¹ Allen, J. R., Early Christian Symbolism in Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1887), p. 158.Google Scholar

² See, for example, Henderson, G., From Durrow to Kills. The Insular Gospel Books 650–800 (London, 1987)Google Scholar; The Durham Gospels, ed. Verey, C. D., Brown, J. and Coatsworth, E., EEMF 20 (Copenhagen, 1980)Google Scholar; and a review of this: Cróinin, D. Ó, ‘Pride and Prejudice’, Peritia 1 (1982), 352–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Rice, D. Talbot, ‘The Iconography of the Langford Rood’, Mélanges offerts à René Crozet, ed. Gallais, P. and Riou, Y.-J. (Poitiers, 1966), pp. 169–71.Google Scholar

⁴ Coatsworth, E., ‘The Iconography of the Crucifixion in pre-Conquest Sculpture in England’, 2 vols. (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Durham Univ., 1979) II, 78–81Google Scholar; idem, ‘Late pre-Conquest Sculptures with the Crucifixion South of the Humber’, Bishop æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. Yorke, B. (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 161–93, esp. 179.Google Scholar

⁵ Raw, B., Anglo-Saxon Crucifixion Iconography and the Art of the Monastic Revival, CSASE 1 (Cambridge, 1990), 135.Google Scholar

⁶ Tweddle, D., South East England, Corpus of AS Stone Sculpture 4 (Oxford, 1995), 74–5.Google Scholar See Coatsworth, , ‘Iconography’ 1, 108–76.Google Scholar

⁷ For example, on a number of engraved gems of second- and third-century date, although their precise date and connection with orthodox Christianity has been a matter of dispute. See Schiller, G., The Iconography of Christian Art, trans. Seligman, J., 2 vols. (Gütersloh, 1972) II, pl. 321Google Scholar; Thoby, P., Le Crucifix, des origines au Concile de Trente, I: Etude iconographique (Nantes, 1959), pl. I, figs. 3 and 5. Two examples from the fifth century are on an ivory box possibly of North Italian origin, now in the British Museum, and on a panel of the wooden doors of the church of Sta Sabina, Rome: Schiller, Iconography II, pls. 323 and 326.Google Scholar

⁸ Gregory of Tours, De gloria beatorum martyrum, PL 71, cols. 705–800, esp. 724.

⁹ Wessel, K., ‘Die Entstehung des Crucifixus’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 53 (1960), 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grabar, A, L'iconoclasme byzantin (Paris, 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art II, pl. 327.

¹¹ For example, on an eighth-century wall painting in Rome at Sta Maria Antiqua: Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art II, pl. 328; and the Fieschi Reliquary and a pectoral cross now in Providence, Rhode Island, both of which have only the sun and moon, John and Mary: ibid. II, pl. 331 and Wessel, Die Entstehung, pl. I.

¹² Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art II, pl. 322.

¹³ Wessel, , Die Entstehung, p. 101Google Scholar; Berliner, R., ‘A Palestinian Reliquary Cross of about 590’, Museum Notes. Museum of Rhode Island School of Design 9.3 (1952), 1–4.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Dark Ages, ed. Rice, D. Talbot (London, 1965), p. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Elbern, V. H., ‘Der Grabstein des Vicarius Hlodericus’, Aachener Kunstblätter 43 (1972), 143–55, with fig. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Barány-Oberschall, M., ‘Byzantinische Pektoralkreuze aus ungarischen Funden’, Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christliche Archäologie 2 (1953), 207–45.Google Scholar

¹⁷ It used to be held that this view prevailed until the eleventh century at least: Grondijs, L. H., L'iconographie byzantine du crucifié mort sur la croix, 2nd ed. (Brussels, 1947)Google Scholar; Aulén, G., Christus Victor: an Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (London, 1931).Google Scholar The prevailing consensus is that a major change of emphasis took place in the ninth century: Hausherr, R., ‘Der Tote Christus am Kreuz. Zur Ikonographie des Gerokreuzes ’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Univ. of Bonn, 1963).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Haddan, A. W and Stubbs, W., Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, 3 vols. in 4 (Oxford, 1869–1878) II, pp. 141–4.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bede, , Historia abbatum, in Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896) I, 373.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bede, Explanatio Apocalypsis, PL 93, cols. 130–206, esp. 136: ‘Vestitum Podere. Poderis, quae latine tunica talaris dicitur, et est vestis sacerdotalis, Christi sacerdotium ostendit, quo se pro nobis in altari crucis obtulit hostiam Patri’.

