Outline 305 



It is my purpose, in this section, to endeavor to show tliat no 

 historical character better suits the demands made by these various 

 considerations than David I of Scotland (1080 ? — 1153). In order 

 to succeed in this, it will be necessary to take up the above points 

 one by one. 



[It] may very well belong to the year 698, or perhaps 696, as has been sug- 

 gested.' 



The contrast with the art of the RuthwcU Cross was suggested by Margaret 

 Stokes {Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 125) : ' The reader has only to 

 compare the beautiful art and good drawing of the scrolls and figures on the 

 Jiuthwcll cross with the rude outlines and letters on the coffin of St. Cuth- 

 bert — a work which all authorities allow to be of the seventh century — to 

 realize how unlikely it is that they could be contemporaneous.' To this 

 Henry Bradley rejoined {Academy 3.3. 279) : ' The argument from comparison 

 with St. Cuthbert's coffin does not appear to be of great force. There is no 

 reason to suppose that the number of artists capable of producing work 

 like that of the Ruthwell cross was large ; and it is quite conceivable that, 

 however anxious the monks of Lindisfarne may have been to do honour to 

 the remains of their master, they may have chosen to employ the services 

 of some members of their own community in preference to importing a more 

 skilful workman from a distant part of the kingdom.' Any force there may 

 seem to be in the argument from the inferiority of the supposed Lindisfarne 

 workman is, however, invalidated by the observations of Dean Kitchin 

 {Victoria Hist. Durham 1. 246): 'The carvings are a remarkable example 

 of early Anglian work ; they are executed with a freedom and accuracy of 

 stroke which tells us that the artist was a jnaster in his simple art. There 

 is no hesitation in the work, no second cut, no shp over the grain, no sign 

 of weakness in it or note of indecision.' 



Various writers have commented on the beauty of the carving on these 

 crosses. Thus Maughan {Memoir, p. 13), concerning the Bcwcastlc Cross: 

 ' The buds, blossoms, and fruit have been so carefully and exquisitely de« 

 hneated by the chisel of the workman,. and are still so faithfully preserved, 

 that they seem as if they were things only just starting into life.' Colhng- 

 wood {Early Sculpt. Crosses, p. 196) speaks of ' the classic proportion and 

 dignity which must strike even the least critical visitor to Bewcastle or Ruth- 

 well.' Concerning the vine on the Bewcastle Cross, l^rowno remarks {Conv. 

 of Hept., p. 191): ' The whole is drawn in a very bold and skilful manner, 

 and the animals and birds are full of life. ... It is quite impossible to see 

 the beautiful sculpture without a wondering surprise. Who could have 

 drawn, who could have exc^cuted in high relief, such a work of art as this, 

 at any assignable date in Anglian history ?' Later he observes {ibid., pp. 

 199-200 ; cf. p. 223) : ' Of the figure of our Lord on the west side of the Bew- 

 castle Cross, a figure about three and a half feet high, I can only say that a 

 more dignified simpheity could not be given to such a figure in any age. I have 



(ua) 



