Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu/94

76 of his work on "Irish Crosses." He pointed out certain curious details in these sculptures, and stated that a tradition existed at Monasterboice that the crosses existing there, which are amongst the finest monuments of their class, had been obtained from Rome. Mr. O'Neill observed, however, that if any argument were wanting to disprove the notion of their foreign origin, it might be found in the fact that the Irish crosses are formed of granite and other materials obtained in Ireland. He showed one example from Kells, representing the type of the Sacrifice of Isaac. Amongst the most singular forms of the peculiar ornamentation may be cited a portion of the cross at Kilklispeen, on which four human figures appear interlaced together. Subjects of the chase occur amongst these sculptures, intermingled with those of a sacred description; of these Mr. O'Neill noticed an instance on the base of a cross at Kells, in which also a chariot and horsemen are represented; there are similar details also amongst the sculptures on the base of the great cross at Monasterboice, which had been whollv concealed by accumulated earth around it, until its recent removal under Mr. O'Neill's directions. Of these sculptures he exhibited a facsimile.

Mr. remarked that the close analogy between the peculiar ornamentation of these sculptured monuments, and that of Irish illuminated MSS. of the same period, may serve to demonstrate the fallacy of the notion that they are of Italian or foreign workmanship. He had pointed out, on a former occasion (see p. 64, ante), the conventional features of design by which these Irish works of early art are characterised as compared with those of an Eastern type. One of the latest writers on the subject had gone so far as to affirm that these sculptures are Italian and that no Irishman could have executed them. Mr. Westwood was firmly convinced that such a conclusion is unfounded.

Mr. observed that this remark appeared worthy of most careful consideration, as it opened a very interesting question. "The character of the rilievi, as well as the style of the ornament, certainly exhibited many points of difference when compared with the Italian types of similar subjects, of what might be assumed contemporary date. The latter especially (referring to the ornament) is very peculiar, and has little or no resemblance to that which usually occurs in early monuments of Italy. But it has enough in common with some of the Art met with in the East to make it worth inquiry whether the design of these ornamented crosses may not have been derived, directly or indirectly, from that source. Among the reasons that would somewhat strengthen this speculation, the stiff, hard, and ugly forms given to the human figure, wherever it is introduced, are, in my opinion, very powerful. We know that the Art representation of sacred persons was, at a very early period, a subject of considerable discussion. The greatest difference of opinion prevailed among the highest authorities and most learned and pious ecclesiastical writers, as to the character of form that should be admitted for this purpose. Certain of these, chiefly of the Eastern Churches, insisted that the Saviour should not be represented under a form of beauty; but, on the contrary, of a repulsive character. This stranger opinion was founded on the literal translation of that passage in Isaiah, which declares—'He hath no form or comeliness. . . and there is no beauty that we should