²¹ Durham, Cathedral library, A. II. 17, 38³v. The miniature and its inscription are discussed in Coatsworth, E., ‘The Decoration of the Durham Gospels’, Durham Gospels, ed. Verey, et al. , pp. 53–63, esp. 58–62 and pl. II.Google Scholar

²² Alexander, J. J. G., Insular Manuscripts Sixth to the Ninth Century (London, 1978), pp. 66–7 (no. 44) and pl. 203.Google Scholar

²³ Coatsworth, , ‘The Decoration of the Durham Gospels’, pp. 58–62.Google Scholar

²⁴ Henry, F., Irish Art in the Early Christian Period to A.D. 800 (London, 1965), pl. 46, and below pp. 163–4.Google Scholar

²⁵ Kermode, P. M. C., Manx Crosses (London, 1907), pl. XVI.Google Scholar

²⁶ Beckwith, J., Ivory Carvings in Early Medieval England (London, 1972), no. 6, pl. 19.Google Scholar

²⁷ Coatsworth, , ‘The Iconography of the Crucifixion’ I, 313–16.Google Scholar The distribution of the figures of John and Mary is very different; see Coatsworth, ‘Late pre-Conquest Sculptures’, pp. 161–93.Google Scholar

²⁸ Coatsworth, E., ‘Two Examples of the Crucifixion at Hexham’, St Wilfrid at Hexham, ed. Kirby, D. P. (Newcasde upon Tyne, 1974), pp. 180–4.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hodges, C. C. and Savage, S. E., A Record of All Works Connected with Hexham Abbey since January 1899 and Now in Progress (Hexham, 1907), pp. 42–3. The fragments were found in a hole, apparently a rubbish pit, near the west end of the abbey nave, along with material said to be twelfth century in date.Google Scholar

³⁰ Coatsworth, ‘Two Examples of the Crucifixion’, pl. XIII c, d. See also Cramp, R. J., County Durham and Northumberland, Corpus of AS Stone Sculpture 1 (Oxford, 1984), II, pl. 179, nos. 958–9.Google Scholar Earlier interpretations which either exclude some fragments or divide them between two different panels are by Collingwood, W. G., ‘Early Carved Stones at Hexham’, AAe 4th ser. 1 (1925), 65–92, esp. 73 and fig.Google Scholar; and Taylor, H. M., ‘Rediscovery of Important Anglo-Saxon Sculpture at Hexham’, AAe 4th ser. 44 (1966), 49–60 and fig.Google Scholar

³¹ Coatsworth, , ‘Two Examples of the Crucifixion’, pl. XIXaGoogle Scholar; Cramp, , County Durham and Northumberland II, pl. 173, no. 914.Google Scholar

³² For example, the words of Eph. III. 18 are used to refer to the cross in exegesis of the Crucifixion account in St John's gospel: ?Bede, In S. Joannis Evangelium, PL 92, cols. 634–938, esp. col. 913; See also? Alcuin, De divinis officiis, PL 101, cols. 1173–1286, esp. 1208, in which the cross is seen extending to all four corners of the world; and for the same view in Ælfric's sermon on the Passion two centuries later, see Ælfric's Catholic Homilies. The Second Series. Text, ed. Godden, M., EETS ss 5 (London, 1979), 137–49, esp. 145.Google Scholar

³³ Cramp, , County Durham and Northumberland I, 176–7.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. pp. 37–40.

³⁵ Wilson, D. M., Anglo-Saxon Art (London, 1984), pls. 42–4Google Scholar; see also the ‘Durham Cassiodorus’ (Durham, Cathedral Library, B. II. 30): Alexander, , Insular Manuscripts, pls. 174–5.Google Scholar

³⁶ Kurth, B., ‘Ecclesia and an Angel on the Andrew Auckland Cross’, Jnl of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 6 (1943), 213–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ The Ruthwell Cross. Papers from the Colloquium Sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 8 12 1989, ed. Cassidy, B. (Princeton, NJ, 1992), pl. 18.Google Scholar

³⁸ The parallel was first noted by Beckwith, Ivory Carvings, no. 3, p. 118 and pls. 14–15. The Annunciation scenes on both the panel and the cross are discussed fully in Coatsworth, E., ‘Clothmaking and the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon Literature and Art’, Medieval Art Recent Perspectives, ed. Owen-Crocker, G. and Graham, T. (Manchester, 1998), pp. 8–25.Google Scholar

