The Date and Provenance of the Franks CasketAuthor(s): Amy L. VandersallSource: Gesta, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1972), pp. 9-26Published by: International Center of Medieval ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/766591 .Accessed: 03/01/2011 06:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icma. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGesta.

http://www.jstor.org

The Date and Provenance of the Franks Casket*

AMY L.VANDERSALL

In 1857 Augustus Wollaston Franks purchased from a Paris

antique dealer a small (9 x 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches) rectangular whalebone casket carved with narrative scenes and inscribed with runes (Fig. 1). Ten years later, while Keeper of the

Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities at the Bri- tish Museum, Franks presented the object to the museum, complete except for the right side, which was discovered in the Bargello, Florence, in 1890.1 For the past century this monument, sometimes known as the Clermont Runic Cas- ket but most often as Franks' Casket, hence Franks Casket, has excited considerable scholarly interest. The aesthetic

quality of the carving notwithstanding, the majority of criti- cal studies of the casket have had two primary concerns, lin-

guistic on the one hand and literary on the other. To date there has been no comprehensive examination of the date and provenance of the casket in the light of art-historical evidence.

Considering the length and number of the explanatory runic inscriptions and the unusual representations from northern mythology found on the casket, it is hardly surprising to find that, among the roughly 175 items in a recent com-

prehensive bibliography of the Franks Casket,2 fully 75 per- cent deal with linguistic and literary aspects of the carvings.

FIGURE 1. The Franks Casket, General view,

London, British Museum.

Of the remaining studies, treating art-historical matters, only a handful can claim to offer significant information

concerning the relationship of the casket to the art of the Northumbrian Renaissance, to which the casket is ascribed on the basis of linguistic evidence, i.e., ca. 700, Northumbria. Doubtless the lack of critical art-historical attention can be accounted for by the singularity of the casket in early medi- eval English art. First, there is, against the predominantly Christian context of Northumbrian art, the depiction of a

single episode from the Bible (the Adoration of the Magi) with stories drawn from Roman history and myth (Titus' capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and Romulus and Remus found by the shepherds) and from northern myth (Wayland the Smith and two scenes, one commonly identified as an

episode from the Sigurd legend, the other as one from an unrecorded episode of the adventures of Wayland's brother

Egill). Second, the style of the carving and the conventions of the representations are not directly comparable to North- umbrian art of ca. 700 unless the casket is regarded as a

unique surviving example of folk art of the period. The purpose of this article is to present a body of visual

material that had not generally been considered in relation to the Franks Casket and which, I believe, indicates that both

9

the traditional date and provenance of the casket are ques- tionable on art-historical grounds and others should be con- sidered seriously by scholars of language and literature. Whether such an alternative time and place, as I will pro- pose solely on the basis of art-historical evidence, can be accommodated within existing runic and Anglo-Saxon lin-

guistic chronologies is a matter for scholars in those areas to decide. This is not an unimportant matter, since Beowulf is traditionally dated in the eighth, or seventh, century, i.e., contemporary with the traditional date of the casket, and has

linguistic forms comparable to those on the casket. The earliest extant manuscript of Beowulf is, however, dated ca. 1000. Although I have considered the question of the rela-

tionship of the casket to the art of the Northumbrian Ren-

aissance, I have not included a discussion of that material. If

my proposal is unacceptable to scholars of Northumbrian

art, it is hoped that this study will at least elicit further dis- cussion. Preceding the examination of the casket and the

presentation of comparative evidence, I have included a sur-

vey of the history of scholarship surrounding the casket in order to define the problem.

The first major publication of the casket, which included

chemityped illustrations, was by George Stephens in his Old- Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England.3 Stephens estimated on the basis of linguistic evidence that the date of the casket was ca. 700 to 800 and that the prove- nance was Northumbria. During the last quarter of the nine- teenth century a large number of European scholars began to study the inscriptions on the casket, offer identifications of the scenes represented, and give estimates of its age.4 Thus, by the end of the century a consensus had been reached among philologists with regard to the date and

provenance of the casket, and with the exception of certain still enigmatic passages in the inscriptions and of obscurities in the representations there was general agreement regard-

ing the reading of the runes and the identification of the scenes. One of the most authoritative studies, and one often referred to since, was that of Arthur S. Napier.5 Ralph W. V. Elliott states in his introduction to the study of runes:

The date and provenance of the Franks casket have been established beyond reasonable doubt by Na-

pier's linguistic analysis. The language is unmistak-

ably Anglian and certain forms limit it further to

Northumbria, and, in point of time, to the early eighth century. On runological grounds this date and provenance are equally acceptable; we have seen that (the nonce runes apart, of course) all the

runes belong to the common Anglo-Saxon twenty- eight-letter fuporc. Runes of the later Northum- brian extension do not occur.6

Napier's linguistic study was, however, only one of several

important critical studies to appear around the turn of the

century. There were as well the comprehensive analyses by Ellis Wadstein7 and Wilhelm ViCtor,8 and extensive critical reviews by T. von Grienberger, O. L. Jiriczek, and F. Holt- hausen.' It is interesting that both Wadstein and ViCtor, who on linguistic grounds advance dates of not after 750 and ca. 700 respectively, indicate that further consideration of the date on the basis of archaeological evidence would be useful in fixing it more precisely. Among the many philolo- gists who have commented upon the casket since, only one to my knowledge has seriously argued for a fundamental

change in date and provenance. In 1959 Karl Schneider pro- posed a date of the mid-sixth century and Merovingian Gaul as the place of origin.10 The primary concern of later phil- ologists has been the puzzling inscription and representa- tions on the right side of the casket, the panel now in Flor- ence.1 Notable exceptions to this interest in the Bargello panel are the studies of Philip Webster Souers, who between 1935 and 1943 published a series of detailed articles dealing with the iconography of the front, left side, and lid, 12 and a

spate of very recent work.'3 In contrast to the considerable body of literary and lin-

guistic research there are few specialized art-historical con- siderations of the casket, even though a number of scholars have treated the casket in catalogues and general studies of

early medieval art. Art historians have relied heavily upon the work of the philologists, accepting the date and prove- nance as well as the identification of the scenes determined

by linguistic analysis. But despite the scantiness of art-his- torical study a number of suggestions and queries have been offered with regard to the visual sources of the representa- tions. It is the variety of these suggestions that is most strik-

ing, ranging from Oriental, Coptic, Merovingian, Celtic, and

Viking to Northumbrian. The prevailing conclusion is that,

although the casket is an important historical and artistic

monument, it can be understood only as one of the most

striking examples known of Northumbrian eclecticism.1" When J. O. Westwood published his catalogue of plaster

casts in 1876 he stated that the Franks Casket was "extrem-

ely valuable as a specimen of Northern-British or Scandina- vian workmanship" and that because of the armor shown as

well as owing to comparisons with stone carvings of the Isle of Man and Scotland he could not "ascribe a date earlier than

10

the eleventh or twelfth century."" By 1909, however, given the weight of philological opinion, 0. M. Dalton did not

question the by then accepted date and provenance when he treated the casket in the British Museum's catalogue of ivory carvings."' He suggested that some of the unusual stylistic and iconographic aspects related to either Near Eastern or

Merovingian precedent. Adolph Goldschmidt also discussed the casket in 1918 in the second volume of his monumental

corpus of medieval ivory carvings. He gave a date of about 800 and suggested a generic relationship with tenth-century Byzantine ivory caskets, noting that the latter were used for

storage of gold and pointing out that several of the scenes on the Franks Casket dealt with the subject of treasures. He stated that either the early dating of the casket must be giv- en up in favor of a later date or else it must be assumed that the Byzantine caskets reflect an older, no longer extant type. The latter solution was, in his opinion, consonant with the tendencies of Byzantine art in the period.'7 Reginald Smith, giving the date as ca. 700 in a 1923 British Museum guide- book, observed that the foliage on the casket was "a rare occurrence in early Anglo-Saxon art" and that the figures "are in strong contrast to the dismembered animals of the

pagan period."'8 In 1924 Johannes Br0ndsted denied the

stylistic relationship of the casket with Northumbrian art, stating that there were instead strong stylistic and icono-

graphic affinities with Frankish-Merovingian art but that because of the runes and the Anglo-Saxon into which they transliterated he decided upon a South English provenance. To make such an attribution he felt compelled to reject the identification of any of the scenes on the casket as treating northern mythological subjects.19 In 1926 M. H. Longhurst noted the lack of ivory carvings in England during the peri- od to which the casket was attributed. She said that the cas- ket "usually ascribed to the first half of the 8th century can- not be compared for beauty or accomplishment with the stone carvings of the earlier century, of which Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses are the pre-eminent examples" and that

although it may be regarded as "one of the earliest and most

important examples of the introduction of Teutonic myth- ology into the country," the carvings on the casket are "de- graded." If regarded, however, as "patterns in light and shade the result shows considerable feeling for decorative composition."2' Such seeming deprecation of the artistic merit of the casket is frequent when the work is compared to the art of the Northumbrian Renaissance.

