Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

another fragment preserved in Jarrow church, and on a cross at Hexham. This resemblance, and that already noticed, in the style of the carving of the imagery, convince me that the two crosses are the work of the same artist or artists, (if we suppose that then, as is the case now-a-days, one who was competent to execute statuary left the carving of flowers and mere ornaments to less skilful hands), and, therefore, that the date of the one cannot be much later than that of the other; nay, I feel inclined to go farther than this, and to hazard the conjecture that the two once formed the same monument, one at the head and the other at the foot1 of the grave. Believing, as I do, that all these ancient crosses are sepulchral monuments, the absence of an epitaph at Ruthwell, on the lower stone at least, convinces me that something is wanting to make the monument complete. The inscriptions on its fronts are Latin antiphons, allusive to the subjects pourtrayed thereon, and those on its sides English verses descriptive of the Passion. In such a company a memorial inscription would have seemed incongruous. Something seems wanting to the completeness of the monument, and that is supplied by the cross at Bewcastle, where we find an inscription to the memory of king Alcfrid, and the names of other persons of his family. The verification of the Bewcastle traditions disposes me the more readily to credit that which tells us that the Ruthwell cross came thither by sea, and was cast on the shore by shipwreck. If this be really true, whence did it come? Most probably from Cumberland2; carried off, perhaps, on account of its beauty, by an army of Danes or Scots, and cast upon the shore of the Solway by a sudden storm.

Before I thought of the connection between these

two crosses, it occurred to me that the reason why St. John the Baptist was introduced upon that at Bewcastle might be, that he was the patron saint of King [177] Alcfrid, and this seemed to clear up a difficulty which I had felt for some years on another point of antiquarian research. At Barnack, in Northamptonshire, three miles from Stamford, there is a church the tower of which, presenting on three sides scrolls with birds, and windows filled with tracery of interlacing knotwork, is certainly a work of the seventh century, and one which I always regarded as a relic of the monastery built by St. Wilfrid in this neighborhood on land granted to him by Alcfrid. But we know that St. Wilfrid's monasteries were all dedicated to St. Peter and St. Andrew (22); and how was the supposition that Barnack is St. Wilfrid's work to be reconciled with its dedication to St. John the Baptist? Very easily, if St. John the Baptist were indeed the patron of Alcfrid. And if this were so, then his appearance on the Ruthwell cross adds to the probability that it belonged to the monument erected in his honour at Bewcastle: and that monument, we may suppose, consisted of two crosses, one at the head, the other at the foot of the grave, both presenting the image of our Blessed Lord, and of Alcfrid's patron saint; one devoted to sacred imagery and inscriptions calculated for the edification of the beholder, the other presenting his portraiture and an inscription to his memory. It is even possible that the inscription upon the upper stone at Ruthwell may have contained his name. The letters which remain are IDE GISCE.

22 Eddi, chap. liv., records a vision (A. D. 705), in which St. Wilfrid is reproached for having done this, and having neglected to build one in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and four years of life are granted him to supply this omission.

Of these GISCE is evidently the beginning of a word such as gesceapan, to form or shape, gesceadan, to divide or separate, or gescea, sobbing, and the rest may be the ending of the word Alcfrida. If any other letters could be traced confirming this conjecture, I should regard this inscription as a sort of postscript to that on the other cross. Nor would such a supposition militate against what I have said above of the incongruity of a memorial inscription with such as the rest of those upon this monument for the lower stone on which they occur is evidently complete in itself, and as evidently the addition of the upper stone was an afterthought, for which the wish to add such an inscription as this might easily account, and which I cannot but think detracts from the beauty of the monument by destroying its unity.

XIII. MAUGHAN'S SECOND ACCOUNT, 1857.

[This is taken from the rare pamphlet entitled, A Memoir on the Roman Station and Runic Cross at Bewcastle. with an Appendix on the Roman Inscription on Caeme Craig, and the Runic Inscription in Carlisle Cathedral, London, Carlisle, Brampton, and Newcastle, 1857. The first of these papers occupies pages 3-9; the first paper in the Appendix, 39-42; the second, referring to the so-called Dolfin runes, 43-44. The essay with which we are concerned falls into two parts-' Runic Cross in Bewcastle Churchyard' and 'Mr. Haigh's Version'-occupying pages 10-30 and 31-38 respectively. As the footnotes are numbered consecutively throughout the pamphlet, the first one in our part is No. 14.]

RUNIC CROSS IN BEWCASTLE CHURCHYARD. STONES in the form of a cross, both plain and sculptured, have been reared by our forefathers at different remote periods, and for a variety of purposes,1 and hence the history of such crosses becomes a subject of investigation replete with the deepest interest. Some of these crosses were simply wayside crosses, being frequently only a small rude square or oblong stone with a small cross cut on the face of it. These, besides being a great resort for beggars, were places where the corpse was allowed to stand for a short period when passing to its last place of rest, in order that a brief prayer might be offered for the soul of the departed. The pious of former days seldom passed these crosses without bowing or kneeling, and offering up their short and devout ejaculations. Crosses were also generally erected wherever a market was held, under the impression, perhaps, as some suppose, that the visible emblem of our re

demption might influence the minds of the traders towards honesty and fair dealing, and hence we frequently find the remains of a cross near ancient religious establishments, as for instance at Lanercost, because at such places a market1 was almost invariably held, often even immediately after the celebration of divine service on the Sabbath. Some of these stones or crosses were erected near the shores, and served as beacons or landmarks ;-others were placed as sentinels or guardians of public springs and wells; others denoted the place where great battles had been fought and won, and where other important events had occurred, such as the celebrated Percy and Neville crosses; others denoted a place of sanctuary, where criminals, however guilty, might crave and obtain the protection of the Church; while others were placed in churchyards to impress the feelings, and increase the ardour of public devotion. The most interesting of this class are those which have been erected to denote the burial-place of some important personage, and of these the cross in the churchyard at Bewcastle may be justly considered as one of the most remarkable specimens.(14)

(14) This pillar, which may be properly classed among the most celebrated of archæological monuments, is nearly the frustum of a square pyramid, measuring 22 inches by 21 at the base, and tapering to 14 inches by 13 at the top of the shaft, being 14 feet high above its pedestal. The pillar has been fixed with lead in a shallow cavity which has been cut on the crown of a nearly cubical block of stone 4 feet square, and 3 ft. 9 in. high; which stone is now sunk about 3 feet into the ground, and has been tooled off at the upper corners so as to assume the appearance of an unequal-sided octagon. On the top of the pillar was formerly placed a small cross, which has been lost for a considerable period, and hence the pillar is now merely an obelisk. 2

The traditions of the district say that a king was buried here, and also point out the locality where the shaft of the pillar was

« PoprzedniaDalej »