API tools faq
paste
jonstond2

Ruthwell Cross (Medieval Studies)

jonstond2
Feb 20th, 2017
223
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 56.56 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Introduction
  2.  
  3. The Ruthwell Cross is a freestanding stone cross, or high cross. It was carved and erected at some point in the 8th century at what is thought to have been an early monastic site near Ruthwell (Dumfries) in what is now southwestern Scotland near the shore of the Solway Firth. The cross was carved from two differently colored blocks of sandstone, possibly from two different quarries, leading to debates over whether the two parts of the cross (the upper and lower stones) were carved at the same time. It is likely that the cross was originally painted, which would have masked the difference between the two stones. Despite being located in Scotland, the cross is a work of Northumbrian sculpture associated with the expansion of the Northumbrian church and kingdom north and west into the ancient British territories of Rheged and Strathclyde. It is especially important because of its early date, classicizing style, complex iconographic program, and the runic poem on the crucifixion inscribed on its original north and south faces. Because of its stylistic and iconographic similarities with the contemporary Bewcastle Cross (Cumbria), and the relationship of its runic poem to The Dream of the Rood and the verses inscribed on the 11th-century Brussels reliquary cross (Cathedral of Saints Michel and Gudule), it is often studied alongside one or more of these works. The Ruthwell Cross was pulled down and partially buried at the time of the Reformation, and then it was reconstructed in the 19th century, first in the garden of Ruthwell Manse and then in a specially built apse inside the church. Some parts of the cross have never been found, and the top arm of the cross head has been put on back to front. On the basis of its iconographic similarities to the Bewcastle Cross, which still stands in its original location, it is believed that the two broad sides of the cross originally faced west (the side with Christ over the Beasts at its center) and east (the side with Mary Magdalene at the feet of Christ and its center). For information on the historical and sculptural contexts of the cross see the Oxford Bibliographies entries High Crosses and Anglo-Saxon Sculpture.
  4.  
  5. Bibliographies
  6.  
  7. All published bibliographies devoted exclusively to the Ruthwell Cross are now woefully out of date, but several annual bibliographies are listed below, all of which can be accessed and searched electronically. Cassidy and Kiefer 1992 and Werner 1984 are good for older publications, while the annual bibliographies of Anglo-Saxon England and the Old English Newsletter will include more recent work. The International Medieval Bibliography covers the whole of the Middle Ages.
  8.  
  9. Anglo-Saxon England.
  10. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  11. The preeminent journal on all aspects of Anglo-Saxon England. The annual bibliography includes a section on sculpture. Available by subscription.
  12. Find this resource:
  13. Cassidy, Brendan, and Katherine Kiefer. “A Bibliography of the Ruthwell Cross.” In The Ruthwell Cross. Edited by Brendan Cassidy, 167–199. Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1992.
  14. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  15. Not a comprehensive bibliography, but the only one focused exclusively on the cross. Good for the pre-1992 publications.
  16. Find this resource:
  17. International Medieval Bibliography.
  18. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  19. The most complete annual bibliography available. It also provides greater coverage of European scholarship than the other entries in this section. Available by subscription.
  20. Find this resource:
  21. Old English Newsletter.
  22. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  23. Provides information on research projects and publications, conference opportunities, etc., alongside short articles. The annual bibliography is limited and often does not include articles appearing in the journals of local archaeological societies, but it does provide a brief review of each entry, whereas Anglo-Saxon England does not.
  24. Find this resource:
  25. Werner, Martin. Insular Art: An Annotated Bibliography. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1984.
  26. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  27. Now out of date but still a convenient guide to the pre-1984 sources. It includes entries on pre-10th century Anglo-Saxon art (including Ruthwell) along with entries on the early medieval art of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland.
  28. Find this resource:
  29. General
  30.  
  31. The publications in this section are devoted to multiple aspects of Ruthwell and the Ruthwell Cross. Dinwiddie 1927 is aimed at the general reader but provides an excellent synopsis of the cross. Crowe 1987 provides information on what is known of the site from limited archaeological excavation. Orton, et al. 2007 and Ó Carragáin 2005 should be read alongside each other, as they present different—at times complementary, at times opposing—interpretations of the cross and related monuments. Cassidy 1992 and Karkov and Orton 2003 are conference proceedings that include papers focusing on individual aspects of the cross. Saxl 1943 and Schapiro 1979 (originally published 1944) are seminal early interdisciplinary publications on the cross. The Visionary Cross project is an online resource. The project is producing a virtual edition of the Ruthwell Cross, and information on the site is continually added and updated.
  32.  
  33. Cassidy, Brendan, ed. The Ruthwell Cross. Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1992.
  34. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  35. Includes five papers from a colloquium on the cross sponsored by the Index of Christian Art (Princeton University) in 1989. The papers cover the construction and reconstruction of the cross (Robert Farrell with Catherine Karkov), the later life of the cross (Cassidy), the date of the cross (Douglas MacLean), the inscriptions (David Howlett), and the monastic iconography of the cross (Paul Meyvaert).
  36. Find this resource:
  37. Crowe, Christopher. “Excavations at Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, 1980 and 1984.” Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 62 (1987): 40–47.
  38. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  39. Report on limited survey and excavations undertaken at the site. The results are inconclusive. The cross, along with some evidence of an early medieval enclosure, remain the only firm evidence for an early monastery at Ruthwell.
  40. Find this resource:
  41. Dinwiddie, John. The Ruthwell Cross and its Story: A Handbook for Tourists and Students. Dumfries, UK: Robert Dinwiddie, 1927.
  42. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  43. One of the first accessible general accounts of the cross and its history, along with the history written by Henry Duncan, minister of Ruthwell 1798–1846 (Duncan 1833). Written during one of the high points of Scottish nationalism, it argues for the cross being a monument of the Celtic rather than Roman church. An abridged version was published in 1933 as The Ruthwell Cross and the Ruthwell Savings Bank: A Handbook for Tourists and Students. An updated edition of this publication is still available in the church at Ruthwell.
  44. Find this resource:
  45. Karkov, Catherine E., and Fred Orton, eds. Theorizing Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2003.
  46. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  47. Five of the six essays in this collection deal with the Ruthwell Cross (along with other sculptures). The essays cover issues of gender, date, style, iconography, and historical context. As the title implies, most analyze the cross within an explicitly theoretical framework.
