CELTIC ART OF THE CHRISTIAN PERIOD
TECHNICAL PROCESSES AND MATERIALS EMPLOYED DURING THE
CHRISTIAN CELTIC PERIOD IN GREAT BRITAIN
Ecclesiastical and other MSS. written on sheets of vellum and bound
up in the form of a book were introduced into this country with
Christianity. The materials and tools used by the Celtic scribes and
illuminators probably did not differ to any great extent from those
used throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. The parchment of the
Irish MSS. is, however, generally much thicker[431] than that of the
Carlovingian and other foreign MSS. The letters in the Irish MSS. of
the best period, such as the Book of Kells, are composed partly of
extremely fine lines, drawn with a firm hand, which gradually expand in
width to form the other parts of the letters. These could hardly have
been made with a reed or a brush, so that it is probable that the pens
of the Irish scribes were made from the quills of swans, geese, crows,
and other birds. The black ink used in the Irish MSS. is remarkable
for its blackness and durability; and Bede, the historian, speaks
highly in praise of the colours prepared in Ireland, and especially
of the brilliancy and permanence of the red made from whelks.[432]
Some colours, such as yellow, are put on thin and transparent; whilst
others, such as red, have a thick body made of titurated earth or other
skilfully prepared material, mixed with some strong binding material of
the nature of gum or varnish.[433]
[431] Sir E. M. Thompson’s _Greek and Latin Palæography_, p. 38.
[432] Bede’s _Eccl. Hist_., bk. i., chap. 1.
[433] Dr. Ferdinand Keller in the _Ulster Journal of Archæology_, vol.
viii.
The material employed for the highly ornamented sculptured monuments of
the Christian Celtic period was generally that most readily procurable
on the spot, but a preference was always shown for a freestone, which
could be easily worked. The greater proportion of the best crosses
are carved in a fine-grained sandstone. In Cornwall granite was most
generally used, although Polyphant stone was also used. In the Isle
of Man nearly all the crosses are of slate. Hard, volcanic rocks were
avoided where possible on account of the difficulty of working. There
are, however, crosses of trap-rock at Carew, Pembrokeshire, and Moel
Siarman, Brecknockshire.
On some of the crosses the marks of the tool with which they were
carved can still be clearly seen, as on the Cross of Iltyd at Llantwit
Major, and the cross-base at Llangevelach, both in Glamorganshire.
As far as it is possible to judge from the tool-marks, either a pick
or a pointed chisel must have been employed by the early Christian
Celtic stone-carvers. Similar tool-marks have been observed on the
cup-and-ring sculptures of the Bronze Age.
In the churchyard at Kells, Co. Meath, there is an unfinished cross
which is of great interest as showing the exact methods used in the
construction and decoration of this class of monument. The stone was
first squared and the design roughly set out upon it. Draughts were
then cut across the faces, leaving certain portions standing out in
high relief, upon which the figure subjects were afterwards sculptured.
The unfinished cross at Kells was formerly lying on the ground, but
it has recently been erected on its original base, which is also
unfinished.
When the crosses are constructed of two or more pieces they are fitted
together by means of mortice and tenon joints. Sometimes the quadrants
of the circular ring connecting the arms were made in separate pieces,
as in the case of the large broken cross at Iona.[434]
The metals in use during the Christian Celtic period were gold,
silver, copper, lead, bronze, brass, and other alloys. These were cast
and wrought and ornamented by means of enamelling, niello, plating,
gilding, repoussé work, chasing, engraving, piercing, inlaying,
filigree-work, Trichinopoly chainwork, and settings of precious stones,
amber, and glass. The different pieces of the metal objects were
fixed together by rivets, and if soldering and brazing were known,
they were certainly not employed to any great extent. Even when the
specimens can be removed from their show-cases in museums and examined
carefully by an expert it is not always possible to be certain of the
exact technical processes by which the various decorative effects have
been produced, and unless the objects can be dissected many of the
constructive features must necessarily be a matter for conjecture. The
Ardagh Chalice and the Tara Brooch illustrate nearly all the materials,
technical processes, and methods of construction used at this period.
