James Wills, Lives of Illustrious and Distinguished Irishmen [...] (1847)

[Sub-headings]: General Reasons for the Credibility of ancient Irish History Inferences from Languages From ancient Authority From Monuments Ancient state of Civilization. (Intro., pp.3-35.)

Many causes, of various degrees of importance, have contributed to render the history of Ireland difficult to the historian, and unpopular among the generality of readers. The remoteness and indistinctness of its beginnings the legendary character of its traditions the meagre and broken state of its more authentic annals have not, as in other modern countries, been remedied or counteracted by the industry of the historian. The disputes of antiquaries, the extravagant theories of some, the equally absurd scepticism of others, and the differences of opinion amongst all, have only produced the natural effect in causing a strong reluctance to seek information on a ground in which few seemed to agree. As the nature of our undertaking, which comprises the long and varied range of all that has any pretension to be regarded as authentic in Irish biography, imposes the necessity of commencing our labours in a period over which the lapse of ages has thrown much doubt and not a little indistinctness, we cannot better preface the first division of this work, than by the endeavour to satisfy our readers of the probability of the general truth of the ancient Irish history.

The history of Ireland is marked by peculiarities which do not affect that of any other country. it comprises the remotest extremes of the social state; and sets at nought the ordinary laws of social transition and progress, during the long intervals between them. Operated by a succession of external shocks, the internal advances, which form some part of all other history, have been wanting, and her broken and interrupted career, present a dream-like succession of capricious and seemingly unconnected change, without order or progress. But let scepticism make all reasonable deductions on the score of doubtful record or perplexed chronology, and refine away all that is too ponderous for its partial and one-sided grasp here a tradition, and there a broken monument still the country [4]. retains, indelibly stamped and widely abounding, characters which cannot be explained according to the simplest rules of right reason, but by referring them to the remotest ages of antiquity. The immemorial monuments the ancient superstitions the traditions descended from the common antiquity of the oldest races of mankind the living customs, and names of things and places traceable to these alone the ancient language the very population are actual remains of a state of things, which they as clearly represent, as the broad foundations, the massive pillars, and the gigantic archesof some wide-spread ruin attest the size and proportioins of the stately city of old time. To what precise point, in the scale of chronology, such indications are to be referred, we must leave to the professional antiquarians to settle: our object is but to combat the vulgar prejudice against our ancient history, and the common errors which have caused it. It is our wish to refer the intelligent reader, from the detached questions on which the subject has inadequately been brought before him, to the more just and comprehensive result of its collective evidence. The investigation of each separate class of ancient remains, may lead to a vast variety of specious inferences; but the true probability for the interpretation of each part, must be derived from its relation to the whole. When every single relic of our antiquity shall have been explained into something of more modern growth probably conjecture will still continue to restore it to the massive combination of antiquities from which it is forced only for the moment of some fashionable creed, which gain popularity of from the splendid caprices of talent. There is indeed no cause which has contributed more to the popularity of scepticism, than the real and imagined extravagance of antiquarian theories: when a large demand is made upon our faith, any attempt to lighten the exaction will be hailed with cordiality.

Among the popular impressions, unfavourable to the claim of our ancient history, the most prominent is due to the marked and clinging barbarism, which is the most characteristic feature of our middle ages. It seems difficult for incredulity to admit, that a race which, from the earliest period of the modern world from the date of the Danish settlement to the very date of our immediate ancestors in the beginning of the last century seems to have preserved the character of national infancy, can possibly have a claims to a mature antiquity, which antiquarians, however their creeds may differ, agree in affirming.

This fact is worth inquiry. Many of the causes of this anomalous combination of extremes lie on the surface. The fate of Ireland has been peculiar in this: that the same cause which partly contributed to her early civilization, was, in after times, the means of retarding her progress. We mean the circumstance of geographical position: more within the track of the Tyrian sail, than of the Roman eagle, the same position which exposed her shores to the approach of ancient commerce, must, to some extent, have isolated this country from the sweeping and onward mutations of the rest of the world.

The chances which, in earliest time, may have wafted to our coast such civilization as then existed, as they are beyond inquiry, so they are not worth it: they are but a very obvious part of the course of things, and cannot reasonably be the ground of objection or doubt; [5] so far it is enough that such things were. Assuming that this island was peopled at an early period, it will nearly follow, that the first rudiments of social civilization must have been imported by any people who were then likely to find her shores: for the barbarism of after ages sprung on from the ruins of an anterior civilization. The next step is far more easy. While the neighbouring islands, in common with the nations of Europe, were repeatedly swept over by various races and hordes or either invaders or settlers who desolated or usurped every country in proportion as it lay nearer to the main line of social change, and thus involved every land in the perpetual surge and eddy of this great human tide, brought on the barbarism so obviously consequent on continued change and confusion Ireland, comparatively sequestered from the inroads of change, long continued to maintain and cultivate the primitive arts and knowledge (whatever these were) transmitted by the parent country. To her peaceful shore the laws of religion, manners and customs, of some nation of antiquity, were brought; and when the neighbouring shores became the scenes of revolution and disorder, the same peaceful refuge received the kindred remains of many an ancient creed and family. Such literature as then existed, would probably begin to find its quiet centre, in the sequestered island; and, as the tumult of change began to settle among the neighbouring people, again to send forth on every side the light (such as it was) thus preserved. In all of this there is nothing that is not an easy consequence from the whole known history of the ancient world. A theoretical consequence, we grant; but it loses this questionable character the moment we look at the facts of history, the memorials of tradition, and the monuments of the land.

The very same fundamental fact will, by the same simple reasoning, account for the other phenomena which we have stated as opposed to this view. The same sequestered position which preserved the form and structure of early ages from the desolating current of universal change, that for some ages continued to bear away the broken ruins of antiquity in every other land; had, in the course of time, by the same means, the effect of shutting out those succeeding changes which were the steps of a new order of things. And while the surrounding nations brightened, by slow degrees, into the spring of a new civilization which, in point of fact, was but a step of human progress the civilization of elder times became itself but a barbaric monument of earlier ages. In Ireland, it is true, the history of successive invasions may, on a slight view, be referred to as opposed to this opinion. But it is not by such visitations that the modern civilization of nations has grown; but from the combination of a variety of common causes, all of them implying the continued and diffused action of change. A few adventurers might, with the advantage of inconsiderable resources, effect a settlement; but they cannot, under such circumstances, be imagined to have imported or communicated a comprehensive change of manners, religion, and law’s. They could not even be said to represent their country’s manners and learning; they could not be supposed to obtain the necessary influence, or even the necessary intercourse, with the natives; and though it might be anticipated that, in the course of a long period, their manners and customs would [6] be found to modify the national habits; yet, before this could happen, their descendants would have largely contracted the character of the native population.

The changes of European society, which together have contributed to form its modern state, were the numerous and successive shocks of war, invasion, subjugation, and the mingling minds, manners, and opinions of a hundred races, whirled together in the wide extended and long continued eddies of European change; and their quantum of effect on any nation must have, in a great measure, depended on the freedom and constancy of its intercourse with all the rest. course of Europe with Ireland was very peculiar, and is likely to be overrated by those who have viewed it only with reference to church antiquity. But it was not an intercourse commonly productive of extensive change. It was such an intercourse as may be held with a college or a church. The learned came to imbibe the scanty and erroneous knowledge; and the religious, the pagan superstitions of their age. The sacred repository of ancient opinion was venerated as the fountain head of sacred knowledge, until it became its tomb. But then, it was long left behind in the progress of nations, and lapsed into an obscurity bordering on oblivion.

Such are the conditions of the strange problem, about the opposite terms of which learned men have consumed much ink, and unlearned shrewdness much misplaced ridicule.

The impressions, from many causes, unfavourable to the fair reception of Irish antiquity, have been much aggravated by the unwarrantable omissions of some of our ablest historians. The observations of Dr Johnson, in his letter to Charles O’Connor, are worth repeating: “Dr Leland begins his history too late: the ages which deserve an exact inquiry, are those times (for such there were) when Ireland was the school of the West, the quiet habitation of sanctity and literature. If you could give a history, though imperfect, of the Irish nation, from its conversion to Christianity to the invasion from England, you would amplify knowledge with new views and new objects. Set about it therefore if you can: do what you can easily do without anxious exactness. Lay the foundation, and leave the superstructure to posterity.”*

The antiquity of Ireland offers the most singular and instructive study not merely to the systematizing antiquary, but to the general philosopher and historian, who takes it up for the strong light it reflects on the common antiquity of nations. The limited object of this work will not permit of our discussing, at large, the vast and curious field of authority on this important subject. Still less can we afford space for the volumes of ingenious conflicting speculations, which have found a fertile field of excursion in the obscurity of ancient monuments. concern with the subject has a limited purpose. The first persons with whom we are obliged to make our readers acquainted, stand far back within the shadow of antiquity; nor can we speak of them, without drawing much of our matter from the history of a state of the country, which may carry with it something more of the air of fabulous antiquity, than a large proportion of our readers may think consistent with [7] the sober simplicity, which we should willingly infuse throughout our pages, as the appropriate expression of historic truth.

*Boswell’s Johnson.

Much of the very common tone of scepticism which is manifested on the subject of Irish antiquity, is founded on that confined scope of mind, which is the general cause of scepticism in whatever form it appears. Some are involved in the difficulties which attend on partial views, and some are only difficult to convince, because they apply to the subject of Irish antiquity, a method of estimation which must equally reject all ancient history. The best resource against either of these errors, is, perhaps, to look attentively on the sum of evidence arising from the combined view of all the monuments and records of the past, to the careful exclusion of every system. The question will then stand thus: Whether there are or are not evidences of different kinds, by which the history of Ireland and its inhabitants can be traced back to a remote period, antecedent to any which belongs to the history of modern European nations? Such a question must, of course, involve in its detail all the special inquiries into the authenticity, or the import, of each special record or alleged monument; but when the whole is first laid together in one comprehensive view, much of the difficulty and complication attendant on such inquiries is likely to disappear. For the value and import of each allegation must undergo some modification from the connexion it may be found to have with a system of facts and evidences. The evidence arising from a single fact may be too vague and obscure to support any inference; or inferences contrary to those required by a probable theory may, with seemingly greater force, be drawn. But a main probability, arising from a sum of facts, may not only exclude this contrary inference, but even connect the seemingly hostile fact, with the reasoning it seemed to oppose, as the essential link of a chain of settled facts. It then not only receives an authentic stamp from this concurrence; but it gives much additional force to the whole chain of inference, and still more to the ultimate conclusion to which they legitimately conduct.

To state such a question, the testimonies of ancient authors, the traditions of the country, the customs and superstitions, the structure of the language, the names of places, and the monuments of the land, are the plainer and more tangible materials. To estimate these, there is no need for refined reasoning or minute and subtle investigation. Whatever separate weight may be attached to a few sentences of an ancient classic or to the fractured pillar, or rusted weapon or doubtful analogy of speech or custom; it will appear on the very surface, that there is a combination of phenomena, which belongs to the history of no other modern European land, and which, whatever may be its solution, excludes at least the analogies of modern history: and next, that these phenomena are such as to fall within the common analogy of another more ancient order of things.

The value of this simplification of the subject will be evident to those who have explored the voluminous range of writers, who have taken opposite views, in a field so fertile of controversy. There are indeed few subjects of human inquiry which have afforded more ample scope to the opposite errors of reason: the enthusiastic imagination, that beholds towers and temples, and the whole gorgeous moving scene of [8] human existence, in the distant clouds of ages receding into oblivion; the superficial but vivacious acuteness, that sees nothing but the atom on which the microscope of a small mind is directed, and exhibits its petty ingenuity, in reconciling, on false assumptions, the small portion which it comprehends, and denying the rest. The real importance of such a method extends, indeed, far beyond the limited subject of this dissertation; as it might be usefully extended to the erroneous school of history which disgraces the literature of the age.

A little impartial attention, thus directed to the subject of ancient Irish history, would dissolve many intricate knots, in which some of our very best guides have now and then entangled themselves: of this we shall presently offer some instances. But it is time to descend into the particulars. Of our view it perhaps may be now unnecessary to premise, that it is our object merely to exhibit an outline of the subject. To do this with less embarrassment, we shall exclude the consideration of the separate facts and opinions to be adduced, further than in their relation to the whole. So far as we shall be obliged to transgress this rule in a few important points, we shall take occasion to bring forward the statement of some authoritative writer. This will be the more necessary, as a great portion of our readers cannot be presumed to be sufficiently acquainted with our neglected history, to attach the proper weight to a merely general statement.

The records, of whatever class, which agree in referring the origin of the Irish population to a remote antiquity, are the only distinct traces to be found of the early history of the country. A different course of events must have left other traditions. Again; in every nation to which there is a history, the beginnings of that history are distinctly traced on the authority of some authentic records unless in those cases in which all historians are agreed in attributing an immemorial antiquity: to this class may be referred India, Egypt, Persia, &c. So far, therefore, it is plain enough, that the early history of Ireland is, until the contrary shall be shown, referrible to the latter class, and not to the former. The traditions of the country affirm an extreme antiquity the existing remains of ancient time correspond to this affirmation - the testimonies of ancient writers incidentally confirm the same pretension - the language of the people is itself not only a monument of a remote and aboriginal antiquity, but indicates the very race affirmed by tradition the remains of ancient superstition the variety of names of places and things, with the old customs, reconcileable with ancient rites and superstitions, and having no reference to any thing within the compass of modern history: all these, when taken in their full force, have separately a nearly conclusive weight; and together, set all rational scepticism at defiance. The reader must here recollect, that, so far, the inference is not one in favour of any particular system of Irish antiquity; it is simply the affirmation, that such a remote antiquity, as our historians claim, is to be admitted, whether it can be distinctly ascertained or not.

But when this point is gained, it will be quickly observed by the intelligent reasoner, that nothing remains worth the sceptic’s disputing. If we admit the general assertion of an origin which must at all events synchronize with the ancient races of mankind, there can be nothing [9] incredible in the conclusion which fixes any ancient race as the primal colonists of the land; though there may be something absurd in the effort to arrive at inferences totally inconsistent with this general admission. In the best evidence to be derived from tradition, or accidental notice of historians, or any other ancient record or monument not falling within the scope of full historical consent, there must be some degree of doubt. The origin of such memorials is questionable, or their imputed antiquity doubtful. But the case of Irish antiquity is something different from one of forced constructions and isolated testimonies. It is a case, having all the evidence that it admits of, to establish an inference of itself previously probable; and not encumbered by the adverse circumstances of any other construction to be set in opposition. If the Irish race is not to be deduced, according to the claims of its annalists and poets, it cannot be deduced in any other way. And the deduction of its annalists and poets, though vitiated by all sorts of extravagance, has yet a fundamental agreement with probability, which demands a general consent.

The highest degree of historical evidence, it must be recollected, has only existence in our example, in which a mass of parallel and correspondent narrations and documents, published by contemporaries, are, from the very period, confirmed by institutions, vast social changes, multiplied and lasting controversies, and authenticated by numerous copies, and the still more numerous citations of a series of writers, reaching down the whole interval ages. From this high approach to certainty, there is a descent through innumerable degrees of evidence, till we reach the legendary mixtures of fact and fable, which hang, with a cloudy indistinctness, about the twilight of barbaric tradition. But in all these lessening degrees, there is, to historic reason, a pervading thread of evidence of another order, and consisting in the analogy of our nature, and that analogy which is to be extracted from the traditions of all nations.