³⁹ Okasha, E., Hand-List of Anglo-Saxon Non-Runic Inscriptions (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 53–4, cites the absence of a cross in the halo, as well as the incomplete and puzzling inscriptions, as her reasons for rejecting a Crucifixion interpretation. However, a survey of early medieval Crucifixion scenes shows a variety of practice, with Christ sometimes with a plain nimbus, or even none at all.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Collingwood, W G., ‘The Ruthwell Cross in its Relation to other Monuments of the Early Christian Age’, Trans. of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Ant. Soc. 3rd ser. 5 (1916–1918), 34–84, esp. 37.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hodgson, J. F., ‘The Church of Auckland St Andrew (or North Auckland), Commonly Called South Church’, AAe ns 20 (1899), 27–206, esp. 28–39Google Scholar; Hodges, C. C., ‘Anglo-Saxon Remains’, Victoria County History. Durham. I (London, 1905) 1, 21–40, esp. 217–18Google Scholar; Browne, G. F., ‘Early Sculptured Stones of England II’, Mag. of Art 8 (1885), 154–9, esp. 158–9.Google Scholar

⁴² St Wilfrid stayed at the monastery of St Andrew on the Coelian Hill in Rome founded by St Gregory, and his prayer asking the apostle to support him in his mission is recorded by his biographer, Eddius, Stephanus: The Life of Bishop Wilfrid, ed. Colgrave, B. (Cambridge, 1927), ch. 5.Google Scholar

⁴³ Brooks, K. R., Andreas and The Fates of the Apostles (Oxford, 1961), pp. xxii and 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. p. xix; Sisam, K., Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), p. 8, n. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Blickling Homily no. XIX: Morris, R., The Blickling Homilies of the Tenth Century, EETS os 73 (London, 1880), 228–49Google Scholar; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 198: Goodwin, C. W, The Anglo-Saxon Legends of St Andrew and St Veronica, Cambridge Ant. Soc. Octavo Publ. 1 (Cambridge, 1851), 1–25.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Peterson, P. M., Andrew Brother of Simon Peter, his History and his Legends, Supplement to Novum Testamentum 1 (Leiden, 1958).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Aurenhammer, H., Lexikon derchristlichen Ikonographie, I: Alpha und Omega – Christus und die vierund zwanzig Ältesten (Vienna, 1967), p. 134.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale de France, lat. 9428, 98v.

⁴⁹ The Fulda Sacramentary: Göttdngen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Sacramentarium Fuldense, Cod. Theol. 231, 166r.

⁵⁰ Above, p. 155.

⁵¹ The Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. Battiscombe, C. F. (Oxford, 1956), pl. VIII.Google Scholar

⁵² Cramp, , County Durham and Northumberland, 1.1, 40 and 1.2, pls. 6 and 16.Google Scholar

⁵³ Calvert, J., ‘The St Andrew Auckland Cross’, Art Bull. 66 (1984), 543–55, also sees its iconography as the result of borrowing from other scenes, including the Crucifixion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Henry, F., La Sculpture irlandaise pendant les douze premiers siécles de l'ére chrétienne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1933), pls. 46 and 48–50.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid. pls. 44 and 45.

⁵⁶ Henry, F., Irish Art in the Early Christian Period to A.D. 800, p. 150Google Scholar; and idem, Irish Art During the Viking Invasions, 800–1020 A.D. (London, 1967), pp. 147–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Harbison, P., ‘A Lost Crucifixion Plaque of Clonmacnois Type Found in County Mayo’, Irish Midland Studies. Essays in Honour of N. W. English, ed. Murtagh, H. (London, 1980), pp. 24–38. Henry, Irish Art During the Viking Invasions, placed these metalwork pieces in the late ninth to tenth centuries, although, as Harbison points out, elsewhere she dated them as late as he did.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The Southampton Psalter: Cambridge, St John's College C. 9 (50), 38v; illustrated in Henry, Irish Art During the Viking Invasions, pl. 45.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Victoria and Albert Museum, no. 266.67: Thoby, Le Crucifix, no. 50.

⁶⁰ Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art II, pl. 382; see also pl. 387, and Thoby, Le Crucifix, nos. 59 and 63, pls. XXVI and XXVII.

