242 General Discussion of the Crosses 



I. THE INSCRIPTIONS 



1. RUNIC 



A. Forms of Letters. 



If, now, we take up the subject in this order, we shall first consider 

 the runic inscriptions with regard to the forms of the letters. These 

 letters are commonly said to be Anglian runes, of presumably the 

 7th century. Here 'Anghan' might be used (1) in contradistinction 

 to Scandinavian or German, or (2) in contradistinction to Saxon. To 

 say that they are Anghan merely because they are found in the North 

 of England, in territory probably or conjecturally Anglian, is to 

 add nothing to our knowledge. Are they unlike any runic letters 

 regarded by competent runologists as Scandinavian ? Are they unUke 

 any runic letters regarded by competent runologists as Saxon ? 

 Furthermore, can it be shown, by comparison with other authent- 

 ically dated specimens, that these runic letters must be dated as 

 early as the 7th century ? ^ This is what it imports us to know. For 

 myself, I know too little of the history of runes in detail to attempt 

 to deal with this question at the present time. I will therefore limit 

 myself to the remark that, even were it fully estabhshed that such 

 runic letters as these were employed in England in the 7th century, 

 I should not feel compelled to assume that these inscriptions belonged 

 to the 7th century, since the history of Greek, Latin, and runic 

 inscriptions demonstrates that earlier forms of letters not only may 

 be found, but actually are found, on later monuments. 



Boeckh has classified the different kinds of Greek inscriptions 

 which may easily deceive the unwary as to their age.^ A well-known 

 example of a genuine Latin inscription renewed a couple of hundred 

 years later, is on the Columna Rostrata,^ discovered in 1565. 



Prima est fictorum antiquitus, qui seu vera seu falsa eoutinentes 

 posteriore setate exarati sunt, ut prius extitis.se viderentur. Tales 

 olim fuere multi ; tales habendi essent n. 43-G9 nisi Petrizzopulum et 

 Fourmontum satis teneremus convictos ; tale est Delphicum quoddam 

 apud Cyriacum oraculum, Byzantina cusum aetate.* 



^ Evidently not, if Sievers is right in thinking all Anglian runes, with 

 one exception, to be as late as the 8th century (see p. 11, note 6). 



2 Cf. Franz, Elementa Epigraphices Grcecce (1840), pp. 73 ff. ; Larfeld, 

 HandhtLch der Oriechischen Ejngraphik I. 431 (cf. Miiller's Handbitch der 

 Klass. AUerlurnswissenschufl 1. 492-3). 



' Corp. Inscr. Lai. 1. 37-40; cf. Wolfflin in Sitzhar. der K. Bay. Akad. 

 der Wiss., Philos.-Pidlol. Classe, 1890, 1. 293-321. 



* Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Grcec. 1. xxx. 

 (30) 



