76 PROCEEDINGS AT MEETINGS OF

of his work on " Irish Crosses." He pointcil out certain curious details in these sculptures, and stated that a tradition existed at Monasterhoice that the crosses existing there, which are amongst the finest monuments of their class, had been obtained from Kome. Mr. O'Neill observed, however, that if any argument were wanting to disprove the notion of their foreign origin, it mii^ht be found in the fact that tlie Irish crosses are formed of granite and other materials obtained in Ireland. lie showed one example from Kells. re]>resenting the type of the Sacrifice of Isaac. Amongst the most singular forms of the peculiar ornamentation may be cited a portion of the cross at Kilklispeen, on which four human figures appear interlaced to^-ether. Subjects of the chase occur amongst these sculptures, inter- mingled with tliose of a sacred description ; of these Mr. O'Neill noticed an instance on the base of a cross at Kells, in which also a chariot and horsemen are represented ; there are similar details also amongst the sculptures on the base of the great cross at Monasterhoice, which had been whollv concealed by accumulated earth around it, until its recent removal under Mr. O'NeiU's directions.' Of these sculptures he exhibited a facsimile. Mr. Westwood remarked that the close analogy between the peculiar ornamentation of these sculi)tnrcd monuments, and that of Irish illumi- nated MSS. of the same period, may serve to demonstrate the fallacy of the notion that they are of Italian or foreign workmanship. He had ]>ointed out, on a former occasion (sec p. G-i, a7itc), the conventional features of design by which these Irish works of early art are characterised as compared with those of an Eastern type. One of the latest writers on the subject had gone so far as to aflSrm that these sculptures arc Italian and that no Irishman could have executed them. Mr. Westwood was firmly convinced that such a conclusion is unfounded. Mr. Westmacott observed that this remark appeared worthy of most careful consideration, as it opened a very interesting question. *' The character of the rilicni, as well as the style of tlie ornament, certainly ex- hibited many points of difference when compared with the Italian types of similar subjects, of what niiglit be assumed contemi)orary date. The latter especially (referring to the ornament) is very peculiar, and has little or no resemblance to that which usually occurs in early monuments of Italy. But it has enough in common with some of the Art met with in the East to make it worth imjuiry whether the design of these ornamented crosses may not have been derived, directly or indirectly, from that source. Among the reasons that would somewhat strengthen this speculation, the BtitF, hard, and ugly forms given to the human figure, wherever it is introduced, arc, in my opinion, very powerful. We know that the Art representation of sacred persons was, at a very early period, a subject of considerable di-scussion. The greatest difierencc of opinion ])rcvailed among the liighest authorities and most learned and pious ecclesiastical writers, as to the character of form tliat should bo admitted for this piu"- posc. Certain of these, chiefly of the I'^astern Churches, insisted that the Saviour should not be represented under a form of beauty ; but, on the contniry, of a repulsive character. This stranger opinion was foundeil on the literal translation of that passage in I.saiah, which declares — ' Ilo huth no form or comeliness . . . and ther(! is no beauty that we should TIk' litiMcr.f tliiM reninrknltlc cross liiw liuMiii. TIiIh puriKUi will ,r adiliil on hoMi ••xcttvntiil biiicc ilic ciht wio* pre- tiic c(i«t l)fiiin pluccil in ilic wricH at ),.ii-<'il lor (III- li,.lnhtn:il lvloliili<in ii) Svilciiliuni.