Part 2

I dare not of course take it upon me to assert that there is any positive connection between the huge animal on the Shandwick stone and the colossal images mentioned by Cæsar and Strabo, as being employed by the Druids in their human sacrifices, but the coincidence (if indeed it be not something more) is sufficiently curious and interesting to demand a passing notice. It is supposed that these and some other as yet inexplicable devices found on the same stones are symbols of a religion prior to Christianity; a circumstance by no means improbable, as it is known that convents among the Saxons and probably the Britons also, clung with much pertinacity to some of their Druidical and Pagan customs long after they had assumed the outward emblems of Christianity. This may account for the juxtaposition of the cross with devices of unknown meaning, and explain in some degree the remarkable circumstance that Pagan and Christian emblems both derive their ornamentation from the same source—basket-work.

Having shown that at the time when Christianity was introduced into Britain the native population, totally unacquainted with practical masonry, were yet expert and experienced manufacturers of highly ornamental baskets; and suggested the reasonable probability that they would employ their best talents in the service of their new religion, as they had previously devoted them to their earlier Pagan or Druidical superstitions, I proceed to offer some reasons for believing that the first crosses erected by Christian missionaries in Britain, Ireland, and the Isle of Man, were constructed of plaited osiers.

Many of the Mediæval biographers narrate with much minuteness the particulars of stone crosses set up by Christian bishops; but no such notices occur before the sixth century, and from the great importance attached to them by the monastic historians, it is evident that they were objects of extraordinary interest, and moreover, of _exceptional material_. Such crosses were erected by St. Columba, St. Oswald, St. Cuthbert, Bishop Ethelwold, and other holy men. Of St. Kentigern—better known in Scotland as St. Mungo—it is said that, among many crosses which he put up, one in the city of Glasgow was taken from the quarry by his orders, and, by the united efforts of many men, erected in the cemetery of the Church of the Holy Trinity, in which his episcopal throne was set up. That this particular cross was of more than usual importance may be inferred from the statement of his biographer, that it was the custom of St. Kentigern to erect a cross in any place where he had converted the people, or had for a time resided. Such crosses, therefore, must have been executed by some less laborious process than was used for the one which he erected near his cathedral about the end of the sixth century, and which is said to have still marked the spot where the original edifice stood, when the Cathedral of the West was reconstructed five hundred years afterwards.

But St. Kentigern erected one other cross, which demands the attention and consideration of archæologists. We are informed that at Locherward, a parish in Mid-Lothian now called Borthwick, he set up a cross constructed of _sea sand_. There is no hint of any miraculous assistance in the erection of this cross, and therefore we are constrained to look for some mechanical appliance by which sea sand could be made to cohere in the form of a cross.[23]

But first I may be permitted to suggest a possible motive for the adoption of a material so unstable, and apparently so little fitted for the purpose.

Locherward (now Borthwick) is a considerable inland property in the east of Scotland, and for some reasons, not requisite to be inquired into here, this parish was appended to the Western Diocese of Cumbria, which comprised the valley of the Clyde and much of the west coast of Scotland during the episcopate of St. Kentigern. It is not improbable, then, that this cross-rearing Bishop would commemorate so important an event, in his accustomed manner, by sending to Locherward a cross of baskets made of the osiers and filled with the sea sand of his western diocese, which, having been sanctified by his episcopal benediction, would be appropriately set up in his new territory as a visible sign of the transfer, and a practical assertion of his accession to the property. Here again, however, I am compelled to say that I have not a shadow of proof to offer in support of my surmise. St. Kentigern may have set up the sea-sand cross by other means, and for another purpose. I have only endeavoured to suggest a reason in accordance with possibility and the customs of the times in which he lived.

Before asking you to believe that the earliest existing stone crosses were reproductions of still earlier crosses of twigs, I may well be expected to offer some evidence that any such basket-work crosses ever existed.