[434] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vol. xxxv., p. 90.
Three different kinds of enamel are used in the decoration of the
Ardagh Chalice, namely, (1) a peculiar variety of _cloisonné_ in which
the compartments, or _cloisons_, are all cut out of a single piece of
metal and the open framework thus formed is pressed into the surface
of the enamel when soft until it rises up and fills each compartment;
(2) a combination of _cloisonné_ and _champlevé_ enamel in which the
compartments are all cut out of a single piece of metal, some being
pierced right through and the remainder only sunk partially through
the thickness of the metal; the framework is pressed into the enamel
when soft, thus filling up the open compartments, as in the first kind
just described, and the remaining dug-out compartments are filled with
fusible enamel as in _champlevé_; and (3) a species of _champlevé_
enamel, in which the surface of a piece of glass was engraved with a
design in _intaglio_ and the hollows filled up with an enamel of a
different colour. The Celtic enamels of the Christian period usually
occur in the form of small round bosses, of which there are good
instances on the Ardagh Chalice, the Ardagh Brooch, the Tara Brooch,
the Lismore Crozier, and the Cross of Cong.
The use of bands of silver with borders of niello is well illustrated
by the head of a crozier[435] formerly belonging to the late Dr. W.
Frazer, M.R.I.A., of Dublin. Portions of the silver have been stripped,
showing how the surface of the metal into which it was inlaid was
roughened with a pointed tool to make the inlay adhere better. Niello
is a black composition made of silver, lead, sulphur, and copper, which
is reduced to powder and placed in cavities or lines cut for its
reception in the surface of the metal, and afterwards incorporated with
it by being passed through the furnace. Niello probably found its way
to Ireland from the East. It was used by the Byzantines as early as the
beginning of the ninth century.[436]
[435] _Proc. R.I.A._, 3rd ser., vol. i., p. 207.
[436] J. H. Pollen’s _Gold and Silver_, p. 53.
A peculiar kind of decoration which is specially characteristic of the
early Irish ecclesiastical metalwork consists of plates perforated with
triangles, squares, and crosses, so as to form a geometrical pattern.
The plates are usually of bronze covered with silver, and the contrast
between the bright surface of the white silver and the pierced portions
through which the dark bronze below can be seen gives the general
appearance of chequerwork. There are good instances of this class of
decoration on the Shrine of the Bell of St. Patrick’s Will, and the
Cumdachs of Dimma’s Book, the Stowe Missal, and the Shrine of St.
Mogue. Cruciform pierced work of a similar kind also occurs on an ivory
of the tenth century representing the raising of the widow of Nain’s
son, in the British Museum;[437] on an ivory of the tenth century,
representing Christ in the Temple, in the Royal Library at Berlin;[438]
and on the chair of the image of St. Faith, in the treasury of
Conques[439] (Aveyron). The wards of ecclesiastical keys are often made
to form cruciform patterns, as in the case of those of Netley Abbey,
St. Serrais Maestricht, and Liège.[440] The cruciform patterns on the
west face of the cross at Dysert O’Dea,[441] Co. Clare, seem to be
copied from metalwork.
[437] J. O. Westwood’s _Catal. of Fictile Ivories in S. K. Mus._
[438] _Ibid._
[439] _Annales de la Société Archéologique de Bruxelles_, vol. xv.
(1901), p. 434.
[440] Le Chanoine Rensens’ _Éléments d’Archéologie Chrétienne_, 2nd ed.
(Aix, 1885), vol. i., pp. 241 and 262.
[441] _Jour. R. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, ser. 5, vol. ix., p. 251.
