his readings, and his own exposition of them, taken from a memorandum made as soon as he left. As to the word ' sigbecun ' he said that the letter C was made thus — ^|^ — ? an d showed me where the tracings of the letter had been, of which, how- ever, I could not see the least relic now, and which did not at all correspond with the traces which were actually to be seen on the stone. The lower side — mark of my compound letter \^* — EA — before my letter C, which is one of the best and deepest marks 112 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross on the stone, which has evidently a connection with the letter E before it, but no visible connection with * ... the letter C following it — this mark he said was the angular loop of his letter C. Being anxious to hear his opinions and explanations of the other parts of the stone, I did not venture to make any observations of an opposing nature, judging it most prudent to allow him to proceed when he was in a commun- icative humour. I merely observed, however, as it were casually, that there was a good trace of the side stroke of the letter L — C — rather different from what he read it. He said peremptorily — 'it was a blot.' He thus rejects the two perpendicular strokes of my letters C and N, which are very perfectly defined, and which have no break in the middle, as his letter C would require, and adopts a letter of which I cannot see full and satisfactory traces. He stated that my letter k — C — was not in use at the time when this Cross was erected, but that the character as given by him was always used for a C. Where he gets this information from I know not — neither can I conceive how he can speak with authority on such a matter, when it has been hitherto a very doubtful and disputed point whether there were any Anglo-Saxon Runes at all at that period. Besides this word ' beacn ' I find the letter Jl — for a C — in the words ' Alcfrithu, eac, myrcna, lice, Ecgfrithu, and rices.' In the words ' Kynnburthug, Kyneswitha, — Kyng, Kristtus, Kyniing, and Kyninges.' I find a character rather similar to the form of the C as given by Mr. Haigh, but not exactly like it. In every instance where this character i--*-. — K — occurs on this monument, the lower part of it has always a Maughan's Second Account, i8jj 113 flat top, no appearance of side-loops, and merely two dots above the side strokes. It certainly is not used as he shapes it. If it occurred in his word k sigbecun ' as he shapes it, then the two upright strokes of my letters C and N would want about a third of their form in the middle of each of them, but no such want can be seen on the stone. The strokes are perfect and visible enough from top to bottom. I then directed his attention to the appearance of marks across the letter pj at the commencement of the second line, which, I thought, formed the trirunor, or compound Rune — THU — several instances of com- pound Runes appearing on the stone. He said 'they were merely accidental marks, and of no consequence at all.' The two following words, ' settas ' and ' Hwaetred ' are the only words in which our versions approach to the character of being ' identical.' I deciphered this part of the inscriptions a long time before Mr. Haigh made any attempt to do so. Mr. Haigh next turned his attention to my word "Waethgar,' which he said was or ought to be Witgcer. I pointed out the marks of the angle on the side of the last perpendicular stroke, which made it the com- pound letter TH, thus M7 (^ETH.) He said ' they were faults, and ought not to have been there. Although he spoke so positively [35] at that time as to the word ' Witgasr,' yet he has since changed it into the words ' eom gaer.' As to the word ' Flwoldu,' he assured me he was quite correct about it. He showed me his tracings of the word, evidently adopting the slightest weather mark or injury to the stone where it suited him, and 114 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross pronouncing the deepest and best-defined cuttings to be blots, faults, or accidents, when they did not suit him. This he did throughout all the inscriptions. Although he was so positive as to the word Flwoldu being the name of a person, he has since converted it into a common substantive, signifying 'pestilence.' He now came to the word ' Roetbert,' which made him stare at first, but he soon saw his way through it, rejecting several of the existing marks, and placing marks where there were none. On my observing that one of the letters had a very good upright stroke, and a good side stroke, diverging so as to resemble the letter L — C — he again told me that such a letter was not then in use, and that it was introduced into the Runic alphabet at a sub- sequent period. But he reads this letter C as a B, and in order to effect this, he gives it a side-loop at the top, of which there is no decisive trace, and he carries the bottom of the under side-loop down through the half- inch space between the lines of the inscription into the space between the letters Y and N of the line below. He said that such faults were quite common, but how he contrives to make them quite common I know not, for the Bewcastle inscription is probably the only one of that early period, and this will be the only instance on this monument where the letter B is so formed — if it is formed thus Although he stated so dogmatically that Roetbert was the name of one of the parties who erected this monument, he has since changed his mind on this point, and now asserts that the monument was erected to him jointly with Alcfrid. In the 6th line he found the word ' umse,' which he translated ' in memory of.' I know of no Anglo- Saxon Dictionary or even Glossary where such a word Maugharis Second Account, jSjj 115 occurs. He has since changed his word ' umae ' into k ymb.' In the 7th line he gets his word ' Alcfrithae.' To the first upright stroke he attaches an under side- mark, so as to form the letter A. Of this mark I can see no visible trace — no depression, such as might have been expected, if ever a mark had been cut here, and a part of the stone cut away. He reads the second upright stroke as the letter L. At the third letter C he requires too much space. Between the F and the R there is also rather too much space. His next two letters are so close together that the letter I is act- ually placed upon the side marks of his preceding letter R. An objection may also be raised against his word ' Alcfrithae,' as applied to a person of the male sex. Proper names ending in • tha ' generally denote a female. In Anglo-Saxon charters it is in- variably so. We find Kynigitha and Kynigithe, Queen of Kent, mentioned in the same charter of her husband in 694. We also find Mildrythcz, Abbess of the Mon- astery in Thanet ; Frithogitha, Queen of the W T est- Saxons ; Kyneswitha, Queen of Offa. King of Mercia ; also Mlfrythce, another Queen of Mercia. We also find the names Kynedritha, Etheldritha, Mlswytha, and many others, but in no instance do we find a man's name ending in 'tha' or 'tha?.' Higden (p. 251) men- tions one Alfritha, the Queen of Kenulphus. Camden, speaking of Stonehenge, tells us that Alfritha, wife of King Edgar, built and endowed a stately nunnery that she might expiate her crime in killing her son-in-law, King Edward, by penance and good works. This is another instance of the word being applied to a female. Hence we have fair grounds for rejecting this word as the name of King Alcfrid. n6 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross In the word ' Gegidaed,' the letter Ni — E has only one upright stroke visible on the stone, and how he forms the remainder of this word I can scarcely com- prehend. He altered his words ' hissum saule ' into ' heosum 1 saulum' ; passing through the space between the ines again to get the top of the first letter U in ' heosum,' rejecting the cross bar of the H altogether in ' sawhula,' and attaching a side-mark to the top of one of its uprights so as to get his letter L. Such are the two versions of this inscription. With the exception of a few friendly suggestions, I am only indebted for my version to my own time, my own la- bour, my own perseverance, and most especially to my own residence on the [36] spot, which has enabled me to examine and re-examine, to correct and re-cor- rect, not only my own frequent errors, but also the errors of others. In another paper read before the Society of Anti- quaries at Newcastle Mr. Haigh has made some altera- tions of which I have, only seen a translation in