The most comprehensive art-historical discussion of the casket is that of G. Baldwin Brown.21 Most of what Brown

had to say in 1930 is still valid and perceptive, and his resu- me still serves along with Dalton's catalog entry as the best introduction to the monument. Like most art historians

treating the casket, Brown accepted the traditional date and

provenance arrived at earlier through linguistic analysis, even though many aspects of it, especially the episodes from Germanic saga, seemed to him difficult to account for in the context of Northumbria in ca. 700. The critical portions of his study are focused about the earlier opinions of two schol- ars, Josef Strzygowski and Br0ndsted.22 Brown agreed with

Strzygowski's notion of Coptic influence but objected to the

examples Stryzgowski cited, proposing others that were to him more convincing. He rejected Br0ndsted's Merovingian associations and took strong issue with his denial of Teu- tonic iconography in the casket's representations. In refuta- tion of Br0ndsted Brown cited the carved stones of Scandi- navia, especially those of Gotland, as offering comparable iconography for the mythological scenes. He regretted that the study of these carved stones was then still in process and thus unavailable for more detailed consideration. There can be no doubt that Brown both understood and appreci- ated the aesthetic merits of the Franks Casket, yet he also stated that the artist was "technically far inferior to the clas-

sically-inspired figure sculptors of the best Northumbrian crosses.

Although no other major study such as Brown's exists,23 it seems worthwhile to mention the opinions of several art historians who have considered the Franks Casket briefly. In 1931 Arthur Kingsley Porter noted, also in disagreement with Brondsted's theory of South English provenance, that the casket was amazingly free of Celtic elements,

so much so that were it not for the indubitable evi- dence of the runes I should be tempted to doubt whether it be English at all. The style of the figures is Viking-like, although they must antedate the

Viking age. Equally disconcerting is the iconogra- phy; side by side with Christian scenes are others believed to be from the sagas.2'-

In 1932 0. Elfrida Saunders cited the crosses of Nunburn- holm, Halton, and Penmon on Anglesey, which are dated about 1000, as having a style comparable to the casket and exhibiting some of the same Germanic iconography. These examples, according to Saunders,

seem to suggest that the Franks Casket should be given as late a date as is consistent with its runic inscriptions. These are ascribed by the Palaeograph- ical Society to the eighth or ninth century, so that

11

FIGURE 2. The Franks Casket, Front, London, British Museum.

the box may perhaps be considered late ninth-cen- tury work, already showing strong Scandinavian in- fluence, and the decadence of artistic style which set in about that period. It certainly is hard to think of it as contemporary with the far more accomplished products of the early eighth century.25

Frank and Harriett (Wragg) Elgee in 1933 also noted affin- ities between the Nunburnholm Cross and the Franks Cas- ket and went so far as to suggest a Yorkshire provenance.26

These queries concerning the date of the casket by Porter, Saunders, and the Elgees are tentative, although based on specific evidence. T. D. Kendrick suggested in 1938 a possi- ble connection with Pictish carved stones and brought for- ward four specific examples from Northumbrian artistic production for comparison with the casket. But Kendrick too dwelt on the striking nature of the representations in the context of Northumbrian art-e.g., the use of "narrative scenes composed of groups of figures" and the unusual icon- ography. He saw the work as "arid and incompetent." For him, the casket "reveals only a partial acceptance of the great art of the renaissance, and to a certain extent may be said to offer a resistance to it."27

In summary, the consensus of art-historical opinion is that the Franks Casket, remarkable for its literary and his- torical interest, is unusual, even unique in the context of Northumbrian art of about 700. The sources for its repre- sentations are so difficult to determine that several histori- ans have expressed doubts about the traditional attribution of the casket. Further art-historical examination therefore seems appropriate.

The front panel of the casket (Fig. 2), easily identified by the damaged rectangular area at top-center that contained the fitting for the closure, is the only one that accomodates two scenes. The two pictorial fields, one depicting the story of Wayland the Smith and the other the Adoration of the Magi, are symmetrically disposed to either side of a central dividing element composed of a framed segment of two- strand twist (guilloche) but united by the wide borders of runic inscriptions and narrow guilloche frame enclosing the panel on four sides. These borders are interrupted at each corner by small backbiting animals and the spaces that once contained the corner fittings. The runic inscription trans- literated into Anglo-Saxon and translated into English reads:

The flood lifted up the fish on to the cliff-bank; the whale became sad, where he swam on the shingle. Whale's bone.28

Clearly it refers to the origin of the material from which the casket is made. Instead of identifying the pictorial subjects, it

presents in alliterative verse a colorful account of how a whale became stranded on the shore, making possible the

carving of the chest. In effect it adds a third, verbal story to the two visual ones already present. One rune word reading "Magi" is incised in the right-hand field, in marked stylistic contrast to the relief letters used elsewhere on the casket, but the story on the left is presented solely in pictorial terms with no verbal hint of its subject (the only such case on the casket). Should it be assumed that those using the casket were thoroughly familiar with the tale?

Despite the lack of an identifying inscription, the legend depicted on the left-hand side can be identified without doubt as the revenge of Wayland (Volundr).29 The earliest written source of this story is the Anglo-Saxon poem "Deor's Lament," which alludes to the events depicted as

though the story were commonly known. The later Eddic VolundarkviRta composed ca. 900 gives a fuller account, as does the still later and more elaborate DiSreks Saga of ca. 1250. Parallels with representations found in Scandinavian art confirm the identification.30

Because of his power to forge magic rings, Wayland the Smith was captured by King Nithhad, hamstrung, and forced to work for him. On the casket Wayland is shown on the left before his anvil forging a golden cup from the head of one of King Nithhad's sons whom he had murdered and of-

fering a cup to a female figure, presumably Beadohild, the king's daughter, whom he drugged and raped. Above the an- vil are seen a hammer and other tools of the trade, and be- low lies the headless body of the king's son. The pictorial account here is somewhat abbreviated, since two sons are

usually indicated. Princess Beadohild is apparently bringing to Wayland for repair one of the magic rings her father had

previously stolen, and he is offering her the drugged potion, the means of his second act of revenge. The figure in the middle carrying what is perhaps a flask and set off in quo- tation-mark fashion by plant-like forms may be either a second depiction of Beadohild or her maidservant. To the

right a man is shown strangling birds. He is most commonly identified as Wayland's brother Egill who, in the manner of

12

FIGURE 3. The Franks Casket, Right side, Florence, Museo Nazionale.

Daedalus, made feathered wings for the crippled Wayland to escape from King Nithhad's wrath.

The story is composed in three parts by juxtaposing the

major elements, giving the viewer only the most telling de- tails from which to construct the sequence of events. The method is more evocative than descriptive. The same is true of the style of the carving. At first glance it appears naive and crude in its two-dimensionality. There is a simple differentiation between foreground and background planes with mere incisions to indicate drapery patterns and other details. Although some of these incisions are cut at angles of less than 90 degreees, giving a momentary impression of

plasticity and corporeal fullness, the dominant impression is that of decorative surface pattern and of dark-light contrasts rather than tonal modulation. Thus the figure style is equi- valent to that of the inscriptions, which are carved as raised letters rather than being incised. Since incised letters are far more easily executed than relief letters, the latter represent an aesthetic choice-and certainly a happy one, as can be seen by comparing them with the one incised rune word, "Magi," on the front panel.

The adoration of the Magi depicted on the right-hand side of the front panel shows the three kings, preceded by a

large rosette star and a curious bird, approaching the Virgin and Child from the left.31 The first king kneels, and the three carry gifts that are very unusual in form-two have bowls mounted on tall rodlike stems presumably containing gold and frankincense, while the third has a long stick with what may be protruding leaves, probably a branch of a

myrrh tree. The Virgin and Child are either inside a shrine or seated on a high-backed throne, the representation being too schematic to decide with any certainty. They are seen

frontally, and the Christ Child's nimbus is crossed. Here too there is an insistence on filling up all the surface

area and a tendency to treat persons and objects as decora- tive elements. A triquetra knot fills the corner of the field between the third of the Magi and the frame on the left; in front of the first of the Magi and on either side of the Vir-

gin's head there are S-shaped elements; and there are two round pellets in the area above the arch of the Virgin's shrine or throne. Such pellets are also found among the rune

letters of the border inscription where they serve no linguis- tic purpose. The columns and arch of the shrine or throne are made up of a series of double bars; their bases and capi- tals, of multiple bars. The Virgin and Child are virtually re- duced to only their heads and halos-two series of super- imposed concentric curves.

This is the only appearance on the casket of Christian

iconography, and the composition ultimately derives from a common early Christian formula. As Goldschmidt first ob- served, the scene on the Franks Casket is comparable to a scene found on one of the so-called Monza ampules, East Christian work of the late sixth century.32 Though the over- all composition of the ampule is symmetrical, with the

shepherds' adoration included to the right of the throne, in

many details the depictions are strikingly similar if allow- ance is made for the schematic rendering on the casket-

specifically, in the strict frontality, a kneeling king, the type of garments worn, the high-backed throne, and the rosette star. However, to my knowledge there are no early Christian

parallels either for the bird that precedes the Magi or for the form of their gifts. These remain unsolved iconographic problems.33

Before considering the other panels, some observations about the border should be made. In keeping with the deco- rative, space-filling effects noted in the scenes, not only is the pictorial field framed by the runic inscriptions but also each portion of the inscription is enclosed in a narrow band. The whole panel is then surrounded by a guilloche border that, in like manner, is enclosed within plain narrow bands. Frames thus are framed. The compulsion to enclose is even carried over into the inscription, which begins in the upper left corner and encircles the panel. At the bottom, where normal reading procedure would dictate a reading from left to right, the artist has written the rune letters backward and thus made a continuous verbal fence by causing the line to be read from right to left.

