(Vol. viii., pp. 132. 417.)
I am not sure that any of your correspondents have noticed the resemblance
between the letter T t, especially in some of its ancient forms, and the
form of the cross. In the Greek, Etruscan, and Samaritan forms of this
letter, we have representations of the three principal forms which the
cross has assumed: [Tau cross], +, x. It is also remarkable that in Ezekiel
ix. 4. 6.: "Set a mark on the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry,"
&c., the word rendered "mark" is [Hebrew: T\dagesh\W] (_Tau_), the name of
the Hebrew letter answering to the above: and as the Samaritan alphabet,
which the present Hebrew characters have superseded, was then in use, it is
highly probable that the "mark" referred to in Ezekiel's vision was the
Samaritan _Tau_, as seen on ancient Hebrew shekels, resembling a St.
Andrew's cross.
A circumstance relating to the Paschal sacrifice mentioned by Justin
Martyr, in his conference with Trypho the Jew, and which he asserts without
contradiction from his learned opponent, is worthy of a note:
"This lamb, which was to be roasted whole, was a symbol of the
punishment of the cross, which was inflicted on Christ, [Greek: To gar
optomenon probaton, k.t.l.] For the lamb which was roasted was so
placed as to resemble the figure of a cross; with one spit it was
pierced longitudinally, from the tail to the head; with another it was
transfixed through the shoulders, so that the forelegs became
extended."--Vid. Just. Martyri _Opera_, edit. Oberther, vol. ii. p.
106.
Your correspondent H. N. appears to have fallen into several errors, which
(having appeared in "N. & Q.") ought not to pass unnoticed.
1. He confounds the basilica with the cruciform cathedral, and with "the
plan of the Roman forum."
Basilica (from Gr. [Greek: Basilike], a royal dwelling) was the name given
by the Romans to those public edifices in which justice was administered
and mercantile business transacted. Several of these buildings, or the
remains of them, still exist in Rome, each forum probably having had its
basilica. Vitruvius, who constructed one at Fanum, says it ought to be
built "on the warm side of the forum, that those whose affairs call them
thither might confer without being incommoded by the weather." Yet H. N.
says: "The basilica seems to have originally been the architectural plan of
the Roman forum." The most perfect specimen of the antique basilica is that
discovered at Pompeii, on the south side of the form and at right angles
with it. By consulting a good plan of Pompeii, or glancing at a plan of its
basilica, any one may see that it was not cruciform, but "in the form of a
long parallelogram," with a central space and side porticoes, answering to
the nave and aisles of a church. The early Christians adopted the basilica
form for their churches: those built in the form of a Greek or Latin cross
are of much later date. Yet H. N.'s learned friend exclaims, when viewing
the temple of Muttra, "Here is the cross! the basilica carried out with
more correctness of order and symmetry than in Italy!"
2. H. N. assumes that the Jews practised crucifixion as a punishment, and
"may have imitated the Assyrians, as crucifixion may have been adopted long
before that of Christ and the two thieves (Qy. robbers)." Crucifixion
appears to have been in use from a very remote period, but was never
adopted by the Jews. The Romans, who with all their greatness were an
atrociously cruel people, employed it as the peculiar and appropriate
punishment of delinquent slaves. Christ was "crucified under Pontius
Pilate," the Roman Procurator of Judea, at a time when that country had
become subject to the Romans, and its rulers could say, "It is not lawful
for us to put any man to death."
