Bingley / Bingelei / Bingeley / Bingheleia / Bjengeley / Byngley

There is an entry for Bingley [variant spelling] in the Domesday survey [http://opendomesday.org/place/SE1039/bingley/] [accessed 16 October 2018] but it mentions neither cleric nor church in it. Glynne, in his 4 December 1858 visit (in Butler, 2007), wrote, no doubt referring to the Victorian font installed in the church: "The font is modern" [NB: Butler (ibid.) footnotes this entry: "The font was later restored to the church; it has Norman bowl with a runic inscription".] Stephens (1884) dates the font ca. 768-770 based on his study of the inscription. Romilly Allen (1888) suggests that the old font at Bingley is perhaps the only one that has a right claim to an age "greater than about the middle of the eleventh century", and is inscribed with "Anglian Runes". Described and illustrated in Bond (1908), who cites the claim by professor George Stephen [cf. 'Stephens' supra], as well as a Father Haigh, in the Ripon Diocesan Gazette (x, nos. 6, 8), who had it be a socket of a cross, and a Mr. Speight, in Antiquary (xxxix, 19), who declared it a reliquary. E.E. Gregory, the source of Bond's illustration, "also expresses doubts as to whether it ever was a font." (in Bond, ibid.) The issue of the ornamentation of the object has given opportunity for more discrepancy. One of the sides of the basin has three lines of what has been described by some as a Runic inscription. The aforementioned professor Stephens rendered his translation of the inscription as: "Eadbierht, King, ordered to hew this dip-stone for us; pray for his soul" (ibid.), while, as Bond informs (ibid.), Father Haigh has his own translation and Mr. Gregory disagrees with both of them. The other side of the basin appears covered in an intricate interlace pattern. The piece that remains is probably just a fragment and Bond suggests that as much as half of it, the lower part, may be missing (ibid.). The font is described in Tyrrell-Green (1928): "A square bowl with interlacing lines rudely executed and having on one side an inscription of three lines in runic letters. These are much worn and almost illegible, but have been translated thus: 'EADBRIET, KING, ORDERED TO HEW / THIS DIPSTONE FOR US / PRAY YOU FOR HIS SOUL'. If this rendering is correct, the font would be of the eighth century, for Eadbehrt was King of Northumbria from 737 to 758, and his interest in spiritual affairs is attested by the fact that in the last-named year he resigned his kingdom and took monastic vows". Morris (1932) writes: "The chief object of interest [...] in Bingley Church is the pre-Conquest font, or pedestal of a cross -whichever it may be- with a Sax[on] stone inside it." Morris proceeds to cite Stephens rendering of the inscription and Father Haigh's own opinion of font and inscription. Morris (Ibid.) further cites another source, Collingwood, who assures "that the date is early 12th cent., that the inscription is illegible, and that both readings proposed above are impossible!". Morris (ibid.) suggests a date "perhaps of the latter half of the 11th century" and adds that "this may not have been a font originally." Pevsner (1986 c1967) writes: "Font. Impressive Early Norman bowl. Square with some wild interlace and a Runic inscription read variously as referring to the font or carrying different meaning." The WYJS site entry for this font [www.archaeology.wyjs.org.uk/vikingweb/Bingley.htm] [accessed 7 February 2013] notes: "Dating the font at Bingley presents something of problem. One of the sides carries a runic inscription which no-one has yet managed to decipher satisfactorily. The style of the runes is one that had developed on the Isle of Man by the 10th century. In isolated areas in the North of England it lasted in use until the 12th century. The font probably belongs to this later date when square fonts were fashionable. It therefore provides an example of local traditions continuing in use in some parts of West Yorkshire long after Norman artistic styles had become fashionable elsewhere in the county."