owing largely to racial idiosyncracy, identified with resistance to outside influences. Deriving their Christian form of religion from Rome, the British have treated it in the main as a matter of ritualistic routine. To its dogma they have been respectfully indifferent. Its lofty ethics, when practically inconvenient they have ignored. This peculiar independence and self-assertiveness of the British was displayed not less conspicuously by poets than by statesmen and theologians. It was a true instinct which led Shakespeare to glorify the murderers of Cæsar, for in the absence of the decadent medieval empire, not merely British, but European art might have had a more felicitous, because more natural, development than it really enjoyed. In truth, the artistic went deeper than either the political or the religious revolt. It was a protest not so much against this or that effete doctrine, as against imperialism in principle, against finality in the realm of the ideal.

That the British have inherited the sea-faring aptitude and adventurous spirit of the Aryan Phoenicians appears obvious. Whether they in the same degree reflect, and have profited by, the ancestral monotheistic Religion, is not quite so plain. And yet, I think, there is something to be said in favour of an affirmative on this question, too.

It cannot be pretended that Sun-worship is a truly scientific religion-and the worship of that luminary itself appears to have been the earlier form of the Aryan Sun-cult, and continued amongst many of the Aryans, after the majority had made the Sun merely the symbol of the Universal Father God. The Sun, after all, is only a part, and a comparatively small part even, of the visible Universe; and no more than any other visible object can it be specially identified with the Incomprehensible Power behind allwhose glory Job declares that the heavens with all their contents "utter but a whisper "-which is the real object round which the specifically religious emotions group themselves. As, however, the public demand a nonscientific religion, a religion, that is to say, which represents mankind as the great object of the Creator's care, and which appeals rather to the senses and emotions than to the reason,

HISTORICAL EFFECTS OF THE DISCOVERIES 383

the question arises whether Sun-worship does not present us with an idea which satisfies that popular demand with less departure from scientific requirements than those other miraculous and anthropomorphic types, which SO many European nations have cultivated since the days of Phoenician ascendancy, and which finally took form in the ceremonies and superstitions of the Catholic Church. If the Power at the root of things is to be conceived of as having a kindly feeling for mankind, then the Sun is surely the visible manifestation of that feeling, and embodiment of that idea, seeing that it is the source of all Life in this world, and that by which alone Life is ceaselessly maintained. And it was the anthropomorphizing of the Sun as the Father-God by the Hitto-Sumerians, which, as we have seen, is the source of the modern conception of God.

Do we not thus find in the modern British Religion in most of its sects-in its tolerance, its good sense, its adaptability, its sense of reality, its power to incorporate and live on friendly terms with the various forms in which pious sentiment seeks expression, its opposition to the attempts to domineer over the mind and spirit of others, its minimization of theory, and exaltation of ritual and show, its aversion to the Mother-goddess cult and to every kind of asceticism, whether in doctrine or practice, its insisting that Religion shall submit to the same test as other institutions which profess to serve the nation, that of Usefulness-some features that harmonize well with the exalted and humane. spirit of the Sun-worshippers, and that "hark back," if the expression be allowed, to that old indigenous positivistic view which the Aryan " Hitt-ite" Phoenicians brought with them from the East, and which was otherwise manifested in the literature of the British people, and notably in the person of its two greatest poets, Shakespeare and Milton?

Yet other fruits of Britain's exceptional Aryan inheritance were her establishment of democratic institutions, centuries before they were adopted by other countries, and her world-wide colonial and commercial enterprise, reproducing the maritime adventures of the Phoenician Aryans, from

whom, we have seen, the British people, properly so-called, are in part descended.

The higher Aryanization to which these and other peculiarly British characteristics bear witness is a chief guarantee that the sacrifices of the nations in the late war, in order to secure the ultimate triumph of Right over Might, will not have been made in vain. After all, human nature, like flowers, turns to the sunlight, and the final predominance of the superior heart and brain is assured.

FIG. 74.-Ancient Briton "Catti" coin of 2nd cent. B.C. with Sun-
Crosses, Sun-horse, etc., and legend INARA (Hitto-
Phoenician Father-god Indara or "Andrew ").

(After Evans. E.C.B., 149, and see above, p. 317).

FIG. 75.-Tascio (Hercules) coin of Ricon ruling Briton clan.

