Studies from Court and Cloister Part 18

* A translation of the fragment in Old Northumbrian had indeed been attempted at the beginning of the nineteenth century by Mr. Repp and also by a disciple of the great Fin Magnusen, Mr. J. M. M'Caul, but the least said about these versions the better, both being wide of the mark. Being imperfectly acquainted with Old English they made the most absurd statements regarding the purpose the monument was supposed to have served.

So far steady progress had been made, except one step which is now stated by modern Anglo-Saxon scholars to have been a false one.

Professor Stephens following Haigh thought he could decipher on the top stone of the cross the words Cadmon Mae Fawed, and inferred therefrom that the Cross Lay of which fragments were inscribed on the Ruthwell monument was the work of Caedmon, "the Milton of North England in the seventh century." But according to the evidence of the latest expert who has examined the cross, Caedmon's name has never been on it, and both linguistic and archaeological considerations a.s.sign the inscription to the tenth century, and probably to the latter half of it. This critic declares that there is "no shadow of proof or probability that the inscription represents a poem written by Caedmon."

Sweet, on the other hand* describes The Dream of the Rood, in the Vercelli Book, as an introduction to the Elene or Finding of the Cross which is unmistakably claimed as Cynewulf's own by an acrostic introduced into the runic letters which form his name, and goes on to a.s.sert that the Ruthwell Cross gives a fragment of the poem in the Old Northern dialect of the seventh or eighth century, "of which the MS.

text is evidently a late West Saxon transcription differing in many respects from the older one." He considers that The Dream belongs to the age of Caedmon, and that the poetry of Cynewulf was an adaptation of older compositions.

* Anglo-Saxon Reader, p. 154, 7th edition.

There can be now no possible doubt but that the poems in the Vercelli Codex are by Cynewulf, the controversy henceforth being as to whether The Dream of the Rood or the inscription on the cross is the older.

Cynewulf, being a Northumbrian, presumably wrote in the old Northumbrian language such as is inscribed on the cross, but all his poems as they have come down to us have pa.s.sed into the West Saxon tongue, and if the fragment on the Ruthwell Cross is, as modern archxologists aver, later than the Dream in the Vercelli Codex it must be a re-translation into the dialect in which it was first written. A further difficulty lies in the fact stated by Haigh that runes had pa.s.sed out of date on funeral monuments as late as the year 1000, and we can indeed scarcely conceive of their use at the very eve of the Norman Conquest when the written language had long become general.

Nevertheless, as far back as 1890, Mr. A. S. Cook, professor of the English language and literature in Yale University, suggested that the inscription on the Ruthwell Cross must be as late as the tenth century and subsequent to the Lindisfarne Gospels. "A comparison of the inscription with the Dream of the Rood shows that the former is not an extract from an earlier poem written in the long Caedmonian line which is postulated by Vigfusson and Powell, and by Mr. Stopford Brooke, since the earliest dated verse is in short lines only, and since four of the lines in the cross inscription represent short lines in the Dream of the Rood, it shows that the latter is more self-consistent, more artistic, and therefore more likely to be or to represent the original; and it shows that certain of the forms of the latter seem to have been inadvertently retained by the adapter, who selected and re-arranged the lines for engraving on the cross."*

* The Dream of the Rood, by A. S. Cook, p. xv., Oxford, 1905.

The theme both of the Dream and of the Elene, another of the poems in the Vercelli Book, is the Cross, and Cynewulf, says Mr. Cook, is the first old English author, of whom we have any knowledge, to lay emphasis upon the Invention of the Cross, and Constantine's premonitory dream. "If," he continues, "we consider Bede's account of Caedmon, we are struck by one a.n.a.logy at least: in each case a command is imparted to the poet to celebrate a particular theme--in the first, the creation of the world; in the second, the redemption of mankind by the death of the cross. As the one stands at the beginning of the Old Testament, the other epitomises the New. The later poet may have had the earlier in mind, and may not have been unwilling to enter into generous rivalry with him; but there is this notable difference, Caedmon does not relate his own dream, while Cynewulf, if it be Cynewulf, does."*

* Ibid., p. lvii.

Elsewhere he says The Dream of the Rood, apart from its present conclusion, represents Cynewulf (as we believe) in the fullest vigour of his invention and taste, probably after all his other extant poems had been composed. Admirable in itself and a precious doc.u.ment of our early literary history, it gains still further l.u.s.tre from being indissolubly a.s.sociated with that monument which Kemble has called the most beautiful as well as the most interesting relic of Teutonic antiquity."