  48. Find this resource:
  49. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the Dream of the Rood Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005.
  50. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  51. Focuses on the iconography and the liturgical meaning and function of the cross. Provides a detailed analysis of the Ruthwell runic poem and how it relates to the imagery of the cross as a whole as well as its probable original setting. Also considers its relationship to the Bewcastle Cross, the Dream of the Rood, and the Brussels reliquary cross.
  52. Find this resource:
  53. Orton, Fred, and Ian Wood, and Clare A. Lees. Fragments of History: Rethinking the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Monuments. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2007.
  54. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  55. An excellent source for contextualizing Ruthwell from a less iconographic/liturgical perspective. The authors are interested in the political and social implications of the cross and its material presence, inscriptions, and imagery. Especially important for demonstrating just how different Ruthwell is from Bewcastle, and for the debate over whether or not the upper stone of the cross shaft was a later addition to the monument.
  56. Find this resource:
  57. Saxl, Fritz. “The Ruthwell Cross.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 6 (1943): 1–19.
  58. DOI: 10.2307/750418Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  59. Seminal study of the Ruthwell Cross that focuses on its stylistic and iconographic sources. Traces the subjects of its figural panels back to multiple biblical texts, scriptural commentaries and saints’ lives. Saxl emphasizes the Mediterranean sources of the cross, while Schapiro stresses its Insular nature. Should be read in conjunction with Schapiro 1979.
  60. Find this resource:
  61. Schapiro, Meyer. “The Religious Meaning of the Ruthwell Cross.” In Late Antique, Early Christian and Medieval Art. Selected Papers. Vol. 3. By Meyer Schapiro, 186–192. New York: George Braziller, 1979.
  62. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  63. Schapiro was more concerned with how the Ruthwell panels differed from other representations of the same subjects than in identifying sources per se. As a Marxist art historian, he was interested in the social structures that the cross reflects. Schapiro emphasizes the Insular nature of the cross, while Saxl stresses its Mediterranean sources. Best read in conjunction with Saxl 1943. First published in Art Bulletin 26 (1944): 150–176.
  64. Find this resource:
  65. Visionary Cross Project.
  66. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  67. An international, interdisciplinary project that will provide a digital archive of the Ruthwell Cross and associated monuments and texts (the Bewcastle Cross, the Brussels Reliquary Cross, the Vercelli Book poems Elene and The Dream of the Rood). The site provides updates on project progress, publications, images, and bibliography.
  68. Find this resource:
  69. Antiquarian Studies
  70.  
  71. The Ruthwell Cross has been a focus of scholarly interest since at least the 16th century. Although most of the publications listed below contain a certain number of erroneous readings of its inscriptions and imagery they are important to the historiography of the monument, as well as for understanding how debates arose over date, the integrity of the two stones that comprise the cross, and the iconography of certain panels. They are also interesting for the light they shed on how the cross was perceived by the local community. It pays to work through the sources in chronological order, beginning with Nicolson’s 17th–18th century account published in 1902 and progressing to Duncan 1833. Haigh 1857 is an early exploration of the relationship between the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses. Müller 1880 and Cook 1912 are examples of early arguments for the late dating of the cross. Hewison 1914 offers a summary of antiquarian views and sources. Finish with Browne 1916 and Brown 1921, both of which provide an excellent transition to more contemporary scholarship on the cross.
  72.  
  73. Brown, Gerard Baldwin. The Arts in Early England. Vol. 5. The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses, the Gospel of Lindisfarne and Other Monuments of Northumbria. London: John Murray, 1921.
  74. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  75. Surveys earlier work on the cross and counters arguments for a late date and for Ruthwell being in whole or in part the work of foreign sculptors. Also provides a panel-by-panel iconographic and stylistic analysis and sketches the development of the high cross as a monument type. Brown was the first to focus on the cross as a work of art rather than an object of Antiquity. Two chapters by Blyth Webster are devoted to the runic poem. Dated but essential reading.
  76. Find this resource:
  77. Browne, George F. The Ancient Cross Shafts at Bewcastle and Ruthwell. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1916.
  78. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  79. Argues for a 7th-century date and associates the cross specifically with the reign of king Ecgfrith (r. 670–685) and the expansion of the Northumbrian kingdom. Browne was the first to really focus on the differences between Ruthwell and Bewcastle rather than their similarities.
  80. Find this resource:
  81. Cook, A. S. The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1912.
  82. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  83. While some of Cook’s ideas and conclusions have been superseded, his interdisciplinary approach set an example for later scholars (see the studies in Cassidy 1992, for example). This remains essential reading for anyone interested in the crosses and the history of scholarship on them. Cook had always believed that Ruthwell dated from at least the mid-10th century, but here he argues for a 12th-century date. See pp. 247–249.
  84. Find this resource:
  85. Duncan, Henry. “An Account of the Remarkable Monument in the Shape of a Cross, inscribed with Roman and Runic Letters, preserved in the Garden of Ruthwell Manse, Dumfriesshire.” Archaeologia Scotica 4 (1833): 313–326.
  86. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  87. One of the first serious studies published. Relates some of the local history of and legends concerning the cross and describes its iconography. During Duncan’s ministry at Ruthwell the upper stone of the shaft was discovered in the graveyard. One of the first to argue that the upper stone was later than the lower stone and to devote significant attention to the vine-scroll on the two narrow sides of the shaft.
  88. Find this resource:
  89. Haigh, Daniel Henry. “The Saxon Cross at Bewcastle.” Archaeologia Aeliana 1 (1857): 149–195.
  90. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  91. The first detailed comparison of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses to be published. Makes the odd suggestion that Ruthwell had first been erected at Bewcastle and then stolen from the site. Corrects Duncan’s erroneous identification of the John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei and Visitation panels.
  92. Find this resource:
  93. Hewison, James King. The Runic Roods of Ruthwell and Bewcastle with a Short History of the Cross and Crucifix in Scotland. Glasgow, UK: John Smith, 1914.
  94. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  95. A convenient summary of early descriptions of, views on, and sources for, the cross.