Roman letters ; but not a copy of the Runic characters. In this paper he reads the chief inscription thus — 'This sigbecun saettae Hwaetred eom gaer flwoldu Roetbert ymb Alcfridae. Gicegaed heosum saulum.' — 'This memorial set Hwaetred in the great pestilence year to Roetbert to King Alcfride. Pray for their souls.' On these alterations I shall now make a few remarks. His first alteration occurs in his word 'Witgaer,' which he changes into the two words 'eom gaer.' The word ' eom ' appears to be open to a few ob- jections. The letters in this word require five per- pendicular or full upright strokes, while on the stone there are only three. Besides, in the Anglo-Saxon language, the word ' eom ' is either a pronoun, mean- Maugharis Second Account, i8jj 1 17 ing ' to them ' — ' eom ' for ' heom,' and that for the dative plural 'him" : or else it is the indicative mood of the defective verb 'wesan' — 'to be,' and signifies, in plain English, ' I am.' I know of no instance where ' eom ' occurs for the preposition ' in.' An objection may also be raised against the word 'gaer.' In Anglo-Saxon we have the word ' gear,' signifying ' a year,' but not the word ' gaer.' The Runic characters on the stone may be read 'gar' or ' gaer,' but not ' gear ' ; and hence, probably, he takes the liberty of transposing the vowels E and A, but we may question whether the liberty is not an unwarrantable one. I find a trace of every mark nec- essary for the word 'Waethgar' ; but I feel bound to say that ' eom gaer ' appears a very doubtful read- ing. It also appears very doubtful whether Alfrid did die in the great pestilence year, for, according to Bede, he was alive in the following year. In the first reading he introduced Roetbert as one of the party who erected the monument to Alcfrid, but in his second reading he supposes the monument to be raised to him and King Alcfrid. Of this Roet- bert history leaves us no record, which appears rather strange if he was so eminent a personage as to be considered worthy of sharing the monument with King Alcfride. From what I have previously said on this word, however, a doubt may be fairly entertained whether the word ' Roetbert ' ever was placed on the monument. He alters the word ' umae ' into ' ymb,' which signifies ' about,' — ' around,' i. e., something winding about or compassing. It is very evident, however, that a stone pillar (although it is fifteen feet in length) would be a very unsuitable winding-sheet for the corpse of King Alcfrid. Its use on this monument, n8 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross signifying 'in memory of,' seems rather a forced one. Besides, its proper position should have been before both the words 'Roetbert' and ' Alcfrid,' and not between them, as it has reference to both words. The word ' gicegsed ' appears to have some remark- able transformations rendering it what may be termed a ' far fetched ' word. I presume that it is originally derived from the verb 'biddan' — 'to pray,' which, in the imperative mood, plural number, is thus formed ' biddath ' — ' pray ye.' In the first transformation, then, we have the word ' biddath ' changed into 'biddaed.' In the second transformation we have ' biddsed ' changed into ' bigaed.' In the third we have ' bigasd ' changed into ' cegaed.' In the fourth we have the expletive ' ge ' changed into ' gi.' Besides these transformations, which appear very forced and unwarrantable, very grave doubts may be entertained whether such Runic characters can be really traced on the stone. I have not seen Mr. Haigh's second readings of the other parts of the stone. After examining the chief inscription Mr. Haigh in- quired if there were any traces of letters on any other part of the Cross. I directed his attention to the flat space near the top on the north side, where I had observed some traces. He mounted a ladder, and soon found the letters to which I had directed him. After a little examination with his finger — scratching among the moss with the point of his knife — and then taking a rubbing, he made out the word ' Gessu,' as he supposed, and satisfied himself that there was noth- ing besides. I afterwards cleared the stone from its thick coat of lichens and moss, took careful rubbings, and painted the stone, [37] and I ascertained that the inscription consisted of three crosses and the word ' Gessus,' as I have previously stated. Maughan's Second Account, iSjy 119 He then set the ladder against the west side, and examined the plain surface near the top, but soon pronounced it barren, and that the inscription on this side (if ever there was one) was totally broken off. By careful examination I found remains of the word ' Kristtus.' In a letter which I have since received from him, he stated that he had found the letter A on the west side, when he examined it (of which, however, I heard nothing said at the time), and that he suspected it was the first letter of the word ' Al- pha,' and that the word ' Omega ' would have been on the east side, which is now totally gone. He read the inscriptions on these plain surfaces thus : ' Gessu ' on the north side ; ' Kriste ' on the south side ; w Al- pha ' on the west side ; and ' Omega ' on the east side ; making the sentence ' Jesu Christ, the begin- ning and the ending.' This certainly is a very in- genious reading, but it is not confirmed by the exist- ing traces of the letters. He then examined the south side, and soon found what he had anticipated, namely, the word, or at least a part of the word, ' Kristte,' to correspond, as he said at the time, with the two lines on the west side, which I had discovered long before. After partly clearing away the moss with the point of his knife, and taking a rubbing, he was convinced that he had found the characters — 3k C R I S very distinct, forming part of the word CRISTE. On a more careful examination, however, I found the letters 120 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross to be LICE. These letters are now, when cleaned, very- perfect, will receive the end of the finger very easily, and are quite visible to the eye. There fortunately cannot now be two opinions about them. He next proceeded to inspect the other single lines on the south side of the pillar. He examined the top line, and concluded that there had been nothing there. He then came down to the next one, and after rubbing it a while with his finger, he fancied there might be letters. After a little further examination, he said he could find the words ' Ecgfrid Cyng,' ' King Egfrid.' n«#WH#^ He then scraped the moss with the point of his knife in the places where he fancied the letters were lurk- ing, and afterwards took a rubbing on strong dry paper (rubbing both ways across the stone, and then up and down) which rubbing, as a matter of course, gave him a faint trace — at least of the letter or marks which he had scratched in the lichen — if of nothing else. He was not long till he satisfied himself per- fectly on this point, i. e. as to the words ' Ecgfrid Cyng' having once occupied a place there. This is the line which I read ' Rices thaes ' — ' of this king- dom.' His next step was to the line below, where, after a process something similar to the one already de- scribed, he found the word l Cyniburug,' the name of Alcfrid's queen. ^fi-ferun** This word I read ; kyninges,' — ' king.' In one of his earliest letters to me he stated that he expected Maugharis Second Account, iSjy 121 to find the word ' Cyneburg ' on one of the single lines on the south side to correspond with the same name on the north side. In the bottom line he readily found the words ' Oswu Cyning elt,' — ' Oswy King the elder, as he had pre- viously given them. These words I read thus — ' + fruman gear' — 'in the first year.' He then said that there was one name which be should have liked better to have seen than any of them, and that was the name of Queen Eanfleda. I suggested that it might perhaps be found on the top line if it were more strictly examined. He remounted the ladder, and after a few rubs with his finger across the stone he said — ' I do believe here is a letter.' After a few more rubs with his finger he again said — ' I do believe the name is here.' He then applied the knife awhile, and [38] took a rubbing as before, and found the word ' Eanflad,' in mm the first part of the line, and pronounced the remainder of the line blank. He was quite delighted with this discovery, and more especially with the particular form of the letter (EA). In fact, so overjoyed was he