Monks' Dormitory, Durham cathedral, catalogue no. 50

Found by Mr Fawcett, [2] shortly before 29 May 1877, 'doing duty as the weight of a mangle' in the cottage of an old woman in the village. Purchased for 5 shillings and presented by him to the cathedral library at Durham (Greenwell 1869–79c, lxxv, lxxxii; Hodges 1894, 196; Browne 1897, 161). Both Greenwell and J. T. Fowler subsequently stated that nothing was known of its history before its reuse as a mangle weight (Stephens 1882, 113; Haverfield and Greenwell 1899, 115). This discovery was prior to the restoration of the church of St Mary Magdalene in 1878, although it had been rebuilt in 1730 after a fire (Wardell 1957, 38; Pevsner 1966, 406; Heslop 1990, 35). Yarm is the lowest crossing point on the Tees, and the medieval village was on a promontory enclosed by a loop of the river.

Broken at the top; fairly crisp

Lower part of a shaft of rectangular section.

A (broad) : The edge mouldings are rolled and a broad uncarved area survives in part at the base. There are two panels on the face, the upper one broken at the top and framed on three sides by a cable moulding. Within this panel are six complete lines of incised inscription, with possibilities of other letters at the top. The lower panel is square and framed by a roll moulding. Within it are two pairs of simple pattern E loops, joined above and below, in highly modelled broad fleshy strand. Some chipping and scarring has defaced it.

Inscription An inscription occupies the upper panel of face A. The panel is broken at the top and an uncertain amount of text is missing at the beginning. The line of lettering at the top of the panel has been almost entirely obliterated, although there are clear indications of two badly damaged letters. This is followed by six lines of lettering which are generally well preserved, although the surface is abraded in some areas. The inscription is incised and is in Insular half-uncial. The lettering is uneven and letters vary considerably in height with, for example, the V at the start of the fifth line at 2.3 cm and the R at the end of the line at 3.8 cm.

Transcription:

Reading: — [PR] — [— .]BEREHCT + SAC(ERD) + ALLA + SIGNVM AEFTER HIS BREODER A[S]SETAE + [:]

The language is clearly Old English. The damaged letter, or letters, at the beginning of the second line could be read either as M or as NI, giving either [—M]BEREHCT or [—NI]BEREHCT. The suspension SA–C may alternatively stand for SAC(ERDOS). Okasha's division of the last two words seems more convincing than the alternatives that have been proposed, which would give AEFTER HIS BREODERA [.]SETAE or AEFTER HIS BREODERA[S] SETAE (Okasha 1971, 130; cf. Page, R. 1995, 22).

Translation: '— [—]berehct + the priest + Alla + raised this sign in memory of his brother +' (Alternatively but less probably, if the penultimate word is read as BREODERA or BREODERA[S], '— [—]berehct + the priest + Alla + raised this sign in memory of his brothers +')

The lines of text were laid out informally on the stone without the use of ruled horizontal guidelines. In spite of its irregularity, the lettering is confidently cut. The script can be classed as Insular half-uncial (or majuscule) and uses such characteristic forms as the 'oc' form of A and B and L with bowed stems. As often, it employs uncial forms for R and S. The rounded uncial M in the fifth line is more unusual in this script. If the letter at the beginning of the second line is an M (rather than NI) it follows the normal half-uncial form. Alternatively, if it is read as NI, the N is again the half-uncial. The third letter of the fifth line (here read as the A of AEFTER) seems to be a capital rather than half-uncial or uncial form. It has an angled cross-bar but the parallel vertical sides and flattish top would be unusual in capital A and it is possible that the letter was first written in error as a capital M and then corrected to A, when the error was noticed. It is not clear whether the point at the end of the inscription was intended as a mid-line mark of punctuation or was accidental.

B (narrow) : The outer edge moulding is rolled. Within it is a narrower moulding which flanks both panels and frames the lower one at the base. Of two long rectangular panels, much of the upper one is lost; it contains the final loop of a three-cord plait with the loose end looking like a corner pellet. The strand is broad and well modelled. The panel is terminated by two parallel horizontal strands forming a single step in the middle: a two-cord twist, essentially, and flanked by the inner moulding. The lower panel contains three registers of a 'scroll fret': lying strands at each side swing into half spirals which interlock with each other, each element like an embellished figure 2. The registers are divided by horizontal slits with deep, expanded serifs like triangular hole-points. The strand is well modelled.