  96. Find this resource:
  97. Müller, Sophus. “Dyreornamentikken i Norden, dens Oprindelse Udvikling og Forhold til samtidige Stilarter.” Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, udgivne af det kongelige nordiske oldskrift-selskab (1880): 185–403.
  98. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  99. One of the earliest publications to argue for a late date (c. 1000) for the monument. Influenced a group of Continental and American scholars (see Cook 1912) who supported a late date for the cross, based in part on comparison with continental monuments, which it was believed must predate Ruthwell.
  100. Find this resource:
  101. Nicolson, William. “Bishop Nicolson’s Diaries: Part II.” Edited by H. Ware. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 2 (1902): 155–230.
  102. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  103. Nicolson, Bishop of Carlisle, visited the cross in 1697 and 1704. His diaries provide some of the earliest accounts of the cross. Includes an important description of the fragments of the cross as they lay inside the church and around the churchyard at Ruthwell. Also recounts a local legend about the discovery and erection of the monument.
  104. Find this resource:
  105. Iconography
  106.  
  107. The iconography of the Ruthwell Cross is both complex and controversial. It unites figural and non-figural imagery with the words and languages of its multiple inscriptions, as well as with the light and space of the landscape in which it originally stood. Each of the shaft’s figural panels is surrounded by a Latin inscription identifying the figures or scenes depicted. The original west face of the cross is carved with scenes that have a Eucharistic significance (from base to top): the Flight into or out of Egypt, Saints Paul and Anthony breaking bread in the desert, Christ recognized by beasts, John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei. The four evangelists with their symbols were carved in the four arms of the cross head, but the transom is missing and the symbols of Matthew (in the lower arm at the top of the shaft) and John (upper arm, or capstone) are the only ones to survive. The capstone was put on the wrong way around when the cross was reconstructed in the 19th century. The scenes on the original east face have a baptismal significance (from base to top): the Annunciation, the healing of the man born blind, Mary Magdalene washing Christ’s feet with her tears and drying them with her hair, the Visitation/Martha and Mary, an archer in the lower arm of the cross head, an eagle sitting on a branch in the upper arm of the cross head. The Crucifixion carved beneath the Annunciation is a later addition added, perhaps, when the cross was raised and moved inside a church, possibly in the 9th century. The original north and south sides of the cross are carved with panels of continuous inhabited vine-scroll, each surrounded by half of a runic poem on the Crucifixion. To get a good sense of the overall iconographic program start with Ó Carragáin 1978 and Farrell 1986. Karkov 2013 considers how the iconography of the carved panels and the voice of the inscribed poem work together to guide the viewer around the cross and create a mental vision in the viewer’s mind. Meyvaert 1992 suggests an alternative meaning for the cross and an alternative reconstruction of the upper stone of the shaft. Bailey 1993 outlines the flaws in Meyvaert’s argument. Publications that focus on individual panels follow below.
  108.  
  109. Bailey, Richard. “The Ruthwell Cross: a Non-Problem.” Antiquaries Journal 73 (1993): 141–148.
  110. DOI: 10.1017/S0003581500071729Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  111. Uses a structural and iconographic analysis of the cross to show definitively that the upper stone of the cross shaft has not been reconstructed the wrong way round, as argued in Meyvaert 1992.
  112. Find this resource:
  113. Farrell, Robert T. “Reflections on the Iconography of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses.” In Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture. Edited by Paul E. Szarmach and Virginia D. Oggins, 357–376. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 1986.
  114. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  115. Surveys the overall meaning of the cross as it survives and speculates on what might have been depicted in the now-missing transom of the cross.
  116. Find this resource:
  117. Karkov, Catherine E. “The Art of Writing: Voice, Image, Object.” In The Cambridge History of Early Medieval English Literature. Edited by Clare A. Lees, 73–98. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  118. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  119. Discusses the iconography of the figural and vine-scroll panels of the cross together with the iconography of the runic poem inscribed on its narrow sides. Also explores how the arrangement of text and image guide one’s movement around the cross, making the spectator part of a larger vision of cross, community, and crucifixion.
  120. Find this resource:
  121. Meyvaert, Paul. “New Perspective on the Ruthwell Cross and Vita Monastica.” In The Ruthwell Cross. Edited by Brendan Cassidy, 95–166. Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1992.
  122. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  123. Argues that the cross is the work of a Northumbrian monk brought up with a knowledge of Lindisfarne traditions and of Bede, as evidenced by the cross’s iconographic focus on the active and contemplative facets of the monastic life, and on the figure of Ecclesia. Also argues on the basis of this iconographic focus that the upper stone of the shaft has been reversed. Interprets the John the Baptist panel as God the Father, and the Visitation/ Martha and Mary panel as Martha and Mary alone.
  124. Find this resource:
  125. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Liturgical Innovations Associated with Pope Sergius and the Iconography of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses.” In Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in Honour of the 1300th Anniversary of the Birth of Bede, Given at Cornell University in 1973 and 1974. Edited by Robert T. Farrell, 131–147. British Archaeological Reports, Brit. Ser. 46. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1978.
  126. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  127. A seminal paper that suggests the iconography of the cross is intimately linked to liturgical innovations that occurred under Pope Sergius I. Lays the groundwork for much of the later iconographic analyses of the cross.
  128. Find this resource:
  129. Annunciation and Visitation/Martha and Mary
  130.  
  131. These two panels sit at the base and top of the original east face of the shaft respectively and are most often discussed together. The “Visitation/Martha and Mary” panel is one of the most problematic and controversial images on the cross. Its visual composition is clearly based on traditional images of the Visitation, but the fragmentary inscription that survives appears to identify the women as Martha and Mary. Some scholars will argue that it is the Visitation and that the inscription is wrong (or has been wrongly reconstructed), others will argue that it is Martha and Mary (the artist simply using an image of the Visitation as a model), and still others will see it as a deliberate conflation of the two. Howlett 1974 and Ó Carragáin 2003 are representative of the first two factions. For a reading of the panel as a deliberate combination of the two scenes see Farr 1997 (cited under Identity and Gender).
  132.  
  133. Howlett, David. “Two Panels on the Ruthwell Cross.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37 (1974): 333–336.