with the discovery of this interesting family tree (which he had possibly found in his own imagination before he left home) that he quite forgot to look at the lines on the north side of the monument. With more care- ful tests I have been induced to read this line — 'Ecg- frithu,' ' of Ecgfrid.' Thus clouded is the origin of the version with which Mr. Haigh has ventured to honour the members of the Newcastle Society of Antiquarians. He did not give 122 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross his version to the Society with a hood over his eyes, for he no sooner informed me of his intentions than I informed him of the true character of the rubbings which I had sent him. He however persisted in the correctness and accuracy of his version, stating that he had not only inspected the monument, but made rubbings of it, and traced the letters with his finger, and thus as- sured himself of its accuracy. I have also examined the monument and fingered the Runes many scores of times, and scores of times I have come to the conclusion that the decipherings were not correct on which on a former inspection I had not the least doubt or scruple. It is only by very slow steps, and by carefully examining and re-examining, that I have arrived at the conclusion that my version accords with the original. Mr. Haigh's inspection of the several parts of the monument, tracing the letters with his finger, scratching marks in the moss, and taking rub- bings of them, was limited to about two hours ; my examinations of the Cross have extended over twice the number of years. I have thought it necessary to enter into these minute details, and thus to put my readers in pos- session of every fact and circumstance connected with this version, in order that they may have sufficient data on which to form their own judgment as to the merits of the respective readings of the inscriptions on this important Memorial. XIV. HAIGH'S SECOND ACCOUNT, 1861. [This is taken from Haigh's Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, pp. 37, 39—41. The runes at the end are from Plate II, at the beginning of the volume.] [37] Two of them are of particular interest, as being of greater length than others, and presenting us with specimens of the Anglian dialect, as spoken in Nor- thumbria in the seventh century. The first, on the western face of the cross at Bewcastle in Cumberland, is simply a memorial of Alcfrid, who was associated by his father Oswiu with himself in the kingdom of Nor- thumbria, and died probably in A. D. 664. 1 It gives us (PI. I. fig. 2) three couplets 2 of alliterative verse, thus 3 : — t^t this sigbecun This memorial settle HWyETRED Hwaetred set em G^ERFiE boldu and carved this monument yEFTiER barje after the prince, ymb cyning alcfrid^ after the King Alcfrid, giceg^ed heosum sawlum pray for their souls. Other inscriptions on the same monument present merely names of some of Alcfrid's kindred, in which, however, some additional characters occur. The second inscription, on two sides of a similar cross at Ruthwell, in Annandale, which may possibly have been brought from Bewcastle, and once have stood at the other end of Alcfrid's grave, 4 consists, etc. . . . [39] The poem of which these are fragments was probably one of those which Caedmon, who was living at the time when these monuments were erected, composed. 5 That they belong to the seventh century cannot be doubted ; they contain forms of the language which are evidently earlier even than those which occur in the contemporary version of Baeda's verses in 124 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross a MS. at S. Gallen, and the copy of Csedmon's first song at the end of the MS. of the ' Historia Ecclesi- astica,' which was completed two years after its author's death. Thus hifun (ana[4o]logous to the Gothic sibun for seofen) is certainly an earlier form than hefaen and heben, which we find in the latter of these little poems. Em in the Bewcastle inscription is efen con- tracted. Boldu, 1 galgu, and dalgu, present a form of nouns which later would be monosyllabic. Heosum, 1 the dative plural of the possessive pronoun of the third person, regularly formed, like usum, from the genitive of the personal, (hire, ure\ occurs only in the Bewcastle inscription ; ungcet, the dual of the first personal pronoun, only in that at Ruthwell. Gar fee 1 is a strange instance of a strong verb [41] taking an ad- ditional syllable in the praeterite ; but it seems to be warranted by scopa in Csedmon's song, and even by ahofe in the Durham ritual ; and the analogy of the Sanscrit praeterite (tutopa, tutopa), and the Greek (TSTucpoe, Te-rucps), shows that such forms as these, not only for the third person, but for the first also, are more ancient than cearf, scop, and ahof. rmmm fofcrwirih NOTES i 2 NOTES [The references are to page and note. Date signifies The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses {Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts and Sciences 17. 213—361), which may be con- sulted for photographs of the crosses, as well as the discussion of details.] li. Buechastell. For the derivation and various spellings of this name, see Date, pp. 96—8; and compare instances below. 12. Hubert de Vaux received the barony of Gil(le)sland from Henry II in 1158 {Date, p. 100). His son, Robert de Vaux, founded the priory of Lanercost in 1169 {Date, p. 98). The inscription must have been that now read as Cynnburug {Date, p. 26). Is. The 'cheeky coate' in the panel of chequers {Date, p. 26), thought of as a coat of arms. 14. Does 'other' here mean the south face? 1 5. b and R are much alike in Runic and Roman. By beginning at the B of Cynnburug (as commonly read), taking the first U as a somewhat angular O (see Date, Fig. 26), and the second u as a battered A, one might possibly, con- sidering the defaced condition of the final letter, arrive at BORAX; the E would occasion more difficulty, and one would have to disregard the previous letters. As for VAUX, one might take the first u for Roman V, regard the R as A, deal boldly with the second u, and again take the final letter as x; Hubert de would require more conjuring. (A con- venient table of 'commoner Anglian runes' may be found in Wyatt's Old English Riddles, opposite p. xxviii.) 2 i. Vaulx. It seems as though Camden had adopted Roscar- rock's suggestion (see p. 1). See note on p. 148. 3 i. untoward part. Cf. pp. 12, 23, and Date, pp. 147—8. If we may believe Hutchinson {Hist. Cumb. 1. 78), Bewcastle was not always a tiny hamlet : 'Bewcastle seems to have [I2 7 ] 128 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross anciently been an extensive town, by the scites and ruins of houses, which yet remain.' 32. Curate. See p. 10. 3 a. Communicated. On April 18, 1629, Sir Henry Spelman (1564 ?— 1641) wrote a letter from London to Palaemon (or Palle) Rosencrantz, the Danish ambassador to England, in which, among other things, he refers to a recent book of the runologist Olaus Worm (1588—1654), who, after occupy- ing successively the chairs of belles lettres (1613—5) and Greek (1615—1624) at Copenhagen, had been made Professor of Medicine in 1624. Spelman would like to learn whence runes derive their name, and to what country and people they properly belong. In particular, he submits a runic inscription for Worm to interpret. This, he says, came from the epistyle of a stone cross at Bewcastle, in the north of England, where the Danes had been numerous. The inscription had been shown by Lord William Howard to Camden and himself together, in 1618, eleven years before. In his Latin this runs: ' Sculpta fuit hsec Inscriptio Epistylio crucis lapidese, Beu- castri partibus Anglise borealibus (ubi Dani plurimum versa- bantur) Cambdenoque & mihi simul exhibita Anno Domini 1618, ab Antiquitatum inter proceres Angliae peritissimo Domino Guilielmo Howard novissimi Ducis Norfolcise filio' (Worm, Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex, p. 161). The inscription is printed by Worm as follows: rtlkMNfc^NtiM. On July 18 of the same year Worm replies. The inscription is indeed runic, but the copy, made by an unskilful person, is incomplete, and wrong in the case of at least five letters. He proposes to make the necessary corrections, and so to read: Rino satu runa stina d (the d being for p) ; that is, ' Rino set runic stones these.' The Latin is (p. 168) : ' Inscriptio epistilii crucis lapideae Beucastriensis vere Gothica seu Runica est, sed ab imperito haud plane descripta; nam nee integra