C (broad) : The outer edge moulding is rolled, and the two panels are framed by inner mouldings with signs of their original ruling lines on them. The upper panel is broken at the top but was square. It contains a symmetrical pattern of interlace and twisting strands based on a saltire. Four closely fitting triangles give an illusion of interlace by their adjacent apex points. The base of each triangle consists of two looped elements whose strands pass through those of the apex points to link with the adjacent triangle bases. The work is picked and grooved, and the strand flatter than those of other faces. The lower square panel has a symmetrical four-looped design, constructed with compasses. The interior of the loops are hollowed out with a punch. Within the spandrels of the loops are triquetra knots, whose terminal loops are attenuated into fine points at the centre and joined with the adjacent triquetra at each corner. The strand is modelled but flatter than that of other faces.

D (narrow) : As face B.

There is much that is original in the ornamentation of this piece; the 'scroll fret' of the narrow sides, and the unconventional panels of face C. It is possible that face C is by a second hand, as the flatter strand might indicate. The cutting of faces A, B and D is accomplished and their deep modelling makes for a plastic effect in the relief. It is possible that the flatter planes of face C resulted from its period on the mangle, but the triquetra knot is more common at a later period, and the picked work contrasts markedly with the fleshy profiles of the other faces. It is, perhaps, secondary carving.

Inscription The inscription on the Yarm cross-shaft was carved on one of the two broad faces of the cross. The panel containing it is distinguished from the other panels by the cable-moulding that frames it. The evidence of inscribed crosses that remain in situ, such as those at Bewcastle, Beckermet and Irton, suggests that this was probably originally the principal and west-facing side of the cross (Higgitt 1986b, 132; Bailey and Cramp 1988, 54–6, 61–72, 115–17). The inscription indicates that the cross was commissioned as a memorial for a named individual. This is one of a number of inscribed free-standing crosses in this region to be used as memorials to the dead (see Chapter VII).

The inscription is in Old English and seems originally to have consisted of at least two sections, the first ending with a personal name and the second starting with one. The concluding section follows an Old English memorial formula, X sette æfter Y (X raised, or commissioned, in memory of Y), for which there are a number of parallels on Anglo-Saxon crosses (Higgitt 1986b, 133, 134). Although Okasha (1983, 114) thinks that the subject of this sentence is uncertain, it is likely to be Alla, whose name immediately precedes the verb. The commemoratee is described as the brother of the subject and was presumably named earlier in the inscription. The object raised is described as a signum and is used as the Latin equivalent of the Old English bēcun (West Saxon bēacen), 'a sign, token, standard', used with the same or similar memorial formulae at Bewcastle, Crowle, Dewsbury, Falstone, Great Urswick, Overchurch, Thornhill and Wycliffe (Okasha 1971, 65–6, 71–2, 129–30; Page, R. 1999, 141–2, 144–5, 150–3, 154–5). Here the word signum referred primarily to this monument but the word also recalled the cross of Christ, as it did in the inscription on Jarrow 16 with its reference to the vision of Constantine: In hoc singulari signo vita redditur mundo ('In this singular sign life is given back to the world') (Okasha 1971, 86–7; Higgitt 1986b, 135). The incised crosses separating the names and at the end of the inscription should be seen as repeated invocations of the cross of Christ, and therefore of Christ, rather than as word-separation or punctuation. They probably reflect the use of crosses in the texts of liturgical manuscripts such as the Irish Stowe Missal to indicate the sign of the cross as a liturgical gesture (Warren 1881, 145; Warner 1915, 16, 32).

The preceding section ended with a name (— BEREHCT) and was perhaps a request for prayers for the deceased (cf. Higgitt 1986b, 133). The next word, an abbreviated form of the Old English sacerd or of its Latin source sacerdos, identifies one of the two names, probably the one it follows, as a priest.

The second element of the first of the two personal names is the common Old English name element that is normalized as -beorht. Either of the suggested readings of the letter or letters preceding this (m or ni) could have formed part of the first element of an Old English name. Possible first elements ending in -m include Dōm-, Helm-, Ruūm- and Trum- (Searle 1897, 168, 289, 405, 459; Boehler 1930, 84; Ström 1939, 21, 37, 177). First elements ending in -ni include Cyni- and Wini-; and both Cyniberct and Uiniberct can be found in Northumbrian sources (Ström 1939, 11–12, 40–1, 164; cf. Searle 1897, 153–4, 500). The name Alla could be of Old English or Old Norse origin (Redin 1919, 59–60; Okasha 1971, 130, 154).[3]

