to clothe the Christ when he comes up out of the stream. It is already the spirit of the Golden Legend, voluble in the expression of elaborated and curious fancies. At the same time we find the uncertainties of a transitional period which has not yet subjected iconography to a Median and Persian law. Neither the Virgin nor the angels are always nimbed; the angel present at the Baptism is wingless, and without the companion or companions who, from the sixth century, are associated with him in his service. Such treatment suggests that this cross must not be assigned to a later period than the sixth century, though a single detail seems at first sight to tell against so early a date. This is the introduction into the Nativity scene of the nurses washing the Child, an addition which cannot be directly traced to the Apocryphal Gospels, and has hitherto been identified with a more definitely 'Byzantine' period. But fresh discoveries are constantly compelling the revision of such iconographical rules. A few years ago the Constantine bowl, now in the British Museum, and the sarcophagus from Konia at Berlin, broke down the old theories about the nimbus and established the existence of the cruciform variety about two centuries earlier than the accepted date. We believe that this enamelled cross may in like manner prove that the episode under discussion is considerably older than had hitherto been supposed. Had this cross belonged to a later period, we might have expected to find some scene or symbol connected with the Passion or the Resurrection, such as we see upon Byzantine enamelled crosses to which as early a date as the seventh or eighth century has been attributed. Even the cross of Justin has the symbolic lamb; but here there is no more than the pilgrim might have seen on the mosaics of the Holy Places, after Constantine and Helen had made them the centre of the Christian world. The outline of our cross with its slightly expanding ends is that which appears almost from the time when the chief instrument of the Passion was first represented in art; it has been derived by Professor Ainalov from that of the cross which Constantine set up on Golgotha, and was henceforward adopted throughout all Christendom. We find it, for example, in the mosaics of St. Pudenziana at Rome, in the crosses of Justin in St. Peter's, and of Agilulf at Monza, in those represented on early Teutonic brooches, and, to quote an example from our own country, in the pectoral cross of St. Cuthbert at Durham. There is every reason to suppose that the form first became popular in the Holy Land; and there is nothing far-fetched in the supposition that the cross of the Sancta Sanctorum, like the famous ampullæ at Monza, may have been sent to Italy as a gift and a memorial from the cradle of

the Christian religion. The enamelled inscription which runs round its sides seems if anything in favour of such an hypothesis; for though the letters are Latin, they are so arranged as to make no obvious sense. The two phrases regina mundi and (v)exillum crucis, suggesting early hymns, are clear; so are the words episcopi and (Pas)chalis; but the other letters seem to belong to misunderstood or incomplete words, and several are upside down, as if the craftsman were struggling with an unfamiliar language. The probability of an extreme antiquity and an oriental origin has a most interesting bearing upon the early history of cloisonné enamelling, a point to which we shall revert below; meanwhile, it may be admitted that the early date which upon general grounds we are provisionally disposed to accept, renders the identification of this cross with one mentioned in the Liber 'Pontificalis' perfectly possible. A passage quoted by both M. Lauer and Father Grisar relates that Sergius I. (687-701) found in a dark corner of the sacristy of St. Peter's a discoloured silver box, in which lay, upon a silken cushion, a cross richly set with precious stones. The Pope removed the gemmed front, found the relic intact within, and subsequently transferred the whole to the Lateran. The evidence upon which the identification rests is not perhaps very complete, but the age of the cross does not contradict it, though the present silver case cannot have existed in the time of Sergius. The two commentators of the treasure are tempted to go further and recognise the enamelled cross in one associated by the Liber Pontificalis ' with the name of Symmachus (498-514). Perhaps even this is not impossible.

The second cross chosen for illustration is also mentioned by John the Deacon, and in his time was said to contain a relic of the Circumcision. It is about the same size as the enamelled example, and is intrinsically the most valuable object in the chest, being formed of gold plates enriched with stones of great size, between which are set numerous pearls. In the centre is a large amethyst, and next to this, on each arm, a plasma or mother of emerald; beyond the plasma, at the end of each limb, is again an amethyst; beyond each amethyst, two smaller plasmas set diagonally. In the re-entrant angles of the cross appear to be four great pearls (?), while smaller pearls are placed in pairs or in groups of three between the larger stones. Round the whole cross runs a border of inlaid red glass pastes, forming a continuous arcading; while green pastes of a similar kind form a step-pattern surrounding the central amethyst. The edges of the cross are finished by a narrow pearled border of gold, and the sides are of open-work, the design forming two

parallel bands of half acanthus leaves. The back is very interesting, illustrating as it does the pains taken to give the stones upon the front the full advantage of transmitted light. It is only partially covered by gold plates, which merely formed a border following the outline, and leaving the middle of each limb open. We use the past tense advisedly, because most of these plates have been wrenched away from three of the arms, possibly in the sixteenth century, and only one is now perfect. The large stones of the front are thus seen to be set à jour in apertures cut out of their gold plate, so that, if the cross were suspended or carried, the light could reach them from both sides. The gold borders of the back are ornamented with filigree of simple design, as also is an oval central medallion corresponding to the great amethyst of the front. It remains to add that this amethyst covers the lid of a small cavity in which is now a second relic of the true cross. The lid is opened by a ring visible in the illustration; but it would be difficult to say without close examination whether this arrangement is contemporary with the object itself.

What is the date of this sumptuous example of the ancient goldsmith's art? Father Grisar would carry it back to the fifth or even to the fourth century; M. Lauer would associate it with Charlemagne, though he rightly notes certain resemblances to the wonderful crosses of the Lombard kings in the treasury of Monza Cathedral. It seems to us that M. Lauer is here nearer to the truth than when he seeks analogies amongst the goldsmiths' work of the Franks. It is surely not necessary to go so far to discover the real authors of this splendid cross. Excavations in recent years at Castel Trosino and Nocera Umbra have brought to light an extraordinary number of gold jewels and ornamented weapons, now exhibited in the Museum of the Therma of Diocletian at Rome. These objects were clearly made by a barbaric people refined by their Italian environment, and there is good reason to believe that they represent the best traditions of Ostrogothic art. The filigree upon many of the brooches from these cemeteries is of the same character as that upon the back of the cross, and they have the ornamentation of inlaid glass pastes, which the Goths were the first Teutonic people to adopt. Filigree almost identical in character is found upon the combof Theodelinda' at Monza, an object belonging to the same art, and not necessarily to be regarded as Lombard. The book-cover of Gregory the Great in the same place is freely enriched with borders of similar red glass, as are the fragments of golden armour at Ravenna, traditionally associated with Theodoric. The votive crosses at Monza have