est, nee 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 notse confusionem & depra- vationem effugere. . . . Quod si ita legendum ? ' After giving his conjectural runes, their transliteration, and the Latin, Notes 129 Rino lapides hos runicos -posuit, he proceeds to express the wish that Spelman would have the inscription more accur- ately copied by some one not wholly ignorant of the literature, in which case he would do what he could with it. The explanation of Worm's extraordinary answer is to be found, as Wilhelm Grimm long afterwards saw (Ueber Deutsche Runen, Gottingen, 1821, pp. 165—6) in the fact that the Scandinavian runes differ in some respects from the Old English ones, and that Worm was unfamiliar with the latter (for instance, he reads as N the Old English rune for c). Accordingly, he made various arbitrary changes, provided a plural verb for a singular nominative, and used the plural, 'stones,' where evidently only one stone is in question. According to an entry in the British Museum Cottonian MS. Domitian A. 18, fol. 37, the inscription was on a cross- head ( Spelman 's epistylium cruris) found at Bewcastle in 1615. The entry, which I suspect to be in the hand of Sir Robert Cotton, follows : -f£ti fniLnjfhv* **a* en f&* htatt *f a crvfr jcuns* t -/^r Kncf/i e$ -— ^f- - meter Cotton MS. Julius F. 6 has a similar entry on fol. 313 (form- erly 297), recto, which looks like a rough draft, on a torn and mended sheet, of that in the Domitian MS. The runes (at the left) are of the same form, but larger. The English (at the right) is in a ruder hand; it omits the first two lines, and reads 'bringe', 'a crosse', ' deth', and' nes'. In a print-hand, at right angles to the foregoing: 'Bucastle inscription | For Mr. Clarenceaulx ' . 130 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross But the runes are again recorded on a slip of paper be- tween pages 643 and 644 of Bodleian MS. Smith I, Camden's copy of his Britannia. There is no doubt, according to Sir George Frederic Warner, that the entry which follows is in Cotton's own hand: A l n. a s UtrmKHAHHFSI && *" A -fen* jZ~<> **■ ■»■»■> ZZ <+* »•■»•**• &>*> £ «»£ -£&Tt vrnO'^S **,*,;£+#■ A** / a~3 t<~ ?>» &/». **« *«~ :£* **~ty*~» w oStt. -*■«// f^^ H-n^-tyiM /**■>*/ £*»» «* /£/W*v*~M ~fZryyk~ ^* emeu-*/.. -. * ' For convenience, I print the part of the entry which concerns us, supplying punctuation: ' I receaued this morning a ston from my lord of Arundell sent him from my lord William ; it was the head of a Cross at Bewcastell. All the lettres leg able ar thes in on[e] line. And I have sett to them such as I can gather out of my Alphabetts: that lyk an A I can find in non. But wether thes be only lettres or words I somwhatt dout.' The purport I take to be this: Lord William Howard, who in 1618 had shown the cross-head to Camden and Spel- man (see above), sent it, at some time between this and 1623 (when Camden died) to Thomas Howard (1586—1646), second Earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundel marbles and other works of art, who (promptly?) turned it over to Cotton. Some of the letters were legible, others not; such as were legible were in a single line. Cotton searched in his runic alphabets to find how these letters should be trans- literated. R he seems at first sight to have mistaken for V, but his small r's much resemble v's, so possibly it is R. C (k) he misreads as N, as did Worm. About D he is uncertain whether it may not be an M — pardonable enough, y he gives up. t he reads asF. The other letters he interprets correctly. Notes 131 Cotton, immediately upon receipt of the stone, sends a note from his house at Westminster, on the site of the present House of Lords, to his former teacher and constant friend, Camden, then probably residing at Chislehurst, eleven miles southeast of London; and afterwards sees to it that the particulars concerning the inscription shall be preserved, by inserting them in one of his manuscripts. Thus, in the first quarter of the seventeenth century, there were (and are still) extant four copies of the same in- scription — that printed in Worm's book, and three in manu- script. Of the three, two are now in Cotton manuscripts of the British Museum, and another in the Bodleian library. These all agree, save that those in Worm and the Bodleian slip have Y as the 8th letter, while the two of the British Museum read u, as the result of omitting an interior stroke. In 1703 Hickes {Thesaurus, Praef., p. XII) and Wanley (Catalogus, p. 248) read (with help from the Bodleian copy ?) rynas Dryhtnes (Hickes, Drithnesl), 'mysteries of the Lord,' and Wanley reproduces the Domitian copy of runes. In 1741, Pontoppidan, in his Gesta et Vestigia Danorum extra Daniam 2. 14, reproduces Spelman's runes from Worm (somewhat toppling to the right the twelfth letter), and gives a new rendering, furnished by Christian Helverschov, formerly Counsellor of Justice and Provincial Judge in Denmark. Helverschov supposes the runes to represent an utterance of Christ on the cross — Vilos ero ateos — which he takes to be vile Latin for Vilis ero atheis : ' I shall be vile to the god- less'; whereupon Pontoppidan gravely doubts whether the initial letters of these three words have been quite correctly read. He ends with a copy of Worm's emended line. In 1821, W 7 ilhelm Grimm (op. cit., p. 167), takes up the matter of the inscription at Bevercastle (sic), near Nottingham (there is a Bevercoates near Tuxford), reproduces it from Worm, and renders it as rices Dryhtnes, observing at the same time that the e of the ending is not represented by the usual rune. He interprets the Old English as 'of the realm's domin- ion,' namely (p. 168), 'the rule of heaven over earth'; or, 'the power of the earthly realm through the acceptance of 132 Some Accounts of the Bewcastie Cross the cross'; or, most probably, 'the sway of the jurisdiction,' according to which the cross would have served to mark the boundary of a district. In 1840, Kemble (Archceologia 28. 346) reproduces the Spelman inscription, and renders by ricces Dryhtnces, 'Do- mini potentis,' for '[signum] Domini potentis.' But what bearing has all this upon the Bewcastie Cross? 'On the head of a cross found at Beucastell in 1615,' says the Domitian MS. Sent (between 1618 and 1623) by Belted Will to his half-nephew, says Cotton's slip. Was the cross found in 1615 ? Then it was not our cross, written about in 1607 by a member of Belted Will's household (see p. 1, above). Was it the cross-head that was found in 1615 ? Then it could not have been on our cross in 1607. Was it disinterred in 1615, having originally belonged to our cross? If so, was it the cross-beam, or the portion immediately above? It has neither the shape nor the dimensions which fit either of these suppositions (Date, p. 122). Then it is not a part of our cross, but of some other cross. But if it was the portion above the cross-beam, and stood upon its edge, the cross must have been at once broader and thinner than the present. (Few of the Scottish slabs were so thin as 4 inches, but there is one at Brodie (Allen, Early Christ. Mori. 3. 132), not far from Forres in Elgin, which tapers upward from 5 inches to 4, its height being 5 feet 4 inches, and its breadth, 3 feet 5 inches to 3 feet 2 inches. Significant in this connection is the one at Keills in Argyll pictured by Allen (between pp. 390 and 391), 7 feet 4 inches high, 1 foot 9 inches across the arms, and 6V2 inches thick.) And if it was the cross-beam itself, and lay upon its broader face (a rather improbable suppo- sition), the cross must have been much shorter than the present one, in order that the thickness of four inches should bear some due proportion to the height of the cross. Observing, too, that the ending -ces (as Kemble has told us : op. cit., p. 346) is a mark of antiquity, why may we not assume that this was the head of an older cross, of quite different shape, fallen, perhaps overthrown and covered with earth, and with some of the letters illegible. Might not Notes 133 such an older cross have been removed when the newer - , and perhaps more highly ornamented one, was erected ? In thus superseding the older one, the sculptor of the present, cross might or might not have adapted the work of his prede- cessor. If so, an older Cyniburg might in this way have be- come Cynnburug. It will be evident that epistylium cruris, in the light of Cotton's entries, must mean cross-head (Wilhelm Grimm said 'Queerstiick,' cross-beam, transverse piece), and that all attempts to make the phrase mean the existing shaft, the lowest inscription on the south face, etc., are due to mis- apprehension. 