  134. DOI: 10.2307/750847Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  135. Proposes that the panel at the top of the original east face of the Ruthwell Cross shaft depicts Martha and Mary rather than the Visitation.
  136. Find this resource:
  137. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Between Annunciation and Visitation: Spiritual Birth and the Cycles of the Sun on the Ruthwell Cross: A Response to Fred Orton.” In Theorizing Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Edited by Catherine E. Karkov and Fred Orton, 131–187. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2003.
  138. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  139. Reads the Annunciation and Visitation panels as a key pair in understanding the meaning and function of the cross. The dates of both feasts, and the dates of the births of Christ and John the Baptist, are central to the liturgical year and hence the liturgical function of the cross. Argues that the uppermost panel of the east face is the Visitation and not Martha and Mary.
  140. Find this resource:
  141. Mary Magdalene at the Feet of Christ
  142.  
  143. Beneath the Visitation on the original east face of the cross is a panel showing Mary Magdalene (or “the woman who was a sinner”) at Christ’s feet washing them with her tears and drying them with the hairs of her head. All general publications on the cross will discuss this panel, but it has received surprisingly little attention in its own right. Pulliam 2011 and Pulliam 2013 each take up different aspects of the panel and should be read together.
  144.  
  145. Pulliam, Heather. “‘The Eyes of the Handmaid’: The Corbie Psalter and the Ruthwell Cross.” In Listen, O Isles, Unto Me: Studies in Medieval Word and Image in Honour of Jennifer O’Reilly. Edited by Elizabeth Mullins and Diarmuid Scully, 253–262. Cork, Ireland: Cork University Press, 2011.
  146. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  147. Explores the themes of recognition and vision on the cross, focusing in part on the Magdalene panel but also dealing with the Marian iconography of the cross in general. This iconography is considered alongside that of the Corbie Psalter written and illuminated in the late 8th century.
  148. Find this resource:
  149. Pulliam, Heather. “Blood, Water and Stone: the Performative Cross.” In Making Histories: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Insular Art, York 2011. Edited by Jane Hawkes, 262–278. Stamford, CT: Paul Watkins, 2013.
  150. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  151. This paper is about far more than the Ruthwell Magdalene panel, but Pulliam here speculates on how rainwater might have added to the meaning of some of the panels when the cross was in its original outdoor location. The emotional and spiritual impact of this panel might have been increased dramatically by the Magdalene appearing to shed genuine tears.
  152. Find this resource:
  153. Healing of the Blind Man
  154.  
  155. This panel is located just below that of Mary Magdalene at Christ’s feet. Christ originally held out a wand, the traces of which can still be seen on the stone at the back of the panel. The panel appears to be unfinished, but the blank space beneath it was part of the original design of the cross. It is possible that it might have provided the ground for a painted inscription. Cement was used to extend the robes of Christ and the blind man down into the blank space when the cross was reconstructed in the 19th century. This is the only representation of this scene to survive from early Anglo-Saxon England, and is thus particularly important. Hawkes 2003 discusses both its rarity and its importance. See also Pulliam 2013 (cited under Mary Magdalene at the Feet of Christ) for how rainwater falling on the cross would have added to the meaning of this panel.
  156.  
  157. Hawkes, Jane. “Sacraments in Stone: the Mysteries of Christ in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture.” In The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300. Edited by Martin Carver, 351–370. York, UK: York Medieval Press, 2003.
  158. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  159. Establishes the rarity of depictions of Christ’s miracles in Anglo-Saxon sculpture before the Viking age. Hawkes discusses the Ruthwell panel’s iconographic and liturgical importance.
  160. Find this resource:
  161. John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei
  162.  
  163. This panel is located at the top of the original west face of the shaft, opposite the Visitation/Martha and Mary panel. It is also one of the most controversial panels on the cross. Most scholars believe that it depicts John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei, but there is also a significant number who believe the figure is God the Father with the apocalyptic Lamb. Ó Carragáin has been the most vociferous supporter of the John the Baptist identification and Meyvaert the most stringent supporter for seeing the figure as God the Father. The publications listed below should be read in chronological order: Meyvaert 1982; Henderson 1985; Ó Carragáin, et al. 2001; and Meyvaert 2011.
  164.  
  165. Henderson, George. “The Saint John the Baptist Panel on the Ruthwell Cross.” Gesta 24 (1985): 3–12.
  166. DOI: 10.2307/766928Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  167. Challenges Meyvaert’s identification of the panel as God the Father with the Lamb, and reasserts the case for the panel representing John the Baptist with the Lamb (Meyvaert 1982). Demonstrates the panel’s symbolic, iconographic, and liturgical connections to other panels on the cross, especially the Flight into or out of Egypt and the Christ over the Beasts panels.
  168. Find this resource:
  169. Meyvaert, Paul. “An Apocalypse Panel on the Ruthwell Cross.” In Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 9, Proceedings of the Southeastern Institute of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Summer, 1978. Edited by Frank Tirro, 3–32. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1982.
  170. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  171. Asserts that the panel shows God the Father seated on his throne as in Revelation 5:1–14 and calls into question previous readings of a coherent iconographic/liturgical program in the cross’s panels. Also argues that the runic poem is a later addition to the cross.
  172. Find this resource:
  173. Meyvaert, Paul. “Reclaiming the Apocalypse Majestas Panel for the Ruthewll Cross.” In Insular and Anglo-Saxon Art and Thought in the Early Medieval Period. Edited by Colum Hourihane, 109–132. Princeton, NJ: Index of Christian Art and Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 2011.
  174. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  175. Revisits Meyvaert 1982, arguing once again that the panel represents God the Father, and not John the Baptist, handing the book of judgment to the Lamb. Meyvaert believes the damaged inscription should be reconstructed as “UNUM VERUM DEUS ADOREMUS” (“We adore one true God”).
  176. Find this resource:
  177. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn, and Jane Hawkes, with Ross Trench-Jellicoe. “John the Baptist and the Agnus Dei: Ruthwell (and Bewcastle) Revisited.” Antiquaries Journal 81 (2001): 131–153.