The right side-panel now in Florence (Fig. 3) has three

episodes within a single pictorial field similarly enclosed by runic inscriptions, guilloche and corner animals-although not back-biting ones. To the left a helmeted warrior carry- ing a spear and a round shield approaches a strange com-

posite figure seated on a stone and holding a two-pronged leafy rod. This creature has the legs of a man, a bird's body, and a horse's head with a snake for a tongue. The central

episode shows a horse with interlace between its legs, a fly- ing bird, a chalice, a figure inside a mound, and a standing personage holding a rod. These elements are mingled with

13

FIGURE 5. The Franks Casket, Left side, London, British Museum.

plant forms and three rune words, wood (uudu), rush (risci), and animal (bita)-apparently labels for what is represent- ed. The scene to the right shows a robed figure in frontal pose being held by two flanking profile figures wearing hooded cloaks.

The inscription uses arbitrary runes to denote vowels.

Though the puzzle of these cryptic signs can be solved, the

inscription itself is linguistically unclear, giving rise to con- siderable controversy. Elliott gives the following as the most

plausible reading: Here the horse stands above the mound of woe, It suffers tribulation; just as to her Erta appointed anxiety, A grave of grief, in sorrow and anguish of heart.

The panel is one of the most disputed, but generally the scenes are interpreted as depicting the Sigurd legend.34 The horse is then Grani, Sigurd's steed, who bowed his head to the ground when he knew his master was slain. This legend is recorded in the Gutrunarkvi'a. Written sources for the Sigurd legend are numerous,35 e.g., the Volsunga Saga and the Nibelungenlied, although their preserved texts scarcely go back earlier than the thirteenth century. Even so, the sources do not spell out an unequivocal interpretation of the details, and the confusing inscription appears to obscure rather than to clarify the problem. Schneider's interesting newer interpretation constructed from material given in Saxo's Danish History and the Eddic Gylfaginning identifies the scene as depicting the myth of the death of Balder, who was mourned by his wife Nanna after being killed by Ho- ther.36 Whether the subject is Sigurd or Balder, it seems certain that no written account exists that fully parallels the

representation on the casket-a reasonable fact when the nature of the written sources, their late date, and their place of origin is considered in comparison with the English provenance of the casket.

Despite the controversy it is agreed that the scene is drawn from the northern mythological tradition.37 This seems acceptable on art-historical grounds because of the relation of certain motifs to those of pagan Scandinavian monuments (to be discussed below). Internal evidence of

composition also points to the same conclusion. The ar- rangement of parts bears a striking resemblance to the Way- land scene on the front, i.e., in its units of narrative placed side by side with minimal spatial division between them. Each episode is read as a unit, because each has its own in- dependent focal point. None of the other panels of the cas- ket show this type of composition; in all other cases each field or zone contains only one episode. The carving style of the right side-panel, even though its inscriptions and figures are somewhat less generously proportioned, is also compar- able to that of the front. The same framing procedures are used too, but instead of writing the runes of the bottom line backward the artist has turned them upside down, accom- plishing the verbal fence by simpler means.

The back panel (Fig. 4) depicts the historical event of Ti- tus' capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Its composition is un- usual for the casket, since the various episodes are separated and organized by the device of two superimposed zones cut through by a central arch. Such a composition has very close parallels, as Brown noted, with double-register early Chris- tian sarcophagi.38 Furthermore, the runic inscription does not fully surround the scene as on all the other side panels- perhaps because of lack of space, as the letters at the top are carved much smaller than those on the sides or elsewhere on the casket. The inscription on the left half of the panel reads:

Here fight Titus and theJews. That on the right reads:

Here the inhabitants flee fromJerusalem. The latter inscription, however, is composed in Latin rather than in Anglo-Saxon. Even more curious, along the top the first part of this inscription is carved in Roman letters rath- er than runes, then along the side the Latin word afitatores (i.e. habitatores) is rendered in runes.39

At first sight the carving on the Titus panel seems quite similar to that found elsewhere on the casket. There are the same simplified forms and reduction of details to abstract linear patterns as well as the general conception of a flat

figure silhouetted against the background plane. Yet upon closer examination, in certain figures, most notably those

14

FIGURE 4. The Franzks Casket, Back, London, British Museum.

FIGURE 6. The Franks Casket, Top, London, British Museum.

wearing long cloaks, there are strong suggestions of three- dimensional corporeality. This is effected by depicting the cloaks behind the legs and by the use of angular cuts to ren- der drapery folds. The composition also shows a much more frequent overlapping of figures and a greater variety of pos- tures and facial views than occur elsewhere on the casket. There can be little doubt that this is a vestige of antique il- lusionism and spatial suggestions not yet fully translated in- to the dominant abstract sign language of the casket, and it is very much in the same spirit as the Latin inscription on the panel, which is only partially dressed in runic garments.40

In the central arch of the panel, thought to represent the Temple of Jerusalem or the Ark of the Covenant, there are three pairs of animals connected by interlace. The upper left-hand register shows the soldiers of Titus carrying spears and wearing helments, one of them possibly with a coat of mail; the upper right register depicts the Jews flee- ing Jerusalem. Sliding down the curve of the arch are some lively nude figures, doubtless refugees, though the impres- sion they give is quite playful.

The long inscriptions apply to the upper registers, while the lower registers appear to be identified by two rune la- bels appearing in the lower left and right corners below the fitting spaces where the little animals are to be found on the other panels. These rune words are: left-doom, judg- ment (dom); and right-hostage (gisl).41 Accordingly, the lower left register would be best identified as a trial scene, and the lower right, showing persons wearing cloaks and carrying staffs, as a group of prisoners.

No one has yet made an iconographic study of the Titus panel. The events portrayed appear to derive from Josephus' account of the Jewish wars, but the details of the represen- tation have not been satisfactorily explained, the animals of the central arch being a case in point.42 The rareness of the depiction of Titus' capture of Jerusalem in early medieval art seems to indicate the availability of an unusual or little used source. As early as 1904 Strzygowski suggested that such a model might have been an illustrated world chronicle such as that of Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412).43 Cer-

tainly the composition and style of the carving strongly in- dicate a Mediterranean model.

The left side-panel (Fig. 5) represents the finding of Ro- mulus and Remus by shepherds and is composed in the usual manner, having an encircling rune frame with upside- down rune letters at the bottom, back-biting animals in the corners, and a guilloche border all around. The inscription reads:

Romulus and Remus, two brothers: a she-wolf fed them in Rome city, far from their native land.

The she-wolf lying on her back in the center is suckling the twins, who appear to float in from above where a second wolf, possibly the he-wolf, is shown emerging from between the upper branches of a tree. Approaching from either side is a pair of men carrying spears and separated by trees with splayed trunks and tendril-like branches that end in leaves or knobs. These trees seem to indicate a thick undergrowth, since the men grasp the trunks as if to part them for a bet- ter view. They also serve to fill the space and give the tap- estry-like effect so characteristic of the carving style of the casket. The composition may be described as a combination of a bird's-eye and a side view.

There are a number of antique pictorial representations of the story of Romulus and Remus, as Souers pointed out in his study of the panel.44 He demonstrated that the ver- sion of the story represented on the panel is that of the find- ing of the twins by the shepherds, one of the two pictorial versions found in classical art. The Franks Casket seems to be the only early medieval monument to preserve this ver- sion,45 and thus again it appears that the artist was drawing upon a relatively obscure source.

Finally, there is the fragment of the lid, which may or may not originally have had a surrounding runic inscription (Fig. 6). It is identified only by a single rune word in the pictorial field, reading aegili. Ingeniously arranged around a central disk that once accommodated the handle, the scene shows an archer inside a crenelated fortification on the right, doing battle with eight soldiers on the left. One warrior car- ries a spear, and the rest, swords; five have round shields;

15

one wears a helmet with nosepiece; three wear coats of mail; and two are nude, possibly a reference to the practice of

plundering the armor of a fallen warrior.46 Inside the cren- elated walls, behind the bowman, is an arched enclosure

containing the bust of a figure holding a sticklike object. Above, within the arch, and below, under the shrine, are

paired heads of birds or beasts. Again the style is similar to the other panels in its surface patterning. Pellets, triquetra knots, and arrows are used as space fillers; they approach in their visual appearance the forms of the rune letters found elsewhere. The schematic formulae used for the architectural

renderings also accord with the surface pattern. The representation is most commonly identified as an

episode in the adventures of Egill the brother of Wayland, who made Wayland's wings and who was also a famous archer, an early William Tell. The written sources about

Egill are the same as those for Wayland, namely the Volund- arkvi'a and Di'reks Saga. Reviewing the question of the identification of this scene, Souers outlined the considerable

linguistic complications of the word aegili and noted that the accounts of Egill given in the sagas are insufficient to

explain the scene depicted.'7 This has led some scholars to reverse the usual procedure and to reconstruct a legend un- known in literary form on the basis of the pictorial evidence of the casket. Although Souers felt that no identification of the archer as Egill had been entirely convincing, it was nev- ertheless the most satisfactory one that could be proposed.48

