222 Introduction 



early. Thus everything points to the time of Wilfrith as the time 

 when these crosses were first designed.' 



1885. Henry Sweet ^ printed the inscriptions on both crosses as 

 given by Stephens, assigning the latter' s conjectural date of 670 

 (Maughan's) to the ' Bewcastle Column,' and of 680 to the Ruthwell 

 Cross. He adds under the latter : ' All that the language teaches 

 us is that the inscription cannot well be later than the middle of the 

 eighth century.' 



1887. John Romilly Allen ^ considered that ' the evidence as to 

 the age of the sculptured stones of Northumbria [referring to Stephens' 

 dates] is rather unreliable.' In the same work^ he called the 9th, 

 10th, and 11th centuries ' the period of the sculptured crosses.' 



1887. George F. Black* wrote : 'While in the south of Scotland 

 recently, I visited Ruthwell to see its famous cross. . . . The name 

 Caedmon has all but disappeared, being represented only by five 

 faint perpendicular strokes. The other words, " mai fseuo|)o," are 

 quite distinct, with the exception of the last o in jcBUopo.' 



1887. Margaret Stokes^ assigned the two crosses to the 11th cen- 

 tury, (1) because of their relation to the Irish high crosses, which are 

 late ; (2) because ' as eleventh century monuments these crosses . . . 

 would fall naturally into their place in the development of the arts 

 of sculpture and design during this period, while as seventh century 

 monuments they are abnormal and exceptional ' ; (3) because the vine 

 reminds us of Lombardic sculpture ; (4) because the figure-subjects 

 are such as are discussed in the Byzantine Painters' Guide, compiled 

 ' from the works of Panselinos, a painter of the eleventh century ' ; 

 (5) because ' it is not likely that such symbols were subjects of the 

 sculptor's art in the North of England, in the seventh century, or 

 that their execution would be more perfect there than the carving of 

 similar subjects in Ravenna or in Milan at the same date.' 



1888. Henry Bradley^ accepted the dating of the Bewcastle Cross 

 by Maughan, thought that ' to maintain that this inscription is a 

 forgery of the eleventh century would be preposterous,' and argued 

 that ' the close resemblance in the style of art' between this and the 

 Ruthwell Cross is ' inconsistent with the theory that they are several 



^ Oldest English Texts, pp. 124-5. 



■^ Early Christian Symbolism in Great Britain and Ireland, p. 85. 



3 P. 132. 



■* Academy 32. 225 (Oct. 1). 



^ Early Christian Art in Ireland, pp. 125-6. 



« Academy 33. 279 (April 21). 



(10) 