  178. DOI: 10.1017/S0003581500072176Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  179. Argues against Meyvaert 1982 and its interpretation of the panel as God the Father, demonstrating that the figure is a version of the early Christian iconography of John the Baptist with the Lamb of God. Supports the view of Ó Carragáin 1978 (cited under Iconography) that the panel is a response to the introduction of the Agnus Dei chant by Pope Sergius I.
  180. Find this resource:
  181. Christ over the Beasts
  182.  
  183. This is the largest panel on the west face of the shaft and has thus traditionally been interpreted as its primary panel. It is directly opposite Mary Magdalene at the feet of Christ on the east face. The animals at Christ’s feet also help to connect it with the creatures of the inhabited vine-scrolls on the north and south faces. Start with Haney 1985 and Ó Carragáin 1986, which form the foundation for later scholarship. Then consult Bailey 2011.
  184.  
  185. Bailey, Richard N. “In Medio Duorum Animalium: Habakkuk, the Ruthwell Cross and Bede’s Life of St Cuthbert.” In Listen, O Isles, Unto Me: Studies in Medieval Word and Image in Honour of Jennifer O’Reilly. Edited by Elizabeth Mullins and Diarmuid Scully, 243–252. Cork, Ireland: Cork University Press, 2011.
  186. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  187. Builds on and responds to Ó Carragáin 1986, questioning whether that article was correct in seeing an allusion to Habbakuk in the panel. Bailey concludes that such an allusion may well be present but that the case is complicated, and texts other than Bede and Habbakuk must be considered.
  188. Find this resource:
  189. Haney, Kristine E. “The Christ and the Beasts Panel on the Ruthwell Cross.” Anglo-Saxon England 14 (1985): 215–231.
  190. DOI: 10.1017/S0263675100001356Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  191. Sees this panel as key to understanding the meaning of the cross as a whole. Haney brings together both visual and textual sources (especially the Vita S. Pauli) to argue that the panel does not represent Christ trampling on the beasts (as scholars such as Saxl and Schapiro had believed) but Christ recognized by the beasts as savior of the world.
  192. Find this resource:
  193. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Christ Over the Beasts and the Agnus Dei: Two Multivalent Panels on the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses.” In Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture. Edited by Paul E. Szarmach and Virginia D. Oggins, 377–403. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 1986.
  194. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  195. Like Haney, Ó Carragáin interprets the panel through a combination of both textual and visual sources. His primary focus is on the Canticle of Habbakuk and the liturgical meaning and importance of both this panel and the depiction of John the Baptist with the Agnus Dei located above it.
  196. Find this resource:
  197. Saints Paul and Anthony Breaking Bread in the Desert
  198.  
  199. Located just below the panel of Christ over the Beasts, this panel is also concerned with the theme of the recognition of Christ, this time in the form of the Eucharist, symbolized by the loaf of bread that the two saints break between them. Ó Carragáin 1988 is the seminal publication on the panel. Thomas 2013 covers far more than the Ruthwell Cross panel but is useful for its detailed survey of the visual record and for its close reading of the different ways in which the theme was represented.
  200.  
  201. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “The Meeting of St. Paul and St. Anthony: Visual and Literary Uses of a Eucharistic Motif.” In Keimelia: Studies in Archaeology and History in Honour of Tom Delaney. Edited by Gearóid MacNiocaill and Patrick Wallace, 1–58. Galway, Ireland: Galway University Press, 1988.
  202. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  203. The meeting of Paul and Anthony is a subject that occurs in sculpture in early medieval Ireland and Scotland, as well as on the Ruthwell Cross. Ó Carragáin discusses the range of depictions and their textual sources, highlighting the Eucharistic meaning of the subject.
  204. Find this resource:
  205. Thomas, Colleen. “Beyond the Desert: the Narrative Composition of Medieval Images for the Hermits Paul and Antony Receiving Bread from the Raven.” PhD diss., Trinity College Dublin, 2013.
  206. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  207. While Ó Carragáin focused on the Paul and Anthony panel as one that linked Ruthwell to a number of other Insular sculptures, Thomas’s thesis is important for exploring the differences between the groups of related images and what makes some images (including the Ruthwell panel) unique.
  208. Find this resource:
  209. The Flight Into or Out of Egypt
  210.  
  211. There are no studies devoted exclusively to this panel of the cross, perhaps because of the episode’s relative insignificance in both the canonical gospel narratives and early medieval liturgical practice. Even the most in-depth considerations of this panel are quite brief. Start with Duncan 1833, which was the first to identify the panel as the Flight into Egypt, and Saxl 1943, whose author suggested a reason for its presence on the cross. Henderson 1985 and Meyvaert 1992 offer differing but complementary reasons for why the scene should be interpreted as the Flight out of Egypt. Veelenturf 2001 discusses the panel in the context of similar scenes on the Irish high crosses.
  212.  
  213. Duncan, Henry. “An Account of the Remarkable Monument in the Shape of a Cross, Inscribed with Roman and Runic Letters, Preserved in the Garden of Ruthwell Manse, Dumfriesshire.” Archaeologia Scotica 4 (1833): 313–326.
  214. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  215. Describes the details that could be made out in the panel and identifies the scene as the Flight into Egypt (p. 325).
  216. Find this resource:
  217. Henderson, George. “The Saint John the Baptist Panel on the Ruthwell Cross.” Gesta 24 (1985): 3–12.
  218. DOI: 10.2307/766928Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  219. First to suggest the panel depicted the Return from Egypt rather than Flight into Egypt. Pointed out that the flow of the visual narrative from left to right in other panels corresponded to the direction in which we read texts and that there must therefore be significance to the reversal of direction in this panel.
  220. Find this resource:
  221. Meyvaert, Paul. “New Perspective on the Ruthwell Cross and Vita Monastica.” In The Ruthwell Cross. Edited by Brendan Cassidy, 95–166. Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1992.
  222. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  223. Discussion of this panel on pp. 129–130. Agrees with Henderson 1985 and its interpretation of the panel as the Flight out of Egypt, but it disagrees with the reasons for that identification. Suggests the panel refers to the feast of the Educatio Christi de Egypto, which was celebrated in Northumbria and Ireland.