4i. Nicolson here assumed that the inscription sent to Worm was part of that on the west face. 42. Epystilium signified to Nicolson the whole cross. See note on 3 3. 43. five yards. Cf. pp. 12, 17, 25. 44. white oyly Cement. Frequently transcribed by later writers. 4 5. two foot. Compare the figures on pp. 12, 25. 4 6. Here is the first decipherment of this line, and clearly Cynnburug. See Date, pp. 12, 26, 37, 43—44, and above, pp. 10, 11. 5i. Interpreting Ryn- as 'runes,' and -buru as 'burial.' 61. The last two letters are meant for NN. 62. More antient date. See note on I2. 81. Compare these with the previous reading, p. 7. 9i. Cf. Date, pp. 98-9 (note). 92. Perhaps properly Tonge; cf. p. 10, and Miscellany Accounts, p. 163. 93. Benson. Mentioned in Nicolson's Diary, under 1704; see Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc, of America 17. 371. 94. As it does now. 9 5. Cf. note on 33. 10 1. 1695. 10 2. Again Cynnburug. 10 3. Thistle. The topmost vine? Or the sundial? 134 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 12 1. Obelisk. The first time it is so called. See Date, pp. 121-3. 122. Cf. Nicolson, p. 4. 123. Cf. Nicolson, p. 4. 124. Cross. The first suggestion of this. 13. For the third and fourth letters of Cynnburug, cf . pp. 4, 10, 11. 14. The inscription at the left is intended to reproduce the lowest one visible; cf. p. 8. 15 1. Southern Baltic, east of Jutland. 152. Note the advance in the interpretation. 153. The Massagetae inhabited what is now northern Khiva. For a so-called Massagetic alphabet, see Hickes, Thesaurus, Gram. Isl., Tabella I, bottom. 154. Not the European Don. 16 1. Buchanan. George Buchanan (1506—1582), Rer. Scot. Hist. 6. 74. 162. Died 900. 16 3. Never published. 164. Cf. Nicolson's view, p. 6. 16 5. Bride-Kirk. Cf. pp. 3, 7, 22, 24. 17 1. Cf. p. 12. 172. Cf. note on 124. 173. Dial. The earliest mention. 174. The earliest mention. 20 i. The reading of Cynnburug. 21 i. Cf. p. 7. 21 2. Eleventh century. A new date, unless this was what Nicolson had in mind ; see note on 6 2, p. 30, and p. 97, note 40. 21 3. Pomegranet. The dial? 21 4. Cf. note on 124. 22 i. Effigies. Note the fulness of the descriptions of the figures. 23 1. Cf. p. 4. 232. Cf. p. 5. 24 (plate, fig. 3). The stroke of the second n' in Cynn- burug is here faint. 25 i. See note on 4 s. Notes 135 252. Cf. note on 12 4. 253. Working. Cf. p. 21. 25 4. Cf. note on 24. 28 1. Holy lamb. Here first identified. 282. Cf. note on 14. 30 1. Again Cynnburug. 31 1. Cf. note on 14. 32 1. Baptist. Here first identified; cf. p. 23. 322. Hawk. Cf. pp. 4, 17, 22, 32. 323. Cf. note on 173. 324. Ed. Perhaps Albert Way (1805— 1874) ; see pp. 69, 72. 33 1. Mr. Smith. Rather Hutchinson; see p. 22. 35 1. The first mention of Dunstan in connection with the Cross. 36 1. An abstract of Dr. Edward Charlton's paper (read Jan. 2, 1856) is contained in the rare Vol. 1 (no more pub- lished) of the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of New- castle upon Tyne (1856), pp. 75—7. Dr. Charlton follows the readings, now of Maughan, whom he calls 'the zealous incum- bent of Bewcastle,' and dow of Haigh (I owe my information to the transcript obligingry made for me by Robert Blair, Esq., F. S. A., Secretary of the Society). Dr. Charlton says : ' Having with great care, cleansed the stone of its lichen and moss [cf. pp. 70, 118], Mr. Maughan took careful casts of the characters, and communicated copies to several archae- ologists, amongst others, to the Rev. Daniel Haigh. . . . On the north side of the cross is inscribed, very plainly, "Kyni- buruk" [cf. pp. 15, 99], or "Cyneburg," the name of a queen of Northumbria, being the wife of Alchfrid, son of Oswiu, king of Northumberland. On the western face, the inscription, as deciphered, is "THIS SIGBECUN SETTAE HW^TRED, W1TGAER, FELWOLD & ROETBERT, UM^E KYNING ALCFRITH^; GEBID^D HISSUM SAULA" — intimating that the four persons first named had set up this cross to King Alcfrith, and requested prayers for his soul. Roetbert is commemorated in the Falstone inscription, as dead.' Here Charlton follows Haigh (see pp. 107, 110, 111). He proceeds : . . . ' On the south face is a Runic inscription, interpreted by Mr. Haigh — "oswu 136 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross KYNING ELT," — or Oswy the King. "Elt" may possibly refer to his being the elder (or head) of the family [see p. 109]. This inscription confirms the supposition that the cross was reared in the lifetime of Oswy. No prayers being asked for the souls of Oswy and Cyneburga, as for the soul of Alch- frid, it may be inferred that they were still living. If so, the memorial must have been erected between 664, when we last hear of Alchfrid, and 670, when Oswy died.' ... In a note to his paper, Dr. Charlton refers to a new version of the Bew- castle inscription, published by Mr. Maughan in December, viz.: "This sigbeacithon saetta Hwaetred, Withgar, Aale- wolthu, aft Alcfrithu, ean Kunig eak Oswiuing. Igebid heo sinna sawhula." "Hwaetred, Withgar, and Alfwold, erected this little beacon in memory of Alfrid, at one time king with, and son of, Oswy. Pray for them, their sins and their souls." The Doctor thinks the version of Mr. Haigh, the more prob- able of the two, and nearer the truth. ' The chairman [Mr. John Hodgson Hinde] said, the paper was very interesting. At the same time, it would have been more conclusive if "Cyneburga" had not been deciphered first. Assuming the accuracy of the conclusions now before the meeting, it would seem that, contrary to the historians, the Anglo-Saxons had written characters before their con- version to Christianity.' 362. Penrith. See Collingwood's Early Sculptured Crosses, pp. 240 ff. 363. Camden. Rather, Cotton; see note on 33. 38 1. See note on 33. 382. This is taken from Worm's conjectural emendation (Dan. Mon., p. 168). 38s. Cf. p. 119. 39 1. These variants occur in the form presented by Dr. Charlton on March 2, 1856 (Newcastle Proc, p. 98, as communicated by Mr. Blair): line 1, DIS; 2, VN S^ET-; V ROETBERT. See pp. 110, 116. 392. Here, as in Ecgjrid (below) and Alcfrida (next page), the d is a Latinization of p, and would not occur in a runic inscription. Notes 137 393. His plate reads distinctly Cynn-. 40 1. Cf. Date, pp. 93-4. 41 i. Rit. 68. 11-12. 42i. ahofe. Rather, ahof, Rit. 61. 15. 422. gicegath. Normally, giceigad (see 7?*7. 173. 9, and cf. 175.21); but gicegad occurs 54. 3. The sense is 'call upon.' 423. It is hardly necessary to comment upon these con- jectures and assumptions. 424. Mora. And hiara (3). 43 1. See note on 423. 44 1. Cf. pp. 100, 102. 45 1. But Wilfrith went abroad to be consecrated in 664, and did not return till 666 (Bede, Op. Hist., ed. Plummer, 2. 317). 46 1. See my edition of The Dream of the Rood, pp. xi ff. 462. See Date, pp. 53—5. 47 1. Cf. note on 40 1. 48 1. Cf. p. 36, and Date, p. 75. 482. From Bewcastle? 51 1. See Date, pp. 111—3. 52 1. See p. 31. 522. See Date, pp. 121-3. 53 1. Rather, p. 318; see p. 13. 532. See p. 18. 533. See p. 24. 54i. See p. 24. 542. See p. 20. 543. See plate opposite p. 28. 544. See p. 2. Note the variations. 55 1. Cf. Date, p. 122. 552. 2. 478—9. They say the stone is 'about five feet and a half high/ 55 3. See note on 3 3. 554. Omit in. 55 6. See note on 3 3. 55 6. This comes ultimately from Worm's p. 162, but with two important changes. The eighth letter (= y) is properly an inverted v, with an oblique downward stroke from the 138 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross inside of the left leg. This Worm represents almost as in Maughan's plate, which makes it resemble an M, the fourth and twelfth letters, only tilted instead of upright. Maughan tilts all three; hence we should either read RICHES DR^EHT- isles, or ricys dryhtnys; but this Maughan does not see. 557. This is not Spelman's reading; Spelman could not read it, and therefore sent it to Worm; see below. 55 8. From Kemble. 559. Read Dryhtnes. 55 10. See note on 33. 56i. Rather Spelman. 562. See note on 554. 563. Here there are various deviations from Worm's runes. 564. Worm has stina d — 'these stones'; for 'made,' Worm has posuit, 'placed.' 56 5. Roden Dryhtness. I do not find this. Hickes says (Prsefatio, p. XIII) : ' Inveni Saxonicam crucis epigraphen, nempe, Rynas Drithnes [sic], mysteria domini, Uteris Runicis descriptam.' He then refers to Wanley (p. 248). 56e. For Nicolson. 