Of all the superstitious legends of the middle ages, none was more widely popular than that of St. Patrick’s purgatory. The little island in gloomy Lough Derg, in which it was believed that both the pains and advantages of purgatory could be anticipated, and the duration of its torments abridged, was visited by great and powerful pilgrims, who enriched its clerical guardians by their offerings. Suppressed at the Reformation, and its rude buildings more than once demolished by the orders of government, it nevertheless still retains so strong a grasp on the superstitious feelings of the poor and ignorant of the present day, that, actuated by religious enthusiasm, crowds of such pilgrims at certain seasons pour themselves upon this miserable little islet, consisting of three roods of barren surface; and so numerous are these visitors that the tenant pays the landlord a yearly rent of £300 (the greater part in sixpences), derived from a small charge imposed on them at the ferry toll.[24]

In this place, where ancient superstitious practices still linger, the remembrance of its founder and his imputed miracles would naturally be longest retained, and any relics appertaining to him preserved with pertinacious care. None such can now be found; but it is recorded that about or before the year 1630, a certain Lord Dillon visited the island, accompanied by a government surveyor, and they gave a detailed description of the place, which was published by the then Bishop of the Diocese. In their report it is stated that “at the east end of the church there is a heap of stones, on which there is _a cross made of interwoven twigs_; this is known by the name of St. Patrick’s Altar, on which there do lie three pieces of a bell, which they say St. Patrick used to carry in his hand,” &c.[25] This is the only record I have met with of any actual cross of twigs or basket-work. It was probably the last of innumerable crosses of the same kind, and was found in the place where, of all others, the latest example was likely to be met with. Doubtless it was a many times repeated copy of some ancient cross attributed originally to the hands of the patron saint of Ireland.[26]

The devices sculptured on a majority of the Scottish and Manx monoliths must have been executed before the artists possessed such skill or such tools as would enable them to cut the outline of the stone itself to any required form; they do not appear at that time to have _set up_ crosses, but they engraved representations of that symbol on the surface of huge stones many of which were already fixed in an erect position and most probably had been for a long series of years employed in the services of an earlier religion. Upon such stones they imitated the ornamentation of wicker-work by innumerable reiterated blows of their small celts of flint, bronze, or iron, working out the design in low relief, and showing one half of the round, or as much only of the osier wands as could be seen when plaited together. It is only in the later examples that the outline of the stone assumes the form of the cross; and this change is accompanied by a considerable alteration in the ornamental details, the interlacings become less elegant but more complicated, and terminate in the heads, tails, and limbs of various animals, often grotesque in expression; or, the wands burst into buds and leaves, or give place entirely to sculptured representations of men and animals of the rudest execution. It is a curious proof of the earlier use of the interwoven ornamentation that it may be found in elegantly arranged and highly-finished devices on the same stones with representations of the human figure so rudely carved as to appear to be the work of mere children.

It may be objected, that the British or Saxon artisan, when working on a new material, would adopt a style of ornament appropriate to it, and discard the totally irrelevant system of decoration which had been used by his ancestors; but it must be remembered that he had many inducements to adhere to the ancient patterns. The force of custom and education would be a powerful motive, and no other style of ornament was then known to the people, who were accustomed to and well understood these endless intricacies which appear to us a mass of confusion; probably, however, the best reason was an earnest desire to perpetuate in durable material those crosses of perishable basket-work, before which he and his ancestors had bowed themselves in worship in the depths of their primæval forests,—crosses, which had been sanctified by the holy men who at first erected them, and to many of which miraculous powers were undoubtedly attributed.

A majority of the Irish examples differ from those of Scotland and the Isle of Man, in being elaborately carved in their outline to the form of richly ornamented crosses. This argues either an earlier developement of art in Ireland, or a later execution of the work; but the plaited ornaments are found to prevail in each locality, though they probably gave place to sculptured representations of men and animals somewhat earlier in Ireland than elsewhere. The usual form of these crosses is fairly expressed by the example engraved[27] representing the interesting Irish cross at Kilklespeen.

It may at first sight be supposed that crosses of timber would precede those of stone, the material being abundant and the workmanship apparently more easy; but a little consideration will show that timber required tools of a higher order than stone; the blunt celt would be far from efficient as an instrument to carve wood, and sharp-edged tools were not then attainable. Irrespective of this, the superior durability of stone would of itself induce the choice of that material.