  224. Find this resource:
  225. Saxl, Fritz. “The Ruthwell Cross.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 6 (1943): 1–19.
  226. DOI: 10.2307/750418Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  227. At pp. 4–5, notes the insignificance of the Flight into Egypt in the canonical gospels and suggests that the presence of the panel on the cross may have been influenced by the apocryphal Gospel of Psuedo-Matthew.
  228. Find this resource:
  229. Veelenturf, Kees. “Irish High Crosses and Continental Art: Shades of Iconographical Ambiguity.” In From Ireland Coming: Irish Art from the Early Christian to the Late Gothic Period and its European Context. Edited by Colum Hourihane, 83–101. Princeton, NJ: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, Princeton University Press, 2001.
  230. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  231. Discusses the pros and cons of interpreting the scene as the Flight into or the Flight out of Egypt, suggesting that a similar scene on one of the high crosses at Moone should also be interpreted as the Flight out of Egypt (pp. 94–96).
  232. Find this resource:
  233. The Archer
  234.  
  235. The archer about to let loose an arrow from his bow is in the lower arm of the cross head on the east face of the cross, just above the Visitation/Martha and Mary panel. It has traditionally been assumed that the archer is aiming his arrow at the eagle on a branch that was originally located in the upper arm (or capstone) of this side but was wrongly attached to the cross facing the other direction in the 19th century. The panel also has symbolic or liturgical connections with other panels on the cross and can be connected with the words of the runic poem in which the cross describes itself as having been wounded with arrows. Kantorowicz 1960 offers an interpretation of the panel that, while no longer generally accepted, still has interesting implications. Schapiro 1963 offers a response that remains influential. Raw 1967 is possibly the most important article on the panel; it has certainly proved the most influential. For the relationship of the panel to the larger iconographic program of the cross see Farrell 1978 and Ó Carragáin 2009, both of whom respond to Raw’s work, though from differing perspectives.
  236.  
  237. Farrell, Robert T. “The Archer and Associated Figures on the Ruthwell Cross—a Reconsideration.” In Bede and Anglo-Saxon England: Papers in Honour of the 1300th Anniversary of the Birth of Bede, Given at Cornell University in 1973 and 1974. Edited by Robert T. Farrell, 96–117. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 46. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1978.
  238. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  239. Takes issue with earlier interpretations of the archer, especially that of Raw 1967. He sees the figure as a symbol of the devil firing the arrows of heresy and ignorance. His argument is based in large part on Jerome’s Tractatus in Psalmos.
  240. Find this resource:
  241. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. “The Archer on the Ruthwell Cross.” Art Bulletin 42.1 (1960): 57–59.
  242. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  243. Suggests the archer may represent Ishmael (Genesis 21), who, while neither a saint nor a hermit, was a dweller in the desert wilderness.
  244. Find this resource:
  245. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Chosen Arrows, First Hidden then Revealed: The Visitation–Archer Sequence as a Key to the Unity of the Ruthwell Cross.” In Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald. Edited by Stephen Baxter, Catherine E. Karkov, Janet L. Nelson, and David Pelteret, 185–204. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009.
  246. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  247. Builds on Raw 1967, interpreting the archer as liturgically connected to the Visitation and the births of Christ and John the Baptist. The archer’s chosen arrow is John the Baptist, born at midsummer and pointing to the birth of Christ at midwinter.
  248. Find this resource:
  249. Raw, Barbara. “The Archer, the Eagle and the Lamb.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 30 (1967): 391–394.
  250. DOI: 10.2307/750754Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  251. Interprets the archer as a preacher shooting the arrows of scripture into the hearts of the faithful. Sees him as integral to the iconography of the whole of the upper stone of the cross.
  252. Find this resource:
  253. Schapiro, Meyer. “The Bowman and the Bird on the Ruthwell Cross and Other Works: the Interpretation of Secular Themes in Early Medieval Religious Art.” Art Bulletin 45 (1963): 351–355.
  254. DOI: 10.1080/00043079.1963.10790131Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  255. Citing a wealth of visual evidence, Schapiro argues that the archer is a secular hunter and that it is wrong to think that all images appearing on religious works of art necessarily carry religious meaning. He also makes the point that “secular” does not mean that the figure is purely decorative and that the figure of the hunter had profound social, possibly apotropaic significance. Schapiro’s article is a response to Kantorowicz 1960.
  256. Find this resource:
  257. The Inhabited Vine-scroll
  258.  
  259. Both the original north and south sides of the cross are covered with continuous inhabited vine-scrolls in which birds and beasts bite at bunches of fruit. They are traditionally understood to be symbols of Christ as the true vine, with the animals representing the faithful partaking of his body and blood. Both in this sense, as well as in their depiction of a type of “tree,” they are connected to the runic poem on the Crucifixion that surrounds them. Kitzinger 1936 is an important early work on the origins of vine-scroll decoration in the art of the Mediterranean. Cramp 1959–1960 stresses the importance of vine-scroll ornament to the meaning of Ruthwell and related sculptures. Hawkes 2011 provides discussion of the Ruthwell vine-scroll and demonstrates the need for scholars to pay more attention to what is still often considered “mere ornament.”
  260.  
  261. Cramp, Rosemary. “Anglian Sculptured Crosses of Dumfriesshire.” Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 38 (1959–1960): 9–20.
  262. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  263. Focuses primarily on vine-scroll ornament on the sculpted crosses of the area, with Ruthwell central among them. Makes the case for the distinctiveness of vine-scroll ornament at the site, and for its centrality to the meaning of the monument. Also argues for the runic poem being a part of the original design of the cross.
  264. Find this resource:
  265. Hawkes, Jane. “Design and Decoration: Re-visualizing Rome in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture.” In Rome Across Time and Space: Cultural Transmission and the Exchange of Ideas c. 500–1400. Edited by Claudia Bolgia, Rosamond McKitterick, and John Osborne, 203–222. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  266. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  267. Not specifically about the Ruthwell Cross but includes it in a larger discussion of vine-scroll, and of the need for scholars to pay more attention to nonfigural ornament in Anglo-Saxon sculpture.