Filigree-work of gold wire is used to make the panels of
interlaced-work, scrollwork, and zoömorphic designs with which some of
the best specimens of Christian Celtic metalwork are decorated, such
as the Ardagh Chalice, the Tara Brooch, the Hunterston Brooch, and
the Clonmacnois Pin. The filigree-work is often covered with minute
granulations, which add greatly to the richness of the effect produced
by their texture.
We have already referred to the Trichinopoly chainwork of silver wire
used in the Ardagh Chalice, the Tara Brooch, and the Clonmacnois Pin.
This kind of chainwork can be traced back to the Pagan Celtic period,
as chains of similar character were found with the Late-Celtic gold
collar at Limavady, Co. Londonderry, and with the pair of silver-gilt
Kelto-Roman fibulæ from Chorley, Lancashire, now in the British Museum.
Settings of coral and enamel were, as we have seen, employed for
the decoration of the Late-Celtic metalwork, but in the Christian
Celtic period numerous other substances were also employed, such as
glass, rock crystal, amber, and other precious stones. In some cases
the settings of stones and glass were rectangular with a flat top
and bevelled edges, but they were more generally round, oval, or
almond-shaped and “tallow-cut,” _i.e._ polished without facets.
The process used for producing the patterns on the leather satchels and
shoes previously mentioned was probably of the same nature as that by
which the _cuir bouilli_ cases of later times were decorated.
Objects of wood, bone, ivory, and pottery and textile fabrics of the
Christian Celtic period are so rare that there is really nothing to be
said about the technical processes involved in their manufacture.
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN ART IN GREAT BRITAIN
Attention has been recently directed to the problem of how decorative
art was evolved, in the first instance, by the primitive races of
mankind in remote ages. Mr. Henry Balfour, Mr. C. H. Read, and Dr.
Colley March have shown us how much light may be thrown on this
difficult question by a critical examination of the various forms of
ornament used by the savage—or, rather, the uncultured—peoples existing
at the present day in countries where they have had only limited
opportunities of coming in contact with modern civilisation.
There is, however, at least as difficult a problem nearer our own
doors awaiting solution, namely, that of the origin and development
of early Christian decorative art in the British Isles. This problem
is not one of a wholly uncultured race left to itself to work out its
own ideas, as suggested by external natural objects or otherwise, but
it is a problem of a race already in a state of semi-culture being
brought suddenly face to face with a higher civilisation, through
the introduction of a new religion, and afterwards influencing,
or being influenced by, other conquering races—also in a state of
semi-culture—whom they converted by missionary enterprise. That is
to say, the Celts of Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and
Cornwall became acquainted with Italo-Byzantine art when they were
first Christianised, about the middle of the fifth century. In the
seventh century they came in contact with the Anglo-Saxons, and in the
ninth with the Norsemen and Danes. It is the object of the present
inquiry to determine in what measure the Christian art of this country
before the Norman Conquest was affected by the absorption of these new
racial elements.
The style of art we are now dealing with was formerly, quite wrongly,
called Runic, because some of the monuments on which characteristic
forms of ornament occur bear Runic inscriptions. Later authorities have
called the style Hiberno-Saxon, Kelto-Northumbrian, Celtic, and Irish,
but this is simply begging the whole question. The term we have chosen,
namely, early Christian, is scientifically correct, and does not commit
us to the assumption of any unproved facts.
Early Christian art in this country is essentially decorative, and to
a lesser extent symbolic. The figure subjects are obviously barbarous
copies of Byzantine originals, for no matter how they are disguised
by bad drawing or incrusted with ornament, the conventional grouping
and accessories still remain to prove their origin. The miniature of
the Temptation of Christ in the Book of Kells is perhaps the most
remarkable instance of a Byzantine design Celticised, if one may use
the expression. Comparing this with a miniature in the Psalter of
Misselinda (A.D. 1066) in the British Museum (Add. 19,352), we find all
the essential features of the scene the same, even to the black Devil;
but in the Book of Kells the Temple with its Byzantine cupolas has
been converted into an Irish stone-roofed oratory, shaped like a metal
shrine of the period, and covered with ornament; the Devil, too, has
been decorated with spiral curves after the Celtic fashion.