Schneider, however, rejected the Egill identification, claiming that the scene is drawn from the Iliad and that the rune word aegili is an Anglo-Saxon word for the Latin Achil- les.-'" The notion that the lid represented an episode from the Trojan War was first suggested by Strzygowski when he

brought forward the possibility of a world chronicle as a source for the Franks Casket's representations.50

From the evidence offered by the depictions on the casket it seems probable that the carver derived his material from two major sources. A world chronicle appears to be the most

likely source for the representation of the Magi, Titus, Rom- ulus and Remus, and the scene on the lid, if the latter be ac-

cepted as one from the Iliad. The fifth-century Greek chron- icle of Theophilus of Alexandria survives only in a few pa- pyrus fragments, but a Latin version from the region of Corbie dating from the second half of the eighth century, the so-called Scaliger Barbarus (Paris, Bibl. nat. MS. latin 4884), provides a record of its contents. Although unillustrated ex-

cept for a small historiated initial P at folio 1, the interlace of which Meyer Schapiro has noted as having an insular pat- tern, 51 there are blank spaces reserved between the lines of

text for illustrations, and in some cases there are Latin labels for identification of personages or activities to be drawn. The latter are comparable to the runic words used in the

pictorial fields on the Franks Casket. The adoration of the

Magi is treated on folio 51v of the Scaliger Barbarus, Titus' destruction of Jerusalem on folio 56r, Romulus and Remus on folios 23V, 27V and 42r, and the Iliad on folios 20V and 24V."2 The remaining scenes from northern myth would then derive from a second, hitherto unidentified pictorial source, possibly a textile belonging to the tradition from which the Bayeux Tapestry derives. This suggestion is ad- vanced on the basis of a number of unusual decorative de- tails that seem best explained with reference to embroidery procedure such as is seen on the Bayeux Tapestry.5

To sum up, certain basic features of the style and iconog- raphy of the casket can be defined, and some preliminary conclusions formulated. The carving exhibits a relatively consistent two-layer relief-forms are for the most part sharply defined, simplified, and isolated like silhouettes

against the background plane, the major exception being the Titus panel where clear vestiges of classical illusionism can be detected. An unusual amount of narrative detail is includ- ed, although often it is ambiguous and does not permit pre- cise interpretation because of the simplification of forms and sometimes also because of the filling of intervening spaces with decorative elements. It is the continuous surface pat- tern that accounts for the aesthetic unity of the work, and which make possible the apparent floating of figures and elements across the field noted frequently in the scenes. We are not, then, dealing primarily with illusionistic space or

forms, but rather with signs. Some of the forms or compo- sitions appear to derive ultimately from illusionistic models, but they are for the most part transformed, leaving only traces of the original style as in the Titus panel. In this sense of signs the figures are equivalent to the rune letters and vice versa, and both are an integral part of the overall

patterning. There is no conflict between word and image, and in a sense there is no subordination of one to the other as in the case of a caption under a picture or of a picture il-

lustrating a portion of a text. This is also evident in the way the runes encircle the pictorial field; their inherent need to be read from left to right is sacrificed to the demands of the

pictorial. Iconographically the casket appears to derive from at least

two major sources, one northern and one Mediterranean. There are two or three scenes drawn from the northern

mythological tradition, and two or three from the classical cultural heritage. Only one scene, the Adoration of the Magi,

16

FIGURE 7. Picture stone from Alskogs par- ish, I, Tjaingvide, Gotland, Sweden, Stockholm, Statens Historiska Museum.

is Christian. Given the preponderance of pagan myths, northern or antique, and the folkloric nature of the Magi story itself, it would seem that the Franks Casket is secular both in origin and purpose. Very little medieval secular art survives, and even the identification of secular themes on

religious monuments is controversial.54 Thus, with refer- ence to early medieval art as we know it through surviving works, the non-Christian, though not however nonethical, complexion of the Franks Casket is quite unusual.

The narrative, storytelling aspect is, moreover, equally unusual. The scope of the subject matter and the lavish use of verbal comment, not to mention pictorial detail, suggest an underlying intention to delight and entertain. This is also indicated by the use of the rune letters, which are commonly known to have been associated with magic practice, and by the cryptic puzzle of arbitrary vowel runes on the right side-

panel. Perhaps even the Latin inscription of the back panel should be seen as occult in intention or at least as a display of erudition rather than simply an inadvertent error made while copying from the model, as some have supposed. The casket appears to derive from a learned context, one that had access to literary and pictorial material that was uncommon or seldom utilized in the early Middle Ages.

Brown as early as 1930 suggested a relationship between the Franks Casket and the picture stones from the island of

Gotland, Sweden. Sune Lindqvist's corpus treating these

monuments, published in 1941, makes available the evidence for Brown's observation.55 The group of these stones that is dated to the eighth century has direct correspondences to the casket, mainly to the Wayland and the Sigurd or Balder

representations. Although the iconography of these memor- ial stones still presents problems in interpretation, it is clear that they deal with death symbolism and unquestionably de-

pict episodes from northern mythology. Versions of both the Wayland and Sigurd legends can be identified. More

significant are some striking parallels of pictorial conven-

FIGURE 8a. Picture stone from Ardre par- ish, VIII, Gotland, Sweden, Stockholm, Statens Historiska Museum.

FIGURE 8b. Painted version of Fig. 8a.

tion. Two of these mushroom-shaped stones now preserved in the State Historical Museum, Stockholm, can be used to illustrate the range and nature of the parallels with the cas- ket.

The first, a fragment from the Tjiingvide farm in the par- ish of Alskog (Fig. 7), depicts the Sigurd legend. On the lower portion of the stone there is the common ship with great sail, and above among other figures is a horse and rid- er. The most interesting detail in comparison with the Franks Casket, seen also on several other examples, is the interlaced knot filling the spaces between the forelegs and under the belly of the horse. The eight legs and clear sil- houette of the horse on the Tjangvide stone contrast with the greater naturalism of the Franks Casket horse, but the

equivalent triquetra knot form and the placement of the knots leave little doubt that this is a specific pictorial con- vention. In addition the stark contour figures and the flat

17

FIGURE 9. Ramsund stone engraving, Jider parish, Sodermanland, Sweden.

two-plane carving style of the Gotland stones are related to the casket, even though the latter consistently breaks up the interiors of the forms with incised details.

The second example, stone VIII from the church at Ardre, is executed in the same flat, contoured carving (Fig. 8 a-b). The depiction of the Wayland myth in the lower central portion of the stone makes use of the tongs and hammer and two headless bodies. To the left of the Wayland scene is a flying bird represented with profile head and an aerial view of its wings, and below there is a cave-like form with persons inside, conventions found on the Sigurd or Balder panel of the casket. The step-fret pattern employed on the fortification on the lid of the casket is found at the base of the cave (see Fig. 8b) and is a frequent motif on other stones.

In addition to these conventions, the Franks Casket shares with the Gotland stones some characteristic methods of composition. A number of stories or episodes are juxta- posed on the stones in a seemingly random fashion, so that persons or narrative units appear to float, anchored in the composition by means of the overall surface patterning. The stone from the church at Ardre is an excellent example of these characteristics, directly comparable to the floating horse of the Sigurd or Balder panel, the twins and upper wolf on the Romulus and Remus panel, and one nude war- rior on the lid of the casket. The major difference between the casket's Sigurd or Balder and Wayland compositions and the representations on the eighth-century picture stones is that the Gotland stones are more hieroglyphic, i.e., there is less indication of sequence and action and more reliance on pure sign to tell the story. Thus the stones are more fully an art of evocation.

If we accept the traditional philological date given the casket and the eighth-century date for this group of Gotland carvings, the casket and the picture stones are contemporary. The differences in style between the casket and the Gotland stones can be explained by their different places of origin, but we have little evidencnce for Scandinavian influence of this kind on English art at this early date to account for the shared conventions. As Kendrick pointed out, .even though the Viking raids on the Continent and England began in the early ninth century, Scandinavian art styles made scarcely

any impact upon established English art until the tenth cen- tury, some two or three hundred years after the date custo- marily assigned to the casket.56

Narrative art such as that on the Gotland picture stones is relatively rare in early Scandinavian art. There is, as one in- stance, the small embroidered tapestry from the Oseberg ship-burial dated to the first half of the ninth century, of which a small portion has been reconstructed.57 It is an un- usually narrow strip measuring only 6 to 9 inches in width showing a number of horse-drawn carts and figures and may represent a scene from saga. Insofar as the fragment permits us to judge, however, the only parallel with the Franks Casket is the general one of compositional form, i.e., the piling up of figures so that they appear to float one above the other, having no specified spatial or sequential re- lationship to each other-a characteristic that appears to be typical of surviving Scandinavian narrative art.