  268. Find this resource:
  269. Kitzinger, Ernst. “Anglo-Saxon Vine-scroll Ornament.” Antiquity 10 (1936): 65–70.
  270. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  271. One of the first articles to focus on vine-scroll as an important element in its own right, Kitzinger was primarily concerned with establishing the classical origins of Anglo-Saxon vine-scroll ornament and the chronology of Anglo-Saxon sculpture, and was rather less concerned with any meaning the vine-scroll might carry.
  272. Find this resource:
  273. Inscriptions
  274.  
  275. The cross includes Latin inscriptions around each of the figural panels on its two broad faces, and a long poem on the Crucifixion spoken in the first person voice of the True Cross on its two narrow faces (originally the north and south faces). Early scholars erroneously attributed the poem to either Cædmon, author of Cædmon’s Hymn, or Cynewulf, the author of Elene and other poems. The author of the poem remains unknown, but it is still studied most often in connection with The Dream of the Rood.
  276.  
  277. The Layout of the Poem
  278.  
  279. Much scholarly argument has been devoted to the logic of the layout and its implications for the legibility of the poem, which is inscribed in horizontal rows of runes. Higgitt 2003 provides an excellent discussion of the Latin inscriptions in addition to the design of the runic inscriptions. Kemble 1840 is the earliest accurate identification of the runes and transcription of the poem. Howlett 1976 offers a hypothetical reconstruction of missing sections of the poem. Ó Carragáin 2008 argues that the layout of the poem is not unusual and the poem would have been perfectly legible to a learned Anglo-Saxon monastic reader.
  280.  
  281. Higgitt, John. “Design and Meaning in Early Medieval Inscriptions in Britain and Ireland.” In The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300. Edited by Martin Carver, 327–338. York, UK: York Medieval Press, 2003.
  282. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  283. Discusses the design and layout of the poem in relation to other early medieval inscriptions.
  284. Find this resource:
  285. Howlett, David. “A Reconstruction of the Ruthwell Crucifixion Poem.” Studia Neophilologica 48 (1976): 54–58.
  286. DOI: 10.1080/00393277608587638Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  287. Extremely speculative reconstruction of the damaged and missing lines of the poem.
  288. Find this resource:
  289. Kemble, John Mitchell. “On Anglo-Saxon Runes.” Archaeologia 28 (1840): 327–372.
  290. DOI: 10.1017/S0261340900000448Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  291. Kemble was the first to provide an accurate transcription and interpretation of the runic poem. This paper identifies the runes as Anglo-Saxon rather than Scandinavian and transcribes them in the correct order. Must be read with Kemble 1844 (cited under Content and Meaning of the Poem).
  292. Find this resource:
  293. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Who Then Read the Ruthwell Poem in the Eighth Century?” In Aedficia Nova: Studies in Honor of Rosemary Cramp. Edited by Catherine E. Karkov and Helen Damico, 43–75. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2008.
  294. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  295. Argues that the runic poem, which is laid out primarily in short horizontal rows of runes without word division down the borders of the narrow sides of the monument, would not have been difficult for the cross’s audience to read and that the poem was meant to be sung. Also argues for the centrality of the vine-scrolls the poem surrounds to the meaning of the monument.
  296. Find this resource:
  297. The Content and Meaning of the Poem
  298.  
  299. The relationship between the Ruthwell runic pome and The Dream of the Rood, which survives in the c. 1000 Vercelli book, has long been a matter of debate. Kemble 1844 was the first to connect the Ruthwell poem with The Dream of the Rood. Swanton 1987 analyzes the relationship between the two in some detail. Dockray-Miller 1997 explores how the cross is gendered, primarily in the later Dream of the Rood but also in the Ruthwell verses, while Kendall 2006 sees the cross functioning as both a sign and the very thing that is signified in both poems. The Ruthwell poem is badly damaged in places, and the final lines are missing. Howlett 2008 offers a hypothetical reconstruction of the poem. Conner 2008 and Stanley 1987 make the argument for the poem being a later addition to the cross. Bammsberger 2003 is a detailed analysis of the poem’s opening words. Ó Carragáin 1987–1988 analyzes the liturgical importance of the verses (see also Ó Carragáin 2008, cited under Layout of the Poem). O’Neill 2005 is best known for her argument that the narrator of the Crucifixion poem is not the cross. Bammsberger 2010 demonstrates how O’Neill’s argument is faulty.
  300.  
  301. Bammsberger, Alfred. “Die Runeninschrift auf dem Ruthwellkreuz.” Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 21.2 (2003): 265–273.
  302. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  303. A close reading of the opening lines of the Ruthwell poem and the Old English phrase “ondgeredæhinæ” (meaning “prepared himself”).
  304. Find this resource:
  305. Bammsberger, Alfred. “The Narrator in the Ruthwell Crucifixion Poem.” Notes and Queries 57.3 (2010): 290–292.
  306. DOI: 10.1093/notesj/gjq081Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  307. Argues against O’Neill 2005 and its claim that the narrator of the poem need not be the cross, but could equally well be Mary, Longinus, or the repentant thief. Reinforces the case for the narrator being the cross itself.
  308. Find this resource:
  309. Conner, Patrick W. “The Ruthwell Monument Runic Poem in a Tenth-Century Context.” Review of English Studies new series 59 (2008): 25–51.
  310. DOI: 10.1093/res/hgm124Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  311. Uses textual and cultural evidence to argue that the runic poem is a product of the 10th rather than the 8th century and that it is a later addition to the original 8th-century monument.
  312. Find this resource:
  313. Dockray-Miller, Mary. “The Feminized Cross of The Dream of the Rood.” Philological Quarterly 76 (1997): 1–18.
  314. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  315. Although the focus of this article is on The Dream of the Rood, Dockray-Miller’s analysis of the way the cross is feminized in the poem is generally applicable to the cross in the Ruthwell verses as well.
  316. Find this resource:
  317. Howlett, David. “A Corrected Form of the Reconstructed Ruthwell Crucifixion Poem.” Studia Neophilologica 80.2 (2008): 255–257.
  318. DOI: 10.1080/00393270802493225Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  319. An updated version of Howlett 1976 (cited under Layout of the Poem). Includes his suggested edition of the poem.