These considerations would lead us far from our direct purpose, which is, with the utmost brevity and simplicity in our power, to connect them with the questions which have been raised upon the early history of Ireland. To these we shall now proceed.

That all nations, of which the origin does not fall within the periods of modern history, have shown the natural disposition to claim a remote ancestry in, or beyond the earliest traditions of the human race, is a fact easily proved by an extensive induction. But it is also true that such pretensions must be within certain limits, agreeable to the general truth, which must so infer the origin of all. It is not about the fact, but about the authority and the particular account, that the objection can lie. Were we therefore to take up the extreme positions of those enthusiastic writers who have chosen to begin before the flood, it is not on the score of possibility, or even probability, that we are fairly entitled to impeach their assertions. It is simply a question as to the authority for affirmations which are in themselves not unlikely to come near the truth. In opposition to this truth, the objections of the sceptic have been too much aimed at the conclusion, and too little at the statements of evidence on which it rests. This fact may be illustrated by an observation of Plowden’s: “Not one of [10] those,” writes Plowden, “who deny, or even question, the general authenticity of the ancient history of Ireland, from Gerald Barry to the Rev. James Gordon, has offered an objection to any one of their philological observations and inferences. Most of them profess, and all of them are believed, to be ignorant of the Irish language.“

Language. When it exists to a sufficient extent, there is no evidence so authoritative as language. The exploits of visionary philologists have communicated to sober persons a not unwarranted distrust in a science confused by so much ingenuity. But setting this apart, the distrust it can reflect on the simplest and clearest inferences which such investigations can afford, must be described as the opposite extreme of prejudice. It is universally allowed, that the Irish language has an origin beyond the period of authentic modern history: and this, to go no farther, settles, beyond dispute, the remote antiquity of the race to which it is peculiar, and lays a firm foundation for the successive steps of inference by which that race can be more closely identified with the known races of antiquity. The affinity of this language with that of other people who are derived from the Celtic stock, and its entire freedom from analogous relations with the Roman, Greek, and other fundamental languages of the modern nations, guide, with unerring certainty, to the next generally admitted step namely, the Celtic descent of the Irish.

On this point, we believe, there now exists little, if any, difference of opinion, and it needs not here be argued further, than by the statement of the opinions of some of our most recent writers, who having been expressly engaged in the study of the subject have given their opinions on a full review of the best authorities. “There appears to be no doubt,” says Mr Moore, “that the first inhabitants of Ireland were derived from the same Celtic stock which supplied Gaul, Britain, and Spain, with their original population. Her language, and the numerous monuments she still retains of that most ancient superstition, which the first tribes who poured from Asia into Europe are known to have carried with them wherever they went, must sufficiently attest the true origin of her people. Whatever obscurity may hang round the history of the tribes that followed this first Eastern swarm, and however opinions may still vary, as to whether they were of the same, or of a different race, it seems at least certain, that the Celts were the first inhabitants of the Western parts of Europe; and that, of the language of this most ancient people, the purest dialect now existing is the Irish.” Cab. Cyc. Hist. Ire. i. [I.e., Moore’s History of Ireland, Vol. I, 1834.)

From the same writer, whose work abounds with proofs of industry in the collection of authorities, we shall offer another attestation to the same purport, which bears yet more immediately on the point to be here illustrated. “Abundant and various as are the monuments to which Ireland can point, as mute evidences of her antiquity, she boasts a yet more striking proof in the living language of her people, - in that most genuine, if not only existing dialect, of the oldest of all European tongues the tongue which, whatever name it may be called by, according to the various theories respecting it, whether Japhetan, Cimmerian, Pelasgic, or Celtic, is accounted most generally to have been the earliest brought from the East, by the Noachida, and accordingly [11] to have been the vehicle of the first knowledge that dawned upon Europe. In the still written and spoken dialect of this primeval language, we possess a monument of the high antiquity of the people to whom it belongs, which no cavil can reach, nor any doubts disturb.” Some of the curious and instructive authorities, with which Mr Moore has illustrated these remarks, should not in justice be omitted. One of these may appropriately lead to the notice of a curious discovery, which, it appears to us, that Mr Moore is inclined to undervalue on rather insufficient grounds.

Two confirmations of the antiquity and Eastern origin of the Irish language, mentioned by antiquaries, are the gutturals with which it is so strongly characterized, and the singular coincidence by which its alphabet seems identified with that brought by Cadmus from Phonicia into Greece. On the latter of these points we shall be content to borrow a single quotation from Huddlestone, on the authority of Mr Moore. “If the Irish had culled or selected their alphabet from that of the Romans [an assumption by which this coincidence has been explained], how, or by what miracle, could they have hit on the identical letters which Cadmus brought from Phoenicia, and rejected all the rest? Had they thrown the dice sixteen times, and turned up the same number every time, it would not have been so marvellous as this.” This identity (if it exist) cannot be due to chance. It must arise from the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet, or from the same language having suggested the same letters. The latter inference is absurd; but either must lead to the same conclusion.

But the next point, of which this is valuable as a confirmation, is the real or supposed discovery of Vallancey, on the coincidence of the Irish language with some passages of an ancient unknown tongue, supposed to be the ancient Phoenician, and given as such in an ancient drama, the Pœnulus of Plautus. A coincidence so startling, is likely to awaken suspicion, and draw forth opposition in proportion to its value, as confirmatory of any historic inference. It is fair to preface it here by stating, that it is questioned by authoritative linguists and antiquaries: but we may add, that the objections which we have heard or read, are not conclusive enough to warrant our rejection of so important an illustration of our antiquity. The chief of these we shall notice, but first we may state the facts. The Pœnulus of Plautus contains about twenty five lines of a foreign language, put by the dramatist into the mouth of Phoenicians; but which has ever since continued to defy the research of etymologists. By a fortunate thought, the sagacity of Vallancey, or of his authority (for his claim to originality is doubted), hit upon a key to the difficulty. By attending to the vocal formations of these lines, they were found, without any transposition of sound, to be resolvable into words, exhibiting but slight differences from the Irish language; and by the comparison thus suggested, they were, by several persons, translated into a sense, such as the suppositions of the drama required. As the experiment was repeated, with the same result, on persons having no correspondence with each other, and ignorant of the nature of the trial, two very strong confirmations were thus obtained: one from the coincidence of the interpretations with each other, and the other [12] from the coincidence of all with the sense of the drama, and the translation given by Plautus. If this statement be true, we submit, that the case so made out, must set aside all objections. These coincidences, of which we shall presently offer some satisfactory examples, are materially confirmed, by a fact which seems at first to bear the opposite construction. A similar comparison with the Hebrew is productive of a result of the same nature, but with a far inferior degree of coincidence, both in sense and sound. With a specimen of this we shall not need to detain the reader: the object of our noticing, is to point out, and still more to meet the prejudice, which it seems to raise against the argument. The direct inference in our favour is but slight being the general confirmation of the affinity between the Irish and the Hebrew, an affinity by which it is, in a similar manner, connected with most other ancient Asiatic tongues. This has been distinctly traced by many writers, as well as by Vallancey, but our cursory purpose does not admit of entering into so expansive a field of etymological learning. The fact may, however, conduce to an object which we cannot thus pass by the explanation of the seeming objection which seems to arise from the possibility of thus resolving the same lines into different languages. It seems, on the mere statement, to give an arbitrary character to all the interpretations, not reconcileable with any distinct or certain inference. But the objection, if admissible in its full force (which it is not), is met by the near affinity of all the languages which can be so applied; an affinity which may be indeed measured by the approach to coincidence in the third or common medium thus supposed. A moment’s recollection of the nature of language, as addressed to the ear and not the eye, will enable the reader to understand the proposition: that all language is a succession of sounds, not distinguished by the divisions of writing, or by any divisions in the nature of separation; but by syllables, distinguished by a vocal formation, which compels the organs of speech to utter them in distinct articulations. Hence, if this be rightly understood, the formation of a supposed language, by an arbitrary division of letters, is impossible. To effect this object, the division must be strictly syllabic, and admits of but the few and simple variations which belong to languages which have the closest affinity: all possible divisions offer but one succession of syllabic sounds.

But the supposed objection can scarcely be admitted to exist. The verses in the Panula may be decomposed into Hebrew sounds, and translated, by some force on words, into a sense not inconsistent with the design of Plautus. But the Irish approaches to the near coincidence of a dialect, and gives the full and accordant interpretation of the lines in Plautus, as translated in Plautine Latin. But this is not all: the same inference is supported as clearly through the dialogue of a scene in the same play. We shall now offer specimens of both, beginning with the scene, as least commonly to be met with in the writers who have noticed the subject.

* Vallancey’s Collectanea, vol. ii. 306, et seq

In the second Scene of the fifth Act of the Pœnulus, the following dialogue occurs: -

[13]

Passing over some remarkable coincidences of the same kind, we come to some which exhibit the remarkable fact, that Plautus, who borrowed the scene from an earlier drama, did not understand the language thus quoted, or seem aware how it applied to the direct purpose of his dialogue. The Phoenician, it should be stated, is one who has been bereaved of his children: -

The interpreter, in the drama, gives the following explanation:

One extract more we must not omit, as containing a coincidence of a different kind, but not less important to another portion of this argument: -

HAN. Gun ebel Balsemeni ar a san. Irish: Guna bil Bal samen ar a son. O that the good Balsamen may favour them!

It would be easy, from the same source, to pursue these quotations with others leading to the same curious inference. We must, however, content ourselves for the present with a few taken a little further on, which we give as usually found in the essays written on the subject: Punic. Bythim mothym moelothii ne leathanti diœsmachon,

As arranged by Vallancey: -

Byth lym! Mo thym nocto thii nel ech anti daise machon. Irish. Beith liom. Mothime noctaithe niel acanti daisic mac coine. English. Be with me: I have no other intention but of recovering my daughter.

[14]

The last we shall give is literally coincident with the Irish: -

Handone silli hanum bene, silli in mustine. English.“Whenever she grants a favour, she grants it linked with misfortunes.”

The question here stated, and so far explained for the reader’s decision, was put to a test of the most rigid kind, by different inquirers, amongst whom Dr Percy, the celebrated bishop of Dromore, may be mentioned particularly. He mentions in the preface to his great work, that he set different persons to translate the lines in Plautus, by their knowledge of the Irish language: and, without any previous preparation, or any communication with each other, they all gave the same sense. Recent writers have treated this argument with undeserved slight. If the inference is to be rejected, all reference to the class of proof to which it belongs must be rejected: and we must confess, that notwithstanding the great learning and ability with which his argument is followed out, we are surprised at an elaborate parallel between Irish and Hebrew, in a recent writer, who rejects, by compendious silence, a parallel so much more obvious and complete. But a writer of higher note demands the few remarks which we dare to add to this discussion, already grown beyond the measure of a prefatory essay. The coincidences which Mr Moore calls casual, are not such as to admit of a term which annihilates all the pretensions of the closest affinities of language, and which violates also the demonstrative laws of probability: insomuch, that if, as Mr Moore affirms, the admission of the inference proves too much, we very much fear that so much as it proves must be admitted, though it should discomfit a little political theory. The reasoning adopted by Mr Moore (who does not, we suspect, attach much real weight to it) can be reduced to a very easy dilemma. The objection is this: that the “close conformity” attempted to be established between the Irish and Phoenician, does not allow sufficiently for the changes which language must be supposed to undergo in the six centuries between Plautus and the foundation of Carthage; and also, that Ireland should not only have been colonized directly from Carthage, but have also retained the language unaltered through so many centuries. The actual principle on which the real weight of this objection hangs, is the assumption of the necessity of the continual and uniform alteration of language in the course of time. Now, there is either a considerable difference between the languages compared by Vallancey, or there is not. If there is so much as reduce the comparison merely to a casual resemblance, this portion of the objection fails, on the ground that such a difference is a sufficient alteration for 600 years to have accomplished. If, on the contrary, there is so little difference as to answer the purpose of such an objection, it becomes altogether nugatory: if in this case the lines in Plautus be admitted as genuine, the Irish and Phoenician languages are the same: and the doubtful chronology must give way to the settled fact. But, in point of fact, the comparison in question, while it clearly establishes the close relation of dialects of a common language, exhibits full alteration enough for 600 years. The alterations of language are by no means proved to be uniform, but depend on many circumstances both in the character and history of a people. To estimate the law of change and the change of language depends on all others requires [15] much power of abstracting the mind from the notions acquired in the recent order of things. The laws of social progression have, since the end of the 18th century, undergone an alteration which continues to baffle calculation. The extraordinary disruptions and revolutions of ancient empires must, in numberless instances, have produced the most rapid alterations in habits, religion, language: but there was no rate of internal progress in the domestic history of any ancient nation which demands more allowance in the change of dialect, than is apparent in the case under consideration. This consideration derives some added weight from one frequently noticed by Mr Moore: namely, the natural tenacity of the Celtic disposition - a tenacity which is most remarkable in the Irish branch, and therefore probably in their Phœnician kindred: being, in fact, one of the great common characteristics of Oriental origin. In a word, on this point, we cannot admit that the question of time can be reasonably adopted as a criterion on this question. Of all the difficulties in the investigation of antiquity, those attending chronology are by far the greatest; and, when certain other tests not very abundant are wanting, the most dependent upon the previous decision of a variety of questions and the comparison of a multitude of slight probabilities. Such difficulties as the uncertain chronology of periods and people, of which our knowledge is but inferential and traditionary, cannot be suffered to interfere with the conclusions from the plainest affinity of language - preserved traditions - authenticated historical notices - and existing monuments. And if we are to be scrupulous in receiving the theories and systems of antiquarian fancy, we are, in like manner, bound to be cautious not to err on the other extreme, by lightly suffering theory equally unfounded to form the ground of our scepticism. The theory of human progress, were it to be reasoned out from a comprehensive view of the history of mankind, should itself depend on the comparison of facts of this nature. The rate of national change is, in any period, only to be ascertained from phenomena, of which the language of each period is by far the most available and certain test; as being an instrument most immediately affected by all the changes and peculiarities of nationality. We are reluctant to dwell on a subject which, to most of our readers, can have little interest; but we have also to remark, that the actual amount of change which the Phoenician language may have undergone in the 600 years supposed, is not to be measured by the language of poetry, proverb, or general moral sayings. To affect these there must be a rapid change of the moral character of a nation, and even thus the effects are comparatively slight, from the more permanent nature of moral notions. The changes to which the Phoenician people were most, but still comparatively little subject, must have arisen from the intercourse of commerce and the increase of luxury and chiefly acted on the names of things and the operations of art. It is to be remembered, that the greatest changes language can be ascertained to have undergone, were from a cause not connected with time, but violent interference. But we are transgressing our limits and our humbler province: we shall now, as briefly as we can, lay before our readers the traditionary authorities, which derive much added weight from the above consideration. [16]

Ancient Authority. We should next offer a sketch of the ancient historic remains of Phoenicia, as from such a view might be drawn some of the most important corroborations of the common inference of our Irish antiquaries in favour of the Phoenician colonization of the country. But, anxious to preserve the brevity which should characterize a discussion merely incidental to our main design, we must be content to append the simple outline which a few sentences may contain. Historians are agreed in attributing to the Phoenicians the origin of commerce and navigation; but it is enough that their history presents the earliest elements and first records of these great steps of human progress. For ages, they had no rivals on the sea; and as neighbouring states rose into that degree of prosperity which extends to commercial wants, the Phoenicians were still the carriers of other people. Situated on a rocky and confined tract of territory between Libanus and the sea, there was probably added to the enterprise of commerce, that overflow of people which causes migration; and in direct cause of these conditions there arises a very high probability, that they would be the first discoverers, and the earliest colonists, of distant islands only accessible by the accident of navigation. As this previous probability is itself of a very high order, so any circumstances tending to confirm it, being in themselves but probable consequences, both receive from, and impart considerable strength to, the same conclusion.