The miniatures of the Evangelists, with their symbols, which form the
frontispieces of the Irish Gospels, are also taken from a Byzantine
source and similarly disguised, although not so effectually as to
conceal their derivation. The Irish illuminator put as much local
colour into his copy as a Chinaman or a Japanese would, but in a
different way, if told to make a replica of an English picture.
In distilling the original Byzantine idea through the alembic of the
mind of the Irish scribe it has absorbed so much of his individuality
that it assumes an archaic and semi-barbarous appearance which is very
misleading at first sight. We hope to be able to show that some of
the elements of the ornament may be traced to a Byzantine source, and
that the only obstacle in the way of our at once recognising whence
the Irish designer received his inspiration is his marvellous power of
adaptation and skill in evolving fresh combinations of simple elements.
The ancient Irish artists appear in some respects to have resembled the
Japanese in the rapidity with which they absorbed new ideas and turned
them to good account in their decorative designs.
The materials available for the study of early Christian art in Britain
consist of illuminated MSS., ecclesiastical and other metalwork,
sculptured monuments, and a few miscellaneous objects. I propose now
to direct attention chiefly to the sculptured monuments, because they
afford a much more certain means than any other of determining the
characteristics of the various local styles throughout the country.
If a monument is found in a particular district, it may generally be
assumed that it was the art product of the district, unless there is
some special reason for thinking otherwise. The number of MSS. and
examples of metalwork is comparatively much smaller than the number of
monuments, and it is only in a few exceptional cases that a MS. can be
traced to the monastic establishment where it was written. In Scotland,
for example, although richer than any other part of Great Britain in
sculptured monuments, the Book of Deer is the only pre-Norman MS. known
to have been written there. Wales, again, can only claim the Psalter of
Ricemarchus.
I am of opinion that if we are ever to arrive at any definite
conclusions with regard to the evolution of early Christian art in
Great Britain, it must be by means of a careful examination and
comparison of the minute details of the ornament. The science of
palæography is entirely founded on the observation of every small
variation in the form of each letter, and if the same trouble was taken
with ornament equally valuable results would be obtained.
We will now proceed to analyse the decorative features of the
monuments, and endeavour to find an origin for the component elements
which go to make up the style. I must assume the reader to possess a
certain amount of acquaintance with the art of the early Christian
period, and to know what is meant by most of the technical terms, but I
shall give examples of the various classes of patterns in case anyone
should be unfamiliar with their appearance.
Broadly speaking, early Christian ornament in Great Britain is made up
of the following elements, generally arranged in separate panels:—
(1) Interlaced-work.
(2) Step-patterns.
(3) Key-patterns. Geometrical.
(4) Spirals.
-----------------------------------------------------
(5) Zoömorphic Designs. Suggested by Animal,
(6) Anthropomorphic Designs. Human, and Vegetable Forms.
(7) Phyllomorphic Designs.
Now the question is, what are the possible or probable sources whence
each of these different kinds of patterns was derived?
First of all, there are the native and imported styles of decorative
art existing in Great Britain previous to the introduction of
Christianity (_circa_ A.D. 450), comprising the art of the ages of
Stone, Bronze, and Iron, and Romano-British art. Next, the external
influences which came into play after A.D. 450, and before A.D. 1066,
were Italo-Byzantine, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, and Scandinavian.
Early Christian art in Great Britain was produced, in the first
instance, by grafting the Italo-Byzantine style upon the native style
of the Iron Age (sometimes called Late-Celtic), and was subsequently
modified by Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian influence.