⁶¹ Schiller, Iconography II, pls. 392–4; Thoby, Le Crucifix, nos. 41 and 42, pls. X IX and XX, and no. 400.

⁶² Wilson, D. M., ‘The Dating of Anglo-Saxon Art in England’, Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture, ed. Lang, J. T., BAR Brit. ser. 49 (Oxford, 1978), 135–44, esp. 136.Google Scholar

⁶³ Many of the arguments are summarized in Hausherr, R., ‘Das Imerwardkreuz und der Volto-Santo-Typ’, Zeitschrift für Kunstwissemchaft 16 (1962), 129–70.Google Scholar See also Barracchini, C. and Calecha, A., II Duomodi Lucca (Lucca, 1973), pp. 141–2.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Hausherr, , ‘Das Imerwardkreuz’, pp. 137–9Google Scholar; Webb, D., ‘The Holy Face of Lucca’, ANS 9 (1987), 227–37, esp. 229–31.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Hausherr, , ‘Das Imerwardkreuz’, pp. 140–1Google Scholar; Webb, , ‘The Holy Face of Lucca’, p. 228.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia ed. Rule, M., RS (London, 1884), p. 39Google Scholar; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: the History of the English Kings I, ed. Mynors, R. A. B., Thomson, R. M. and Winterbottom, M. (Oxford, 1998), cc. 309.2; 317 and 320.3.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ James, M. R., On the Abbey of S. Edmund at Bury, Cambridge Ant. Soc. Octavo Publ. 28 (Cambridge, 1895), 139.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, ed. Arnold, T., 2 vols., RS (London, 1890–6) I, 68.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ This evidence is cited by Hausherr, ‘Das Imerwardkreuz’, p. 140, who suggests it can be accepted as evidence for the existence of the famous crucifix only if the legendary stories of its origin are accepted. Webb, , ‘The Holy Face of Lucca’, pp. 232–7 offers some interesting arguments in favour of an earlier popular cult.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Hausherr, , ‘Das Imerwardkreuz’. pp. 163–7.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Coatsworth, E., ‘The Four Cross Heads from the Chapter House, Durham’, Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture, ed. Lang, J. T., BAR Brit. ser. 49 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 85–96, esp. 89.Google Scholar

⁷² See above, p. 157 and n. 20

⁷³ Thoby, Le Crucifix, pl. LXXI (nos. 162–3).

⁷⁴ Thornton Steward: Coatsworth, ‘Iconography’, pl. 38; Conisholme: Davies, D. S. and Clapham, A. W, ‘Pre-Conquest Carved Stones in Lincolnshire’, Arch J 83 (1926), 1–20, esp. 4, 5,10 and fig.Google Scholar; for Sinnington also, see Lang, J. T., York and Eastern Yorkshire, Corpus of AS Stone Sculpture 3 (Oxford, 1991), 211 and pl. 814Google Scholar; Coatsworth, E. in Wenham, L. P., Hall, R. A., Briden, C. M. and Stocker, D. A., StMary BishophillJunior andSt Mary Castlegate, The Archaeol of York 8.2 (London, 1987), 161–3.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Roe, H., ‘A Stone Cross at Clogher, Co. Tyrone’, Jnl of the R Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland 90 (1960), 191–206, argues for similar features in Ireland to be regarded as ‘breastplates’, symbolic of highpriestly dress and therefore appropriate to Christ as the true High Priest.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Coatsworth, ‘Iconography’, pls. 44 (Stanwick I), 46 (Thornton Wadass II) and 48 (Thornton Wadass I).