56 7. Maughan seems to have followed the copy in Hutch- inson's Hist. Cumb. 1. 82—3. 568. For erlat. 56 9. Which Maughan has not reproduced (see p. 7). 56io. Published 1840. 57 1. Kemble's words are (p. 346): 'There has, therefore, been either a portion of the inscription lost, or the cross or pillar on which it stood was meant to be taken as part of the legend: — thus, Signum Domini Potentis.' 57 2. Pp. 346-7. 57 3. This is still unpublished; it was compiled by Jonathan Boucher (1738—1804), a friend of Washington's, for whom see Diet. Nat. Biog. 574. Omit 'the reader.' 575. This is from Nicolson. 58 1. See p. 24. 582. Robert White. At the meeting of the Society of Notes 139 Antiquaries of Newcastle on October 1, 1856, Mr. White said that, 'being recently in the neighbourhood of Bevvcastle, he stepped aside to view the famous cross which had so repeatedly been brought under their observation, and, to his astonishment, found that the portions containing the long- studied inscriptions had been painted! — painted blue! The Runic letters were indicated by black lines upon the blue, the painter tracing the lines as he himself deciphered them; and even where there were no letters decipherable at all, Runes were painted. To satisfy himself of this fact, he drew his finger over the painted characters, and found no corres- ponding hollows in the stone. . . . Dr. Charlton said, he had no doubt the paint had been applied with a commendable object — to preserve the cross from further injury; but the Runes, of course, should have been left to speak for them- selves, instead of being made to favour any particular reading. Mr. Henry Turner said, the paint would preserve the stone ; and the black lines, legitimate or not, would not affect the substance of the cross ' (Proc. 1. 165—6). In a letter to the Gateshead Observer of October 18, 1856, Mr. Maughan replied : ' My motive for so doing was neither to disfigure, to injure, nor to preserve the Cross, but merely to secure as much accuracy as possible in deciphering the inscriptions. A stone which has retained its inscriptions for twelve hundred years requires no such adventitious aid as a coat of paint, and it is difficult to conceive how such a puerile idea can have found a lodgment in the cranium of the antiquated patriarchs of such a renowned Society. . . . My object in painting those parts of the Cross where I had reason to suspect the existence of inscriptions, was simply to obtain every vestige, however obscure it might be; and I have been gratified by thus recovering several traces which it was impossible for the eye to detect before. The process is most unquestionably a good one, and the result has been satisfactory. The paint has not done the slightest injury to the stone, and in a few winters will entirely disappear. . . . The paint was a mixture of white and brown, and, when first applied, was as near as possible of the same grey colour k 140 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross as the old mossy covering with which the stone was coated. Since the application the brown has rather predominated over the white, and it has now a darker appearance. . . . I am ready to admit that there are black marks on the South and the North Sides of the Cross, where the letters have partly disappeared. I feel firmly convinced, however, that there is not a black mark in the chief inscription without its corresponding depression on the stone, although some of the tracings were all but obliterated. It was only by thus tracing the letters in black that I was able to arrive at the full and the clear conviction that my decipherings are probably correct '. At a meeting of the Society on August 5, 1857, there was 'a short conversation on the Bewcastle cross' and 'a joke or two on the recent controversy thereon and on the Rev. Mr. Maughan's latest pamphlet ' (Proc. , p. 263) . On September 2, 1857, a member said 'the cross had received a second coat of paint of a puce colour, over its former covering of blue (blue-blue, such as carts are painted with) and as these portions of the pillar which were not inscribed had been spared by the brush, it had a strange, motley aspect ' (p. 266). 59 1. I can not find that Mr. Howard ever made any such suggestion, but he had published (Archceologia 13 (1800). 309-312) a paper read on March 29, 1798, entitled, 'En- quiries concerning the Tomb of King Alfred at Hyde Abbey, near Winchester'; and he began his letter (p. 24, above) with a reference to the former article : ' The Society of Anti- quaries have honoured a communication of mine, respecting the tomb of Alfred, in a manner far beyond its deserts.' Maughan apparently confuses Alcfrith with Alfred the Great, who flourished more than two centuries later. 592. Referring to the plate on p. 15. 593. See note on 33. 594. See note on 33. 60 1. But see Anderson, Early Christ. Mon. of Scotland 1. xxviii— ix. 61 1. See Date, p. 123. Notes 141 63 1. See Date, p. 25. 64 1. See note on 36 1, end. 67 1. See Date, p. 37. 681. Properly, Verelius. 70 1. See Date, p. 58. 71 1. George Stephens (1813—1895) accepted, for the most part, Maughan's readings, and from him they were taken by Henry Sweet (Oldest English Texts, 1885, p. 124) and others. Stephens explains (Old-Northern Runic Monuments 1 (1866-7). 398) that his pictures of the cross (p. 399) were founded on Maughan's sketches, photographs, and rubbings, assisted by his Memoir, and that the completed drawings were again checked and corrected by Maughan from the stone itself. It is therefore not surprising that all Maughan's readings of illegible runes appear on the stone itself in Steph- ens ' two pictures of the cross, except that in the long inscrip- tion in Stephens' plate is sometimes reproduced by a, etc. In this (p. 402) the differences are (Stephens' readings in parenthesis) : beacn (been) ; Wcethgar (Wothgar) ; Alwfwolpu (Olwfwolthu) ; -ing (-ng) ; heo sinna (heo-sinna) ; sawhula (sowhula) ; and, in translation : Pray thou for them, their sins, their souls (Pray for the crime (high sin) of his soul). On the south face, he reads thcees for Maughan's thas, and after lice he conjectures he. At the top of the east face (p. 403) he conjectures a former frithes. On the north face he reads Kynnburug, and the rest on this face as Maughan does. As to Stephens' trustworthiness, I quote from Wimmer (Die Runenschrift, pp. XV, XVI, translated) : ' In everything for which runology is indebted to this man, a fantastic enthusiasm for the subject is coupled with the most amazing lack of insight into the questions dealt with, and with utter contempt for all scientific method. . . . My judgment also holds with reference to the treatment of Old English inscrip- tions, though here the author is concerned with his mother- tongue, and one can allow him a certain authority in virtue of his position. But where he can not depend upon the thorough work of predecessors, which he was fortunately able to do in the case of the larger inscriptions, but had to k2 142 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross strike out for himself, he is capable of reaching incredible results, as in his interpretation of the Brough stone in West- morland, where on ten folio pages he renders a Greek in- scription as Old English, in a dialect which he invented for the occasion.' Add Henry Bradley's opinion (Diet. Nat. Biog. 54. 173—4): 'His own contributions to the interpre- tation of the inscriptions are almost worthless, owing to his want of accurate philological knowledge. His method of translation consisted in identifying the words of the in- scriptions with any words of similar appearance that he could discover in the dictionaries of ancient or modern Scandi- navian languages, and then forming them into some plausible meaning without regard to grammar. ... A ludicrous illustra- tion of the worthlessness of his principles of decipherment is afforded by his treatment of the inscription found at Brough in Westmoreland, which he declared to be written in Anglian runes, and translated in accordance with that supposition. When it was pointed out that the inscription consisted of five Greek hexameters, Stephens frankly acknowledged his blunder, though the acknowledgment involved the con- demnation of nearly all that he had done in the decipherment of the inscriptions.' Stephens' views concerning the Brough inscription (the stone, discovered in 1879, is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) will be found in Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Arch. Soc, Vol. 5 (1881) ; his reprint (from MSm. de la Soc. Roy ale des Antiquaires du Nord, Copenhagen, 1882—4) of lectures delivered in the spring of 1881, entitled, Prof. S. Bugge's Studies in Northern Mythology (London, 1883), pp. 377—380 (with plate) ; and his Runic Monuments 3 (1884). 