Of the forms of decoration used in the Stone Age in this country we
know hardly anything, and therefore they will not come within the scope
of our investigations. The ornamental patterns of the Bronze Age, as
far as we are acquainted with them from a study of the sepulchral urns,
implements, personal ornaments, and sculptured cists and chambered
tumuli, are of a very simple description, consisting chiefly of
chevrons, concentric circles, and rudely drawn spirals. The latter may
have been the forerunners of the beautifully designed volutes of the
Iron Age, the nearest approach to perfection being on the sculptured
slab at the entrance to the New Grange tumulus, Co. Meath, and on the
slabs forming the sides of a chambered cairn at Clover Hill, Co. Sligo.
When we come down to the Iron Age we find a very beautiful and refined
system of decoration applied to bronze objects, such as hand-mirrors,
shields, helmets, sword-sheaths, and horse-trappings, the leading
_motif_ of which is the divergent, or trumpet-shaped spiral. This style
of decoration has received the name Late-Celtic in this country, and La
Tène on the Continent.
No one can fail to be struck with the similarity between the
Late-Celtic spiral ornament and that found in the early Irish MSS., the
patterns in some cases being absolutely identical. It is thus possible
to trace this particular element in the decorative art of the early
Christian period to a native Pagan source.
Late-Celtic objects have been found in all parts of the United Kingdom,
but probably the style of decoration only survived into Christian times
in Ireland, although there is really no reason why it should not have
done so elsewhere—in the north of Scotland, for instance, which was
quite as much cut off from civilisation as Ireland during the Saxon
conquests. The closest resemblance between the spiral decoration of the
Pagan period and that of the Christian period is to be found on the
discoidal ornaments with patterns in _champlevé_ enamel, forming the
attachments of the handles of certain bronze bowls, several examples
of which have been discovered from time to time in different parts of
England.[442]
[442] _Archæologia_, vol. lvi., p. 43.
I believe that the only element in early Christian decorative art
in this country that can be traced to a native Pagan source is the
divergent spiral. It has been suggested that the Irish and Saxon
designers derived some of their ideas from the Roman pavements, but
I can see nothing in the decoration of the MSS. on monuments of the
pre-Norman period that can be fairly attributed to a Romano-British
origin.
We have now to consider the external influences which came into play
after the introduction of Christianity (_circa_ A.D. 450). First
amongst these was the influence of Italy, and thus more indirectly that
of Byzantium. It is to this source that it is possible to trace the
interlaced-work and scrolls of foliage which occur so frequently on the
early sculptured monuments in Great Britain. We can refer to no better
text-book whilst dealing with this portion of our investigation than
_L’Architettura in Italia_, by Professor Raffaele Cattaneo (Venezia,
1888), who, by a careful study of the subject, has been able to divide
early Italian ecclesiastical architecture into the following styles and
corresponding periods:—
(1) Latino-Barbaro A.D. 300 to A.D. 600.
(2) Bizantino-Barbaro A.D. 600 to A.D. 800.
(3) Italo-Bizantino A.D. 800 to A.D. 1000.
As an example of the first period we have the Ciborium in the Church
of San Clemente at Rome (A.D. 514-23), decorated with plaitwork and
foliage, both evidently of Classical origin. Belonging to the second
period we have the Ciborium of San Giorgio di Valpolicella[443] (A.D.
712), decorated with broken plaitwork, and the Baptistery of Cividale
(A.D. 737), with fully developed knotwork. And belonging to the third
period the Ciborium of Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, near Ravenna (A.D.
806-16), with interlaced-work and foliage, and a slab over the altar of
San Giacomo, at Venice (A.D. 829), with circular knotwork.[444]
[443] Also the jambs of the doorway of the chapel of S. Zeno in the
church of S. Prassede, Rome (A.D. 772-95).
[444] Slabs of circular knotwork are also to be seen in the church of
Sta. Sabina, Rome.
[Illustration: CIRCULAR KNOTWORK ON SLAB IN CHURCH OF STA. SABINA, ROME]
[Illustration: CIRCULAR KNOTWORK ON SLAB IN CHURCH OF STA. SABINA, ROME]
[Illustration: DOORWAY OF THE CHAPEL OF S. ZENO IN THE CHURCH OF S.
