A. H.
October 4.
ANCIENT AND MODERN BRITONS: A QUESTION FOR ANTIQUARIES.
Sir,—In the St. James’s Gazette of July 10, there is a review of a recently published book named “Ancient and Modern Britons.” Not having even seen the book, I can only say of it that, on the showing of its critic, the author’s opinions seem little to accord with mine. But let that pass; my present object is to ask you whether the reviewer has done well in writing the following sentences: “In Aberdeenshire there is a stone—the ‘Newton Stone’—on which there are two inscriptions; one in Ogham digits and another (according to the best authorities) in debased Roman minuscular letters. Lord Southesk has lately propounded a theory to the effect that these inscriptions ‘form a compound of Oriental and Western ideas, beliefs, and languages.’ This explanation probably amused the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, to whom it was originally submitted; but to the author of ‘Ancient and Modern Britons’ it seems a brilliant suggestion.”
Had the reviewer read the paper (extending over some twenty-five pages) which the society referred to has done me the honour to publish in its last volume of “Proceedings,” he could hardly have spoken of it so discourteously; he would have recognised in it, I venture to think, a result of careful study, far enough removed from wild and hasty theorising. Allow me the favour of sufficient space in your columns to explain and vindicate my position in this matter. First, as regards the Ogham Inscription. The attempts to read this have been few and unsatisfactory. My own reading—independently gained, and different from previous versions—being known to Professor Rhys, he has authorised me to say that he agrees with it as to every digit, except the three marked doubtful in my own diagram. This concurrence only applies to the literal arrangement (a matter of some difficulty), the question of interpretation being reserved; but it is nevertheless an important and much valued aid. Secondly: as regards the main inscription, it is going rather far to say that the “best authorities” pronounce it to be in “debased Roman minuscular letters,” considering the great differences of opinion as to its nature that continue to exist; some fifteen attempts at decipherment having been made, many of them by distinguished scholars still (or lately) living. The Latin version by Dr. Whitley Stokes is probably that referred to by the reviewer, being one of the latest. But there is nothing to show that it is, or ought to be, accepted as final. Besides other possible defects, it confessedly assigns no recognisable meaning to five of the letters. Moreover, it differs from any conceivable rendering of the Ogham legend. This is not fatal to it, but it gives the advantage to a rival version which reconciles the two inscriptions. It should also be noted that no perfectly accurate copy of either inscription has been hitherto published.
My own conclusions, after months passed in the comparison of alphabets and other study, were as follows: (1) That the characters are Greek, resembling those in the Irish-Latin MSS. of the fifth to the seventh century A.D., described by Mr. Westwood as “singular formed Irish-Greek letters, in which capitals and minuscules are strangely mingled together” (Pal. Sac. Pict.; see there Greek Pater Noster in Book of Armagh); also, in some cases, resembling the letters of the alphabet on the Kilmalkedar stone, in Ireland—characters described by Dr. Petrie as “Græco-Roman or Byzantine characters of the fourth or fifth century A.D.” (Ec. Arc. of Ir., p. 134). This assignment of the letters may be accepted without necessarily adopting my version of the inscription, as some of the characters severally resemble more than one letter. (2) That the first half of the inscription is Celtic, sepulchral, and nearly identical with the Ogham legend on the same stone. (3) That the second half (and therein lies the ridicule, if ridicule there be) is religious or mythological, and embodies sacred names belonging to the Mithraic worship. Mithraism, as developed under the Roman emperors, was eminently a compound creed—one which undoubtedly sought to unite “Oriental and Western ideas and beliefs” (to cite your reviewer’s quotation from “Ancient and Modern Britons”—ostensibly from me, but not so), though not, of course, aiming to unite “languages.” It is only as regards certain mythological names or titles that the Newton inscriptions are not (on my view of them) entirely Celtic. Mithraic remains have been largely found in England, especially in the north; there are apparent references to its mysteries in the poems of the Welsh bards; and in Scotland some of the, as yet unexplained, symbols on the sculptured stones appear to belong to the same system.
I claim no right to dogmatise on these subjects; but I do claim to have bestowed real work on them, and it is unseemly that the results of my labour should be ridiculed by one who has not taken the trouble to find out in what they consist. Is it more improbable that remains of Mithraism should exist in Scotland than in other parts of Britain accessible to Roman influences? The improbability lies the contrary way. Why should there be more folly in seeking for traces of Paganism than in seeking for traces of Christianity among the earlier antiquities of Britain? The reproach surely rests with those who in such cases formulate extreme opinions as to the universal presence or absence of one of these religious elements, and refuse to see anything that antagonises their enthusiasms or prejudices. In conclusion, allow me add that, even if they disapproved of my paper on the Newton Stone (which I have no reason to suppose), the Scottish Society of Antiquaries have not only printed it in full, with my own illustrative diagrams, but are now printing another paper of mine, of at least equal length, on the whole of the Ogham inscriptions of Scotland—one which I sincerely hope may prove not altogether unworthy of the honour thus conferred on it.
Southesk.
Kinnaird Castle, Brechin, N.B.
TO CORRESPONDENTS.