169—179 (with plate). For the discussion by Sayce, Ridge- way, Bradley, and various other scholars, see Academy 25 (1884). 421-2, 440, 458; 26 (1884). 10, 28, 47-8, 62, 77-8, 94-5, 137-9, 173; 27 (1885). 170, 336-7; Athenaum for 1884 2 . 664 (with plate), 741, 777, 813; Camb. Univ. Reporter for March 3, 1885 (pp. 495—8) ; Camb. Antiq. Soc. Report and Communications, No. 27 (Vol. 6, No. 1, 1887), pp. xxiii— xxix (read Feb. 23, 1885). The authoritative form of the Greek Notes 143 inscription will be found in Kaibel, Inset . Grcecce, Sicilia, et Italia, additis . . . Britannia (1890), p. 671. Stephens had rendered it (Camb. Antiq. Soc, as above, p. xxvii) ; ' Ingalang in Buckenhome bigged this gravekist of Cimokom, Ahl's wife but born in Ecby at Ackleigh. Holy into destruction walked she. The mound Oscil, Osbiol, Cuhl, Oeki made. The body all-friend Christ, young, reaches after death; eke sorrow's cry never moves me more.' Professor E. C. Clark thus rendered the Greek in a free metrical paraphrase (same page) : Hermes of Commagene here — Young Hermes, in his sixteenth year — Entombed by fate before his day Beholding, let the traveller say: — Fair youth, my greeting to thy shrine Though but a mortal course be thine, Since all too soon thou wing'dst thy flight From realms of speech to realm of night; Yet no misnomer art thou shewn, Who with thy namesake God art flown. 71 2. The character which, with Maughan, represents M in HW.ETRED, W^ethgar (p. 110), represents A in BEACN (110), FRUMAN, GEAR (96), KYNESWITHA (102), MYRCNA (102), WOTHGAR, ALWFWOLTHU, AFT, ALCFRITHU, EAN, EAC, SINNA, SAWHULA, twice (110), and o in SEXTON, ALWFWOLTHU, Oswiuing, HEO (110). With Haigh, it represents o in Flwoldu (110), heosum (116). With Stephens, it represents in setton, Wothgar, Olwf- wolthu, Oswiuing, heo-, sowhula (402). The true value of this rune is 0. The character which, with Haigh, represents m in SETTLE, HW.ETRED, WlTGyER, GEBIDiED (so for GEGID.EL)), ALC- FRITH.E (110), represents A in ALCFRTTH.E, sawlum (110; cf. also 116), Eanflad (121), and o in Oswu (109). With Stephens, it represents M in Hw^etred (402), threes (403). Its true value is m. The character which, with Haigh, represents o in Roetbert (110), with Stephens represents A in Wothgar, AFT, 144 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross ALCFRITHU, EAN, EAC, SINN A, SOWHULA (402), FRUMAN, GEAR (403), Kyneswitha, Myrcna (404). Its true value is A. The character which, with Maughan, represents m in TH^S (95), with Stephens represents me in th^es (403). Ea is written with two characters in BEACN, EAN, EAC by Maughan (110) and Stephens (402), and by Maughan in GEAR (97), but as one character by Haigh in Eanfl^d, preaster (39), Eanflad (121) . It is properly written as one. Two runes are written in combination by Maughan (called by Maughan 'trirunor/ and by Stephens 'bind-stave' or 'tie') for m (95), MA (96), EA, ON, jet, MTTL, HU (110), THU (94, 110) ; ER is thus written by Haigh (110). These seem to be otherwise unexampled in Old English runes (cf . Stephens, pp. 401, 403). The reading of THU in Cynnburthug (99) makes nonsense of the word. NG is represented as two characters by Maughan in kyninges (96), kyng (102), and by Haigh in kyng (120); but as one character by Haigh in CYNING (39 (3), 109, 110), cyngn, twice (39), and by Maughan (for ing) in CYNIING, OswiuiNG (110). It is properly written as one (see Hickes, Thesaurus, Gram. Isl., Tabella II). 72 i. See p. 32. 722. Not in Nicolson's letter; cf. p. 22. 73 1. Never. 732. There is no OE. word thun; the nearest approach to it is dyn{ne), din(ne), 'thin.' 74 i. There is no ean in OE. 742. In the seventh century, ge- would have been gi-; see Caedmon's Hymn. 743. 'To pray for' is regularly (ge)biddan for, with the accusative or (less often) dative. 744. A Celtic, not an OE. word. 75 i. Wrong. 752. Impossible. 78 i. Wrong. 80 1. See Date, pp. 42-3. 802. As a Latin genitive: Signum manus Alhfripi. Notes 145 80s. Properly, Riemmelth. 81 1. Stephenson's. Properly, Stevenson's. 81 2. Published 1838. 81 3. Aldfrid. There was a tenth-century Aldred, the pro- vost, who transcribed four collects in the Durham Ritual; cf. Stevenson's preface to his edition, pp. ix, x. 82 1. As late as 1911, we find such a scholar as Dalton saying (Byzantine Art and Archceology, p. 236, note 3) : 'The Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses are of the same age, and the former is dated by the mention of Alcfrith.' And in 1912 Prior and Gardner say (Mediceval Figure-Sculpture in England, p. 117), referring to Maughan's views concerning Ecgfrith (p. 94, above) : ' It is true the last important word [Ecgfrith] is much defaced. But doubt is set at rest by the runes in other parts of the inscriptions — said to be quite distinct — of recorded contemporaries, one of these being Alcfrith.' Prior and Gardner, it may be said in passing, by referring the Bridekirk Font to the twelfth century (p. 94), weaken the force of Dalton 's statement (loc. cit.) : ' Runes would have been unintelligible in the twelfth century.' Cf. Collingwood, Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 68 ff . Collingwood, in the Victoria History of Cumberland (1901), 1. 277—8, (cf. pp. 256—7), says of the inscriptions on the Bewcastle Cross : ' The reading which may be called the Textus Receptus, though not without difficulties, we owe mainly to the late Rev. J. Maughan of Bewcastle. It is as follows. . . . The main purport of the [long] inscription seems to be fairly clear. If the Bewcastle cross is to be dated 671, as its inscrip- tion and ornament seem to suggest, these runes are the ear- liest dated piece of English writing in existence ' ; cf . his Early Sculpt. Crosses, pp. 44—47. Dr. Thomas Hodgkin, Fellow of the British Academy, speaking of the Bewcastle Cross in 1906 (Hunt and Poole, Pol. Hist. Eng. 1. 172), called it 'a monument raised to his [Alchfrith's] memory.' He referred to the 'inscription which, though not yet deciphered beyond dispute, certainly says that the stone was raised as a memorial of "Alchfrith, son of Oswy, and aforetime King." ... An inscription seems 146 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross to record that it was reared in the first year of his brother Egfrid, that is in 670/ To him ' the standing figure of a man with a bird on his wrist' was 'perhaps King Alchfrid himself with his falcon.' He thought it possible, however, that 'the reading of one line of the inscription, "Pray for his soul's great sin"' might 'prove too fanciful to be ac- cepted by future students.' 83 1. Bede merely says that Oswy held the kingdom for 28 years with great difficulty, being warred upon by the heathen Mercians, Alchfrith, and Ethelwald. 84i. Rather 651 (Bede 5.24). 842. Late in 665 or early in 666 (Bright, Early Eng. Church Hist., p. 213), Chad was sent to Canterbury by Oswy to be consecrated bishop of York, as Wilfrith, at Alcfrith's instance, had been consecrated in France a year or so earlier. Plummer says (2. 198) : 'It is certain that at this point he [Alcfrith] disappears from history ; and probable that that disappearance, whether by death or exile, was due to his rebellion against his father;' cf. Bright, p. 212. 843. Bede's mention in 3.14 is nothing to the purpose; but cf. 3. 21. 844. Misprint for 'reigned.' 85 1. Bede and Eddi agree. 861. Cuthbert was not consecrated bishop till 685; it was Ecgfrith who was instrumental in having Cuthbert called (Bede 4.28). 862. John was made bishop in 687, under king Aldfrith. 86 s. At the Synod of Whitby, 664. 87 1. Rather, Iona. 881. Bede distinctly says Oswy (3.28). 882. Chad. 89 1. Misprint for 664. 892. 664, according to Plummer (Bede, Op. Hist. 2.317). 90 1. Properly, Ettmuller. 91 1. Soon after 642, and not later than 645 (Plummer 2. 165). 91 2. As he died in 725 (Bede 5. 23), he must indeed have been young in 645, or earlier. Notes 147 92 1. This Alfwold died in 749 (Plummer 2. 107). 92a. Kemble, Cod. Dipt. 2.337. 94 1. Rather, lichama, lichoma. 96 1. Such forms in -es (instead of -ces), did they exist on the stone, would prove that the inscriptions were not of the 7th century; see Ccedmon's Hymn; Sievers, Gram. 237, note 1; Kemble, Archceologia 28.346). 