PRASSEDE AT ROME, SHOWING BROKEN PLAITWORK ON JAMBS
(A. D. 442 TO 795)]
[Illustration: Pierced Marble Screen at Ravenna]
A careful examination of these specimens shows that the plait was the
first kind of interlaced-work employed for decorative purposes, and
that it was of Classical origin. The plait as a decorative motive must
have been well known to the inhabitants of this country during the
Roman occupation and immediately after, from the numerous examples
which occur on Roman pavements, as at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire, and
elsewhere.
Knotwork was gradually evolved from the plait by introducing breaks
at regular intervals during the Bizantino-Barbaro period (A.D. 600 to
800); and subsequent to this we find still more complicated forms of
interlaced patterns were introduced, which I propose to call circular
knotwork and triangular knotwork. The evidence gathered from dated
examples of interlaced-work in Italy tends to show that there was
a gradual advance in the elaboration of the patterns as time went
on. Consequently the style could not have been borrowed _en bloc_
by Ireland from Italy, or _vice versâ_, at one time; but interlaced
ornament must have been a prevalent form of decoration throughout
the whole of the West of Europe, and the style advanced in all the
different countries simultaneously, there being always a constant
communication between Rome and the centres of religious activity
abroad. Some races, like those in Great Britain, who appear to have
had a special gift for inventing new patterns and combining them with
a sense of artistic fitness, may have made more rapid strides than
their neighbours and have influenced the development of the style in
consequence, but that is all that can be said.
[Illustration: KEY PATTERN, S. APOLLINARE NUOVO, RAVENNA]
[Illustration: VINE SCROLLS, S. APOLLINARE NUOVO, RAVENNA]
Two special peculiarities of the Italian interlaced-work, as compared
with that in Great Britain, are the ornamenting of the interlaced bands
with two incised lines instead of one, and the twisting together two
bands at frequent intervals, thus—
[Illustration]
The latter feature, which is clearly Classical, occurs frequently in
circular knotwork in this country, showing that circular knotwork is of
Italian origin.
The reason why interlaced-work is characteristic of early Christian
decoration almost throughout the whole of Europe, whilst spirals,
key-patterns, foliage, etc., are confined to particular limited areas,
I believe to be partly because the number of distinct patterns that can
be produced from interlaced-work is far greater than those which can be
got from any other class of ornament.
It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to enlarge much upon the subject of
the foliage of the early Christian period in Great Britain. The scrolls
with conventionalised bunches of grapes are no doubt descendants of
the Classical vine; the involved birds, beasts, etc., being a later
addition[445] of the Bizantino-Barbaro, or Italo-Bizantino periods.
Foliage is unknown in the Pagan Saxon, Scandinavian, or Late-Celtic
art, and the only other source it could have been derived from is
Italian art.
[445] Or a substitution of later forms for the Cupids, etc., of the
Classical style.
We lastly have to consider the parts played in the development of early
Christian art in Great Britain by the Anglo-Saxon and the Scandinavian
invaders. There does not seem to be much evidence to show that the
Saxons were ever gifted with any great capacity for ornamental design,
although their workmanship often reached a high pitch of excellence. In
looking through the plates of the most recent work on _The Industrial
Arts of the Anglo-Saxons_, by the Baron J. de Baye, one is struck with
the extremely limited range of imagination displayed in the design of
the patterns. Interlaced-work (but of a debased kind) occurs on some of
the sword-hilts and buckles, the latter evidently bearing a remarkable
affinity to the Merovingian buckles. A radiated fibula found at Searby,
in Lincolnshire, exhibits a diagonal key-pattern similar to that found
in the Irish MSS. Far the most beautiful specimens of Saxon jewellery,
however, are the circular brooches with _cloisonné_ ornament. The
disc-shaped surface of these brooches is broken up into little
compartments, which are filled in with thin slabs of coloured glass,
garnets, etc. The narrow bands of gold which separate the compartments
from each other are zigzagged at right angles, or stepped, and it is
quite possible that the idea of the stepped patterns within circles,
which occur in the decoration of the Irish MSS. and on the circular
enamelled bosses on the Irish ecclesiastical metalwork, may have been
taken from the circular _cloisonné_ Saxon brooch. It is only fair,
however, to mention that circular ornaments of _cloisonné_ enamel, with
an approximation to a stepped-pattern, are used in the decoration of
the magnificent Late-Celtic shield found in the Thames at Battersea,
and now in the British Museum.