Of such a nature is the affinity of language so fully proved in the last section. To this we may add the consent of tradition, and the agreement, to a certain extent, of authorities.

On the latter topic we shall say little. There is satisfactory reason, why much stress cannot be justly laid on express historical authority in either way. This period of the early occupation of Ireland by her Celtic inhabitants, and of her probable colonization from Phoenicia, is not properly within the limits of authentic history. Before the earliest of the Greek historians, to whom we are indebted for the first distinct notices of the island, a period of civilization and, perhaps, of commercial importance, had passed away. The power and glory of Phoenicia itself was gone - the relations of the civilized world and the form of civil society had changed: Ireland had passed into a phase of obscurity, and was mentioned but incidentally, or as a remote and unimportant portion of the known world. Such notices. must needs have been slight, and for the same reason liable both to important oversights and misstatements. This consideration must, to the fair reasoner, suggest a special rule of historical construction, which, before noticing these authorities, we must endeavour to explain.

The assumption of the kind of ignorance here explained, suggests the inference that such accounts, while founded on some remains of an authoritative nature then extant - but remote, obscure, imperfect, and neither fully known or distinctly understood - must necessarily be affected by consequent misrepresentations: and that therefore, allowing a foundation in truth, they must be understood subject to the corrections to be derived from other sources of inference, and to be considered still as authoritative, so far as they can be confirmed by such a comparison. Into this comparison it is needless to enter formally: it is, when stated, so nearly the obvious common sense of the [17] subject, that the plainest reader may be safely left to apply it. Its main application is to account for the scanty notice of the early historians, who appear to have given so disproportionate an importance to the surrounding countries; and also for the existence of the adverse testimonies of Pomponius and Solinus, Strabo and Diodorus. Of these writers it may be observed, that the times in which they wrote, fall within a period in which the Irish nation had sunk both into barbarism and obscurity. It was also a period when the general ignorance which existed as to the greater portion of the world, exposed not only the geographer but the historian to the evils of credulity: where so much must have been received on trust, and so many false notions corrupted the little that was known; there was both a facility in the reception of vague report, and the adoption of hasty inference on insufficient grounds. The temptations to fill up a blank of slight seeming importance, in an anxious work of extensive and laborious inquiry, would, in the absence of that minutely searching and jealous observation which now guards the integrity of writers, make such temptations less likely to be resisted. But even with these allowances, there is, properly, nothing in the authorities called adverse, to impair the moderate view which we are inclined to adopt.

Our best authorities substantially concur in the opinion, that this country was, at a remote period, the scene of the highest civilization in that period existing. From this state it appears to have slowly decayed into a state of barbarism, in which little of that earlier civilization but its monuments remained. Of this, we must say more in our next section: we mention it here, as explaining more distinctly to readers who are not professedly conversant with the subject, the confusion which is to be found in all that numerous class of writers, of the last century, in their incidental notices of the subject of Irish antiquities. Assuredly the laws of human nature are sometimes overlooked in the eagerness of controversy. The inconsistencies discovered in the traditions of our ancient race, are admitted facts in the history of others. The very characteristic marks of extreme antiquity are made objections to the claim. Ancient civilization, altogether different from that of any time within the limits of modern history, is uniformly stamped with features to which may be applied the expressive term barbaric - conveying a sense different from the rudeness of the savage state. Characters of profound knowledge, high mental development, and mechanic skill, are accompanied by wants and manners now confined to the savage state. And thus may the scepti cal inquirer always find materials ready for the manufacture of easy contradictions.

With regard to Ireland, the vicissitudes of many centuries have brought with them sad reverse. And the downright barbarism into which she has been crushed by a succession of dreadful revolutions - the ceaseless vortex of internal strife - have been mistaken by shallow observers for national characters. This is among the large class who take no interest in the history of Ireland - the main source of mistake upon the subject: they see, but do not learn or think; and therefore see but half, and are presumptuously or ignorantly wrong.

It is unquestionably to be admitted, that much of the common scepticism, [18] which we have here noticed, is due to the extravagance of writers on Irish history, who, combining enthusiasm with profound historical ignorance, have misinterpreted the proofs of Irish civilization, into a degree and kind of civilization which never had existence; confusing the additions of poetry and the dreams of fancy, with the slender basis of fact on which they are built. Such are the gorgeous chimeras which ornament and discredit the narrations of Walker, Keating, O’Halloran; while Ledwich and Pinkerton, with more seeming reason, but less truth, adopt the safe and easy rule of comprehensive incredulity.

But there is a juster and safer middle course which will be found to exact neither rash admissions or rejections. It sets out on two wellgrounded conclusions, into which the strongest oppositions of fact will fall, disarmed of their opposition. The first, thus already explained: the admission of a previous period of civilization, followed by one of barbarism; the other, a known fact common to the ancient history of nations, the co existence of high degrees of civilization in some respects, with the lowest barbarism in others. With the help of these two plain assumptions, there is nothing in the alleged antiquity of Ireland to be objected to on the score of improbability. By duly weighing these reflections, we have some trust that the general reader will not be repelled from the subject, by the reputed discrepancies and confusion of old historians. The effort to fill up a period of hopeless obscurity, by extending back the vague and traditionary accounts of the more recent period, immediately anterior to Christianity, has been, we believe, a main source of error and delusion, on which, at a future stage of our labour, we shall offer a few remarks.

The earliest notice, which the industry of students of Irish antiquity seem to have ascertained, occurs in a Greek poem, of which the supposed date is five hundred years before the Christian era.“There seems,” observes Mr Moore, “to be no good reason to doubt the antiquity of this poem.“ Archbishop Usher says, in adverting to the notice it contains of Ireland, “the Romans themselves could not produce such a tribute to their antiquity.“ In this poem, Ireland is mentioned under the Celtic appellation Iernis; and this, according to Bochart, on the authority of the Phoenicians - as the Greeks had not then acquired a knowledge of islands as yet inaccessible to them. This assertion derives some added weight from the omission of any notice, in the same poem, of the neighbouring island of Britain. Herodotus affords an additional gleam, by informing us of the only fact he knew respecting the British isles that tin was imported from them; while he was ignorant of their names. From these two notices, it seems an easy inference, that they were places of high commercial importance to the great mistress of the seas; while the Greeks, ignorant at that time of navigation, had no popular, or even distinct knowledge of them; and the more so, from the well known secrecy observed by the Phoenicians, in all things concerning their commercial places of resort. From Strabo we obtain a lively picture, which bears the marks of truth, of their jealous vigilance in preserving a naval supremacy, which must, in those early periods, have depended, in a great measure, on the ignorance of the surrounding states. If at any time, when at sea, [19] they fell in with the vessels of any other people, or discovered a sail upon their track, all the resources of art and daring were used to deceive the stranger, and mislead conjecture. For this purpose, no danger or violence was too great, and the loss of ship or life was not considered too great a sacrifice to the security of their monopoly of the islands. From this it appears unlikely that much, or very distinct notice of the British isles should occur in the early writings of the Greeks; and the value of the slightest is much increased, by the consideration, that more could not reasonably be looked for. The first of these notices of the two islands, is met in a work which has been sometimes attributed to Aristotle, but which, being dedicated to Alexander, is of that period. In this they are mentioned by their Celtic names of Albion and Ierne.

A notice far more express occurs in a writer of far later date; yet, bearing the authentic stamp of authority of a period comparatively early. At some time between the ninety second and hundred and twentyninth Olympiad, the Carthaginians sent out two maritime expeditions to explore, more minutely, the eastern and western coasts of the world, as then known to them. Of these, that led by Himilco was directed to the Western Islands. Both of these voyagers left accounts of their voyages and discoveries, of which those written by Himilco were inserted in the Punic Annals. From these Festus Avienus, who wrote his poem, De Oris Maritimis, some time in the fourth century, affirms himself to have derived his accounts of the western coasts; and, indeed, asserts an acquaintance with the original Journal. In this account, Himilco is described as coasting the Spanish shores the known Phoenician course to these islands; and stretching from the nearest point across to the Æstrumnides, or Scilly Islands. These are described, in the sketch of the geographical poet, as two days’ voyage from the larger Sacred Island of the Hiberni, near which the island of the Albiones lies.

Ast hinc duobus in sacram sic Insulam Dixere prisci, solibus cursus rati est. Hæc inter undas multum cespitem jacit Eamque late gens Hibenorum colit Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet.— Tartesiisque in terminos Æstrumnidum Negociandi mos erat, Carthaginis Etiam colonis, et vulgus inter Herculis Agitans columnas hæc adibant æquora. —Avienus, De Or. Mar.

In this ancient poem, which has all the authority which can be attributed to the ancient records of the annalists of any country, the description of the place, the colonists, and the ancient trade - the Sacred Island - its natives, with their manners, customs, and the peculiarities of soil and climate - are traced with a truth which vindicates the genuineness of the authority. The intercourse of the Phonician colonies of Spain is marked with equal distinctness.

It has been, from considerations in no way recondite, proved by Heeren, that Ptolemy’s geographical work, must have been derived from Phoenician or Tyrian authorities.* It proves a knowledge of Ireland [20] more minute and early than that of the other British isles. For while his accounts are vitiated by numerous topographical errors in describing these, his description of Ireland, on the contrary, has the minuteness and accuracy of an elaborate personal survey. This, considering that Ireland was at this period unknown within the bounds of the Roman Empire, plainly shows the ancient as well as the intimate character of his authority. This observation seems confirmed also by the peculiarity of giving the old Celtic names to the localities of Ireland, while Britain is described by the Roman names of places. Another ancient geographer† states, that in the earlier periods of Phoenician commerce, the western promontories of Europe were distinguished by three sacred pillars, and known by ancient religious Celtic names. To these must be added the well known testimony of Tacitus. In his Life of Agricola, mentioning the conquest of Britain, he describes it by its position opposite the coast of Hibernia. Describing the latter, he mentions its position:

Medio inter Britanniam atque Hispaniam sita, et Gallico quoque mari opportuna, valentissimam imperii partem magnis nobilem usibus miscuerit... Solum cæclumque, et ingenia cultusque hominum, haud multum a Britannia differunt: Melius aditus portusque per commercia et negociatores cogniti.

The force of the last sentence has been attempted to be removed, by referring the word melius to the former clause of the sentence. The correction has been justly rejected on consideration of style; it is still more objectionable, as it would destroy a sense confirmed by other authority, for one at variance with all; and, also, in some measure inconsistent with the context of the historian, who begins his paragraph by the emphatic description of the new conquest: “Nave prima transgressus, ignotas ad id tempus gentes.” It is indeed quite evident, that there is a distinct and designed opposition between the two descriptive sentences, of which the latter has a reference to the former. The roads and ports, better known by commercial intercourse and to merchants, is altogether, and even strikingly at variance with the nations unknown till then. And the correction supposes a vagueness of style inconsistent with the known character of the writer.

* The fact appears from Ptolemy, who refers to Maximus Tyrius.
† Strabo.

We cannot, in this discourse, dwell at greater length on a topic capable of much extension, and have confined our notice to the more generally known writers. We think, however, that it is quite sufficiently conclusive, that there was an early intercourse between Phonician traders and Ireland; that there may also have been at some period, of which the time cannot be distinctly ascertained, a Phoenician colony settled in the island; by whom, it is in a high degree probable, the Phoenician language, letters, and religious rites, were introduced. These we state as moderate inferences, from the authorities exemplified in this section. Most of them, however, are more conclusively inferred from other considerations.

Sanchoniathon, a reputed Phoenician historian, the supposed remains of whose history are preserved by Eusebius, furnishes an account of the early superstitions of the Phoenicians, which, by comparison, manifest remarkable coincidences with those which can be traced to the [21] heathen antiquity of Ireland. This work rests, however, on doubtful grounds; inasmuch as it is, by some learned writers, supposed to be the forgery of Philo Byblius, its alleged translator from the Phoenician original. This is therefore the point of importance. The nature and value of the testimony to be derived from it, scarcely warrant a minute and critical re examination of the question: but we may state the reasons on which it has been thought proper to set aside even this quantum of our argument. The absence of all previous notice of a work, affirmed to be written before the Trojan war, until its translation by Philo Byblius, seems to discredit the assertion of its previous existence; and this the more, as it seems only to have been brought to light, by the only testimony we have for it, for the purpose of supplying an argument against Christianity. These reasons are of no weight: the obscurity of a Phoenician mythological work, in the time of Philo, was too likely a circumstance to be made an objection of; and the supposed argument is obliged to be given up, as unsustained by his authority, by the acute Porphyry. The errors which have been detected in the chronology, amount to no valid objection to the genuineness of the work. Stillingfleet, who exposes them with much learning and acuteness, does not think so. A copy of Sanchoniathon’s work is said to have been recently discovered in Germany, and is now in process of translation.* The worship and early religious opinions of the Phoenicians, as described by this author, so nearly resemble the ancient superstitions of the heathen Irish, that the attention of antiquaries was drawn to the subject, by the points of resemblance, before actual investigation confirmed the conjecture of their original causes of the resemblance. The worship of Baal may be considered as a sufficiently authentic character of both, not, indeed, resting on the authority of any doubtful writer. The Phoenicians worshipped the sun under this name, and celebrated the vigil of their annual festival by kindling a great fire: the same custom is familiar to every one, who knows the country, as an Irish custom. Dr Parsons, who describes it with the accuracy of an antiquary, observes, “In Ireland, the 1st of May is observed with great rejoicings by all those original people through the kingdom; and they call May day Bealtine, Beltine, or Balteine, the meaning of which is, “the fire of Baal.” Mr Plowden observes, that the analogies and coincidences” between the still existing customs of the Irish, and the history of Sanchoniathon, are very striking; and, we would here observe, in addition to our previous remarks on the genuineness of that ancient writer, that as it could not have been forged for the purpose of this comparison, such coincidences are, to a certain extent, confirmatory of its authority; and, at all events, indicate a common fountain of authentic tradition from which the history of the ancient Phoenician worship must have been drawn. The Old Testament may have supplied an accurate outline, but no more. It can scarcely be supposed to supply a clue to details which are so faithfully reflected in the existing customs of the Irish people. The sun and moon were, it appears, worshipped under the appellations of Bel and Samhin; and O’Halloran has observed, that [22] the most cordial wish of blessing among the Irish peasantry is, “ The blessing of Samen and Bel be with you.“ The Latin translator of Eusebius, remarks on the Phoenician word Bel Samen, that Baal Schamain among the Hebrews has the same signification; and Plowden remarks also, that in the Punic lines, to which we have already referred, this familiar invocation of the great deity of the Phoenicians twice occurs.