⁷⁷ Brigham, Cumbria: Bailey, R., ‘The Clogher Crucifixion: a Northumbrian Parallel and its Implications’, Jnl of the R Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland 93 (1963), 187–8; Hart, Co. DurhamGoogle Scholar: Coatsworth, , ‘Iconography’, pl. 97Google Scholar; Kirklevington, , Ellerburn, , Finghall, , all Yorkshire, : Collingwood, W G., Northumbrian Crosses of the pre-Norman Age (London, 1927), pp. 101, 103–4 and figs.Google Scholar; Stanwick II, Yorkshire: Coatsworth, ‘Iconography’, pl. 116; York: Lang, J. T., ‘Continuity and Innovation in Anglo-Scandinavian Sculpture’, Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture, ed. Lang, J. T., Barbrit. ser. 49 (Oxford, 1978), 145–72, esp. p. 146 and fig.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Collingwood, , Northumbrian Crosses, p. 102 and fig.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Bailey, R. N and Cramp, R., Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire North of the Sands, Corpus of AS Stone Sculpture 2 (Oxford, 1988), 140–2, with pls. 524–31Google Scholar; Bailey, R., ‘A Crucifixion Plaque from Cumbria’, Early Medieval Sculpture in Britain and Ireland, ed. Higgitt, J., Bar Brit. ser. 152 (Oxford, 1986), 5–17.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ There is no cross behind the crucified figure on the Gosforth cross, or on the hogback from the same site. It is also absent on a late cross from Bothal, Northumberland: Cramp, County Durham and Northumberland, pl. 159, no. 824. Possibly this follows the introduction of the crucifix head, on which the figure of Christ often appears to be without a cross, since he is depicted on a different scale from the sculptured head.

⁸¹ H. M. and Taylor, J., Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1965–1978) I, 74.Google Scholar

⁸² Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J., ‘Architectural Sculpture in pre-Norman England’, JBAA 3rd ser. (1966), 6–8 and figs., did not consider the head to be part of the same monument.Google Scholar

⁸³ Kirby, E. A., ‘The Motif of the Serpent at the Foot of the Cross 850–1050’, (unpubl. Ph.D dissertation, Florida State Univ., 1981). There is evidence of anti-Semitism at this period which found visual expression in various ways, but the ideas suggested in my paper seem the most likely and the least forced, in the context of the Crucifixion. The reference is to Gen. III.15: ‘And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.’ The skull or body of Adam was also sometimes placed beneath the cross at this period, and fulfilled much the same function.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Symons, T., ‘Regularis Concordia: History and Derivation’, Tenth Century Studies: Essays in Commemoration of the Millennium of the Council of Winchester and ‘Regularis Concordia’, ed. Parsons, D. (London, 1975), pp. 37–59.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Hausherr, Der Tote Christus am Kreuz. For further examples of the style, see Wesenberg, R., Frühmittelalterliche Bildiverke. Die Schulen rheinischer Skulpture and ibre Ausstrahlung (Düsseldorf, 1973), pls. 18–21, 34 and 48–89.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Coatsworth, ‘Late Pre-Conquest Sculptures’.

⁸⁷ Tweddle, , South East England, pp. 213–14 and pls. 294–5.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ There is another very fine architectural sculpture of the Crucifixion from this site, in which Christ, drooping in death and wearing a loincloth, is accompanied by static, dignified figures of John and Mary. The two are linked by the triangular mouldings on the cross arms, and by their function in pushing the drooping hands forward. This sculpture is important in showing strong Ottonian influence on tenth-eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon art: Coatsworth, , ‘Late pre-Conquest Sculptures’, pp. 173–5 and fig.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Tweddle, , South East England, pp. 240–1 and pl. 397.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Fisher, E. A., The Greater Anglo-Saxon Churches (London, 1962), p. 259 and fig.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Coatsworth, ‘Late pre-Conquest Sculptures’.

⁹² Schiller, , Iconography of Christian Art I, pls. 235 and 412.Google Scholar

⁹³ Coatsworth, ‘Late pre-Conquest Sculptures’, pl. Ic and d.

⁹⁴ Taylor, and Taylor, , Anglo-Saxon Architecture II, 628–30.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 183: see The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art 966–1066, ed. Backhouse, J., Turner, D. H. and Webster, L. (London, 1984), pl. 6.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Cambridge, Trinity College B. 16. 3: Temple, Anglo-SaxonManuscripts, pl. 48.

⁹⁷ Owen-Crocker, G. R., Dress in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester, 1986), pp. 139–40.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The argument in Aulén, Christus Victor, that the image of Christus victor is dominant until the eleventh or twelfth century cannot be sustained by the evidence from art. Klauser, T., A Short History of the Western Liturgy: an Account and some Reflections, trans. Halliburton, J. (London, 1969), pp. 46–7, confirms the view in Hausherr, Der Tote Christus am Kreusz that changes in interpretations of the Passion and the meaning of Christ in the Eucharist were influential in western thought from the ninth century. It is undoubted, however, that these tendencies were more strongly emphasized from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, influenced by the ideas of St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Francis.Google Scholar