Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/652

 648 Keiser Rood, portions of which appear on the Ruthwell Cross, he as- cribes to Caedmon, an opinion not shared by modern scholar- ship. The 'Caedmon made me' of Stephens' phantasy he also deciphers from the partly obliterated runes. The two crosses are regarded by him "as a great outburst in early time of a new style, due to some remarkable combination of new influences and new individualities, with new opportunities and new knowledge" (p. 26), while "the whole tone and air of the great shafts cry out against" any late attribution (p. 7) To anyone who has compared the interpretations of the doubtful runes by different men, it is apparent that the diver- gence of views is so great as to preclude any definite inference except that of hopelessnesss in arriving at any satisfactory con- clusion. This impression is strengthened by the admissions of Dr. Browne, who in spite of occasional firmness shows a peculiar wavering. He himself has changed his interpretation of doubt- ful runes during the last 25 years. And a statement like this on page 71: "But while I abide by my reading Kedmon, I am willing to acquiesce in a verdict by real experts in favour of some other spelling of our sacred poet's name on the Cross," is a fatal admission. The trouble is that according to Victor and other able observers the 'Caedmon made me' seems to be non- existent. The author's total ignorance of the progress made by philology during the last 25 years, crops out in many places. He refers to the Anglo-Saxon speech of the district of the crosses as super grammaticam, twentieth century precision being one thing, and seventh century roughness being another thing. Philological considerations are brushed aside with the state- ment: "But enough has been said already about these confident assertions based on the assumption that philological accuracy was achieved by the designers or sculptors of these ancient monuments (p. 77)." He is "assured on high authority" regarding some linguistic phenomena, but never seems to have looked into them. However, it certainly will not do to ignore scientific data such as the loss of final n in verbs etc., which have an important bearing on the question of the date of the two crosses. With such a method we should compare Professor Cook's scholarly procedure, whatever one may think of his hypothesis that the crosses were erected in the 12th century under the patronage of David of Scotland. The fact is that sufficient data for a positive assertion are lacking, and the whole question admits of no final solution at the present time, though the most careful investigators favor a late date. Browne's general method is faulty, illustrated for instance by his reply to Prof. Cook's assertion that the crucifixion "is rarely figured in sculpture in the 10th century and does not become at all common till the 13th": "It would be idle to