* Report of Proceedings in the Royal Irish Academy.

Plutarch mentions an island in the neighbourhood of Britain, inhabited by a holy race of people. Diodorus is more particular: he describes an island over against Gaul, which answers to the description of Ireland, both as to position and extent, as well as the habits and peculiarities of its people. “This island,” he says, “was discovered by the Phoenicians, by an accidental circumstance; “ and adds, “the Phoenicians, from the very remotest times, made repeated voyages thither, for of commerce.”* purposes He also mentions the rites of sun worship, the round temples, the study of the heavens, and the harp. These particulars, Mr Moore thinks, he may possibly have learned from the occasional report of Phoenician merchants; while he is at the same time inclined to rank the hyperborean island of the historian, along with his island of Panchea, and other such fabulous marvels. There is, we admit, ground for this. But even allowing for the fictitious colouring, which so largely qualifies the statements of this historian, we are on our part inclined to estimate them by a principle, which, from the extent of its application, cannot be lost sight without mistake: the value which separate testimonies derive from their concurrence with universal consent.

* Quoted from Dalton’s Essay. [23]

The fanciful colouring of the writer is, in the class of cases here supposed, invariably grounded on some origin in reality. To draw the line between the fancy and the fact, might be impossible; but the object is here different: our immediate argument does not require the minute estimation of the writer’s character, and the confirmation of every portion of his statement. Even the scenery and outline of a fable may be confirmatory or illustrative of the localities and incidents of history; and, if the coincidence be sufficient, become historical. The account of Diodorus, offered as history, has the sufficient value of accordance with various notices and testimonies; and is to be regarded as an indication of a received opinion, not in the slightest degree impaired by the author’s known lubricity of statement. In the investigation of traditionary periods, no single statement can be received as historically authentic. The object is rather of the nature of that process which fixes a point, by the concurrence of the lines which pass through it. The concurrence is the principal ground of inference. It is, indeed, on the same principle, that to interpret justly the remains of Irish antiquity, it becomes necessary to enlarge the student’s scope of investigation to the view of all antiquity. The confident theory which stands upon a small basis of a few remote and isolated facts, may be destroyed by the discovery of a single new incident; and is depreciated by inferences, numerous in an inverse proportion to the number of these data. It is not until the truth is recognized, [23] that the antiquity of Ireland is a fragment of universal antiquity, or utterly fallacious, that a catholic principle of historic interpretation can be found to govern investigation, and put an end to the thousand errors of partial views and inadequate inductions. The reader, who appreciates the state of Irish ancient history, will easily excuse our dwelling minutely on this consideration in our history so much more important than in that of any other modern state.

Of the ancient idolatry of the sun in Ireland, we have already noticed some proofs. The festival of Samhin, one of the great divinities, whose worship is said to have been imported into Phoenicia from Samothrace, is clearly ascertained to have existed in Ireland, until the very introduction of Christianity. Strabo, on the authority of some ancient geographers, mentions an island near Britain, in which worship is offered to Ceres and Proserpine, like to that in Samothrace. But the reader, who may chance to be aware of the vast ocean of antiquarian learning into which this branch of the argument must needs lead, will see the necessity of our being summary in our notice of authorities. Among the numerous indirect authorities which, by their descriptions of the ancient religions of Eastern nations, enable us to pursue the comparison of these with our own antiquity, the features of comparison too often demand extensive discussion, and the application of critical learning, to fall in with the popular discussion. Sanchoniathon, Herodotus, and many other ancient names of the earliest geographers and historians, enable the industrious antiquary to collect the real features of Oriental antiquity. In the application of their authorities, there are, it is true, some difficulties, arising from the fact of the common antiquity of so many early races. From this, some differences between the ablest writers, and not a little uncertainty has arisen: the reader is at first not a little confused by conjectures which appear to be different, while they are substantially the same; that is, so far as any question of the least importance is concerned. All agree in tracing to an early Oriental origin, names, customs, and superstitions, distinctly, and beyond all question, identified with the names, language, and local remains of Irish antiquity.

The evidence becomes more really important, as less liable to various or opposing comment, when traced in the actual remains of the ancient native literature. Of this we do not feel it necessary to say much here: it must be sufficient for the purpose, to say that it is now admitted to exist to a large extent; and the genuineness of the most considerable part is not questioned. From these, our ancient history has been compiled by Keating, in a work which has been much, though undeservedly, discredited, by the mistakes and interpolations of its translator. Of this Vallancey says, “Many of these MS. were collected into one volume, written in the Irish language, by Father Jeoff Keating. A translation of this work into English appeared many years ago, under the title of Keating’s History of Ireland. The translator, entirely ignorant of ancient geography, has given this history an English dress, so ridiculous, as to become the laughing stock of every reader!” To this, amongst other such causes, may be attributed the long unpopularity and the scepticism, now beginning to disappear.

The whole of these ancient materials correspond distinctly with the [24] ancient annals of Phoenicia, “translated out of the books of king Hiempsal’s library for Sallust;” they agree with the ancient Armenian history compiled by a writer of the fifth century; and with many other ancient traditions and histories of the several nations having a common affinity. But, what is more, they contain the most distinct details of the early migrations and history of many of these tribes now extant.

Such is a slight sketch of a class of facts, which the reader, who looks for distinct detail, will find amply discussed in numerous writers. We only here desire to enforce the general probability in favour of those writers, who, abandoning partial views, and taking the general ground of historic principle, have adopted the more ancient view of the origin of our native Irish race.

The most probable illustration of the text of ancient writers, is their coincidence with the whole current of our national traditions; the more valuable, because it is easy to perceive that such a coincidence is altogether undesigned. The whole of these, again, is confirmed by the remains of antiquity, which are thickly scattered through every district. These last mentioned indications are indeed curiously mingled, and present, at first view, a vast confusion of national monuments and characteristics. But this confusion is not greater than, or in any way different from, that of the varying traditions of our earlier ages. Both are consistently and satisfactorily explained in one way, and in no other. The accidental allusions of ancient foreign writers - the monuments of various and unlike races the traditions bearing the stamp of customs and superstitions of different ancient type, - are all the evident and distinct confirmations of a traditionary history, which records the several invasions, settlements, changes, and incidents of national intercourse, from which these indications might be inferred as the necessary consequences. Now, if such an extended and various adaptation does not amount to a proof of the general correctness of the ancient history, which our soundest antiquarian writers have inferred from it, the sceptical writer may lay aside any degree of reasoning, inference, or apparent facts, which he pretends to possess, as a worthless instrument and useless materials.

Not to enter into any premature detail, it is probable that the first race of the ancient Celtic stock, retaining the more recent customs, worship, and characters of Oriental antiquity, sooner or later (we are only speaking of antecedent probability) received a fresh infusion of Celtic blood, which had flowed farther from the primitive source; thus adding, to the more ancient form of paganism, the more recent characters of a more advanced and more corrupt idolatry. Other colonies, at farther stages, brought the changes and left the monuments of ages and climates far separated from the first. But these changes were, for the most part, melted down into the prevailing tone of nationality, preserved by the primitive population, which still constituted the main body of the inhabitants; and whose native peculiarities of character gave one national impress to the whole. Such is the view to be deduced from the comparison of indications, previous consideration of national tradition. Before leaving this point, it should be observed, that it is an important addition to the value of [25] the chains of coincidence thus explained, that they are all distinctive, being exclusively characteristic of Irish history, and cannot therefore be resolved by any general theories on the antiquity of modern European nations.

Antiquities. Let us now offer a few examples, taken from among the best known antiquities of the country, to give the reader a distinct idea of the materials for the latter part of this comparison.

The reader whose curiosity is sufficiently active, may find ample information in recent and authoritative works; and every day is now adding to the abundance and distinctness of this information, under the active and able investigations of the Ordnance Survey, and the antiquarian department of the Royal Irish Academy. The Rath, the Cromlech, the Cairn, the Rocking Stone, with various remains of ancient weapons, utensils, and implements, offer abundant indications of a far distant period in the antiquity of the human race. Of these, many can be traced to other ancient nations, and these for the most part the same to which tradition assigns the origin of some or other of the races by which Ireland was anciently colonized. At a sitting of the Royal Irish Academy, 9th April, 1838, a letter from Dr Hibbert Ware* was read, describing a Cromlech near Bombay, in India, discovered by his son. As two very clever sketches accompany this letter, the slightest inspection is sufficient to identify these Indian remains, in character and intent, with the numerous similar ones in every district of this island. The same letter adverts to Maundrel’s similar discovery on the “Syrian coast, in the very region of the Phonicians themselves.” At a previous meeting of the same learned body, February 26, a very curious and interesting account was given by Mr Petrie, of a remarkable collection of remains of this class, near the town of Sligo. Amongst many interesting facts and observations concerning these, Mr Petrie, after having mentioned that they contain human bones, earthen urns, &c., and conjectured that they are the burial places of the slain in battle, goes on to mention the highly curious fact: “Such monuments,” he states, “are found on all the battle fields recorded in Irish history as the scenes of contest between the Belgian or Firbolg and the Tuath de Danaun colonies;” after which, Mr Petrie is stated to have observed, “as monuments of this class are found not only in most countries of Europe, but also in the East, Mr Petrie thinks that their investigation will form an important accessory to the history of the Indo-European race, and also that such an investigation will probably destroy the popular theories of their having been temples and altars of the Druids.” In June, 1838, a paper, read by Sir W. Betham, on the tumulus lately discovered in the Phoenix Park, contains some observations not less confirmatory of the same general view. From indications of an obvious nature, he refers this class of monuments to a more remote antiquity, “at least of 3000 years.“ Sir W. Betham affirms it to be his opinion, that the sepulchral monument here alluded to chiefly, is similar to the ancient Cromlech, and affirms the opinion, that all Cromlechs are “denuded sepulchral [26] chambers.” We might, were such an object desirable, enumerate a large consent of authorities, and bring forward many cases; we shall only further mention, that Sir William Ousley discovered structures of the same description in Persia; and it is not without value, as a confirmation, that the remarkable Cromlech near Cloyne, retains a name significant of coeval ancient superstition, being called, in the Irish, Carig Cruath, or Rock of the Sun. The Cromlech, by its construction, seems to imply a command of mechanic resource, which must be referred to a very remote period. The management of the enormous masses of rock which form these ancient structures, is little consistent with any thing we know of the more recent antiquity, when wood and hurdle were the only materials of building: but not wanting in analogous character with the period of the Pyramids and Theban remains. This observation applies with still more force to the rocking stone, of which many remains are yet found, some of which still retain their balance. Of these, one stands not far from Ballina; another near Lough Salt, in the county of Donegal; there is also one in the county Sligo, at Kilmorigan. The above inference, from structure, applies with still more force to these, but their history offers a nearer approach to the same inference.

* To Sir W. Betham.
† Report of the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

The rocking stone of the Egyptians is minutely described by Bryant, and Pliny supplies a description still more exact “Juxta Haspasus oppidum Asia, cautes stat horrenda, uno digito mobilis; eadem si toto corpore impellatur, resistens.” The same, or nearly similar, stones are described by Sanchoniathon, as objects of Phoenician worship, and are still imagined by them (in the writer’s time) to have been constructed by the great god Onranos. These remains of ancient superstition, were, however, probably common to Phoenicia, with every Asiatic race, and therefore to be simply regarded as indications of Eastern descent. They are found in Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall, and have been described by travellers as having been met in various parts of Asia.

The sacredness of hills is not peculiar to Irish, but known among the remains of early superstitions common to the primitive races of mankind. A more peculiar significance appears to belong to the known sacredness attached to certain hills which stood upon the boundaries of provinces or kingdoms. A French writer,* cited by Mr Moore, among the “ holy mountains of Greece, “ “ has enumerated nearly a dozen, all bearing the name of Olympus, and all situated upon frontiers.“ The custom is proved to have pervaded the early nations of Asia; and connects them, in a common worship of the very remotest antiquity, with Ireland, in which the hill of Usneach, standing on the common frontier of five provinces, has always been held sacred, from the earliest times within the reach of inquiry. The sacredness of hills is indeed attested by many ancient customs, of which authentic traditions remain. Their kings were crowned on hills, and their laws seem to have derived sanctity from having been enacted on sacred heights.

* Dulame, des Cultes anterieure à l’Idolatrie, c. 8.

The dedication of these artificial hills to the sun, is, however, [27] probably a distinct appropriation, confined to those Eastern countries in which the Cabini superstition prevailed. The more peculiar and (looking to the earliest periods still) recent connexion between Ireland and the East, will be observed to be indicated in the Irish names. The probability of a Phoenician origin, for this appropriation, is increased, by some traces of the same occurring in the mythological traditions of other nations, whose early history has an undoubted connexion with Phoenicia.

The reverence shown towards stones by the ancient Irish, is a mark of their Eastern descent. Of this there is one instance, of which the tradition has a very peculiar interest. It follows the singular fortunes of the stone on which the ancient kings of Ireland were crowned, through its various removals, from Ireland to Scone, and from Scone to Westminster, where it yet preserves its ancient place of honour in the coronation of our monarchs. Of this curious history there is no doubt, authoritative enough for notice.

”When the Tuatha de Danano came over, they brought with them” four curiosities or monuments of great antiquity. The first was a stone which was called Lia Fail, and was brought from the city of Falias; from which stone that city received its name. This stone was possessed of a very wonderful virtue, for it would make a strange noise, and be surprisingly disturbed whenever a monarch of Ireland was crowned upon it; which emotion it continued to show till the birth of Christ, who contracted the power of the devil, and in a great measure put an end to his delusions. It was called the Fatal Stone, and gave a name to Inisfail, as the poet observes in these verses:

From this strange stone did Inisfail obtain
Its name, a tract surrounded by the main.

This stone, called Lia Fail, had likewise the name of the Fatal Stone, or the stone of destiny; because a very ancient prophecy belonged to it, which foretold, that in whatever country this stone should be preserved, a prince of the Scythian race, that is, of the family of Milesius, king of Spain, should undoubtedly govern; as Hector Boetius gives the account, in his History of Scotland: -

Ni fallat fatum, Scoti quocunque locatum Invenient lapidem, regnare tenenter ibidem.

In the Irish language it runs thus: -

Cineadh suit saor an fine munab breag an fhaisdine, Mar abhfuigid an Lia fail dlighid flaithios do ghabhail.

In English: -

Unless the fixed decrees of fate give way, The Scots shall govern, and the sceptre sway, Where’er this stone they find, and its dread sound obey.

“When the Scythians were informed of the solemn virtue of this stone, Fergus the great, the son of Earca, having subdued the kingdom, resolved to be crowned upon it. For this purpose, he sent messengers to his brother Mortough, the son of Earca, a descendant from [28] Heremond, who was king of Ireland at that time, to desire that he would send him that stone to make his coronation the more solemn, and to perpetuate the succession in his family. His brother willingly complied with his request; the stone was sent, and Fergus received the crown of Scotland upon it. This prince was the first monarch of Scotland of the Scythian or Gadelian race; and, though some of the Picts had the title of kings of Scotland, yet they were no more than tributary princes to the kings of Ireland, from the reign of Heremond, who expelled them the kingdom of Ireland, and forced them into Scotland, where they settled. Fergus therefore was the first absolute monarch of Scotland, who acknowledged no foreign yoke, nor paid any homage to any foreign prince. This stone of destiny was preserved with great veneration and esteem, in the abbey of Scone, till Edward the First of England carried it away by violence, and placed it under the coronation chair in Westminster Abbey, by which means the prophecy that attended it seems to be accomplished; for the royal family of the Stewarts succeeded to the throne of England soon after the removal of this stone; a family that descended lineally from the Scythian race, from Maine Leamhna, son of Corc, king of Munster, son of Luighdheach, son of Oilioll Flanbeg, son of Fiacha Muilleathan, king of Munster, son of Eogan Mor, son of Oilioll Ollum, king of Munster, who descended lineally from Heberus Fionn, son of Milesius, king of Spain; every prince of which illustrious family successively received the crown upon this stone.”*

* Keating.