There is a common arrangement in most of the Scottish and Irish crosses to which I desire to call attention; whether sculptured into true crosses, or merely engraved on the surface of the stone, they are divided into irregular compartments, each for the most part ornamented with a different device of interlaced work, or, in late examples, subjects in sculpture. These compartments are usually broad at the base and gradually decrease in size towards the apex of the cross, as would be the case with a series of baskets piled upon each other, and then firmly bound together by continuous bands of twisted withes. A wheel or ring, connecting the horizontal with the perpendicular limbs almost invariably accompanies the interlaced ornamentation on these early crosses. This ring I long supposed to represent a nimbus or glory, but remembering that that usual symbol of divinity is of Eastern origin, and that it is commonly met with on crosses where there is no representation of the figure of our Lord, I was induced to seek for some other meaning, and have now no hesitation in saying that its original purpose was not symbolical, or even merely ornamental, but that it was a necessary appliance in the construction of the earlier wicker-work crosses, reproduced on the stone crosses for the same reasons which induced the retention of the interlaced ornaments.

It is obvious that the horizontal arms of a basket-work cross must require some extraneous aid to enable them to retain that position even for a short time. For this purpose the ring seemed to me to have been adopted; but I was quite unable to discover the manner in which it was applied, until on application to a practical basket-maker I was at once told that he could not construct a cross of willows without the ring, which he must make first, and then work the cross upon it. That such was its use is confirmed by the arrangement of some of the rude crosses in the Isle of Man. On the sculptured stone in the church-yard of Kirk Michael[28] is a cross of interlaced work without any ring; but to compensate for its absence another contrivance has been adopted. The horizontal arms are sustained by a series of plaited twigs hung over the top of the upper limb, and interwoven with the arms. On the reverse of the same stone[28] the cross has a ring composed of one thick and two slender stems, which last appear to pass through and fasten together the limbs and the ring by a curious and ingenious knot. Another example of a similar fastening may be observed on the fragment of stone also at Kirk Michael[29] sculptured with a rude representation of the crucifixion. These knots are doubtless the origin of the richly ornamented bosses often covered with basket-work, so frequently met with in exactly the same positions on the Irish and Scottish crosses.

Some of the human figures sculptured on the Scottish and Manx stones, are so executed as to suggest that they also are reproductions from originals formed of twigs. This is particularly the case with a fragment at Forteviot,[30] the ancient Celtic capital of Scotland, on which four men, some animals and a cross are carved with curious rudeness; and with a portion of another crucifixion from the Isle of Man.[31] Both of these have a considerable resemblance to the rustic work of rough twigs with which many gardeners of the present day delight to ornament their summer houses and garden seats. These examples suggest a common origin with the extraordinary illuminations which Mr. Westwood has reproduced from ancient manuscripts, particularly with those engraved in the _Journal of the Archæological Institute_,[32] it being remembered that the sculpture and the illuminations were both probably enriched with colour and gilding.

I have made careful copies of very numerous examples of ancient interlaced ornaments, and placed them in the hands of various artisans, particularly basket-makers, straw-plaiters, wire-workers, and plaiters of ornamental hair. They all inform me that with a few exceptions the devices may be worked out in their respective materials, and several thanked me for putting new patterns before them, which they said would be useful in their business. Some of these drawings I gave to my own workpeople, who reproduced the devices very effectively in braid-work and embroidery. They tell me they could, with time and patience, copy many of the most elaborate devices.

I must guard myself, however, against being supposed to assert that _all_ the interlaced devices found on the old crosses may be reproduced in modern plait work; such is not the case. Many of them may claim some other and very different origin, and there are others which the sculptor has doubtless modified and altered. The first Corinthian capital is said to have been modelled from a flower-pot covered with a tile between which the leaves of an acanthus had forced themselves, an arrangement which skilful architects have varied a hundred different ways, though retaining still the expression of the original idea. In the same spirit the ancient Briton treated the panels of basket-work, when he reproduced them on his crosses of stone.