It has been suggested that Irish interlaced-work was derived from the
rude interlaced patterns on the Saxon and Merovingian buckles, but this
appears to me most unlikely.
M. Paul du Chaillu, in his _Viking Age_, has endeavoured to show that
the Anglo-Saxons derived their art such as it is from Northern rather
than from Central or from Western Europe; but his views will not
receive favour at the hands of the scientific archæologist who relies
on hard facts to make good his contentions. The forms and ornamental
details of the buckles and other objects found with Saxon burials in
the south of England undoubtedly show more affinity with Merovingian
grave-goods than with anything emanating from Norway, Sweden, or
Denmark.
Although no trace of Scandinavian influence can be detected in the
ornamental patterns of the Anglo-Saxons—at all events, in the period
preceding the Viking conquests in the ninth and tenth centuries—I
am not quite so sure that one of the elements of early Christian
decorative art in Great Britain may not possibly be of Northern origin,
namely, the zoömorphic element. I put forward this suggestion with the
greatest diffidence, and merely as a tentative theory until something
better can be found to take its place.
Zoömorphism is not a marked characteristic of Pagan Saxon decorative
art, and therefore, in order to account for the predominance of
so-called dragonesque designs in the early Irish illuminated MSS., we
must fall back on one of the following alternatives: (1) that these
patterns are of native origin, and were invented by the Irish; (2) that
like the spirals, they are of Late-Celtic origin; and (3) that they are
of Italo-Byzantine derivation.
General Pitt-Rivers and Mr. Henry Balfour have given us an insight
of the manner in which animal forms, by repeated copying, may
degenerate into mere ornament; and at one time I thought that early
Christian zoömorphism might have been the result of a process of a
reverse nature. It is possible to “see snakes” when looking at a
piece of interlaced-work without necessarily suffering from excess
of alcoholism. Thus zoömorphic designs might have been evolved from
interlaced-work by making the bands terminate in heads and tails, the
limbs following in due course later on. Such may have been the process
by which the Irish illuminator arrived at his zoömorphism, unless it
can be shown that he got it in some other way.
Animal forms are comparatively rare in Late-Celtic art, and they are
not interlaced, so that it is almost useless to seek for the original
inspiring idea in this direction.
Birds, beasts, reptiles, and other creatures—often used
symbolically—are frequently seen in Byzantine art, both in the
decorative features of churches and in the borders of the MSS. If it
was thence that the early Christian zoömorphs in this country took
their origin, I fancy the interlacements must have been arrived at
either by placing the creatures in pairs symmetrically facing each
other, or by contorting their bodies into unnatural attitudes. In the
case of beasts arranged in pairs, the first step towards interlacement
is to raise their paws and then to make them cross. The beasts may also
be placed with their necks crossed; their tails may gradually curl
round until they pass over the body, and may be looped or knotted to
fill in a blank space; and in endless other ways the most complicated
forms of zoömorphic interlaced-work may be evolved from simple
beginnings.