In fine. There is nothing more satisfactorily confirming the general truth of the accounts contained in the ancient tradition of Irish antiquity, than its strict conformity with the general analogy of human history. And this is so clear, as to admit of being stated as an extensive system of social institutions, manners, opinions, incidents, and events, which no human ingenuity could have framed together in all its parts, and so combined with existing remains, as to challenge not a single authoritative contradiction. If this vast and well devised combination be attributed to the invention of the bards, it assumes for these so much moral, civil, and political knowledge, as would do much honour to the discipline and experience of the 19th century. If it be attributed to the imagination of antiquarian theorists, we must say, that the most fanciful, credulous, and superstitious legendaries, have, after all, displayed more skill, method, and consummate wisdom, in devising a political and moral system, than their sober opponents have shown in detecting their error and credulity. And we should strongly advise our modern constitution menders, and constructors of history, to take a lesson at their school.

That the language of the bards is largely combined with fiction, is no more than to say that they were poets; and the poetry of the age and country, as well as the state of the profession, led to a vast increase of this tendency; that the legends of the monks were overflowing with romance and superstition; and that the sober paced annalists, to a great extent, falsified their records, by omission; and partial statement. All this may be admitted. The manifest fictions [29] and extravagancies, and anachronisms, may be allowed to prove so much. But the admission does not unsettle a single support, or shake down the slightest ornament, which belongs to the main structure of the ancient history of Ireland. The sceptic has to account rationally, not only for the history itself, but for the language, and the very letters, in which it is written; and must adopt a chain of denials, affirmations, and reasonings, of the most abstruse, inventive, and paradoxical kind, to establish the falsehood of traditions, which, had they no proof, are yet the most likely to be the truth, and are quite unobjectionable on the general ground of historic probability.

On the fictions of the ancient legends, it is, however, well remarked by Sir Lawrence Parsons,* that they generally affect the opinions of the writers, and not their veracity, as they most commonly consist of extravagant explanations of common and probable incidents. Such are the varied narrations, in which the various calamities of sickness, famine, fire, flood, or storm, are ascribed to the magicians. If indeed the portion of common probability in the most fictitious legends be acceded to, as the necessary foundations of popular invention, there will be nothing worth contending for.

* The MS. of our half volume was unfortunately completed, when we received a copy of this Essay, by far the ablest on the subject. We have thus lost many conclusive arguments.

To sum briefly the general inferences to be drawn from the statements of our antiquaries, as to the origin of the Irish nation: As their letters and ancient language and traditions, are standing monuments of immemorial antiquity; as these are confirmed by a great variety of lesser, but still decided, indications to the same effect; we must conclude, that the people to which they belong, are a race derived from very ancient stock. Secondly, as there is no distinct tradition, assigning the origin of this race to any probable period, within those limits of time which commence the records of modern nations, it is to be inferred, as most likely, that this ancient people have sprung up from some earlier origin within the prior limits of ancient history.

If so, they must have derived those immemorial traditions, letters, language, and barbaric civilization, from that remote and primitive antiquity, and that ancient Eastern stock, of which they bear the decided characters. And the assumption may be taken, by antiquaries, as the solid basis of research, and probable conjecture. If these introductory remarks were indeed written to meet the eye of learned antiquaries, it must be observed, that these reasons would now be needless. Among the learned, there can scarcely be said to be a second opinion, so far as regards the main line of our argument. But with the vast and enlightened body of the reading public, it is, as we have already stated, otherwise. The claim of Irish history is regarded with a supercilious suspicion, very justifiable among those who know nothing of Irish antiquities.

Ancient State. The reader will easily collect the political constitution of ancient Ireland, from our notices of the kings in whose reigns were effected the successive steps of its formation. We may here [30] make this easier by a few general facts. To Eochaidh Eadgothach is referred the first step in the process of social institution on which all civilization rests as a foundation: the regulation of ranks and orders, without which a crowd of men can become no more than a herd of wild beasts, levelled in the brutal disorder of promiscuous equality. * Legislation began with Ollamh Fodla, and subsequent kings effected. various improvements and modifications, from which the historian can easily trace the prosperity and adversity of after ages.

* We would not be understood to assert that this absolute equality ever existed. It is manifestly inconsistent with any state of human nature, until we reach that low level out of which no civilization can take its rise.

There were five orders the royal, aristocratic, priestly, poetical, mechanic and plebeian; of these, viewed as composing the body politic, they are more summarily distributed into kings, priests, and people: who assisted, or were represented, in the great assembly, or Fes.

The monarchy was elective, but the election was, by the law at least, limited to the members of the royal family. From this many evils arose; one consequence, however, may be enough to mention here: the tendency of the succession to assume an alternate order, such that, on the death of a monarch, he was succeeded by the son of his predecessor.

The disorders appurtenant to the elective principle, were in some degree limited, by the election of the successor of the monarch, or the chief (for the same rule of succession was general), at the time of their succession. This person was, in the case of the monarchy, called the Roydamna; in that of chiefs, the Tanist; and in both cases was endowed with proportional honours and privileges. [“]As to the law of Tanistry, by an inquisition taken at Mallow on the 25th of October 1594, before Sir Thomas Norris, vice president of Munster, William Saxey, Esq., and James Gould, Esq., chief and second justices of the said province, by virtue of a commission from the Lord Deputy and Council, dated the 26th of June before; it is found, among other things, “that Conogher O’Callaghan, the O’Callaghan, was and is seized of several large territories, in the inquisition recited, in his demesne, as lord and chieftain of Poble Callaghan, by the Irish custom, time out of mind used; that as O’Callaghan aforesaid is lord of the said country, who is Teig O’Callaghan, and that the said Teig is seized as Tanist by the said custom of several Plowlands in the inquisition mentioned; which also finds, that the custom is further, that every kinsman of the O’Callaghan had a parcel of land to live upon, and yet that no estate passed thereby, but that the lord (who was then Conogher O’Callahan) and the O’Callahan for the time being, by custom time out of mind, may remove the said kinsman to other lands; and the inquisition further finds, that O’Callaghan Mac Dermod, Trrelagh O’Callaghan, Teig Mac Cahir O’Callaghan, Donogho Mac Thomas O’Callaghan, Conogher Genkagh O’Callaghan, Dermod Bane O’Callaghan and Shane Mac Teig O’Callaghan, were seized of several Plowlands according to the said custom, subject, nevertheless, to certain seigniories and duties payable to the O’Callaghan, and that they were removeable by him to other lands at pleasure.” †

†Ware’s Antiquities

[31]

The religion of the heathen Irish was, as the reader will have collected, an idolatry of a mingled form, to which many successive additions had been made by different races of the same general type. Their chief god was the sun, or Bel the god of the sun.

Of the manners, arts, and knowledge of the first periods of Irish antiquity, we shall here say little, as it has long been the popular portion of the subject, on which most general information abounds, and on which the scepticism of the public is little involved.

The bards were divided into three orders: - the Filea, the Seneachie, and the Brehon. They were historians, legislators, and antiquaries. They enlightened and soothed the privacy of kings and chiefs, roused their valour, and celebrated their deeds in the field.

Poetry was in the highest esteem: it comprised the learning, philosophy, and history, of the primitive forms of society. The poets were rewarded, caressed, and the exercise of their art regulated and restrained, as of the highest importance to the transmission of records, or the extension and perpetuation of fame. But the influence which they acquired over the passions of men was found to be excessive. poet, and perhaps above all, the Celtic bard, when allowed to become in any way the organ of political feeling, has a tendency to faction, not to be repressed by discretion. The bower “where

“Pleasure sits carelessly smiling at fame”

is his most innocuous sphere, until his head and heart have been enlightened and enlarged by true Christian philosophy. The sword which may haply lurk within the flowery wreath, while its occasional sparkles are seen to glitter through the fragrant interstices, may give spirit, and an undefined charm, to the emanation of grace and sweetness which delights the sense. But to abandon a metaphor, with which an Irish bard of the highest order has supplied us, wo betide the land where the passions of party shall have caught the fever of poetic inspiration! The throne of poetic genius is, in our eyes, sovereign: but the hearts it can move to action, are never of the noblest order, and the passions it can awaken best, are not those which conduce most to the furtherance of sober truth, the peace of society, or the happiness of the human race.

Music has, perhaps in every age, had its fountain in the Irish temperament. It may perhaps be admitted as a fact by those who have an extensive knowledge of music, that the most perfect specimens of that part of musical expression which depends on the fine melody of an air, belong to the national music of the Celtic races. The ancient music of the Irish is celebrated by all writers in Irish history; but music and poetry appear to have been inseparably united in the same class of professors.

The introduction of Christianity changed the uses and, with these, the character of both these kindred arts. The Danes crushed them, together with the whole, nearly, of the graces and refinements of the primitive civilization of Ireland. Yet they lingered on still, and being deeply seated in the genius of their race, continued to shoot bright, but fugitive gleams, among the dust and ashes of national decay. [32]

Cormac, the celebrated king and bishop of Munster; was a poet, and the harp of Brian still exists,

” Though the days of the hero are o’er.“

We shall, hereafter, have occasion to offer a sketch of the history of the Irish bards.

The ancient architecture of Ireland has been too much the subject of controversy, to be discussed in an essay not designed for the purpose of inquiry. There is sufficient reason to conclude, that dwellings were constructed of wood.

“The subject of my inquiry, here, is only of the dwelling - houses of the ancient Irish, which, as they were neither made of stone nor brick, so neither were they (unless in a few instances) subterraneous caves or dens, like the habitations of the ancient Germans, according to Tacitus, in his description of that people; but they were made of rods or wattles, plaistered over with loam or clay, covered with straw or sedge, and seldom made of solid timber. These buildings were either large or small, according to the dignity or quality of the inhabitant, and for the most part were erected in woods, and on the banks of rivers.” *

* Ware’s, Antiquities.

Of the handicraft arts of the earlier age of antiquity, we are left to the inferences we can draw from the regulations of the mechanic class, which are such, as to indicate a superior attention to the various manufactures then employed. These chiefly consisted of articles of arms, dress, religious, and perhaps culinary uses. If we give any credit to the descriptions of regal state, and the enumerations of articles contained in the writings of the bards, these uses appear to have been various and splendid.

From the same sources, gleams of manners are to be collected. These are such as might be inferred both from the state and natural genius of the people. But the subject is too merely inferential, to find a place here.

Of their moral knowledge, a highly favourable idea may be collected from an ancient writing, of unquestionable authenticity, by Cormac, the son of Act. Of this too, we shall hereafter give a large specimen.

The traditionary history of ancient Iernè may be comprehended in a narrow compass: for, though bards have engrafted on it much poetic invention, it is nothing more in itself than an old table of descents.

It appears probable that the first inhabitants of Ireland were from Britain and Gaul. To this source may be referred the Wernethæ, Firbolgs, Danaans, and Fomorians. Of these the settlements were probably various, and at various periods. The Belgians, who were a Gaulish stock, and having numerous settlements in England, were the principal among these. Their possession continued eighty years, in the form of a pentarchy, under the paramount government of one. the end of the period here mentioned, the island was invaded by the Tuath de Danaans and Fomorians, who overthrew the Belgians in a pitched battle, and made themselves masters of the whole country.

[33]

The occupation of this race lasted one hundred and ninety - eight years. Their power was put an end to by the arrival of the Scythian, or Scottish race, a thousand years before the Christian era.

The frequent invasions of Spain, at this period, by the neighbour Eastern nations, seems to account for the migration of this colony, which had been settled in the northern parts of Spain. A race, to which navigation was already known, and which had already been separated, by one migration, from the parent stock, was the more likely, under such circumstances as rendered their settlement insecure, to have recourse to the same means, for the attainment of a settlement more secure, beyond the reach of their persecutors.

According to the most ancient records, collected in the ninth century, by the celebrated king of Munster, and corrected by a careful comparison of all the records and traditions then extant, it would appear, that the Spanish Celts, intent on discovering a new home, sent a chief to obtain intelligence as to the expedience and possibility of a descent on this island. The purpose of this envoy was discovered, and he was put to death; on which the sons of Milesius, roused by resentment to decision, made extensive preparations, and effected the conquest of the country.

From these the Scots of Ireland claim their descent. They were a race possessing the letters and civilization of their parent stock - a fact authenticated beyond question, by the letters, monuments, and even the legends of Irish antiquity, which are the remains of a civilized and lettered race.

Of the various methods which might be used in confirmation of this, the most suitable to the cursory design of this essay, is that afforded by the industry of O’Conor, which we shall here give, as it occurs in his work on Irish history.

The earliest accounts of foreign nations (as illustrated by Sir Isaac Newton), compared with those of Ireland: -

*FOREIGN TESTIMONIES.

THE NATIVE FILEAS.

I. An emigrant colony of Iberians, from the borders of the Euxine and Caspian seas, settled anciently in Spain. * II. A colony of Spaniards, by the name of Scots or Scythians, settled in Ireland, in the fourth age of the world. † III. The Phoenicians, who first in.. troduced letters and arts into Europe, had an early commerce with the Iberian Spaniards.‡ * Rudas ex Appian, in Æneid., lib. ix., ad ver. 582. † Newton. Buchanan. ‡ Strabo.

I. The Iberian Scots, bordering originally on the Euxine sea, were expelled their country; and, after various adventures, settled ultimately in Spain. * II. Kinea Scuit (the Scots), and the posterity of Ebre Scot (Iberian Scythians), were a colony of Spaniards, who settled in Ireland about a thousand years before Christ. * III. The ancient Iberian Scots learned the use of letters from a celebrated Phenias, from whom they took the name of Phenii, or Phoenicians. * * All the statements on this side, are from a very ancient Irish manuscript, called the Leabar Gabala.

[34]

Passing over three other similarly compared statements, in which Newton’s accounts are remarkably coincident with those of the old Irish historian, we come to the last, which has more especial reference to the statement we have made: -

In the days of the first Hercules, or Egyptian conqueror of Spain, a great drought parched up several countries. - Newton.

The conquest of Spain, together with a great drought, forced the Iberian Scuits, or Scots, to fly into Ireland. - Ogyg. Domest., p. 182.

If the genuineness of the old Irish MSS. be allowed, and they are not disputed, these parallels require no comment; but amount to proof, as certain as the records of history can afford, of the facts in which they agree. The only reply of which the argument admits, is, that Newton’s accounts are drawn from the old Irish; and this no one will presume to assert.

In these old records of the Fileas, it is granted that there is a mixture of fiction; but it is such as to be easily sifted away from the main line of consistent history which runs through the whole, with far more character of agreement with ancient writers, than the native records of any other existing nation. The fictions are connected by visible links, and traceable coincidences with the truth.

