118 The Ruthwell Cross and the Story it has to Tell. 



Date of the Cross. 



Without entering into more detail regarding the date of the 

 Cross or the authorship of the poem inscribed upon it, it may 

 sufifice to state that the generally accepted date for the erection 

 of the Bewcastle Cross is about 670, and for the Ruthwell Cross 

 about ten years later, that is 680. The question of the author- 

 ship of the poem, "The Lay of the Holy Rood," has been a 

 quaestio vexala amongst Anglo-Saxon scholars for well nigh half 

 a century ; and it is doubtful if it will ever be determined with 

 absolute certainty. Stephens believed that he had finally set the 

 matter at rest by discovering upon the top stone of our Cross the 

 words " Caedmon me fawed " (Caedmon made me); these words 

 referring, as he fondly imagined, to the stanzas in Runic charac- 

 ters inclosing the vine-tracery. The Bishop of Bristol, in 1889, 

 and Professor Wilhelm Vietor of Marburg, in 1894, cast doubt 

 upon the correctness of this transcription of the Runes upon the 

 top stone ; and their conclusions have since been confirmed by 

 other Anglo-Saxon students. English scholars generally accept 

 the view that Caedmon was the author of the Cross Lay, though 

 the poet's name cannot be found upon tlie stone. German and 

 American authorities, however, are fairly unanimous in ascribing 

 the authorship to Cynewulf. One of the most eminent of them. 

 Professor Albert Cook, of Yale University, in his learned text 

 book, "The Dream of the Rood" (1905), arrives at the con- 

 clusion that the "Dream" is the work of Cynewulf "in the 

 maturity of his powers, rich with experience, but before age had 

 enfeebled his phantasy or seriously impaired his judgment." 

 He, therefore, assumes that " the Ruthwell inscription is at 

 least as late as the tenth century." Nevertheless it may safely 

 be affirmed that the weight of the evidence is still in favour of 

 the authorship of Caedmon. The monk of Whitby still holds 

 the field, and inasmuch as this high academical discussion has 

 now resoh'ed itself merelv into a question of verbal criticism it 

 may be safely left to the philologists ! We need not trouble 

 ourselves with it further. 



A Sermon in Stone. 



Xo one who studies the Ruthwell Cross with anv degree of 

 care — as it has been my privilege to do for twenty vears — can 



I 