Apart from the memorial stones, the majority of objects surviving from the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries in Scandinavia are decorative and non-narrative. They are per- sonal and utilitarian, made of wood or metal, and portable. Common decorative motifs used are the isolated crouching animal, the pellet filler, the triquetra knot, the guilloche, and the step fret-all of which appear on the casket.58

Two rock engravings in Sweden, considerably later in date than the Oseberg tapestry, are narratives and probably de- pict the Sigurd legend. They are the famous Ramsund stone from Jader and the Gok stone, most likely a copy of the Ramsund stone, from Harad. The Ramsund stone (Fig. 9) shows a number of persons, animals, and objects so irregu- larly spaced as to appear to float over the pictorial field, which is defined by three long ribbon animals. A runic in- scription that indicates the memorial nature of the carving fills the body of the lower animal, and a step fret that of the two upper animals. The stone is traditionally assigned to the eleventh century, for it is unmistakably in the Ringerike style,59 as can be seen by the trilobate union of the two beasts at the top, the tendril formations of the lappets of the head of the animal to the right, and the filling of the body of the animal with the runic inscription. (The Gik stone has one animal, which interlocks with itself to complete the oval frame, and a concentric runic inscription.) Many of the nar-

18

FIGURE 10a. Picture stone,

Hablingbo church, Gotland, Sweden.

FIGURE 11. Picture stone from Ardre parish, III, Gotland, Sweden. a. Front; b. Back.

FIGURE IOb. Reconstruction Drawing of Fig. IOa.

b. Back

rative elements, e.g., tongs, headless man, horse, and bird, have counterparts on the Franks Casket, and, more impor- tant, the runic inscription forms the border, or rather an en- closure, for these elements.

Runic inscriptions are found on the earlier eighth-century Gotland stones, but they do not surround the scenes, and the borders are composed of interlace (cf. Fig. 7, lower right and upper left sides). The animal rune frame is characteristic of eleventh-century memorial stones in the Ringerike style, fine examples of which are found on Gotland. The narrative element on the late Gotland stones is far less pronounced than on the Ramsund or Gik stones, but, like the earlier pic- ture stones are carved in relief rather than engraved as are the Ramsund and Gok stones. The stone now in the church at Hablingbo (Fig. 10 a-b), mushroom-shaped although more squat than the eighth-century stones, depicts in the upper field a warrior on horseback approaching a man. A step fret divides the picture scene from the lower field

where two beasts confront one another clasped together by the central trilobate, Ringerike form and its maze of pro- truding tendrils. The tendrils twine around the bodies of the animals, which flow down, out and up around the perimeter of the stone carrying the runic inscription. In still other stones, e.g., stone III from the church at Ardre (Fig. 11 a-b), there is a rune frame that on one side (Fig. 1lb) forms the whole perimeter. (A square-cross form is also employed in these runic borders as a corner filler and stop-a device that appears once on the Franks Casket, in the upper left corner of the Titus panel.) Such perimetric rune frames on the eleventh-century stones are directly comparable to those on the Franks Casket, where the inscriptions are carved both upside down and backward in order to maintain a radial and perimetric rune fence.60

Another aspect, the terminal forms of the interlaced ani- mal bodies of the eleventh-century Gotland stones, is echoed on the casket. Traces of the characteristic flowing tendrils

19

a. Front

a. Drawing

with knob-like terminals of the Ringerike interlace are seen on the Romulus and Remus panel, where a few of the tree branches are extended in curves and end in knobs (cf. Figs. 9-11 and Fig. 5, especially the branches around the upper wolf).

In summary, then, the Scandinavian monuments show that the Wayland and Sigurd or Balder scenes are found in the Scandinavian pictorial repertory and in their earliest known form can be dated to the eighth century, the tradi-

tional date of the casket. Examples of narrative art are found in Scandinavia after the eighth century, and they show, like

the earlier picture stones, loose compositions with floating elements. The encirclement of narrative scenes with a runic

inscription is a characteristic of the late tenth and eleventh-

century Ringerike style. Finally, the two-plane relief style of Scandinavian stone sculpture from the eighth through the

eleventh centuries is like that of the casket. Since we have little evidence of Scandinavian influence on English art until after the ninth-century Viking invasions, i.e., during the

period of tenth and eleventh-century Viking settlement in

England, the tenth and eleventh-century Ringerike elements on the casket call into question the date of ca. 700 assigned to the casket on linguistic grounds.

A pure example of the Ringerike style is known in Eng- land-the tombstone from St. Paul's churchyard, London, which has a Scandinavian runic inscription.61 This is not

surprising in light of the conquests of Canute in the early eleventh century. In the Midlands and in northern England there are, however, a number of late Anglo-Saxon crosses

dating from the tenth and eleventh centuries that show a

direct link with both Viking art and the Franks Casket. These crosses are carved in a flat two-plane style more akin

to Scandinavian relief work in stone and the technique of

the sculptor of the Franks Casket than to the earlier North- umbrian crosses. However, they also relate to the earlier Northumbrian crosses by virtue of their paneled composi- tion and a number of their decorative motifs.

Three are especially instructive. The first, from Halton in

Lancashire (Fig. 12 a-b), is quite weathered.62 There are

fields of geometric interlace, vine decoration, and paired an-

imals as well as fields with figural subjects, both Christian and pagan. On one side, under superimposed arches, can be seen (above) an angel hovering above a pair of seated fig-

I

FIGURE 12. Halton Cross, Lancashire, England. a. Drawing; b. Detail.

b. Detail

f:: ffff tSf X:f05:

ures depicted in mirror image and (below) a cross flanked

by two figures also in mirror image. On the opposite side

there are also superimposed arches. The upper one, which

is subdivided into two fields, shows a pair of birds united by interlace and a scene that can probably be identified as Sig- urd roasting Fafnir's heart. The lower panel appears to de-

pict the Wayland legend. It shows a figure in front of an anvil raising a large hammer. Below the anvil are two ob-

jects, possibly bellows, and above it are tongs and a head-

less person with an interlaced knot where its head would

have been. Considering the objects depicted and the mode of

composition, there can be little doubt that the lower scene is

20

b. Detail

drawn from the northern mythological tradition and has Scandinavian prototypes. Still more significant, however, is the fact that the organization of the elements is far more narrative in intent than are either the eighth-century Got- land stones (cf. Fig. 8 a-b) or the later Ramsund Stone (Fig. 9). The smith, like Wayland on the Franks Casket, is shown in the process of plying his trade. Floating or loosely-com- posed elements occur, but they appear more as stage props within a narrative episode. According to David Wilson, the artist of the Ramsund Stone has treated the animals and as "individual pieces of Ringerike ornament, rather than as narrative composition."63 The artists of both the Franks

FIGURE 13. Nunburnholme Cross, East Riding, Yorkshire, England. a. Drawing; b. Detail.

Casket and the Halton Cross appear to have moved some- what beyond decoration and pure evocation toward narra- tion. Before leaving the Halton Cross, its use of mirror-im-

age representations sometimes united by interlace should be noted in comparison with the animals under the central arch on the Titus panel of the casket.

The second cross, at Nunburnholme in the East Riding of Yorkshire, appears to be a Viking memorial (Fig. 13 a-b). Both W. G. Collingwood64 and Brown65 based such an in-

terpretation upon the seated figure wearing a sword that is found on the upper portion of one of the faces. Below this seated Viking are a pair of birds and pair of figures executed as mirror images. The subject of the cross is enigmatic, and its damaged and eroded condition makes study even more difficult. It seems fairly evident that the Virgin and Christ Child are represented, but the remainder of the scenes are

quite hard to identify. There is a curious centaurlike creature at the bottom of one panel, and in another of the lower

panels two figures, one of which has an animal head, are seated opposite each other.66 Each of three of the figures has a plaque in front of his chest, which Brown suggested may be the breastplate known as the ephod worn by the

Jewish high priest.67 Even though little can be said with any degree of certainty

about the iconography of the cross, there are some features that show a remarkable resemblance to the Franks Casket. The centaur, of classical derivation, and the seated figure with an animal head bear general parallels. The plaque re- sembles the object worn by the first figure to the right of the arch in the upper register of the Titus panel on the cas- ket. There is one animal with its head turned backward, and there are others united by interlace, although the form of the latter is not comparable to those on the Franks Casket. One further detail seems to relate to the casket. The halos of the

figures are roughly horseshoe shape; they terminate at the shoulder by reversing direction and forming curls. There are two curled elements, one on either side of the Virgin's head, on the casket that can be read either as space fillers or as a truncated version of this type of curled halo (cf. Fig. 2). Such a decorative treatment of the halo is not uncommon on these crosses and can be found in more extreme form on the last of the three crosses to be considered.68

21

b. View

FIGURE 14. Leeds Cross, West Riding, Yorkshire, England. a. Drawing; b. View.

Preserved in the Church of St. Peter, Leeds, in the West

Riding of Yorkshire this cross was assembled from frag- ments found in the tower masonry of the old church when it was pulled down in 1838 (Fig. 14 a-b). Hence the condi- tion of the surface is relatively good, permitting a better es- timate of the relief technique. The carving is very flat, and all elements, the vine scroll and interlace patterns of the sides as well as the figures of the main faces, are treated in a very ornamental fashion. The stylized vine scroll, of clas- sical origin, has a long English history, but some of the in- terlace designs are debased Ringerike patterns, as manifest- ed by their multiple terminations and curled-up ends (Fig. 14a, top panel, third side from left).69 The cross may rep- resent the four symbols of the evangelists, all in human form but distinguished from one another by having hoofs, claws, or hands.70 The two lowest panels of the main faces have scenes that appear to be drawn from northern myth. The one generally associated with the story of Wayland is

quite damaged, but a hammer and tongs can be seen in its lower right corner, and it is usually interpreted as Wayland wearing wings and seizing a swan maiden.71 The figure seen on the lowest part of the opposite main face with a bird on his back and carrying a sword is identified as Sigurd listening to the voice of the bird. That saga and Christian stories are found together on the Leeds Cross seems entirely admissible given the evidence of the Halton Cross.