[End of introduction (pp.3-34; there follows here an introduction to the Political Series of biographies:]

 

I. POLITICAL SERIES.

THE ancient Irish historians, upon authorities of which it is difficult to pronounce the true value, reckon a long line of kings, from Slainge, the son of Dela, to Criomthan Madhnac, in the twelfth year of whose reign the Christian era is supposed to have commenced. Of these accounts it is not improbable, that much that is true forms the nucleus of much fiction, such as would be most likely to mingle itself, from a variety of causes, in the course of traditions handed down from generation to generation, and to be fixed in the form of records by the excusable credulity of their first compilers. But it would be an unpardonable waste of time and expense, to encumber our pages with lives which, whether the persons ever lived or not, are manifestly overlaid with statements which cannot, in possibility, be authentic. Some eminent names among these are, however, liable to recur frequently in Irish history; and are supposed to stand at the fountainhead of those political institutions and arrangements, which are among the most interesting facts of Irish antiquity. Of these a few may be considered as useful preliminaries to our first biographical period.

In the year of the world 3082, Ollamh Fodla is represented as monarch of Ireland. He is said, with much reason, to have been the wisest and most virtuous of the Irish kings. The most useful laws and institutions, which can be traced in the historical records of the ancient Irish, are attributed to his profound design, and to the wisdom of his celebrated council, held in the ancient kingly seat of Tara.

The account of this assembly is the following:- Ollam Fodla, with [35] the natural forecast of a sagacious legislator, and the zeal of a habitual student of antiquity, observed, that the records of his kingdom were in a state not likely to be durable. The honour of his illustrious ancestors the events worthy of perpetual note, on which it was his pleasure to dwell - and the glorious name which it was his hope to transmit - all forbade the neglect of any longer leaving the records of his kingdom to the growing obscurity of tradition. To deliver to posterity a faithful digest of the known traditions of former time, and provide for its authentic continuation, he summoned the chiefs, priests, and poets of the nation, to meet in council at Tara. This assembly he rendered permanent. It was called Feis Feamhrach, and was to meet every third year. Their first business was to collect, clear from error, and digest into order, the mass of extant records and traditions of the kingdom. Next, they were to revise the laws; and, by suitable additions, omission, and alteration, accommodate them to the age. They carefully read over every ancient chronicle, and erased any falsehoods they could detect. A law was agreed on, that any falsifier of history should be degraded from that assembly be fined, imprisoned, and his works destroyed.

With the assistance of this assembly, Ollamh regulated the different orders of rank amongst its members. He also made laws for the respect of their dignity, and protection of their persons. A still more important law was made for the protection of his female subjects, against the ungallant violence to which there appears to have been a national propensity in that remote age. For this, the offender was to suffer a merited death; to ensure which the more effectually, Ollamh placed the crime beyond the reach of the royal prerogative to pardon. Keating, who has somewhat strangely fixed the meeting of this parliament before the comparatively modern festival of “ All Saints, ” describes, with great minuteness of detail, the long but narrow apartment in the palace of Tara, where this parliament used to meet. Before proceeding to business, they were entertained with a magnificent feast; in the description of which, the whole colouring and incidents are manifestly drawn from imaginations filled with the pomps and splendours of British and European customs in the middle ages. After the feast was removed, and the attendants withdrawn, the ancient records were introduced and discussed, as the annalist of the period would now describe it, “over their nuts and claret.” From this assembly is deduced the ancient Psalter of Tara; which ancient record, says Keating, “is an invaluable treasure, and a most faithful collection of the Irish antiquities; and whatever account is delivered in any other writings, repugnant to this, is to be deemed of no authority, and a direct imposition upon posterity.”

Ollamh Fodhla reigned, according to O’Conor, six hundred years before the Christian era. The events of his time cannot be considered as within the compass of authentic history; yet his reign itself is sufficiently authenticated by the sure evidence of institutions. He was to Ireland the first legislator; and his name and character stand out from the surrounding obscurity, with the same clear and steady light which has preserved so many of the greater sages, heroes, and bards, of primitive times, to the veneration of all ages.

[36] The political constitution of the country, as settled in this reign, may be generally included under three heads: the institution of the Fes, or legislative assembly; the enactment of a code of laws; and the precise and orderly distribution of the orders of society. The classes were three: the nobility, the druids and learned men, and the common people. In an age in which literature was still confined to a privileged class, it is easy at once to perceive the impossibility of long preserving the balance required for the stability of any form of government. The main disadvantage, however, of this ancient constitution consisted in the crown being elective. Of this the consequence is noticed by O’Conor.

“It is evident that such elections could seldom be made with sufficient moderation. Factions were formed; the prevalent party carried it; the losing party collected all their strength to set aside the monarch duly elected; and accordingly most of our princes died with swords in their hands.”

It is, perhaps, also not unimportant to observe, that the frame of government, thus described, is stamped with the authentic features of the common type of primitive institutions. The system of a balanced combination of orders is itself, not to look further, a sufficient indication of a forward stage in the progress of civilization; and should the mere idea of such a system be found extant in really ancient records, or should it, with sufficient distinctness, be traceable in old customs and traditions, it ceases to be worth the sceptic’s while to contend. His proposition must be reduced to something very frivolous, before it can be argued with any clearness.

[Ênd Intro to Political Series (pp.34-36). There follows here the biography of Hugony - the first in the Political Series of the 1st Volume. ]

Among the many popular expedients by which modern literature is distinguished; that on which the plan of this work is framed, may be praised for its singular compass: its object is to collect the lessons of our moral and political history, and present them in the inductive form of examples, which expand or contract with the importance and interest of the subject. Instead of the continued progress of events, which demand laborious retention, the attention is excited by the familiar attraction of personal interest; and is thus led by successive and seemingly occasional incident, into a growing interest in details, which might otherwise fatigue the reader before they could be understood.

The extensive series of national Biography, of which this first portion is now offered to the public, has been planned to carry into effect this view. The successful execution of the Biographical Histories of England and Scotland, seem to demand the present work for Ireland, as indispensable to the completion of this department of our national literature. To supply this desideratum, the present publication has been projected, in which shall be comprised the lives of all such Irishmen, or persons connected with Irish History, as can for any reason be considered entitled to such notice. The following arrangement will convey a more distinct idea of the plan of this work. It is to be divided into Six Periods, conformable in duration to the successive changes of our history of these the main divisions are the following:-

[vi]

Each of these divisions will be found to include the succession of a great national series of events, amounting to a revolutionary period. In these the plan to be pursued throughout, is according to the most comprehensive principles of History and Biography; and will include all that, on the most liberal allowance, can be looked for, as pleasing or profitable in either. According to this standard, appropriate space will be assigned to each name as it shall occur. Some names must be given because they will be looked for; some because they carry on the thread of the narrative; some for the occasion they afford to explain or describe interesting events.

The Publishers, therefore, in projecting this NATIONAL WORK, rest assured that it is one in which every native of Ireland will feel interested, not only on account of its literary merits, but as tending to supply an essential desideratum in the literature of his country. To the Irishman who sees in this work, for the first time, an attempt, on an extensive scale, to concentrate, in a well digested and comprehensive form, the virtues and honours of his country; and faithfully to portray the individual lives of Irishmen who have obtained eminence in the various departments of human pursuit; little need be said to recommend it to his favour.

To make the LIVES OF ILLUSTRIOUS AND DISTINGUISHED IRISHMEN in reality what it ought to be a truly national work -neither exertion nor expense have been spared. traits, which have been copied from the most authentic original Paintings, by an eminent artist, are engraved in the first style; whilst the beauty of the typography, &c., is highly creditable to the advanced state of that art. For the different sections of the work, the services of men well versed in Irish literature have been secured; and the whole is under the Editorship of a gentleman whose profound erudition, and well known proficiency in Irish History, render him eminently qualified to do the work every justice.

In conclusion, the Publishers confidently appeal to the voluine now before the reader, as a proof that they have produced a work every way calculated to uphold and advance the character of the literature of Ireland. (p.8.)

[Sub-headings]: General Reasons for the Credibility of ancient Irish History Inferences from Languages From ancient Authority From Monuments Ancient state of Civilization. (Intro., pp.3-35.)

Many causes, of various degrees of importance, have contributed to render the history of Ireland difficult to the historian, and unpopular among the generality of readers. The remoteness and indistinctness of its beginnings the legendary character of its traditions the meagre and broken state of its more authentic annals have not, as in other modern countries, been remedied or counteracted by the industry of the historian. The disputes of antiquaries, the extravagant theories of some, the equally absurd scepticism of others, and the differences of opinion amongst all, have only produced the natural effect in causing a strong reluctance to seek information on a ground in which few seemed to agree. As the nature of our undertaking, which comprises the long and varied range of all that has any pretension to be regarded as authentic in Irish biography, imposes the necessity of commencing our labours in a period over which the lapse of ages has thrown much doubt and not a little indistinctness, we cannot better preface the first division of this work, than by the endeavour to satisfy our readers of the probability of the general truth of the ancient Irish history.

The history of Ireland is marked by peculiarities which do not affect that of any other country. it comprises the remotest extremes of the social state; and sets at nought the ordinary laws of social transition and progress, during the long intervals between them. Operated by a succession of external shocks, the internal advances, which form some part of all other history, have been wanting, and her broken and interrupted career, present a dream-like succession of capricious and seemingly unconnected change, without order or progress. But let scepticism make all reasonable deductions on the score of doubtful record or perplexed chronology, and refine away all that is too ponderous for its partial and one-sided grasp here a tradition, and there a broken monument still the country [4]. retains, indelibly stamped and widely abounding, characters which cannot be explained according to the simplest rules of right reason, but by referring them to the remotest ages of antiquity. The immemorial monuments the ancient superstitions the traditions descended from the common antiquity of the oldest races of mankind the living customs, and names of things and places traceable to these alone the ancient language the very population are actual remains of a state of things, which they as clearly represent, as the broad foundations, the massive pillars, and the gigantic archesof some wide-spread ruin attest the size and proportioins of the stately city of old time. To what precise point, in the scale of chronology, such indications are to be referred, we must leave to the professional antiquarians to settle: our object is but to combat the vulgar prejudice against our ancient history, and the common errors which have caused it. It is our wish to refer the intelligent reader, from the detached questions on which the subject has inadequately been brought before him, to the more just and comprehensive result of its collective evidence. The investigation of each separate class of ancient remains, may lead to a vast variety of specious inferences; but the true probability for the interpretation of each part, must be derived from its relation to the whole. When every single relic of our antiquity shall have been explained into something of more modern growth probably conjecture will still continue to restore it to the massive combination of antiquities from which it is forced only for the moment of some fashionable creed, which gain popularity of from the splendid caprices of talent. There is indeed no cause which has contributed more to the popularity of scepticism, than the real and imagined extravagance of antiquarian theories: when a large demand is made upon our faith, any attempt to lighten the exaction will be hailed with cordiality.

Among the popular impressions, unfavourable to the claim of our ancient history, the most prominent is due to the marked and clinging barbarism, which is the most characteristic feature of our middle ages. It seems difficult for incredulity to admit, that a race which, from the earliest period of the modern world from the date of the Danish settlement to the very date of our immediate ancestors in the beginning of the last century seems to have preserved the character of national infancy, can possibly have a claims to a mature antiquity, which antiquarians, however their creeds may differ, agree in affirming.

This fact is worth inquiry. Many of the causes of this anomalous combination of extremes lie on the surface. The fate of Ireland has been peculiar in this: that the same cause which partly contributed to her early civilization, was, in after times, the means of retarding her progress. We mean the circumstance of geographical position: more within the track of the Tyrian sail, than of the Roman eagle, the same position which exposed her shores to the approach of ancient commerce, must, to some extent, have isolated this country from the sweeping and onward mutations of the rest of the world.

The chances which, in earliest time, may have wafted to our coast such civilization as then existed, as they are beyond inquiry, so they are not worth it: they are but a very obvious part of the course of things, and cannot reasonably be the ground of objection or doubt; [5] so far it is enough that such things were. Assuming that this island was peopled at an early period, it will nearly follow, that the first rudiments of social civilization must have been imported by any people who were then likely to find her shores: for the barbarism of after ages sprung on from the ruins of an anterior civilization. The next step is far more easy. While the neighbouring islands, in common with the nations of Europe, were repeatedly swept over by various races and hordes or either invaders or settlers who desolated or usurped every country in proportion as it lay nearer to the main line of social change, and thus involved every land in the perpetual surge and eddy of this great human tide, brought on the barbarism so obviously consequent on continued change and confusion Ireland, comparatively sequestered from the inroads of change, long continued to maintain and cultivate the primitive arts and knowledge (whatever these were) transmitted by the parent country. To her peaceful shore the laws of religion, manners and customs, of some nation of antiquity, were brought; and when the neighbouring shores became the scenes of revolution and disorder, the same peaceful refuge received the kindred remains of many an ancient creed and family. Such literature as then existed, would probably begin to find its quiet centre, in the sequestered island; and, as the tumult of change began to settle among the neighbouring people, again to send forth on every side the light (such as it was) thus preserved. In all of this there is nothing that is not an easy consequence from the whole known history of the ancient world. A theoretical consequence, we grant; but it loses this questionable character the moment we look at the facts of history, the memorials of tradition, and the monuments of the land.

The very same fundamental fact will, by the same simple reasoning, account for the other phenomena which we have stated as opposed to this view. The same sequestered position which preserved the form and structure of early ages from the desolating current of universal change, that for some ages continued to bear away the broken ruins of antiquity in every other land; had, in the course of time, by the same means, the effect of shutting out those succeeding changes which were the steps of a new order of things. And while the surrounding nations brightened, by slow degrees, into the spring of a new civilization which, in point of fact, was but a step of human progress the civilization of elder times became itself but a barbaric monument of earlier ages. In Ireland, it is true, the history of successive invasions may, on a slight view, be referred to as opposed to this opinion. But it is not by such visitations that the modern civilization of nations has grown; but from the combination of a variety of common causes, all of them implying the continued and diffused action of change. A few adventurers might, with the advantage of inconsiderable resources, effect a settlement; but they cannot, under such circumstances, be imagined to have imported or communicated a comprehensive change of manners, religion, and law’s. They could not even be said to represent their country’s manners and learning; they could not be supposed to obtain the necessary influence, or even the necessary intercourse, with the natives; and though it might be anticipated that, in the course of a long period, their manners and customs would [6] be found to modify the national habits; yet, before this could happen, their descendants would have largely contracted the character of the native population.

The changes of European society, which together have contributed to form its modern state, were the numerous and successive shocks of war, invasion, subjugation, and the mingling minds, manners, and opinions of a hundred races, whirled together in the wide extended and long continued eddies of European change; and their quantum of effect on any nation must have, in a great measure, depended on the freedom and constancy of its intercourse with all the rest. course of Europe with Ireland was very peculiar, and is likely to be overrated by those who have viewed it only with reference to church antiquity. But it was not an intercourse commonly productive of extensive change. It was such an intercourse as may be held with a college or a church. The learned came to imbibe the scanty and erroneous knowledge; and the religious, the pagan superstitions of their age. The sacred repository of ancient opinion was venerated as the fountain head of sacred knowledge, until it became its tomb. But then, it was long left behind in the progress of nations, and lapsed into an obscurity bordering on oblivion.