962. This word, if it could be so read, would end in -e (or very early -i: Sievers, Gram. 237, note 2); see Wiilfing, Syntax 125. 963. See Date, p. 42, note 1. 97 1. Read 'Nicolson.' 98 1. Rather -buru; the error is from Hutchinson, like 'Nicholson' for 'Nicolson.' 982. Aldhelm's. Anselm of Canterbury lived 1033-1109. 99 1. Cf. p. 25. 992. The two readings are exactly the same. 99s. Arch. 28. 347, and PI. 16. 15. 994. Cyniburuh. 99 s. See p. 57. 99e. 3.21. 100 1. But Bede died in 735. 101 1. It was Osric, King of the Hwiccas, who founded the monastery of St. Peter's at Gloucester, and he surely was not the son of the Mercian Penda, nor, consequently, the brother of Cyniburg. 102 1. In the seventh century, this would be Cyni- (Kyni-) ; see Bede, ed. Plummer, 2.446—7. 1022. See the Saxon Chronicle (Laud MS.) under 656 and 963. Both she and Cyniburg were buried at Caistor. 102 3. These are impossible as seventh-century forms. 103 1. In the seventh century, this word would have been Wulfheri (Sievers, Gram. 246, note 1; Bede, ed. Plummer, 1. 141, 199, 206, 207, 354). 105i. White. See p. 58. 1052. See note on 36 1. 106 1. See note on 59 1. 106 2. See pp. 96, 108, 121. 148 Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross 108 1. No such rune is known to me. llOi. UM^E should have been transliterated UME, and the last two lines should read: EBID.ED: HE OSUM: SAWLUM, allowing the M of the first line to be identical with the A of the second. 116 1. hissum and heosum are equally impossible. 123 1. See p. 43. 1232. See pp. 40, 76. 1233. See pp. 39, 41. 1234. See pp. 36, 48. 123 5. See pp. 45, 46. 124i. See p. 42. Supplementary note on 2i. The nucleus of Camden's statement is to be found in a communication made to him by Mr. Bainbrigg, schoolmaster at Appleby, who made a tour in 1601 (Camden was never in Cumberland save in 1599), in the interest of the Britannia. His words are (Cott. Julius F. 6, fol. 321) : 'Crux quae est in caemiterio est viginti fere pedum, ex uno quadrato lapide graphice exciso cum hac inscriptione : D+BOROX-* Talem Edwardus primus in Alienorae conjugis memoriam posuit, vel qualem Roisia mulier eo tempore celeberrima ad Roistone statuit.' This is apparently the very first mention of the Bewcastle Cross, and accounts for Roscarrock's statement about Eborax. See Professor F. Haverfield's communication in Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antiq. and Archceol. Assoc, N. S. 11 (1911). 355 (cf. 349, 376, 377). * In Bainbrigg's manuscript the D has a vertical stroke in the middle. YALE STUDIES IN ENGLISH. Albert S. Cook, Editor. I. The Foreign Sources of Modern English Versification. Charlton M. Lewis, Ph.D. $0.50. II. iElfric : A New Study of his Life and Writings. Caroline Louisa White, Ph.D. $1.50. III. The Life of St. Cecilia, from MS. Ashmole 43 and MS. Cotton Tiberius E. VII, with Introduction, Variants, and Glossary. Bertha Ellen Lovewell, Ph.D. $1.00. PV. Dryden's Dramatic Theory and Practice. Margaret Sher- wood, Ph.D. $0.50. V. Studies in Jonson's Comedy. Elisabeth Woodbridge, Ph.D. $0.50. VI. A Glossary of the West Saxon Gospels, Latin-West Saxon and West Saxon-Latin. Mattie Anstice Harris, Ph.D. $1.50. VTL Andreas : The Legend of St. Andrew, translated from the Old English, with an Introduction. Robert Kilburn Root, Ph.D. $0.50. VTU. The Classical Mythology of Milton's English Poems. Charles Grosvenor Osgood, Ph.D. $1.00. DC. A Guide to the Middle English Metrical Romances dealing with English and Germanic Legends, and with the Cycles of Charlemagne and of Arthur. Anna Hunt Billings, Ph.D. $1.50. X. The Earliest Lives of Dante, translated from the Italian of Giovanni Boccaccio and Lionardo Bruni Aretino. James Robinson Smith. $0.75. XI. A Study in Epic Development. Irene T. Myers, Ph.D. $1.00. XH. The Short Story. Henry Seidel Canby, Ph.D. $0.30. XUI. King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. Henry Lee Hargrove, Ph.D. $1.00. Yale Studies in English XIV. The Phonology of the Northumbrian Gloss of St. Matthew. Emily Howard Foley, Ph.D. $0.75. XV. Essays on the Study and Use of Poetry by Plutarch and Basil the Great, translated from the Greek, with an Introduction. Frederick M. Padelford, PhD. $0.75. XVI. The Translations of Beowulf: A Critical Bibliography. Chauncey B. Tinker, Ph.D. $0.75. XVII. The Alchemist, by Ben Jonson, edited with Intro- duction, Notes, and Glossary. Charles M. Hatha. way, Jr., Ph.D. $2.50. Cloth, $3.00. XVIII. The Expression of Purpose in Old English Prose Hubert Gibson Shearin, Ph.D. $1.00. XLX. Classical Mythology in Shakespeare. Robert Kilburn Root, Ph.D. $1.00. XX. The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage. Elbert N. S. Thompson, Ph.D. $2.00. XXL The Elene of Cynewulf, translated into English Prose. Lucius Hudson Holt, Ph.D. $0.30. XXII. King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies, turned into Modern English. Henry Lee Hargrove, Ph.D. $0.75. XXDI. The Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons. William O. Stevens, Ph.D. $0.75. XXIV. An Index to the Old English Glosses of the Durham Hymnarium. Harvey W. Chapman. $0.75. XXV. Bartholomew Fair, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduc- tion, Notes, and Glossary. Carroll Storrs Alden, PhD. $2.00. XXVI. Select Translations from Scaliger's Poetics. Frederick M. Padelford, Ph.D. $0.75. XXVII. Poetaster, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. Herbert S. Mallory, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. XXVm. The Staple of News, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. De Winter, PhD. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. Tale Studies in English XXIX. The Devil is an Ass, by Ben Jonson, edited with In- troduction, Notes, and Glossary. William Savage Johnson, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. XXX. The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to the Gospel of St. Luke. Margaret Dutton Kellum, Ph.D. $0.75. XXXI. Epicoene, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction Notes, and Glossary. Aurelia Henry, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. XXXH. The Syntax of the Temporal Clause in Old English Prose. Arthur Adams, Ph.D. $1.00. XXXin. The Knight of the Burning Pestle, by Beaumont and Fletcher, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. Herbert S. Murch, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. XXXrV. The New Inn, by Ben Jonson, edited with Intro- duction, Notes, and Glossary. George Bremner Tennant, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth, $2.50. XXXV. A Glossary of Wulfstan's Homilies. Loring H. Dodd, Ph.D. $1.00. XXXVI. The Complaint of Nature, translated from the Latin of Alain de Lille. Douglas M. Moffat. $0.75. XXXVII. The Collaboration of Webster and Dekker. Fred- erick Erastus Pierce, Ph.D. $1.00. XXXVm. English Nativity Plays, edited with Introduction Notes, and Glossary. Samuel B. Hemingway, Ph.D. $2.00. Cloth $2.50. XXXIX. Concessive Constructions in Old English Prose. Josephine May Burnham, Ph.D. $1.00. XL. The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, by John Milton, edited with Introduction and Notes. William Talbot Allison, Ph.D. $1.25. XLI. Biblical Quotations in Middle English Literature before 1350. Mary W. Smyth, Ph.D. $2.00. XLIL The Dialogue in English Literature. Elizabeth Merrill, Ph.D. $1.00. Yale Studies in English XLIII. A Study of Tindale's Genesis, compared with the Genesis of Coverdaleand of the Authorized Version. Elizabeth Whittlesey Cleaveland, Ph.D. $2.00. XLIV. The Presentation of Time in the Elizabethan Drama. Mable Buland, Ph.D. $1.50. XLV. Cynthia's Revels, or, The Fountain of Self-Love, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. Alexander Corbin Judson, Ph.D. $2.00. XL VI. Richard Brome: A Study of his Life and Works. Clarence Edward Andrews, Ph.D. $1.25. XL VII. The Magnetic Lady, or, Humors Reconciled, by Ben Jonson, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. Harvey Whitefield Peck, Ph.D. $2.00 XLV1II. Genesis A (sometimes attributed to Caedmon). Lawrence Mason, Ph.D. $1.00. XLIX. The Later Version of the Wycliffite Epistle to the Romans, compared with the Latin Original: A Study of Wycliffite English. Emma Curtiss Tucker, Ph.D. $1.50. L. Some Accounts of the Bewcastle Cross between the Years 1607 and 1861. Albert Stanburrough Cook. $1.50. LBJa'15 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Jan. 2010 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEAOER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724) 779-2111