Although of all the late Anglo-Saxon crosses these three

present the most striking parallels to the Franks Casket, a number of others have decorative vocabularies that parallel

it. The non-figural cross at Two Dales near Darley Dale in

Derbyshire has the triquetra knot, guilloche, and pellets (Fig. 15) The use of these motifs shows that the decorative

vocabulary of the Franks Casket can be accounted for in the context of the late Anglo-Saxon crosses.

The dates of the three crosses are accepted as tenth and eleventh century, but, lacking precise documentary evidence, more specific dates assigned to them are based on relative

style development and typological considerations, neither of which are entirely satisfactory methods in establishing fine time differences. Collingwood, whose pioneer work on the Northumbrian crosses still serves as the corpus of these

crosses, dated them as follows: Halton, early eleventh cen-

tury; Nunburnholme, eleventh century; and Leeds, ca. 1000.72

Kendrick, however, stated that the Leeds Cross "can scarcely be dated earlier than about 1050."73 Estimates of specific dates thus incline to the eleventh century.

These crosses demonstrate that an artistic climate seem-

ingly more compatible with the Franks Casket than that of Northumbria in about 700 did exist in northern England about 1000 in the area where the kingdom of Northumbria and the Danelaw overlap (see Fig. 16). The flat carving style, Scandinavian stylistic and iconographic influence, and mixture of pagan and Christian iconography are the primary points of comparison.74 Depending on the relative weight given the comparative evidence, a conclusion might be a Yorkshire provenance for the Franks Casket and a date within about 50 years of 1000.

Although it is difficult to be more specific about the place

22

FIGURE 15. Darley Dale Cross, Derbyshire, England.

of origin of the casket on the basis of its iconography and

history, the city of York may be considered likely, for in the tenth and eleventh centuries it would appear to provide the

requisite cultural milieu. The history of the city during this

period is sufficiently documented to demonstrate that York was a lively commercial center, situated as it was on the ma-

jor sea and overland trade routes; that it had a substantial

population; and, most important of all, that it had far-flung contacts with the Scandinavian kingdoms.75 Not only Eng- lish chronicle sources, but place names, accounts from saga, runic inscriptions in Scandinavia, and coin hoards both in Scandinavia and England testify to the Scandinavian pres- ence in Yorkshire.76 The northern mythological subjects and traces of Scandinavian style on the casket accord well with such evidence. What does seem unusual in northern

England in the tenth and eleventh centuries is the casket's classical, Mediterranean iconography, and it is in this con- nection especially that York seems indicated. The city was one of the leading cultural centers of western Europe in the late eighth and ninth centuries. It was there that Alcuin was trained in the eighth century. After Bede died at Jarrow in

735, cultural ascendancy shifted from the northern monas- tic centers such as Wearmouth, Jarrow, and Lindisfarne south to York, which became an archiepiscopal see in the

year of Bede's death. One of the glories of the School of York was the library, which from Alcuin's testimony must have been among the finest of its day. Although his Verses on the Saints of the Church of York is scarcely a catalogue of the library, it does give some notion of its importance in the

FIGURE 16. Map of England showing the countries together with the extent of Northumbria and the Danelaw superimposed and in- dicated by diagonal hatching (Courtesy of B. M. Boyle).

eighth century.77 Numerous misfortunes befell the city and library beginning in the ninth century with the Viking in- vasions, and the fire in 1069 during fighting against the Normans appears to have been especially disastrous.78 Oth- er calamities followed in the twelfth century. J. D. A. Ogilvy states that only a gospel book and a continental ninth- or

tenth-century Alcuin manuscript are known to have sur- vived from the early York library.79 It is possible, however, that a world chronicle such as that which Strzygowski sug- gested as a source for most of the scenes on the casket would have been available at York. Based on art-historical evidence alone, therefore, a date of ca. 1000 and a provenance of York may well be considered for the Franks Casket.

23

NOTES

* I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor George Kubler for suggesting this study and directing its initial preparation and to Professor Sumner Crosby for his help and encouragement in countless matters. Presented in 1963 at the Symposium on the History of Art sponsored by the Frick Collection and the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, it has been refined by the suggestions of numerous persons. I wish to thank professors Konstantin Reichardt, Helge Kok- critz, Louis Grodecki, Walter Cahn, Edzard Baumann, Spiro Kostof, Robert Mark Harris, Phyllis Williams Lehmann, and others who have offered assistance. I am grateful to Erna Huber and John Davis for help in preparing the draft. A Smith College grant-in-aid to faculty research provided monies for photographs.

1. The right side of the casket was bequeathed to the Museo Nazionale in the collection of M. Carrand of Lyon (A. S. Napier in An English Miscellany Presented to Dr. Furnivall in Honor of His Seventy-fifth Birthday, Oxford, 1901, 363-64). G. B. Brown (The Arts in Early Eng- land, VI, 1, London, 1930, 18ff.), who gives one of the fullest accounts of the casket's early history, states that enquiries made by Franks re- vealed that the casket had been owned by a Professor Mathieu of Clermont-Ferrand, at which time it was already in pieces and the right side missing. It is reported to have come from a family in Auzon who used it as a workbox. Supposedly the son of the family had removed the fittings, said to have been of silver, causing the box to fall apart. Additional enquiries made by W. H. J. Weale revealed that the casket had originally belonged to the Church of Saint-Julien, Brioude, and had possibly been looted from it during the French Revolution.

2. Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten, I, Die Runenin-

schriften der Britischen Inseln by Hertha Marquardt (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in G;ottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 48), 10-16.

3. G. Stephens, Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and

England, London, 1866-1901, I-11, 470-76 and 921-23; III, 200-04; 1V, 40-44. See also G. Stephens, Handbook of the Old-Northern Runic Monuments, London, 1884, 142-47. Franks' notice of the casket had appeared in 1859, ("Proceedings at the Meetings of the Archaeo-

logical Institute: Nov. 1848, to June 1859," Archaeological Journal, London, 1859, 391), and the first description and transliteration of the

inscriptions was done by Daniel Haigh (The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, London, 1861,42-44).

4. For publications prior to 1900, many of which are merely mentions or

descriptions, the reader is referred to the Hertha Marquardt bibliog- raphy (see note 2) and to W. ViCtor (The Anglo-Saxon Runic Cas- ket, Marburg, 1901, 2-4). Knowledge of the casket was doubtless fur- thered by the replication of the casket in the form of plaster casts, which were surely available by 1876 when J. O. Westwood published his catalogue of fictile ivories (A Descriptive Catalogue of the Fictile Ivories in the South Kensington Museum, London, 1876,234-35).

5. A. S. Napier, "The Franks Casket," An English Miscellany, Oxford, 1901,362-81.

6. R. W. V. Elliott, Runes, An Introduction, Manchester, 1959,108. 7. E. Wadstein, The Clermont Runic Casket, (Skritter utgifna at K. Hu-

manistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Upsali. V1. 7.), Upsala, 1900. 8. W. Victor, The Anglo-Saxon Runic Casket, Marburg, 1901. 9. T. von Griengerger, "E. Wadstein, A. S. Napier und W. Vietor, Schrif-

ten uiber das ags. Runenkastchen," Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie, 33, 1901, 409-21 and "Zu den Inschriften des Clermonter Runenkast- chens," Anglia, Zeitschrift fir Englische Philologie, 27, 1904, 435-49; O. L. Jiriczek in Anzeiger fiir Deutsches Altertum und Deutsche Lit- eratur, 29, 1904, 192-202; and F. Holthausen, in Literaturblatt fir germanische und romanische Philologie, 21,208-12.

10. K. Schneider, "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket und einer ae. Version des Mythos von Balders Tod." Festschrift fur Wal- ther Fischer, Heidelberg, 1959, 4-20. The argument is based in large part on the linguistic forms found in the Latin inscription rather than

on the Anglo-Saxon forms. Concerning this thesis see also P. Berg- haus-K. Schneider, Anglo-friesische Runensolidi im Lichte des Neu- fundes von Schweindorf (Ostfriesland) [Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften, 1341, Cologne and Opladen, 1967, 47, 55; K. Malone, "The Franks Casket and the Date of Widsith," Nordica et Anglica, Studies in Honor of Stefan Einarsson, ed. A.H. Orrick, The Hauge, 1968, 10-18; and H. Beck, review of Nordicat etAnglica in Anglia, 89,1971,378-79.