Such are the conditions of the strange problem, about the opposite terms of which learned men have consumed much ink, and unlearned shrewdness much misplaced ridicule.

The impressions, from many causes, unfavourable to the fair reception of Irish antiquity, have been much aggravated by the unwarrantable omissions of some of our ablest historians. The observations of Dr Johnson, in his letter to Charles O’Connor, are worth repeating: “Dr Leland begins his history too late: the ages which deserve an exact inquiry, are those times (for such there were) when Ireland was the school of the West, the quiet habitation of sanctity and literature. If you could give a history, though imperfect, of the Irish nation, from its conversion to Christianity to the invasion from England, you would amplify knowledge with new views and new objects. Set about it therefore if you can: do what you can easily do without anxious exactness. Lay the foundation, and leave the superstructure to posterity.”*

The antiquity of Ireland offers the most singular and instructive study not merely to the systematizing antiquary, but to the general philosopher and historian, who takes it up for the strong light it reflects on the common antiquity of nations. The limited object of this work will not permit of our discussing, at large, the vast and curious field of authority on this important subject. Still less can we afford space for the volumes of ingenious conflicting speculations, which have found a fertile field of excursion in the obscurity of ancient monuments. concern with the subject has a limited purpose. The first persons with whom we are obliged to make our readers acquainted, stand far back within the shadow of antiquity; nor can we speak of them, without drawing much of our matter from the history of a state of the country, which may carry with it something more of the air of fabulous antiquity, than a large proportion of our readers may think consistent with [7] the sober simplicity, which we should willingly infuse throughout our pages, as the appropriate expression of historic truth.

*Boswell’s Johnson.

Much of the very common tone of scepticism which is manifested on the subject of Irish antiquity, is founded on that confined scope of mind, which is the general cause of scepticism in whatever form it appears. Some are involved in the difficulties which attend on partial views, and some are only difficult to convince, because they apply to the subject of Irish antiquity, a method of estimation which must equally reject all ancient history. The best resource against either of these errors, is, perhaps, to look attentively on the sum of evidence arising from the combined view of all the monuments and records of the past, to the careful exclusion of every system. The question will then stand thus: Whether there are or are not evidences of different kinds, by which the history of Ireland and its inhabitants can be traced back to a remote period, antecedent to any which belongs to the history of modern European nations? Such a question must, of course, involve in its detail all the special inquiries into the authenticity, or the import, of each special record or alleged monument; but when the whole is first laid together in one comprehensive view, much of the difficulty and complication attendant on such inquiries is likely to disappear. For the value and import of each allegation must undergo some modification from the connexion it may be found to have with a system of facts and evidences. The evidence arising from a single fact may be too vague and obscure to support any inference; or inferences contrary to those required by a probable theory may, with seemingly greater force, be drawn. But a main probability, arising from a sum of facts, may not only exclude this contrary inference, but even connect the seemingly hostile fact, with the reasoning it seemed to oppose, as the essential link of a chain of settled facts. It then not only receives an authentic stamp from this concurrence; but it gives much additional force to the whole chain of inference, and still more to the ultimate conclusion to which they legitimately conduct.

To state such a question, the testimonies of ancient authors, the traditions of the country, the customs and superstitions, the structure of the language, the names of places, and the monuments of the land, are the plainer and more tangible materials. To estimate these, there is no need for refined reasoning or minute and subtle investigation. Whatever separate weight may be attached to a few sentences of an ancient classic or to the fractured pillar, or rusted weapon or doubtful analogy of speech or custom; it will appear on the very surface, that there is a combination of phenomena, which belongs to the history of no other modern European land, and which, whatever may be its solution, excludes at least the analogies of modern history: and next, that these phenomena are such as to fall within the common analogy of another more ancient order of things.

The value of this simplification of the subject will be evident to those who have explored the voluminous range of writers, who have taken opposite views, in a field so fertile of controversy. There are indeed few subjects of human inquiry which have afforded more ample scope to the opposite errors of reason: the enthusiastic imagination, that beholds towers and temples, and the whole gorgeous moving scene of [8] human existence, in the distant clouds of ages receding into oblivion; the superficial but vivacious acuteness, that sees nothing but the atom on which the microscope of a small mind is directed, and exhibits its petty ingenuity, in reconciling, on false assumptions, the small portion which it comprehends, and denying the rest. The real importance of such a method extends, indeed, far beyond the limited subject of this dissertation; as it might be usefully extended to the erroneous school of history which disgraces the literature of the age.

A little impartial attention, thus directed to the subject of ancient Irish history, would dissolve many intricate knots, in which some of our very best guides have now and then entangled themselves: of this we shall presently offer some instances. But it is time to descend into the particulars. Of our view it perhaps may be now unnecessary to premise, that it is our object merely to exhibit an outline of the subject. To do this with less embarrassment, we shall exclude the consideration of the separate facts and opinions to be adduced, further than in their relation to the whole. So far as we shall be obliged to transgress this rule in a few important points, we shall take occasion to bring forward the statement of some authoritative writer. This will be the more necessary, as a great portion of our readers cannot be presumed to be sufficiently acquainted with our neglected history, to attach the proper weight to a merely general statement.

The records, of whatever class, which agree in referring the origin of the Irish population to a remote antiquity, are the only distinct traces to be found of the early history of the country. A different course of events must have left other traditions. Again; in every nation to which there is a history, the beginnings of that history are distinctly traced on the authority of some authentic records unless in those cases in which all historians are agreed in attributing an immemorial antiquity: to this class may be referred India, Egypt, Persia, &c. So far, therefore, it is plain enough, that the early history of Ireland is, until the contrary shall be shown, referrible to the latter class, and not to the former. The traditions of the country affirm an extreme antiquity the existing remains of ancient time correspond to this affirmation - the testimonies of ancient writers incidentally confirm the same pretension - the language of the people is itself not only a monument of a remote and aboriginal antiquity, but indicates the very race affirmed by tradition the remains of ancient superstition the variety of names of places and things, with the old customs, reconcileable with ancient rites and superstitions, and having no reference to any thing within the compass of modern history: all these, when taken in their full force, have separately a nearly conclusive weight; and together, set all rational scepticism at defiance. The reader must here recollect, that, so far, the inference is not one in favour of any particular system of Irish antiquity; it is simply the affirmation, that such a remote antiquity, as our historians claim, is to be admitted, whether it can be distinctly ascertained or not.

But when this point is gained, it will be quickly observed by the intelligent reasoner, that nothing remains worth the sceptic’s disputing. If we admit the general assertion of an origin which must at all events synchronize with the ancient races of mankind, there can be nothing [9] incredible in the conclusion which fixes any ancient race as the primal colonists of the land; though there may be something absurd in the effort to arrive at inferences totally inconsistent with this general admission. In the best evidence to be derived from tradition, or accidental notice of historians, or any other ancient record or monument not falling within the scope of full historical consent, there must be some degree of doubt. The origin of such memorials is questionable, or their imputed antiquity doubtful. But the case of Irish antiquity is something different from one of forced constructions and isolated testimonies. It is a case, having all the evidence that it admits of, to establish an inference of itself previously probable; and not encumbered by the adverse circumstances of any other construction to be set in opposition. If the Irish race is not to be deduced, according to the claims of its annalists and poets, it cannot be deduced in any other way. And the deduction of its annalists and poets, though vitiated by all sorts of extravagance, has yet a fundamental agreement with probability, which demands a general consent.

The highest degree of historical evidence, it must be recollected, has only existence in our example, in which a mass of parallel and correspondent narrations and documents, published by contemporaries, are, from the very period, confirmed by institutions, vast social changes, multiplied and lasting controversies, and authenticated by numerous copies, and the still more numerous citations of a series of writers, reaching down the whole interval ages. From this high approach to certainty, there is a descent through innumerable degrees of evidence, till we reach the legendary mixtures of fact and fable, which hang, with a cloudy indistinctness, about the twilight of barbaric tradition. But in all these lessening degrees, there is, to historic reason, a pervading thread of evidence of another order, and consisting in the analogy of our nature, and that analogy which is to be extracted from the traditions of all nations.

These considerations would lead us far from our direct purpose, which is, with the utmost brevity and simplicity in our power, to connect them with the questions which have been raised upon the early history of Ireland. To these we shall now proceed.

That all nations, of which the origin does not fall within the periods of modern history, have shown the natural disposition to claim a remote ancestry in, or beyond the earliest traditions of the human race, is a fact easily proved by an extensive induction. But it is also true that such pretensions must be within certain limits, agreeable to the general truth, which must so infer the origin of all. It is not about the fact, but about the authority and the particular account, that the objection can lie. Were we therefore to take up the extreme positions of those enthusiastic writers who have chosen to begin before the flood, it is not on the score of possibility, or even probability, that we are fairly entitled to impeach their assertions. It is simply a question as to the authority for affirmations which are in themselves not unlikely to come near the truth. In opposition to this truth, the objections of the sceptic have been too much aimed at the conclusion, and too little at the statements of evidence on which it rests. This fact may be illustrated by an observation of Plowden’s: “Not one of [10] those,” writes Plowden, “who deny, or even question, the general authenticity of the ancient history of Ireland, from Gerald Barry to the Rev. James Gordon, has offered an objection to any one of their philological observations and inferences. Most of them profess, and all of them are believed, to be ignorant of the Irish language.“

Language. When it exists to a sufficient extent, there is no evidence so authoritative as language. The exploits of visionary philologists have communicated to sober persons a not unwarranted distrust in a science confused by so much ingenuity. But setting this apart, the distrust it can reflect on the simplest and clearest inferences which such investigations can afford, must be described as the opposite extreme of prejudice. It is universally allowed, that the Irish language has an origin beyond the period of authentic modern history: and this, to go no farther, settles, beyond dispute, the remote antiquity of the race to which it is peculiar, and lays a firm foundation for the successive steps of inference by which that race can be more closely identified with the known races of antiquity. The affinity of this language with that of other people who are derived from the Celtic stock, and its entire freedom from analogous relations with the Roman, Greek, and other fundamental languages of the modern nations, guide, with unerring certainty, to the next generally admitted step namely, the Celtic descent of the Irish.

On this point, we believe, there now exists little, if any, difference of opinion, and it needs not here be argued further, than by the statement of the opinions of some of our most recent writers, who having been expressly engaged in the study of the subject have given their opinions on a full review of the best authorities. “There appears to be no doubt,” says Mr Moore, “that the first inhabitants of Ireland were derived from the same Celtic stock which supplied Gaul, Britain, and Spain, with their original population. Her language, and the numerous monuments she still retains of that most ancient superstition, which the first tribes who poured from Asia into Europe are known to have carried with them wherever they went, must sufficiently attest the true origin of her people. Whatever obscurity may hang round the history of the tribes that followed this first Eastern swarm, and however opinions may still vary, as to whether they were of the same, or of a different race, it seems at least certain, that the Celts were the first inhabitants of the Western parts of Europe; and that, of the language of this most ancient people, the purest dialect now existing is the Irish.” Cab. Cyc. Hist. Ire. i. [I.e., Moore’s History of Ireland, Vol. I, 1834.)

From the same writer, whose work abounds with proofs of industry in the collection of authorities, we shall offer another attestation to the same purport, which bears yet more immediately on the point to be here illustrated. “Abundant and various as are the monuments to which Ireland can point, as mute evidences of her antiquity, she boasts a yet more striking proof in the living language of her people, - in that most genuine, if not only existing dialect, of the oldest of all European tongues the tongue which, whatever name it may be called by, according to the various theories respecting it, whether Japhetan, Cimmerian, Pelasgic, or Celtic, is accounted most generally to have been the earliest brought from the East, by the Noachida, and accordingly [11] to have been the vehicle of the first knowledge that dawned upon Europe. In the still written and spoken dialect of this primeval language, we possess a monument of the high antiquity of the people to whom it belongs, which no cavil can reach, nor any doubts disturb.” Some of the curious and instructive authorities, with which Mr Moore has illustrated these remarks, should not in justice be omitted. One of these may appropriately lead to the notice of a curious discovery, which, it appears to us, that Mr Moore is inclined to undervalue on rather insufficient grounds.

Two confirmations of the antiquity and Eastern origin of the Irish language, mentioned by antiquaries, are the gutturals with which it is so strongly characterized, and the singular coincidence by which its alphabet seems identified with that brought by Cadmus from Phonicia into Greece. On the latter of these points we shall be content to borrow a single quotation from Huddlestone, on the authority of Mr Moore. “If the Irish had culled or selected their alphabet from that of the Romans [an assumption by which this coincidence has been explained], how, or by what miracle, could they have hit on the identical letters which Cadmus brought from Phoenicia, and rejected all the rest? Had they thrown the dice sixteen times, and turned up the same number every time, it would not have been so marvellous as this.” This identity (if it exist) cannot be due to chance. It must arise from the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet, or from the same language having suggested the same letters. The latter inference is absurd; but either must lead to the same conclusion.

But the next point, of which this is valuable as a confirmation, is the real or supposed discovery of Vallancey, on the coincidence of the Irish language with some passages of an ancient unknown tongue, supposed to be the ancient Phoenician, and given as such in an ancient drama, the Pœnulus of Plautus. A coincidence so startling, is likely to awaken suspicion, and draw forth opposition in proportion to its value, as confirmatory of any historic inference. It is fair to preface it here by stating, that it is questioned by authoritative linguists and antiquaries: but we may add, that the objections which we have heard or read, are not conclusive enough to warrant our rejection of so important an illustration of our antiquity. The chief of these we shall notice, but first we may state the facts. The Pœnulus of Plautus contains about twenty five lines of a foreign language, put by the dramatist into the mouth of Phoenicians; but which has ever since continued to defy the research of etymologists. By a fortunate thought, the sagacity of Vallancey, or of his authority (for his claim to originality is doubted), hit upon a key to the difficulty. By attending to the vocal formations of these lines, they were found, without any transposition of sound, to be resolvable into words, exhibiting but slight differences from the Irish language; and by the comparison thus suggested, they were, by several persons, translated into a sense, such as the suppositions of the drama required. As the experiment was repeated, with the same result, on persons having no correspondence with each other, and ignorant of the nature of the trial, two very strong confirmations were thus obtained: one from the coincidence of the interpretations with each other, and the other [12] from the coincidence of all with the sense of the drama, and the translation given by Plautus. If this statement be true, we submit, that the case so made out, must set aside all objections. These coincidences, of which we shall presently offer some satisfactory examples, are materially confirmed, by a fact which seems at first to bear the opposite construction. A similar comparison with the Hebrew is productive of a result of the same nature, but with a far inferior degree of coincidence, both in sense and sound. With a specimen of this we shall not need to detain the reader: the object of our noticing, is to point out, and still more to meet the prejudice, which it seems to raise against the argument. The direct inference in our favour is but slight being the general confirmation of the affinity between the Irish and the Hebrew, an affinity by which it is, in a similar manner, connected with most other ancient Asiatic tongues. This has been distinctly traced by many writers, as well as by Vallancey, but our cursory purpose does not admit of entering into so expansive a field of etymological learning. The fact may, however, conduce to an object which we cannot thus pass by the explanation of the seeming objection which seems to arise from the possibility of thus resolving the same lines into different languages. It seems, on the mere statement, to give an arbitrary character to all the interpretations, not reconcileable with any distinct or certain inference. But the objection, if admissible in its full force (which it is not), is met by the near affinity of all the languages which can be so applied; an affinity which may be indeed measured by the approach to coincidence in the third or common medium thus supposed. A moment’s recollection of the nature of language, as addressed to the ear and not the eye, will enable the reader to understand the proposition: that all language is a succession of sounds, not distinguished by the divisions of writing, or by any divisions in the nature of separation; but by syllables, distinguished by a vocal formation, which compels the organs of speech to utter them in distinct articulations. Hence, if this be rightly understood, the formation of a supposed language, by an arbitrary division of letters, is impossible. To effect this object, the division must be strictly syllabic, and admits of but the few and simple variations which belong to languages which have the closest affinity: all possible divisions offer but one succession of syllabic sounds.