3. When H. N. refers to "the advocates of conversion and their itinerant
agents," it is difficult to perceive exactly what he intends, except "to
hint a fault and hesitate dislike." But before a writer undertakes to cast
a reflection on those great societies who have been labouring--not by
coercion, but by instruction and persuasion, by the circulation of the
scriptures and the preaching of the Gospel--to substitute Christianity for
idolatry among those who are under the government of Great Britain, he
should well understand the grounds of his censures, so as to be able "to
explain to the conversionists that, unless this doctrine be openly refuted,
the missionaries may in truth be fighting their own shadow." {546}
How then has H. N. explained the doctrine which they are to refute--the
meaning of the "cross and basilica" in India? The only witness in proof of
it has disappeared "by falling into a volcanic crater." He himself
professes to be quite ignorant of cathedral architecture and the English
government, and English gentlemen generally, who have shamefully secreted
such a treasure, are equally ignorant. Why had they not consulted the
living Church of Hindooism, and shown it a little sympathy and respect with
a view to getting enlightened? Whereas "the little they do know is derived
from books." Farther, "the elder civilians, men of ability, classical
scholars, and first-rate Asiatic linguists," when assembled in that very
building, though they descanted on the sanctity of the place, "not one of
them knew nor remarked the 'cross and basilica.'" And when visiting the
great temple of Benares, H. N. does not recollect that the cross was either
noticed to him or by him.
It may be true that when the Hindoo "system of government existed in
efficiency, there was neither crime nor punishment"--a shadowy tradition, I
presume, of the state of innocence! It may also be true that "the mythology
of the Nile agrees with that of the Ganges." But it would not follow that
the cross is a myth derived from the mysteries of Egypt or the astronomy of
India. It would still remain an unquestionable fact, that the cross, for
ages an instrument of ignominious torture under Pagan Rome, only ceased to
be so when Christianity had won its way through all ranks of society up to
the imperial throne; then its employment was abolished by Constantine,
partly from the humanising influence of the new faith, and partly out of
reverence to Him who had suffered on it for the world's redemption.
The anticipations of Christianity supplied by Paganism, of which Krishna
"burnishing the head of the serpent" is a striking example, may be easily
accounted for, and their source pointed out. As a corruption of the
earliest revelation, Paganism contains, as might be expected, a portion of
truth blended with much error. Indeed, it would be no difficult task to
prove that classical and oriental mythology is in some sense, and to a
great extent, the shadow of biblical truth. What then? In endeavouring to
supplant idolatry in the Roman empire, were the Apostles and first
preachers of Christianity merely "fighting their own shadow?" They
recognised those truths which even heathens admit, but opposed and
overthrew the accumulated errors of ages. Yet there were some even then who
condemned the preaching of the cross as "foolishness," till success
demonstrated its wisdom.
Lastly, H. N., having "travelled much in this country and on the
Continent," is convinced "that superstition prevails comparatively _less_
in Asia than in Europe," and that "the pages of 'N. & Q.' abundantly
corroborate the opinion."
This is far more startling than the discovery of the "cross and basilica"
at Muttra. To admit it, however, would require us to disregard the
testimony of a cloud of witnesses, and to ignore all our former reading.
The vast systems of Asiatic superstition, it seems, are less objectionable
than our own folk lore; the tremendous shades of Brahma and Budhu, of
Juggernaut and the goddess Kali, with their uncouth images and horrid
worship, are harmless when compared with Puck, the Pixies, and Robin
Goodfellow; and Caste, Suttee, and Devil-worship[3] are evils of less
magnitude than cairns, kist-vaens, and cromlechs. The mental balance must
be peculiarly constructed that could lead to such a decision. Certainly
H. N. is no Rhadamanthus. "Dat veniam corvis, vexat censure columbas."
The appeal to "N. & Q." in corroboration of his opinion forms a pleasant
and suitable conclusion of the whole: for while in India superstition still
undeniably lives and "prevails," it is one special object of "N. & Q." to
embalm the remains of local superstitions in Great Britain that have either
breathed their last, or are _in extremis_; to collect the relics of
long-departed superstitions that were once vigorous and rampant in our
island, but are now in danger of being lost and forgotten. Their very
remnants and vestiges have become so rare that they are unknown to the
great mass of the community; and the learned, therefore, especially those
versed in ethology, are urged to hunt them out wherever they exist in the
different districts of the country, before they fall into utter oblivion.