11. Major studies treating the Bargello panel are (in chronological order): G. Hempl, "The Variant Runes on the Franks Casket," TranJactionJ of the American Philological Association, 32, 1901, 186-95 (see also the discussion of Hempl's work by W. Vietor in Deutsche Literaturzei- tung, 25 Jahrgang, Nr. 6, 1904, 325-27); R. C. Boer, "Uber die rechte Seite des angelsachsischen Runenkastchens," Arkiv for NordiJk Filo- logi, 27, 1911, 216-59; R. Imelmann, Forschungen zur altengliJchen Poesie, Berlin, 1920, 317-41; E. G(. Clark, "The Right Side of the Franks Casket," PMLA, 45, 1930, 339-53; K. Spiess, "Das angelsach- sische Runenkastchen," Josef Strzygowski-Festschrift, Klagenfurt, 1932, 160-68; W. Krausse, "Erta, ein anglischer Gott," Die Sprache, Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft, 5 (Festschrift fir W. Havers), 1959; K. Schneider, "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket," Festschrift fiir Walther Fischer, 1959; and A. C. Bouman, "The Franks Casket, Right Side and Lid," Neophilologus, 49, 1965, 241-49; C. J. E. Ball, "The Franks Casket: Right Side," English Studies, A Journal of English Letters and Philology, 47, 1966, 119-25; M. Osborn, "Two Inconsistent Letters in the Inscription on the Franks Casket, Right Side," Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 72, 1971, 30-34; and idem, "The Grammar of the Inscription on the Franks Casket, Right Side," Neu- philologische Mitteilungen, 73, 1972, 663-71. I am grateful to Fred Robinson for the two final references.

12. P. W. Souers, "The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard StudieJ and Notes in Philology and Literature, 17, 1935, 163-79; "The Franks Cas- ket: Left Side," ibid., 18, 1935, 199-209; "The Magi on the Franks Casket," ibid., 19, 1937, 249-54; "The Wayland Scene on the Franks Casket," Speculum, 18,1943,104-11.

13. H. R. E. Davidson, "The Smith and the Goddess, Two Figures on the Franks Casket from Auzon," Fruhmittelalterliche Studien (Jahrbuch des Instituts f[ir Friihmittelalterforschung der Universitat Munster) 3, 1969, 216-26 and A. Wolf, "Franks Casket in literarhisiorischer Slcht," ibid., 227-43. Forthcoming is a study by K. Hauck entitled Das K.st- chen von Auzon, Zur Rezeption spdtantiker Genealogien im Friih- mittelalter (Miunsterschen Mittelalter-Schriften, 5), Munich, 1970 (see K. Hauck, "Vorbericht uber das Kistchen von Auzon," lFrih2mit- telalterliche Studien, 2, 1968,415-18).

14. L. Stone, Sculpture in Britain: The Middle Ages, Baltimore, 1955, 14. 15. J. O. Westwood, Catalogue, 23.4. 16. O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of the Ivory Carvings in the Britijh Museum,

London, 1909, No. 30,27ff. 17. A. Goldschnldt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der Karolingi-

schen und Sachsischen Kaiser, Berlin, 1918,11, (Nos. 186-187), 56-57. 18. R. A. Smith, Guide to the Anglo-Saxon and Foreign Teutonic Anti-

quities in the Department of British and Medieval AnitiquitieJ, Lon- don, 1923, 98.

19. J. Brbndsted, Early English Ornament, London, 1924, 134.- 20. M. H. Longhurst, English Ivories, London, 1926, 1. 21. (;.B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 1, 18-51. 22. Cf. J. Strzygowski, "Die koptische Truhe von Terracina," AlonatJhefte

fuii Kunitwissenschaft, 1, 1908, 26-3 and J. Brandsted, liEarly Iingh.lh Ornament, 13-i.

23. One possible exception is the study by Louis Br6hier (Le Coffret d'Au- zon, Brioude, 1931). It is primarily descriptive and accepts the tradi- tional attributions.

2 A. A.K. Porter, The Crosses and Culture of Ireland, 1931,93. 25. 0. E. Saunders, A History of English Art in the Middle AgeJ, Oxford,

1932,19. 26. Lrank and Harrlctt Elgee, The Archaeology of Yorkshire, l.ondon,

1933,2 18. 27 T.D. Kendrick,Anglo-Saxon Art toA. D. 900, London, 1938, 121-25.

24

28. All translations of inscriptions are quoted from R. W. V. Elliott, Runes, 1959,96-109.

29. For the iconography see especially P. W. Souers, "The Wayland Scene on the Franks Casket," Speculum, 18, 1943, 104-11 and L. Whitbread, "The Binding of Weland," Medium Aevumr, 25, 1956, 13-19. Com-

pare also the recent interpretation of H. R. E. Davidson ("The Smith and the (oddess," Frihmiittelalterliche Studien, 3, 1969, 216-26) and the analysis of the representation with respect to its literary parallels by A. Wolf ("Franks Casket in literarhistorischer Sicht," ibid., 227-

-13).

30. See the discussion below.

31. Concerning the iconography see P. W. Souers, "The Magi on the

Franks Casket," Harvard Studies, 19, 1937, 249-54.

32. A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfzenbeinskulpturen, 11, 56. See A. Grabar, Am-

poules de Terre Sainte, Paris, 1958, ill. planche II.

33. Professor George Kubler has called my attention to the twelfth-cen-

tury stone baptismal font at Aakirkeby on the Danish island of Born-

holm, carved by the Gotlander Sigraf. Within an arcaded setting it de-

picts both the adoration of the Magi and flight into Egypt. The gifts the Magi bring to the Child are usual in form. However, departing on

horseback they carry rods that sprout leaves (see L. Jacobsen and E.

Moltke, Danm2arks Runeindskrifter, Copenhagen, 1942, No. 373, figs. 869-902).

i-. For bibliography see note 11. For detailed iconographic interpretations related to Sigurd see especially E. G. Clark (PAILA, 45, 1930, 339ff.), K. Spiess (Josef Strzygowski-Festschrlft, 1932, 160ff.), and H. R. E.

D)avl\ids) ( lThe Smith and1 tlhe (Goddess,'' Friil/iottelalterliche Studienz,

3, 1969,2 16-26). 35. See the brief summary in H. R. Ellis, "Sigurd in the Art of the Viking

Age," Antiquity, 16, 9'42, 216.

36. K Schnelider, Fle.itschrif fiir U "alther Fi cher, 1959, 4-20.

37. There has been one attempt to interpret the representation as an alle-

gory of the Passion (F. C. Walker, "Fresh Light on the Franks Casket,"

"aL. hington UniZ'ersity Studies, II, 1915, 165f.).

38. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 39-40. Cf. J. Wilpert, I sarco-

fagi cristiani antichi, Rome, 1929, I, pls. 86,92, 96, 122, 128, 129, 157.

39. There are other examples in early English inscriptions of Latin words

rendered in runic letters-e.g., on the crosses of Ruthwell and Bew-

castle and the coffin reliquary of Saint Cuthbert (see G. B. Brown,

Arts in Early England, V, 246 and B. Dickens' study in The Relics of

Saint Cuthbert, ed., C. F. Battiscombe, Oxford, 1956, 305ff.).

0(. Concerning such a stylistic mixture see the comments of E. Kitzinger in ibid., 280ff.

tl. These rune words have sometimes been interpreted as the name of

the artist, first by D. Haigh (Conquest of Britain, 1861, 43) and most

recently by K. Schneider ( estJchrift fir Walther Fischer, 1959), 19).

i2. B. Dickens (quoted in Guide to Anglo-Saxon Antiquities, British Mu-

seum, 1923, 97 land again in detail by C. Singer in Legacy of IJrael,

1927, 172) suggested that the arch was the temple, inside of which is

the Ark of the Covenant with cherubim on either side and underneath

the oxen below the sea of brass (I Kings 7:t4). G. B. Brown (ArtJ in

Earl' England, VI, 1, 33-3-i) proposed that the scene depicted a leg- end recorded by Tacitus (Hist. V, 3, 4). The Israelites in the desert

were saved by a herd of asses who led them to water, and a shrine

was therefore dedicated to the animal in the temple. -43. Strzygowski's idea of a world chronicle, much quoted since, was first

suggested to W. Victor (see Victor's remarks in the Deutsche Litera-

turzeitung, 25, 1904, 327). Strzygowski himself mentioned it in inee

alexandrinische Weltchronik (Denkschriften der k. Akademie der

Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse, LI, 1906), 137 and 142 and

in "Das orientalische Italien," Alonatshefte fiir Kunstwissenschaft, I, 1908, 33. The probable existence of an illustrated Josephus, specifi- cally his Jewlish Antiquities, has been discussed by Kurt Weitzmann

("Zur Frage des Einflusses jiidischer Bilderquellen auf die Illustration

des alten Testamentes," in Mullus, Festschrift Theodor Klauser, ed. A.

Stuiber, Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christenturn, Erginzungsband 1,

1964, 415). Concerning the knowledge of Josephus' writings in the

Anglo-Saxon period see J. D. A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, 597-1066 (Medieval Academy of American Publication No. 76), Cam-

bridge, Mass., 1967, 185-86. 4-i. P. W. Souers, "The Franks Casket: Left Side," Harvard Studies, 18,

1935.

-45. 'l'he suckling of the twins is found on early English coins and doubt- less derives from Roman coinage-e.g., the schematic representation on the anonymous sceatta coins of the seventh and eighth centuries and the clear imprints on the silver pennies of Aethelbert and Offa at the end of the eigth century (see G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, III, ch. 2, pls. V and VIII and M. Dolley, Anglo-Saxon Pennies, British Mu- seum Pub. 1964, pl. II, 7). The Rambona Diptych, ivory tablets of north Italian provenance dating probably from the end of the ninth

century, shows the wolf suckling the twins below a depiction of the crucifixion (see A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturem, 1, no. 181 a-b).