And again, "So far from the Cross-inscription representing an earlier form of the Dream of the Rood, it seems rather to have been derived from the latter, and to have been corrupted in the process." *

* Ibid., p. xvi.

Thus the controversy remains in 1905. and until some further light is shed upon the difficult question--for it is impossible to regard Mr.

Cook's solution as in all points satisfying--we must be content with the results obtained.

Let us now consider the poem itself by the help of Professor Stephens'

admirable translation. Essentially a Christian composition, it preserves all the Gothic strength and virile beauty of the old pagan forms. The modern words, Saviour, Pa.s.sion, Apostles, etc., do not once appear. Christ is the "Youthful Hero," He is the "Peace-G.o.d," the "Atheling," the "Frea of mankind." He is even identified with the white G.o.d, Balder the Beautiful. His friends are "Hilde-rinks" or "barons."

In His crucifixion He is less crucified than shot to death with "streals," i.e., all manner of missiles which the "foemen" hurl at Him.

The Rood speaks and laments; it tells the story of the last dread scene of Christ's suffering, His entombment in the "mould-house," the triumph of the Cross in His resurrection, and the entry of the "Lord of Benison" into his "old home-halls."

The doctrine is as sober as an orthodox, theological treatise, though the poem is essentially a work of the most fertile imagination, a drama with all the rich accessories that tradition offered in the matter of colouring and effect. And it is withal exquisitely simple, devout, and n.o.ble, breathing a spirituality strangely at variance with the semi-barbaric people with whom the poetry had originated.

Stephens' translation is full of poetry, the translator having retained the lilt of the original, together with many of the old English words which, if they need a glossary, is only because we have gradually lost the meaning in the subst.i.tution of weaker terms.

It is interesting to compare the fragments still legible on the Ruthwell Cross with the South Saxon rendering in the Vercelli Codex.

Where the lines are worn away or mutilated the MS. may supplement them:--

Northumbrian version--------------------South Saxon version according to the on the Cross.----------------------------Vercelli Codex.

Girded Him then--------------- For the grapple then girded him youthful hero-- G.o.d Almighty-----------------lo! the man was G.o.d Almighty.

When He would-------------------Strong of heart and steady-minded Step on the gallows-------------stept he on the lofty gallows; Fore all Mankind--------------fearless spite that crowd of faces; Mindfast, fearless---------------free and save man's tribes he would there.

Bow me durst I not-------------Bever'd I and shook when that baron claspt me . . . . . . . . . ----------- but dar'd I not to bow me earthward . . . . . . . . . -----------Rood was I reared now.

Rich King heaving-------------------Rich king heaving The Lord of Light-realms------------The Lord of Light-realms Lean me I durst not---------------Lean me I durst not.

Us both they basely mockt and handled-----Us both they basely mockt and handled Was I there with blood bedabbled---------all with blood was I bedabbled Gus.h.i.+ng grievous from . . . --------gus.h.i.+ng grievous from his dear side, . . . . . . . . . -----------when his ghost he had uprendered.

. . . . . . . . . -----------How on that hill . . . . . . . . . -----------have I throwed . . . . . . . . . -----------dole the direst.

. . . . . . . . . -----------All day viewed I hanging . . . . . . . . . -----------the G.o.d of hosts . . . . . . . . . -----------Gloomy and swarthy . . . . . . . . . -----------clouds had cover'd . . . . . . . . . -----------the corse of the Waldend.*

. . . . . . . . . -----------O'er the sheer s.h.i.+ne-path . . . . . . . . . -----------shadows fell heavy . . . . . . . . . -----------wan 'neath the nelkin . . . . . . . . . -----------wept all creation . . . . . . . . . -----------wail'd the fall of their king.

Christ was on Rood-tree----------Christ was on Rood-tree But fast from afar----------------But fast from afar His friends hurried-------------his friends hurried Athel to the Sufferer.------------To aid their Atheling Everything I saw.------------Everything I saw.

Sorely was I----------------Sorely was I With sorrows harrow'd------------with sorrows harrow'd . . . . . I inclin'd-------------yet humbly I inclin'd . . . . . . . . . -----------to the hands of his servants, . . . . . . . . . -----------striving with might to aid them.

. . . . . . . . . -----------Straight the all-ruling G.o.d they've taken . . . . . . . . . -----------heaving from that haried torment . . . . . . . . . -----------Those Hilde-rinks** now left me . . . . . . . . . -----------to stand there streaming with blood drops; With streals all wounded-------with streals*** was I all wounded.

