II. MONOLITH CROSSES
THE peculiar form of many crosses of Cornish type, among others, viz., a thick, rude monolith, with rounded head, is accounted for by some authorities, who pronounce such crosses to be nothing else than primeval menhirs. These venerated stones, then, it is stated, instead of being demolished on the conversion of the populace from paganism, were retained, and, after having the crucifixion or some other Christian device incised, or sculptured in bas-relief, upon the upper portion of the shaft, pressed into the service of the newly adopted faith.
Such, at any rate, was the practice of St Patrick, in the fifth century. It is true that if in any place he found the old superstitious worship too deep-rooted and perverse to admit of transformation, as it befell at Magh Sleacht, in County Cavan, where he encountered a group of thirteen pagan menhirs, he could not do but overthrow them without ruth; but whenever, on the other hand, as beside Lough Hacket, in County Galway, he found other menhirs, the popular regard for which was capable of being diverted into Christian channels, he spared the pillar-stones, sanctifying them with holy names and emblems.
The cutting away of certain portions of the top of the stone would result in a short-armed cross; or, again, a little shaping, combined with piercing, would produce the four-holed cross, so-called, viz., a cross within a ring or circle. It should be remarked at the outset that the dating of these early monuments is a study which has hitherto been strangely neglected. Antiquaries, like the late J. Romilly Allen, for example, have analysed and codified the ornamented motifs of early crosses with methodical precision; but the chronological side of the subject is still a matter of debate. So widely do experts differ that sometimes it happens that the same monument will be assigned by some to the fifth or sixth, and by others to later dates ranging to the twelfth century. Even when the cross happens to be inscribed with runes, which might be expected to afford an authentic clue as to its date and origin, the readings and interpretations propounded by connoisseurs are so irreconcilable as to make one sceptical of arriving at truth or finality through their guidance. The whole question of chronology yet awaits investigation by some competent authority. It must be understood, therefore, that the dates attributed to the several examples in this section cannot pretend to be anything else but approximate, although every care has been taken to obtain the most approved estimate.
25, 26. BEWCASTLE, CUMBERLAND
TWO VIEWS OF MONOLITH IN THE CHURCHYARD
