ANCIENT SCULPTUEED STONES. 125 



ArchcEologia, vol. xxviii., p. 349, contain a poem, for the 

 Interpretation of whicli I must refer to liis elaborate and 

 erudite paper. We can but deplore tlie early loss of one 

 so deeply versed in Saxon antiquities, and so paiustaking 

 in hls researches. 



For furtber particulars concerning tbe Gross at Ruth- 

 well, on the Scottish border, besides the ArchoeoL vol. 28, 

 p. 349, see Hicke's Thes. Gram. IsL, tab. iv., Gordon's 

 Itinerarium Septentrionale, p. 160, also Soc. of Antiq. of 

 Scotland ArchcBol. part ii., 1834, from whence I have taken 

 this account, and which contains accurate and beautiful 

 drawings furnished by the Eev. Mr. Duncan to that 

 Society. " Unhappily," observes Mr. Kemble, " no early 

 copy was made of this, before the Presbyterian Iconoclasts, 

 in 1G42, caused the cross to be flung down, and have 

 deprived us probably for ever of the hope of supplying the 

 missing portion of the inscription." 



But if this has been the fate of the Euthwell monument, 

 of which we have these interesting reliques preserved, we 

 can but regret the entire loss of those onee known to have 

 stood in the cemetery of the Abbey of Glastonbury. I 

 feel more anxious to call attention to the record that is left 

 of these, because I am not without hope that some remains 

 may yet be discovered ; as, like the Ruthwell, the Hack- 

 ness, and other crosses, portions may have been buried. 

 The Runic cross at Lancaster was found thus, having been 

 buried in the church yard. Fragments of crosses were 

 discovered at Leeds, in 1838, for an account of which, with 

 drawings, I must refer to a paper by the Rev. D. H. 

 Haigh, of Erdington. This cross was found in the old 

 parish church, a.nd the fragments, when put together, 

 present a very perfect monument. Might not some 

 portions of the Glastonbury crosses yet be discovered? 