  320. Find this resource:
  321. Kemble, John Mitchell. “Additional Observations on the Runic Obelisk at Ruthwell, the Poem of The Dream of the Rood, and a Runic Copper Dish Found at Chertsy.” Archaeologia 30 (1844): 31–46.
  322. DOI: 10.1017/S0261340900016477Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  323. Written after Kemble became aware of an edition of the Vercelli Book. The first publication to establish a connection between the Ruthwell verses and the poem The Dream of the Rood preserved in the late-10th-century Vercelli Book. Suggests either that the later poem could be an expanded version of verses such as those on the Ruthwell Cross, or that the verses on the cross could have been excerpted from the longer poem.
  324. Find this resource:
  325. Kendall, Calvin B. “From Sign to Vision the Ruthwell Cross and the Dream of the Rood.” In The Place of the Cross in Anglo-Saxon England. Edited by Catherine E. Karkov, Sarah Larratt Keefer, and Karen L. Jolly, 129–157. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2006.
  326. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  327. Elucidates the relationship between the stone cross and the manuscript poem as material things. Following St. Augustine, he interprets the Ruthwell Cross as simultaneously sign and signified, and understands the Dream of the Rood as a meditation on the cross as a sign.
  328. Find this resource:
  329. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “The Ruthwell Crucifixion Poem in its Iconographic and Liturgical Contexts.” Peritia 6–7 (1987–1988): 1–71.
  330. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  331. In part a response to Howlett 1976 (cited under Layout of the Poem). Argues that the poem is key to understanding the meaning of the cross. Ó Carragáin shows how it provides a guide to the sequence of images depicted on the cross and to how the cross may have functioned as part of liturgical practice.
  332. Find this resource:
  333. O’Neill, Pamela. “A Pillar Curiously Engraven; With Some Inscriptions Upon It”: What is the Ruthwell Cross. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2005.
  334. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  335. The publication of the author’s University of Sydney PhD thesis. The book is about the cross in general but is best known for the author’s argument that the narrator of the poem, traditionally seen as the cross itself, could also be Mary, Longinus, or the repentant thief. The argument is based in part on analysis of the poem’s pronouns and in part on the idea that the monument was originally a column/obelisk/pillar and not a cross.
  336. Find this resource:
  337. Stanley, Eric G. “The Ruthwell Cross Inscription: Some Linguistic and Literary Implications of Paul Meyvaert’s Paper An Apocalypse Panel on the Ruthwell Cross.” In A Collection of Papers with Emphasis on Old English Literature. Edited by Eric G. Stanley, 384–399. Publications of the Dictionary of Old English, 3. Toronto and Leiden, The Netherlands, 1987.
  338. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  339. Argues that the poem is both an abbreviation of The Dream of the Rood and a late-9th-century addition to the cross. His argument is based primarily on linguistic analysis.
  340. Find this resource:
  341. Swanton, Michael, ed. The Dream of the Rood. Rev. ed. Exeter: Exeter University Press, 1987. 9–42.
  342. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  343. Argues that the Ruthwell poem is a “lesser text” of The Dream of the Rood.
  344. Find this resource:
  345. Identity and Gender
  346.  
  347. Traditionally the Ruthwell Cross has been studied for its style, iconography, history, and liturgical importance. It is only relatively recently that scholars have turned to considering what the cross has to say about issues of ethnicity, class, and gender. Gender has become an especially important issue in many discussions of both the Ruthwell Cross and the early monastery at Ruthwell. It is notable that the shaft cross has just as many depictions of women as it does men, although there is ongoing debate over how they should be interpreted. Some scholars have also suggested that the monastic community at Ruthwell may have been a double house of women and men under the rule of an abbess. Start with Farr 1997, Farr 1999, and Karkov 2003. Orton 2004 is best for issues of class and ethnicity. Ó Carragáin 2006 is an argument against the idea that the cross excludes some groups of viewers.
  348.  
  349. Farr, Carol A. “Worthy Women on the Ruthwell Cross: Woman as Sign in Early Anglo-Saxon Monasticism.” In The Insular Tradition. Edited by Catherine E. Karkov, Robert T. Farrell, and Michael Ryan, 45–61. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
  350. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  351. Iconographic analysis of the women depicted on the cross. Farr argues that while there may be a basic equality between the number of men and women depicted, the women are almost all shown in panels with a baptismal significance, and the men are in panels with a Eucharistic significance. Women in the early church could not administer the Eucharist, and the cross thus portrays women as being of lesser liturgical/social importance.
  352. Find this resource:
  353. Farr, Carol A. “Questioning the Monuments: Approaches to Anglo-Saxon Sculpture through Gender Studies.” In The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: Basic Readings. Edited by Catherine E. Karkov, 375–402. New York: Garland, 1999.
  354. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  355. Argues for the importance of using gender theory in the interpretation of Anglo-Saxon sculpture and demonstrates its value in analysis of a group of sculptures, including Ruthwell. Farr also highlights the importance of studying non-Marian images of women, which are relatively rare in early Anglo-Saxon sculpture.
  356. Find this resource:
  357. Karkov, Catherine E. “Naming and Renaming: the Inscription of Gender in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture.” In Theorizing Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Edited by Catherine E. Karkov and Fred Orton, 31–64. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2003.
  358. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  359. Considers the depiction of women on the Ruthwell Cross and the gendered voices of its runic poem in the context of inscriptions and images of women from Whitby and Hackness. Suggests that women have a more powerful place on the cross than was argued in Farr 1997 and Farr 1999.
  360. Find this resource:
  361. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “At Once Elitist and Popular: the Audiences of the Bewcastle and Ruthwell Crosses.” Studies in Church History 42 (2006): 18–40.
  362. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  363. Argues against the cross as excluding or subordinating any faction of its audience on the basis of class, gender, or ethnicity. Argues for an inclusive spiritual and liturgical reading of the cross.
  364. Find this resource:
  365. Orton, Fred. “Northumbrian Identity in the Eighth Century: The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Monuments; Style, Classification, Class, and the Form of Ideology.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 34 (2004): 95–105.
  366. DOI: 10.1215/10829636-34-1-95Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  367. Considers what the differences between the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses and their differing locations and contexts of production reveal about ideas of Northumbrian identity. Excellent analysis of the ideological work of style.
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!