Down laid they Him limb-weary---------Down laid they him limb-weary, O'er His lifeless Head then stood they--O'er his lifeless head then stood they, Heavily gazing at Heaven's . . .--------heavily gazing at heaven's Chieftain.

* Wielder, Lord, Ruler, Monarch,

** Hero, from Hilde the war G.o.d. Battle brave, captain

*** Anything strown or cast-a missile of any kind.

Kemble's rendering of the poem, wonderfully correct and conscientious as a translation, is inferior in poetical merit to that of Stephens, who, as we see, instead of choosing modern words, is careful to retain many of the picturesque old rune equivalents. This we perceive at once if we compare Stephens' four lines, beginning "Christ was on Rood tree"

with Kemble's:

"Christ was on the Cross but thither hastening men came from afar to the n.o.ble one." *

* Poetry of the Vercelli Codex.

The runes are sharply and beautifully cut into the margin of two sides of the Cross, the inside s.p.a.ces being filled with sculptured ornaments, representing a conventional, clambering vine, with leaves and fruit.

Entwined among the leaves are curious birds and animals devouring the grapes. On the southeast and south-west sides are figures taken chiefly from the Bible, with Latin inscriptions instead of runes. In the middle compartment of each of these sides is the figure of our Lord with a cruciform halo. On the south-west side of the Cross He is represented as treading on the heads of two swine, His right arm upraised in blessing, a scroll being in His left hand. Around the margin is a legend in old Latin uncial letters, "Jesus Christ the judge of equity.

Beasts and dragons knew in the desert the Saviour of the world."

In the corresponding panel on the south side, St. Mary Magdalen washes the feet of our Lord, who is standing nearly in the same position. The remaining subjects are--a figure which has been sometimes described as that of the Eternal Father, and again as St. John the Baptist, with the Agnus Dei; St. Paul and St. Anthony breaking a loaf in the desert; the Flight into Egypt; two figures unexplained; a man seated on the ground with a bow, taking aim; the Visitation; our Lord healing the man born blind; the Annunciation; and traces almost obliterated, of the Crucifixion, on the bottom panel of the south-west side.

On the top stone is a bird, probably meant for a dove, resting on a branch with the rune which Stephens took to be Cadmon Mae Fawed. On the reverse side of this stone are St. John and his eagle, with a partly destroyed Latin inscription, In principio erat verb.u.m. All the subjects are explained by a legend running round the margin, but which is in parts scarcely legible.

Sir John Sinclair, in his account of the parish of Ruthwell, mentions a tradition, according to which, this column having been set up in remote times at a place called Priestwoodside (now Priestside), near the sea, it was drawn from thence by a team of oxen belonging to a widow. During the transit inland the chain broke, which accident was supposed to denote that heaven willed it to be set up in that place. This was done, and a church was built over the Cross.

But opposed to this story is the fact that the obelisk is composed of the same red and grey sandstone which abounds in that part of Dumfriess.h.i.+re, and it seems far more likely that the Cross was here hewn and sculptured than that it should have been brought from a distance after having been adorned in so costly a manner and with a definite purpose. It was held in great veneration till the middle of the sixteenth century, and being specially protected by the powerful family of Murray of c.o.c.kpool, the patrons and chief proprietors of the parish, it escaped the blind fury of the iconoclasts till 1644. Then, however, it was broken into three pieces as "an object of superst.i.tion among the vulgar."

For more than a century the column apparently lay where it fell, on the site of what had once been the altar of the church, and was made to serve as a bench for members of the congregation to sit upon.

In 1722, Pennant saw it still lying inside the church, but soon after this, better accommodation being required for the congregation, it was turned out into the churchyard to make room for modern improvements!

Here it suffered greatly from repeated mutilations, the churchyard being then nearly unenclosed.

In 1802, the weather-c.o.c.k of opinion having again veered round, the then inc.u.mbent, Dr. Duncan, desiring to preserve this "object of superst.i.tion," now become a precious relic, had the main shaft removed to his newly-enclosed manse garden where it remained till 1887, when an apse being added to the church, the Cross was again enclosed within the building. Meanwhile two other fragments had entirely disappeared. The cross-beam has never been recovered,* but the top-stone suddenly reappeared in the following curious manner:

* Transverse arms were supplied in 1823. A. S. Cook, The Dream of the Rood.