Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu/82

64 this Journal (vol. ii.iii. [sic] p. 260). The former of these two carved stones might reasonably he ascribed (from the style of the inscription) to the VIIth or VIIIth century, and the latter was certainly not much, if at all, more recent. These observations are, however, at variance with Didron's assertion, that the Crucifixion was never, or hut very rarely, represented before the Xth or XIth century (Iconogr. Chrétienne, p. 266) whilst the fact, that in the famous Syriac MS. of the VIth century at Florence, the crucifixion is represented exactly as it appears on these old British and Irish relics of art, and that in one of the finest of the Charlemagne Gospels of the IXth century (figured by Count Bastard), we find a similar illumination, renders it impossible to come to any other conclusion, than that the supposed non-existence of such representations results from the subsequent destruction in Western Continental Europe, or that their existence in the early relics of our own country, and in works actually executed in the East or which evince an Eastern influence, is the result of early communication between the Irish and British, and the Eastern Christian churches. Didron has, indeed, had the sagacity on two other occasions to hint at a supposed influence of Byzantine over English Art-works (Icon. Chrét., p. 389, n., and 557, n.), and the preceding observations will shew another instance of the same influence. The same treatment of the Crucifixion also occurs on most of the grand Irish sculptured stone crosses, whilst on the reverse of many of them we see another figure of the Saviour with outstretched arms, which had in some instances been considered as a repetition of the Crucifixion; but there are none of the usual accessory details, and it has been lately suggested by some Irish antiquaries, that this figure was rather intended as a representation of the Ascension. This is, indeed, a probable explanation, but until we have a correct series of delineations of these crosses, we cannot hope to arrive at a clear explanation of their sculpture. Thanks to Mr. O'Neill, this want is now likely to be in a great measure removed by his publication on the Irish crosses. These, of course, would be useless to the Archæologist unless they are strictly accurate in their details; but we know that Mr. O'Neill is fully convinced of this, and that fidelity in the minutiæ of the ornamentation, &c., will not be sacrificed to picturesque effect indeed, we have occasion to know that one of the plates in his first number will be replaced by another, some of the details not having been quite correctly given.

Mr. communicated the following notice of the discovery of a British urn near Lewes, and sent for examination a drawing of this relique, which is similar in general form to other cinerary urns found in Sussex.

"On the 24th of October, having received information that some labourers, digging flints, had opened a barrow in which was a large urn, I went to visit the spot, accompanied by Mr. M. A. Lower; we found the men at work in a barrow to the south of Mount Harry, on the brow beyond the sheep pond at the turn of the race course, on Sir Henry Shiffner's hill, close on the southern side of the track leading to Plumpton plain.

"They had laid bare a largo British Urn, which the drawing represents; its height was 1 foot 2 inches, greatest diameter 1 foot; its exact pro-