spicuous examples, as we shall see, it is not), the archæologist continues with two other assumptions: first, that this name refers to a person of the same, or more often, of. a similar name known in history; and, secondly, that this cross must have been erected immediately after that person's death.

In dating these crosses, Allen follows respectfully, though doubtfully, the readings and conjectures of Stephens and Haigh. But unfortunately these placed two of the most elaborate and finished specimens in the seventh century, namely, the Bewcastle Cross and the Ruthwell Cross. Upon the latter, Stephens read the inscription in runes, Caedmon me fawed, which he interpreted ' Cædmon made me;' hence he assigned the cross to the time of Cædmon the poet. On the former he read, 'In the first year of the king of this realm Ecgfrith;' hence he set for it the date 670.*1

But Professor Cook, having made an investigation of the verses inscribed on the Ruthwell Cross from the standpoint of meaning, metre, diction, and phonology, reaches the conclusion that they must be a quotation from the eighth-century poem, The Dream of the Rood, and gives the entire matter of date its final word in his concluding paragraph:

On the basis of this phonological examination we have found that, while the general aspect of the inscription has led many persons to refer it to an early period, it lacks some of the marks of antiquity; every real mark of antiquity can be paralleled from the latest documents. . . . We shall not hesitate, I believe, to assume that the Ruthwell Inscription is at least as late as the tenth century. If now we seek the opinion of an expert, Sophus Müller, on the ornamentation, . . . we shall find it to this effect: "The Ruthwell Cross must be posterior to the year 800, and in fact to the Carlovingian Renaissance, on account of its decorative features. The free foliage and flower-work, and the dragons or monsters with two forelegs, wings, and serpents' tails, induce him to believe that it could scarcely have been sculptured much before 100 a. D." Vietor has at length

'It may be remarked that Haigh made out a very different reading. Archæol. Eliana, q. S. Bugge, p. 93, note.

proved that the Caedmon me fawed of Stephens' fantasy is nonexistent, and we are free to accept a conclusion to which archæology, linguistics, and literary scholarship alike impel.'

The Bewcastle Cross is beyond question a product of the Co same period as the Ruthwell, so that this also may be re-H moved from the seventh to the end of the tenth century. With these may be grouped the Gosforth Cross also,' on account of its shape, size, and ornament. This, too, Stephens pronounced to be 'probably of seventh century date,' no doubt because it evidently belonged to the type of the Ruthwell Cross.

It is of the most importance that, instead of depending upon fancy and guesswork, we can determine with good reason the approximate date of an important cross like the Ruthwell. With this we can group others which have the same characteristics, and thus assign the close of the tenth century as an approximate date for the height of the development of the cross-monument in England. This tallies well with what we know of the cross-monument in Ireland. There are two other guides. First, as stated above, the scroll-and-foliage-element was derived from Frankish artists, who developed this style in the 'Carolingian Renaissance.' Secondly, the pictorial element (with the characteristic interlaced dragons or serpents) is a product of Scandinavian influence, and dates from the settlement and conversion of the Danes. These will help a great deal in determining the probable age of stones which bear no inscriptions whatever.

We have already disposed of the two most notable crosses which have been assigned to the seventh century. Let us examine the evidence for assigning other interlaced crosses to a period preceding the ninth century, when, as already noted, the interlaced ornament makes its first appearance on stone in Ireland.

"'Notes on the Ruthwell Cross,' Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, Vol. 17, No. 3. `.

* Bugge, p. 493.

'Calverley, p. 138.

'Westwood, Introd. v-ix; also Arch. Journ. 10. 278 ff.

The four remaining crosses which Mr. Allen assigns to the seventh century are these, denoted by the locality in which they are found. All four are in England: one at Collingham, dated circa 651; Beckermet, 664; Yarm, 681; Hawkeswell, 690.

