Basilica (from Gr. Βασιλικὴ, 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."
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.