16. The practice is mentioned many times in the Iliad (e.g., IV, 531; V. 164, 435 and 618; VI, 417, etc.). It is seen in archaic Greek Art-e.g., in the sculptural frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi and on the underside of a black-figure kylix by Exckias now in Munich (ill. in P. E. Arias, A History of 1000 Years of Greek Vase Painting, New York, n.d., pl. 59). It is also depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry (see Sir Frank Stenton etal., The Bayeux Tapestry, 1957, pl. 71).

i7. P. W. Souers, "The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard StudieJ, 17, 1935, 163-79.

i8. Ibid., 107. 49. K. Schneider, Festschrift fur Walther Fischer, 1959, 6-7. See also M.

Osborn's provocative suggestion for the meaning of the word aegili in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 72,1971, 34,

50. See Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 25, 1904, 327. 51. M. Schapiro, "The Decoration of the Leningrad Manuscript of Bede,"

Scriptoriumz, 12, 1958, 192. 52. :For a description of the Scaliger Barbarus and the earlier papyrus frag-

ments see A. Bauer andJ. Strzygowski, Eine alexandrinische Weltchro- lik (Denkschriften der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 51), 1906. Concerning another fragment in Berlin see H. Lietzmann, "Ein Blatt aus einer antiken Weltchronik," Quantulacumque, Studies Pre- sented to Kirsopp Lake, London, 1937, 339-48.

53. There are, first, general correspondences such as the long narrow for- mat of the tapestry, its narrative and historical aspects, and the use of decorative animals in the border. Second, there are more specific for- mnal correspondences, e.g. between the asses' heads under the arch on the Titus panel and the animal heads above the figure of Aelfgyva (cf. Fig. - with pl. 19 in Sir Frank Stenton et al., The Bayeux Tapestry, 2nd ed., (Greenwich, Conn., 1965); between the fleur-de-lys finial on

top of the arch of the Titus panel and numerous examples in the tapestry border (cf. Fig. i and Stenton, ibid., pls. 4 and 13, where the

tleur-de-lys practically becomes a finial for the roof of the house); be- tween the rendering of furniture or architecture in multiple bars on the casket and the detailing of the same elements by embroidered

stripes of varied color (cf. Figs. 2, 4 and 6 with Stenton, ibid., pl. 4); between the casual incised zigzag on the Virgin's footstool and on the arch of the shrine of the lid and the simple zigzag fillers in the border of the tapestry (cf. Figs. 2 and 6 with Stenton, ibid., pl 39); and, fin-

ally, between the unusual splaying of the tree trunks on the Romulus and Remus panel and a similar rendering on the tapestry (cf. Fig. 5 with Stenton, ibid., pl. 53).

5i. See M. Schapiro, "The Bowman and the Bird on the Ruthwell Cross and Other Works: The Interpretation of Secular Themes in Early Mediaeval Art," The Art Bulletin, 45, 1963, 351-55.

55. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 1, 18-51. Parallels with the Franks Casket were also discussed by Lindqvist in 1940 ("Hunning- estenen och Franks skrin," Saga och Sed [Kungl. Gustav Adolfs aka- demiens aarsbok], 1940, 55-63) and mentioned later in his corpus (Gotlands Bildsteine, Stockholm, 1941,85 and 102-07).

56. T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, London, 1949, 87. There are objects of Scandinavian manufacture which include figural reliefs,

25

as well as Saxon metalwork influenced by Scandinavian design, found in the seventh-century Sutton Hoo burial excavated in 1939. The na- ture of Scandinavian influence on the casket and the casket's general style and complexion, to be discussed below, appear to me, however, to be more critical evidence for dating. Concerning Sutton Hoo see R. Bruce-Mitford, "Sutton Hoo . . ," in R. Girvan, Beowulf and the Sev- enth Century, 2nd ed., London, 1971, 84-98, and 103-04 for additional bibliography.

57. Concerning the tapestry, see especially B. Hougen, "Osebergfunnets Billedvev," Viking (Tidsskrift for Norr0n Arkeologi), IV, 1940, 85-

124; ill. pl. XIXa in D. M. Wilson and O. Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, Ithaca, 1966.

58. See the discussion of Viking art by D. M. Wilson and 01 Klindt-Jensen, ibid.

59. We are on relatively solid ground in dating the Ringerike style to the late tenth and eleventh centuries, since it appears to have developed directly from the Jellinge style. The monument from which the latter

style derives its name, the Jellinge Stone in Jutland, was probably set

up by Harold Bluetooth some time after 983 (see L. Jacobsen and E.

Moltke, Danmarks Runeindskrifter, 1942, nos. 41-42; ill. D. M. Wil- son and 0. Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, 1966, pls. XLVIII and XLVIX).

60. It is instructive to compare this practice with the Ruthwell and Bew- castle crosses. On the Ruthwell Cross the rune words are broken into

segments and piled one on top of the other vertically in the narrow borders of the vine-scroll panels. The Latin inscriptions found on the two figure-paneled sides are read from left to right in the horizontal borders and from top to bottom in the vertical borders, with the base of the letters in both left and right hand vertical borders located to- ward the left side of the cross. There is no sense of a consecutive en- closure of the field by the letters. The Bewcastle Cross uses the con- ventional paragraph form for its main inscription.

61. See especially the general discussions in T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, 87-109 and D. M. Wilson and 0. Klindt-Jensen,

Viking Art, 95-146. 62. Descriptions of the Halton Cross are found in W. G. Collingwood,

Northumbrian Crosses, London, 1927, 159-62 and G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 2,232-33.

63. D. M. Wilson and 0. Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, 139. 64. W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age,

London, 1927,134-35. 65. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 2,258-65. 66. Human figures with animal heads are also found on early Scottish

crosses, e.g., a relief from Murthly, Perthshire and a cross slab from

lnchbrayock (see J. Romilly Allen, The Early Monuments of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1903, figs. 235 and 321). Other parallels found with the casket are the suckling wolf, the man strangling birds, and the back-

biting animals (Ibid., figs. 235 and 309 and pl. LXVI). Since these crosses are very poorly studied or dated, it is difficult to define the na- ture of the relationship with the casket, but the kinship is for the most

part iconographic rather than stylistic. 67. G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 2, 262. The ephod, described

in Exodus, 28: 6 ff., appears also on the scribe Ezra in the Codex Amia- tinus (Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, fol. 5; ca. 700), a Northumbrian

manuscript with an Italian prototype. Concerning the ephod, especially its visual representation, see H. Thiersch, Ependites and Ephod (Geisteswissenschaftliche Forschungen, VII), Stuttgart, 1936.

68. For another example see the Virgin on the cross from Shelford in Not-

tinghamshire. T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, pl. LL.

69. Cf. the stone from Vang, Valdres, Norway (D. M. Wilson and 0.

Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, pl. LVII). 70. This is the interpretation of James Rusby, St. Peter's at Leeds, 1896,

80. 71. Ibid., 82 and G. B. Brown, Arts in Early England, VI, 2, 233. See also

W. G. Collingwood, "Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in the West Riding," The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 23, 1915, 209- 18.

72. W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses, 13-, 159 and 162. 73. T. D. Kendrick, Late Saxon and Viking Art, 57.

74. An additional problem that must be considered is that a portable whalebone box differs in both purpose and medium from memorial stone crosses.

75. See F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford (2nd ed.), 1947, chs. X-XIII and P. M. Tillott, A History of Yorkshire, the City of York, (Victoria History of the Counties of England), London, 1961, 3-24.

76. See, e.g., G. Jones, Egils Saga, New York, 1960, chs. 59-61; S. B. F.

Jansson, Swedish Vikings in England, the Evidence of the Rune Stones (Dorothea Coke Memorial Lecture in Northern Studies, Uni-

versity College, London, 11 March 1965), Edinburgh, 1966, and H.

Lindkvist, "A Study on Early Medieval York," Anglia (Zeitschrift fur

Englische Philologie), 50, 1926, 345-94. 77. Versus de Sanctis Eboracensis Ecclesiae, 11. 1535-1561, in Monumenta

Alcuiniana, ed. W. Wattenbach-E. Dlimmler (Bibliotheca rerum Ger- nianicarumi, VI, 1873). The inadequacies of Alcuin's list as a descrip- tion have been noted by numerous scholars and by Alcuin himself, who

apologized for omissions occasioned by space and meter. See C. J. B.

(Gaskoin,Alcuin, his Life and Work, New York, 1904, 39. 78. See P. M. Tillott, A History of Yorkshire, 7; H. Lindkvist, "Early Med-

ieval York," Anglia, 50, 1926, 391 and The Victoria History of the County of York, ed. W. Page, London, 1907,1,417.

79. J. D. A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, 597-1066, 36.

Photograph credits: Figs. 1, 2, 4-6 (Trustees of the British Museum); Fig. 3 (Museo Nazionale, Florence); Figs. 7, 8 a-b, 9, 10 a-b, 11 a-b (K. Vitter-

hets Historie och Antikvitetsakademiens Bildarkiv, Stockholm); Figs. 12a,

13a, 14a (W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses, London, 1927); Figs. 13b, 14b, 15 (N.M. R. Crown Copyright); Fig. 12b (B. T. Batsford Ltd.).

26