There are many other branches of British and Irish art which may have been influenced in their origin by the long established basket-work of these islands, such as the early enamelling of metals, the Norman arcades, especially those found on very early fonts, the branching arrangement of the oldest window glass, as well as the reticulated manner of placing glazing quarries, and very numerous varieties of mediæval diapering; but I omit farther notice of these. My purpose in this paper is merely to call attention to the probable origin of one branch of ancient art which I believe to have escaped previous notice. If I have in any degree established my position, or even excited curiosity respecting it, it will doubtless induce further inquiry and discussion, since it is beyond doubt a subject of very considerable interest.

FINIS.

_Charles Simms and Co., Printers, Manchester._

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Archæological and Pre-historic Annals of Scotland_, pp. 221, 504, 505.

[2] _The Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, privately printed by the Spalding Club, and liberally presented to many antiquarian societies.

[3] _The Sculptured Crosses of Ancient Ireland_, by Henry O’Neill.

[4] _The Runic and other Monumental Remains of the Isle of Man_, by the Rev. J. G. Cumming.

[5] _Annals of Clanmacnoise_, quoted in notes to the _Annals of the Four Masters_, vol. i. p. 181.

[6] _William of Malmesbury_, book i. c. 20.

[7] _Pre-historic Annals of Scotland_, p. 76.

[8] Information from Mr. Hughes, of Chester, 1858.

[9] McIan’s _Highland Clans_—_McNiel_.

[10] _Essay on Custom and Education._

[11] Thomas Dinley’s _Journal of a Tour in Ireland: Proceedings of the Kilkenny Archæological Society_, vol. i. p. 180, New Series.

[12]

Adde et bascaudas et mille escaria.

_Juvenal_, Sat. 12, v. 46.

[13]

Barbara de pictis veni bascauda Britannis Sed me jam mavult dicere Roma suam.

_Martial_, lib. 14, epig. 99.

[14] In the Saxon poem _Beowulf_, translated by the late Mr. Kemble, there occurs this passage:—“He went to the hall, stood on the steps, and beheld the steep roof with gold adorned.” Line 1844.

[15] See on Plate No. 6, examples of British urns, copied from Plate iii. of the _Archæological Index_, by J. Y. A. Kerman Esq., F.S.A.

[16] _History of Ancient Pottery_, vol. ii. pp. 381-384.

[17] Bede’s _Ecclesiastical History_, book i. chap. 12.

[18] _De Bell. Gal._, lib. vi.

[19] _Strabo_, lib. iv.

[20] Plate xxvi. _Sculptured stones of Scotland._

[21] Plate No. 3.

[22] Plate No. 4.

[23] _Pinkerton’s Vitæ Sanctorum Scotiæ_, pp. 286-7, quoted in the preface to the _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, p. 5.

[24] _Ulster Journal of Archæology_, vol. v. p. 81.

[25] From _Patricius His Purgatory_, attributed to Spottiswood Bishop of Clogher, and also to his successor Bishop Jones, quoted in the _Ulster Journal of Archæology_, vol. v. p. 71, and in Carleton’s tale of “The Lough Derg Pilgrim.”

[26] Though a poetical authority is of no weight in antiquarian argument, it would be wrong to omit quoting Sir Walter Scott’s account of the famous fiery cross formed of twigs.

“The grisly priest, with murmuring prayer, A slender crosslet framed with care, A cubit’s length in measure due; The shaft and limbs were rods of yew. ... The cross, thus formed, he held on high, With wasted hand and haggard eye.”

_The Lady of the Lake_, canto iii. stanza viii.

[27] Plate No. 2.

[28] Plate No. 5. I am indebted to the Rev. George Cumming M.A. for permission to re-engrave this and plates Nos. 6 and 8 from his interesting work on the crosses of the Isle of Man; and to my nephew and assistant, Mr. W. E. Brown, for drawing all the illustrations of this brochure on stone.

[29] Plate No. 6.

[30] Plate No. 7. From _The Sculptured Stones of Scotland_.

[31] Plate No. 8.

[32] Vol. vii. pp. 17-19, 23, 24.