126 
THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
Runic Monuments. 
Runic m o n u - 
ments have been 
found in Sweden, 
Norway, Den- 
mark and England 
and are of very 
ancient origin. 
They are called 
Runic from the 
fact that they are 
inscribed with 
Runes or letters 
of the Runic al- 
phabet, which was 
in use by the An- 
gles or inhabit- 
ants of the Nor- 
thern countries — 
not including Ger- 
man y — previous 
to and immedi- 
ately following 
the beginning of 
the Christian era. 
About 2000 Runic pieces have been found in Swe- 
den alone, and something less than half that num- 
ber in all the other northern countries. When it is 
considered that not one of their monuments is less 
than ten centuries old, the wonder is that any of 
them are remaining; and it would seem that the 
practice of erecting Runic stones among the early 
inhabitants of England and Sweden must have been 
quite general. 
Some of the Runic monuments are in the form 
of crosses; others represent shields; still others are 
rude pillars of stone or mere boulders bearing in- 
scriptions; a comparatively few ornamental pieces 
have been found, in which the stone has been carved 
into the form of men or of common household uten- 
sils. In all of these the symbol of the cross is to 
be lound with such frequency as to argue strongly 
that the monuments were, with few exceptions, 
Christian memorials to the dead. They were erect- 
ed over the graves of the departed, sometimes by a 
widow to her husband, a son to his father, or an 
heir of a later generation to a deceased progenitor. 
In one rich funeral sculpture a lady erected a double 
canopied slab to her deceased husband, the Dean 
Nicholas, and to herself. His full-length effigy is 
carved in the right compartment, but her own, in 
the left, is wanting, and the Runic inscription is un- 
finished. Perhaps she thought better of it and — 
married. Another lady raised her own monument 
before her death, but afterwards thought it might 
prevent her marrying again and changing her name. 
in which case the stone would be useless. She 
therefore removed it. 
In all the instances of good preservation of 
Runic monuments it is found that an exceedingly 
hard stone was used, and doubtless this was the 
custom. Granites are frequent among them and 
one piece which had withstood the elements excep- 
tionally well was a porphyrltic greenstone. It must 
be borne in mind that where these stones have not 
been buried in the ground they have frequently 
been used over and over again for monuments to 
succeeding generations, so that with this constant 
re-handling and working over with rough tools the 
fact of their preservation in anything like recogniz- 
able shape for so many centuries is all the more 
wonderful. 
How these monuments were carved is still a 
mystery. It is supposed by some that the work 
was done with iron tools; by others the conjecture 
has been offered that tools of bronze may have been 
used, but if this be possible the metal must have 
. been hardened by a process of which we know 
nothing. Against this theory is the fact that the 
writing on these monuments date from the early 
iron age. Traces of color have been found on many 
of these stones, and as some of them are cut in 
very low relief it is probable that color was applied 
to heighten the effect. Gilded metal, particularly 
lead, was used also on these Runic stones. 
One of the most celebrated of the Runic crosses 
was that discovered at Lancashire, England. It was 
dug up in an old churchyard and was found to be 
in a remarkably good state of preservation, consid- 
ering the fact that it must have been at the time of 
its discovery, 1807, at least ten centuries old. One 
arm of the cross had been broken off, but the in- 
scription remained. This has been determined to 
be a Christian burial inscription in the Northum- 
brian dialect of the Anglo-Saxon. Translated into 
Latin, the language of the church, it reads: 
Orate pro Cynibaldo Cuthberhti. 
Pray for Cynibald, the son of Cuthbert. 
Powers over Burial Places. 
The powers for preventing burial places from 
becoming dangerous to public health, to be exercised 
by order in council under the English Burial Act of 
1857, are held to be not inconsistent with the ex- 
clusive jurisdiction of the Court of Ordinary to auth- 
orize the removal and re-interment of remains bur- 
ied in consecrated burial places or vaults in conse- 
crated ground. The Court of Ordinary will have to 
in such a case, give authority for removal and re-in- 
terment, but may confine the re-interment, to a speci- 
fied place of burial and provide as to the mode and 
manner inwhich the removal and re-interment shall 
be made, and the interests of relatives guarded. 