Of the Collingham Cross, Allen says, it is 'inscribed in runes to the memory of King Oswini, who was ruler of the Deira in 651. Here he follows Stephens,' who makes it out: .. Aeftar Onswini, cu . and refers it to the King Oswini mentioned above. Anything deciphered by Stephens from a practically illegible inscription may be suspected after his reading of the Ruthwell Cross, to say nothing of the assumption of the king in question. But in this case the cross as depicted by Stephens has both the marks of a late date already mentioned, for the scroll-work and interlaced dragons are conspicuous in its ornament at the expense of the earlier, purely geometric design. It is certain, at all events, that this cross is not earlier than the ninth century.

At Beckermet are two shafts of crosses, one of which,' continues Mr. Allen, 'bears an inscription showing that it marks the grave of Bishop Tuda. Bede mentions that Tuda, Bishop of Northumbria, died of the plague in A. D. 664. This cross is, therefore, probably one of the seventh century.' This reading was given by Rev. D. H. Haigh, whom Stephens calls the 'learned Mr. Haigh,'' an archæologist who could read on the Collingham Cross, for example, eight lines of inscription, where even Stephens himself could make out only the two words we have already quoted. According to Mr. Haigh, the inscription on the Beckermet cross reads as follows (translated):

Here enclosed

Tuda Bishop:

the plague destruction before,
the reward of Paradise after.'

1 Runic Monuments 1. 390. 'Calverley, p. 27.

'Runic Monuments 1. 390, note.

'This, in conjunction with the story of Bede,' makes it seem inevitable that the cross belongs to the seventh century, and that it is, in fact, the burial stone of Bishop Tuda.'

This 'celebrated reading' was made in 1857. Two years later, Rev. John Maughan announced another reading and translation:

Here beacons

two set up
queen Arlec

for her son Athfeshar

Pray for our
souls.'

Then, after various attempts by different hands, R. Carr Ellison announced his reading in 1866:

O, thou loved

offspring Edith,
little maid

in slumber waned.

Years XII. Pray ye for her soul.

Year MCIII.

Finally in Calverley' is quoted the most recent version. Here the language is supposed to be 'Manx Gaelic,' and the author of this reading is à Mr. John Rogers:

"(This cross was)

made for

John mac Cair

he gone to

rest in the keeping

of Christ. Be gracious
to him, O Christ.'

At this point the plague-stricken bishop of the seventh century has vanished rather completely, together with our confidence in any testimony from Mr. Haigh.

The fragment of a cross at Yarm may be dismissed

'Eccles. Hist. Bk. 3, chap. 26-27.

Archeologia Eliana 6, 61, quoted by Calverley, p. 29.

'p. 31.

4

briefly. It is sufficient to quote the evidence in its favor. 'It bears an inscription showing that it was erected by berecht Bishop, in memory of his brother." Professor Earle, of Oxford, reads the name "Hireberecht "; but Professor Stephens makes it "Trumberecht " and identifies him with the Bishop of Hexham of that name, A. D. 681. By similar 'identification' by the reading of 'St. Gacobus' on the shaft of a cross at Hawkeswell, it is supposed to commemorate a deacon of St. Paulinus mentioned by Bede. This concludes all the evidence for the existence of interlaced crosses before the eighth century.

Of the eighth century there are three, at Alnmouth, Harkness, and Thornhill. Of the Alnmouth fragment, Stephens gives a description on pages 461-2 of his Runic Monuments. All that he can make out is a few meaningless fragments of words, but Mr. Haigh (to quote Stephens) 'fills up the words thus,' and get an inscription which reads:

(This is King E) Adulf's th(ruh) (grave-kist)
(bid) (pray) (for-the) Soul.

Myredah me wrought

Hludwyg me fayed (inscribed).

We have already seen something of Mr. Haigh's work at deciphering and filling up.' But because the forms of the letters on this fragment 'resembles those on the Ruthwell Cross,' he feels sure that it can not be later than the begining of the eighth century! The word Adulf that he reads and fills up,' he identifies, therefore, as the name of a King Aedulf of the early eighth century. This needs no

comment.

The Harkness Cross fragments are on the site of an ancient monastery founded by St. Hilda of Whitby. Accordingly, on one, Mr. Haigh reads:

Huaethburga, thy houses always remember thee, most loving mother. Blessed Aethilburga! For ever may they remember thee, dutifully mourning! May they ask for thee verdant rest, in the name of Christ, venerable mother.