Dr. Hans Hildebrand, in his _Industrial Arts of Scandinavia_ (p. 50),
explains in a most ingenious manner how the lion _couchant_, which
so often appears in Roman art, forms the basis of the earlier kinds
of zoömorphic ornament in Scandinavia. The question is, did the Irish
evolve their zoömorphs independently in a similar way from a Classical
or Byzantine lion, or did they get the idea from the Scandinavians
after they had so transformed the Roman lion _couchant_ that all
resemblance to the original had disappeared? The difficulty in settling
this point is the absence of accurately dated specimens of Scandinavian
art workmanship. The panels of zoömorphic ornament on some of the
fibulæ of the Later Iron Age, illustrated in Dr. Hans Hildebrand’s
work already referred to (pp. 58-65), bear a very considerable general
resemblance to the panels of interlaced beasts in the Irish MSS.,
although the details are worked out differently. The whole question
turns on the exact date of the Gotland brooches. If they can be proved
to be earlier than the time when zoömorphism first appears in the Irish
MSS., and if it is possible that the communication between Ireland and
Gotland can be accounted for by the trade in silver objects and bullion
existing between this country and the East, then there is something
to be said for the Scandinavian origin of zoömorphism in Ireland. I
believe, however, that from the evidence of the coins found with hoards
of silver objects, this trade did not begin until about A.D. 800.
Attention must here be called to two points which are common to the
zoömorphic and anthropomorphic designs of Scandinavia and of Great
Britain, namely, (1) the introduction of spiral curves to represent
conventionally the folds of the skin where a limb joins the body; and
(2) the introduction of figures of men grasping birds and beasts, or
arranged swastica-wise grasping each other’s limbs. Here, again, it is
not easy to decide whether these features were invented independently,
or whether they were borrowed by the Irish from Scandinavia, or by the
Scandinavians from Ireland.
Whatever may be thought of the possibility of the existence of
Scandinavian influence on Christian art in this country in its
earlier phases, there is plenty of evidence of the development of
an Anglo-Scandinavian style in particular districts where the Norse
element was strong, as in the Isle of Man, and the adjoining coasts of
Cumberland, Lancashire, and North Wales, and in Orkney and Shetland.
The specially Scandinavian characteristics of the sculptured monuments
in the districts specified are as follows:—
(1) There is a predominance of patterns formed of
chains of rings.
(2) The bands of the interlaced-work have a tendency
to bifurcate and break off into scroll-like
terminations.
(3) The beasts in the zoömorphic designs have two toes,
instead of three; the bodies are covered with
scales; the attitude is peculiar, the head being
bent back and a crest issuing from it with fin-like
appendages in places; and the junction of the limbs
with the body is conventionally indicated by spirals.
(4) Amongst the figure-subjects scenes from the
mythic-heroic Eddaic poems, such as Sigurd Fafni’s
bane, Thor fishing for the Midgard-worm, Weyland
Smith, etc.
Even in Norman times Scandinavian influence is exhibited in the details
of the tympana at Hoveringham, and Southwell Minster, Notts, and St.
Nicholas, Ipswich.
The only element in early Christian decorative art the origin of
which we have not succeeded in running to earth in the preceding
investigation is the key-pattern. I venture to think that this may have
been suggested by the Greek or Roman fret, and that the essentially
Celtic character imparted to it was the placing of the guiding lines
in a diagonal direction with regard to the margin, instead of parallel
to it. I believe the reason for this to be that exactly the same
setting-out diagram was used both for the interlaced-work and the
key-pattern. It is often possible to trace the origin of key-patterns
to the necessities of the methods of weaving textile fabrics; but with
regard to the ones we are now considering I am inclined to think that
their beginnings are due to the geometrical conditions imposed by the
arrangement of the setting-out lines.
In conclusion, I wish to emphasise the fact that the beauty and
individuality of the ornamental designs found in early Christian art
in Great Britain are due chiefly to the great taste with which the
different elements are combined and the exquisite finish lavished
upon them. I cannot see that it in the least detracts from the praise
due to the originators of the style if it can be shown that the ideas
underlying many of the patterns were suggested by a pre-existing native
style or adapted from a foreign one. Interlaced-work, key-patterns,
spirals, and zoömorphs are to be found separately in the decorative art
of many races and many periods, but nowhere and at no time have these
different elements been used in combination with such consummate skill,
as in the early Christian period in Great Britain and Ireland.