The letters seems to have been cut with reasonable skill and confidence. The setting out of the inscription, however, was very informal. The size of the letters varies and the undulating lines of lettering had no horizontal rulings to guide them. Too little space was left for the last half line, which has had to be squeezed in at the bottom of the panel. This relaxed attitude to layout contrasts with the careful ruling seen in the approximately contemporary half-uncial inscription from Dewsbury and in most Northumbrian inscriptions of the seventh and eighth centuries (Okasha 1971, pl. 30 and cf. pls. 9, 42, 46, 61–3, 75–7, 92, 147–8, 151, 153). The division of words at the ends of lines is equally informal and ignores rules of syllabification (—BEREHC|T; SIGN|VM; A|[S]SETAE). The lettering conforms fairly consistently to the range of forms used in the Insular half-uncial book-script that flourished from the seventh to the first half of the ninth century. This script is a less common choice than capitals for inscriptions in early medieval Northumbria but there are similarly consistent examples on inscriptions from Billingham and Dewsbury, although the lettering on both of these is rather more calligraphic and apparently closer to scribal practice than that from Yarm (Okasha 1964–8, 330 (table 1b); Okasha 1971, pls 9 and 30; Higgitt 1990b, 158; Higgitt 1997, 71). On all three the letter-cutters have adopted wedge-shaped serifs characteristic of the book-script. These can now be seen most clearly on the Bs in lines 2 and 6. The informality of treatment and features like the uncial M and capital A (originally M?) in line 5 would suggest a ninth- rather than eighth-century dating.

First half of ninth century

Greenwell 1869–79c, lxxxii; Haigh 1881b, 47–52, pl. facing 47; Stephens 1882, 112–18, figs.; Stephens 1884a, 189–93, fig. on 190; Stephens 1884b, 132–3, fig. on 133; Browne 1884–8, 13; Allen 1885, 343; Allen and Browne 1885, 352; Browne 1886a, 32; Frank 1888, 35–6, 46; Allen 1889, 217, 218, 220–1, 222; Boyle 1892, 343; Hodges 1894, 195, 196, fig. on 194; Stephens 1894, 13; Browne 1897, 161–2, pl. 8; Haverfield and Greenwell 1899, 112–15, no. L, figs.; (—) 1900, 69, figs.; Morris, J. 1904, 32; Stevens 1904, 48, 49–50; Collingwood 1907, 275, 278, 413; Collingwood 1908, 120; Collingwood 1912, 128; Conway 1912, 193; Rivoira 1912, 18n; Collingwood 1915, 289; Browne 1916, 24, pl. VI.12; Howorth 1917, III, 31–2, fig. facing 32; Brown, G. B. 1921, 268; Page, W. 1923, 324n; Collingwood 1927a, 61–2; Morris, J. 1931, 33, 416, 417; Elgee and Elgee 1933, 198, 252; Ross 1933, 152; Arntz 1936, 10; Arntz 1938, 89; Dahl 1938, 18, 193; Wardell 1957, 12, 38; Page, R. 1958, 151–2; Marquardt 1961, 135; Page, R. 1962, 903; Okasha 1964–8, 330; Cramp 1965a, 7, no. 50; Pevsner 1966, 407; Page, R. 1969, 30; Okasha 1971, 130, no. 145, pl.; Adcock 1974, 140–2, 155n, pls. 42–4; Morris, C. 1976a, 145; Morris, C. 1976b, 12; Morris, C. 1978, 46; Sweet 1978, 104; Brown, M. 1979, 44; Horton 1979, 188; Higgitt 1982, 312; Heslop 1983, 37; Okasha 1983, 118; Cramp 1984, 17; Evans and Heslop 1985, 43n, 60; Higgitt 1986b, 133, 135, 148; Heslop 1990, 35; Higgitt 1990b, 158; Okasha 1992, 84; Okasha 1994, 75; Daniels 1995, 81; Page, R. 1995, 22, 100, 162; Tweddle et al. 1995, 167; Okasha 1997, 81; Everson and Stocker 1999, 124; Stocker 2000, 202

[1] The following is an unpublished manuscript reference to no. 1: BL Add. MS 37552 no. XIV, item 815 (Romilly Allen collection).

[2] Probably W. R. Fawcett, churchwarden 1877–80 (Wardell 1957, 48).

[3] I am very grateful to David Parsons for his expert advice on the name forms in this inscription.