The Ruthwkll Choss. 29 



The point I ilesiie to diroct attention to is the idea of the 

 fmeigii origin of tlie Cross contained in the tradition, and still 

 prevalent. It is a common way of accounting for the presence of 

 works without a history, and possessing merit superior a])parentl}' 

 to any efi'ort of local skill as this is. 



I propose to submit some cou.siderations Avhich tend, 1 think, 

 to give support to the opposite view. These refer chieHy to the 

 material of which the Cross is cut, and its sin)ilarity to the lock 

 native to the locality. Should the stone be found to agree 

 Avith that native to the place, the reasonable inference would 

 a])pear to be that the Cross was sculptured in the neighbourhood 

 of the .spot where it stands, as it is unlikely that the material 

 Avould be exported in order to its being worked elsewhere, more 

 likely the sculptoi- may have come from abroad. 



The Kev. Dr Duncan, and Professor Stephen, of Copenhagen, 

 evidently incline to regard the material of the Cross as having 

 been taken from some not very distant quarrj-. The formei', to 

 who.se care the preservation of the monument is largely due, 

 speaking in support of an opinion that the Cross was executed 

 at two ditierent period.s, says : — " The column is formed of two 

 separate blocks of standstone, both of them probably taken from 

 the neighbouring hills, but evidently from diflerent quari-ies ; 

 for although they are Ijotli of a course texture and of a reddish 

 colour inclining to grey, such as is to be found in the vicinity, 

 the upper stone is distinctly of a deeper hue than the other.'' 



It is to 1)6 observed in this connection that the peculiar 

 variation of the colour, .spoken of by Dr Duncan, is a distinguish- 

 ing characteristic marking the native rock. 



The testimony of Professor Stej^hen is as follows : - ■" The 

 stone," he says, " is a hard red grit found near Dumfries, some 

 miles away, and might have come by sea. The Ruth well Kail- 

 way Station appears to be from the same quarry. The stone of 

 the Bewcastle district is not the same. The style of the sculpture 

 also is different. Neither are the runes alike." 



Although the stone of the Ruthwell Railway Station bears 

 a considerable degree of resemblance in some respects to the 

 Cross, it differs materially in respect of the colour, which is light 

 red. The stone was taken from Drumlanrig tunnel and con- 

 vej'ed to RutliAvell (jn the railway, as Mr ]\I'Kune, railway 

 insjiector, who assisted at the quarrying of it, informs me. 



But there is no occasion for supposing that the material of 