(After Poste, and see E.C.B., 8, 6-8.)

Note the pentad "spears" as Tascio's sacred cup-mark uumber.

APPENDICES

I

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EARLY BRITON KINGS, FROM BRUTUS-
THE-TROJAN, ABOUT 1103 B.C., TO ROMAN PERIOD

Compiled from Early British Chronicles of Geoffrey of Monmouth
and Supplemented by Records of Dr. Powel, etc.1

THE fact that these complete and systematic chronological lists of the Early Briton kings, from the advent of Brutus downwards without a break, have been fully preserved by the Britons, implies familiarity with the use of writing from the earliest period of Brutus. And we have seen that King Brutus-the-Trojan and his Brito-Phoenicians were fully equipped with the knowledge and use of writing.

These chronological king-lists record the names and lengths of reign of the several paramount kings of Early Britain in unbroken, continuous succession from Brutus down to the Roman period of well-known modern history.

Their authenticity is attested not only by their own inherent consistency and the natural length of each reign in relation to the events recorded in the Chronicles, and by their general agreement with the few stray references by Roman writers to some of the later kings, and with the royal names stamped upon Early Briton coins, but also by their being confirmed by the royal names on several Early Briton coins, which names are unknown to Roman and other history; and these ancient coins had not yet been unearthed, and thus were unknown, at the period of Geoffrey and other early editors of these Chronicle lists of the Early Briton kings. Thus we shall see that they supply the key to the RVII" name stamped on some of the Briton coins, the identity of which name has not hitherto been recognized, but which is now disclosed as the "ARVI" title of Caractacus as recorded in the ancient Chronicles of Geoffrey and others, and in Roman contemporary literature and disclosing coins of Caractacus and other kings hitherto supposed to have no coinage. And they supply the date and position of two famous Ancient Briton sovereigns whose Codes of Laws were translated by King Alfred for the benefit of the Anglo-Saxons. These lists were also reputed sources of Tudor genealogy.'

The dates of reign are recorded, as is usual, with only few exceptions, in ancient dynastic lists, not in a special era, but merely in the line of consecutive years of the successive reigns. In order, therefore, to equate those regnal years to the Christian era (as there is no fixed or even approximate date known for the Homeric Fall of Troy to determine the initial date of Brutus), I have started from the datum point fixed by the tradition that Christ was born in the 22nd year of the reign of Cuno-belin' (No. 71 on list), a well-known Briton king whom both the Chronicles and his very

1 Powel and Harding's dated lists are respectively detailed by Borlase, op. cit., 404, etc., and are compared with others by Poste, Britannic Researches, 227, etc.

2 Powel, cited by Borlase, op. cit., 405, with reference to Henry VII.

3 Tradition recorded by Powel, see Borlase, op. cit., 406.

numerous coins place as the contemporary and protégé of the Roman emperor Augustus who reigned 27 B.C.-14 A.D., and thus included the epoch of the birth of Christ. This datum point, moreover, agrees fairly well with another fixed date, Cæsar's second invasion of Britain in 54 B.C., in regard to which Geoffrey's Chronicle records that Cassibellan died "seven years after that event, that is, in 47 B.C., which the Chronicle chronology, as now equated, places at 45 B.C., that is a variation of only two years, and there is this variation in the estimated birth-date of Christ. I have adopted the length of reigns recorded by Geoffrey as far as they go, as they are usually identical with those of Dr. Powel's lists, and for the remainder I have adopted Powel's regnal years in preference to those of Harding, as the latter presumably included as regnal years those years during which crown-princes acted as co-regents with their fathers, although the sum total of years between the accession of Brutus down to the period of Cassibellan in Powel and Harding respectively differs only by two years.' It is noteworthy that all the lengths of reign are perfectly natural terms of years, and the lists contain no supernatural lengths of reign such as disfigure some ancient chronologies which nevertheless are generally accepted as 'historical." It will also be seen that the Early Britons had already a highly-civilized king ruling in London before the Israelites had yet obtained a king.

The date for the birth of Christ introduced into the later versions of the British Chronicles by their earlier Christian editors was, of course, the traditional date for th beginning of the Christian era, and not the actual date of that event in 4 B.C. as estimated by modern historians. Geoffrey op. cit., 4, 11. See Borlase. op, cit., 406.