But the supposed objection can scarcely be admitted to exist. The verses in the Panula may be decomposed into Hebrew sounds, and translated, by some force on words, into a sense not inconsistent with the design of Plautus. But the Irish approaches to the near coincidence of a dialect, and gives the full and accordant interpretation of the lines in Plautus, as translated in Plautine Latin. But this is not all: the same inference is supported as clearly through the dialogue of a scene in the same play. We shall now offer specimens of both, beginning with the scene, as least commonly to be met with in the writers who have noticed the subject.

* Vallancey’s Collectanea, vol. ii. 306, et seq

In the second Scene of the fifth Act of the Panula, the following dialogue occurs: -

[13]

Passing over some remarkable coincidences of the same kind, we come to some which exhibit the remarkable fact, that Plautus, who borrowed the scene from an earlier drama, did not understand the language thus quoted, or seem aware how it applied to the direct purpose of his dialogue. The Phoenician, it should be stated, is one who has been bereaved of his children: -

The interpreter, in the drama, gives the following explanation:

One extract more we must not omit, as containing a coincidence of a different kind, but not less important to another portion of this argument: -

HAN. Gun ebel Balsemeni ar a san. Irish: Guna bil Bal samen ar a son. O that the good Balsamen may favour them!

It would be easy, from the same source, to pursue these quotations with others leading to the same curious inference. We must, however, content ourselves for the present with a few taken a little further on, which we give as usually found in the essays written on the subject: Punic. Bythim mothym moelothii ne leathanti diœsmachon,

As arranged by Vallancey: -

Byth lym! Mo thym nocto thii nel ech anti daise machon. Irish. Beith liom. Mothime noctaithe niel acanti daisic mac coine. English. Be with me: I have no other intention but of recovering my daughter.

[14]

The last we shall give is literally coincident with the Irish: -

Handone silli hanum bene, silli in mustine. English.“Whenever she grants a favour, she grants it linked with misfortunes.”

The question here stated, and so far explained for the reader’s decision, was put to a test of the most rigid kind, by different inquirers, amongst whom Dr Percy, the celebrated bishop of Dromore, may be mentioned particularly. He mentions in the preface to his great work, that he set different persons to translate the lines in Plautus, by their knowledge of the Irish language: and, without any previous preparation, or any communication with each other, they all gave the same sense. Recent writers have treated this argument with undeserved slight. If the inference is to be rejected, all reference to the class of proof to which it belongs must be rejected: and we must confess, that notwithstanding the great learning and ability with which his argument is followed out, we are surprised at an elaborate parallel between Irish and Hebrew, in a recent writer, who rejects, by compendious silence, a parallel so much more obvious and complete. But a writer of higher note demands the few remarks which we dare to add to this discussion, already grown beyond the measure of a prefatory essay. The coincidences which Mr Moore calls casual, are not such as to admit of a term which annihilates all the pretensions of the closest affinities of language, and which violates also the demonstrative laws of probability: insomuch, that if, as Mr Moore affirms, the admission of the inference proves too much, we very much fear that so much as it proves must be admitted, though it should discomfit a little political theory. The reasoning adopted by Mr Moore (who does not, we suspect, attach much real weight to it) can be reduced to a very easy dilemma. The objection is this: that the “close conformity” attempted to be established between the Irish and Phoenician, does not allow sufficiently for the changes which language must be supposed to undergo in the six centuries between Plautus and the foundation of Carthage; and also, that Ireland should not only have been colonized directly from Carthage, but have also retained the language unaltered through so many centuries. The actual principle on which the real weight of this objection hangs, is the assumption of the necessity of the continual and uniform alteration of language in the course of time. Now, there is either a considerable difference between the languages compared by Vallancey, or there is not. If there is so much as reduce the comparison merely to a casual resemblance, this portion of the objection fails, on the ground that such a difference is a sufficient alteration for 600 years to have accomplished. If, on the contrary, there is so little difference as to answer the purpose of such an objection, it becomes altogether nugatory: if in this case the lines in Plautus be admitted as genuine, the Irish and Phoenician languages are the same: and the doubtful chronology must give way to the settled fact. But, in point of fact, the comparison in question, while it clearly establishes the close relation of dialects of a common language, exhibits full alteration enough for 600 years. The alterations of language are by no means proved to be uniform, but depend on many circumstances both in the character and history of a people. To estimate the law of change and the change of language depends on all others requires [15] much power of abstracting the mind from the notions acquired in the recent order of things. The laws of social progression have, since the end of the 18th century, undergone an alteration which continues to baffle calculation. The extraordinary disruptions and revolutions of ancient empires must, in numberless instances, have produced the most rapid alterations in habits, religion, language: but there was no rate of internal progress in the domestic history of any ancient nation which demands more allowance in the change of dialect, than is apparent in the case under consideration. This consideration derives some added weight from one frequently noticed by Mr Moore: namely, the natural tenacity of the Celtic disposition - a tenacity which is most remarkable in the Irish branch, and therefore probably in their Phœnician kindred: being, in fact, one of the great common characteristics of Oriental origin. In a word, on this point, we cannot admit that the question of time can be reasonably adopted as a criterion on this question. Of all the difficulties in the investigation of antiquity, those attending chronology are by far the greatest; and, when certain other tests not very abundant are wanting, the most dependent upon the previous decision of a variety of questions and the comparison of a multitude of slight probabilities. Such difficulties as the uncertain chronology of periods and people, of which our knowledge is but inferential and traditionary, cannot be suffered to interfere with the conclusions from the plainest affinity of language - preserved traditions - authenticated historical notices - and existing monuments. And if we are to be scrupulous in receiving the theories and systems of antiquarian fancy, we are, in like manner, bound to be cautious not to err on the other extreme, by lightly suffering theory equally unfounded to form the ground of our scepticism. The theory of human progress, were it to be reasoned out from a comprehensive view of the history of mankind, should itself depend on the comparison of facts of this nature. The rate of national change is, in any period, only to be ascertained from phenomena, of which the language of each period is by far the most available and certain test; as being an instrument most immediately affected by all the changes and peculiarities of nationality. We are reluctant to dwell on a subject which, to most of our readers, can have little interest; but we have also to remark, that the actual amount of change which the Phoenician language may have undergone in the 600 years supposed, is not to be measured by the language of poetry, proverb, or general moral sayings. To affect these there must be a rapid change of the moral character of a nation, and even thus the effects are comparatively slight, from the more permanent nature of moral notions. The changes to which the Phoenician people were most, but still comparatively little subject, must have arisen from the intercourse of commerce and the increase of luxury and chiefly acted on the names of things and the operations of art. It is to be remembered, that the greatest changes language can be ascertained to have undergone, were from a cause not connected with time, but violent interference. But we are transgressing our limits and our humbler province: we shall now, as briefly as we can, lay before our readers the traditionary authorities, which derive much added weight from the above consideration. [16]

Ancient Authority. We should next offer a sketch of the ancient historic remains of Phoenicia, as from such a view might be drawn some of the most important corroborations of the common inference of our Irish antiquaries in favour of the Phoenician colonization of the country. But, anxious to preserve the brevity which should characterize a discussion merely incidental to our main design, we must be content to append the simple outline which a few sentences may contain. Historians are agreed in attributing to the Phoenicians the origin of commerce and navigation; but it is enough that their history presents the earliest elements and first records of these great steps of human progress. For ages, they had no rivals on the sea; and as neighbouring states rose into that degree of prosperity which extends to commercial wants, the Phoenicians were still the carriers of other people. Situated on a rocky and confined tract of territory between Libanus and the sea, there was probably added to the enterprise of commerce, that overflow of people which causes migration; and in direct cause of these conditions there arises a very high probability, that they would be the first discoverers, and the earliest colonists, of distant islands only accessible by the accident of navigation. As this previous probability is itself of a very high order, so any circumstances tending to confirm it, being in themselves but probable consequences, both receive from, and impart considerable strength to, the same conclusion.

Of such a nature is the affinity of language so fully proved in the last section. To this we may add the consent of tradition, and the agreement, to a certain extent, of authorities.

On the latter topic we shall say little. There is satisfactory reason, why much stress cannot be justly laid on express historical authority in either way. This period of the early occupation of Ireland by her Celtic inhabitants, and of her probable colonization from Phoenicia, is not properly within the limits of authentic history. Before the earliest of the Greek historians, to whom we are indebted for the first distinct notices of the island, a period of civilization and, perhaps, of commercial importance, had passed away. The power and glory of Phoenicia itself was gone - the relations of the civilized world and the form of civil society had changed: Ireland had passed into a phase of obscurity, and was mentioned but incidentally, or as a remote and unimportant portion of the known world. Such notices. must needs have been slight, and for the same reason liable both to important oversights and misstatements. This consideration must, to the fair reasoner, suggest a special rule of historical construction, which, before noticing these authorities, we must endeavour to explain.

The assumption of the kind of ignorance here explained, suggests the inference that such accounts, while founded on some remains of an authoritative nature then extant - but remote, obscure, imperfect, and neither fully known or distinctly understood - must necessarily be affected by consequent misrepresentations: and that therefore, allowing a foundation in truth, they must be understood subject to the corrections to be derived from other sources of inference, and to be considered still as authoritative, so far as they can be confirmed by such a comparison. Into this comparison it is needless to enter formally: it is, when stated, so nearly the obvious common sense of the [17] subject, that the plainest reader may be safely left to apply it. Its main application is to account for the scanty notice of the early historians, who appear to have given so disproportionate an importance to the surrounding countries; and also for the existence of the adverse testimonies of Pomponius and Solinus, Strabo and Diodorus. Of these writers it may be observed, that the times in which they wrote, fall within a period in which the Irish nation had sunk both into barbarism and obscurity. It was also a period when the general ignorance which existed as to the greater portion of the world, exposed not only the geographer but the historian to the evils of credulity: where so much must have been received on trust, and so many false notions corrupted the little that was known; there was both a facility in the reception of vague report, and the adoption of hasty inference on insufficient grounds. The temptations to fill up a blank of slight seeming importance, in an anxious work of extensive and laborious inquiry, would, in the absence of that minutely searching and jealous observation which now guards the integrity of writers, make such temptations less likely to be resisted. But even with these allowances, there is, properly, nothing in the authorities called adverse, to impair the moderate view which we are inclined to adopt.

Our best authorities substantially concur in the opinion, that this country was, at a remote period, the scene of the highest civilization in that period existing. From this state it appears to have slowly decayed into a state of barbarism, in which little of that earlier civilization but its monuments remained. Of this, we must say more in our next section: we mention it here, as explaining more distinctly to readers who are not professedly conversant with the subject, the confusion which is to be found in all that numerous class of writers, of the last century, in their incidental notices of the subject of Irish antiquities. Assuredly the laws of human nature are sometimes overlooked in the eagerness of controversy. The inconsistencies discovered in the traditions of our ancient race, are admitted facts in the history of others. The very characteristic marks of extreme antiquity are made objections to the claim. Ancient civilization, altogether different from that of any time within the limits of modern history, is uniformly stamped with features to which may be applied the expressive term barbaric - conveying a sense different from the rudeness of the savage state. Characters of profound knowledge, high mental development, and mechanic skill, are accompanied by wants and manners now confined to the savage state. And thus may the scepti cal inquirer always find materials ready for the manufacture of easy contradictions.

With regard to Ireland, the vicissitudes of many centuries have brought with them sad reverse. And the downright barbarism into which she has been crushed by a succession of dreadful revolutions - the ceaseless vortex of internal strife - have been mistaken by shallow observers for national characters. This is among the large class who take no interest in the history of Ireland - the main source of mistake upon the subject: they see, but do not learn or think; and therefore see but half, and are presumptuously or ignorantly wrong.

It is unquestionably to be admitted, that much of the common scepticism, [18] which we have here noticed, is due to the extravagance of writers on Irish history, who, combining enthusiasm with profound historical ignorance, have misinterpreted the proofs of Irish civilization, into a degree and kind of civilization which never had existence; confusing the additions of poetry and the dreams of fancy, with the slender basis of fact on which they are built. Such are the gorgeous chimeras which ornament and discredit the narrations of Walker, Keating, O’Halloran; while Ledwich and Pinkerton, with more seeming reason, but less truth, adopt the safe and easy rule of comprehensive incredulity.

But there is a juster and safer middle course which will be found to exact neither rash admissions or rejections. It sets out on two wellgrounded conclusions, into which the strongest oppositions of fact will fall, disarmed of their opposition. The first, thus already explained: the admission of a previous period of civilization, followed by one of barbarism; the other, a known fact common to the ancient history of nations, the co existence of high degrees of civilization in some respects, with the lowest barbarism in others. With the help of these two plain assumptions, there is nothing in the alleged antiquity of Ireland to be objected to on the score of improbability. By duly weighing these reflections, we have some trust that the general reader will not be repelled from the subject, by the reputed discrepancies and confusion of old historians. The effort to fill up a period of hopeless obscurity, by extending back the vague and traditionary accounts of the more recent period, immediately anterior to Christianity, has been, we believe, a main source of error and delusion, on which, at a future stage of our labour, we shall offer a few remarks.

The earliest notice, which the industry of students of Irish antiquity seem to have ascertained, occurs in a Greek poem, of which the supposed date is five hundred years before the Christian era.“There seems,” observes Mr Moore, “to be no good reason to doubt the antiquity of this poem.“ Archbishop Usher says, in adverting to the notice it contains of Ireland, “the Romans themselves could not produce such a tribute to their antiquity.“ In this poem, Ireland is mentioned under the Celtic appellation Iernis; and this, according to Bochart, on the authority of the Phoenicians - as the Greeks had not then acquired a knowledge of islands as yet inaccessible to them. This assertion derives some added weight from the omission of any notice, in the same poem, of the neighbouring island of Britain. Herodotus affords an additional gleam, by informing us of the only fact he knew respecting the British isles that tin was imported from them; while he was ignorant of their names. From these two notices, it seems an easy inference, that they were places of high commercial importance to the great mistress of the seas; while the Greeks, ignorant at that time of navigation, had no popular, or even distinct knowledge of them; and the more so, from the well known secrecy observed by the Phoenicians, in all things concerning their commercial places of resort. From Strabo we obtain a lively picture, which bears the marks of truth, of their jealous vigilance in preserving a naval supremacy, which must, in those early periods, have depended, in a great measure, on the ignorance of the surrounding states. If at any time, when at sea, [19] they fell in with the vessels of any other people, or discovered a sail upon their track, all the resources of art and daring were used to deceive the stranger, and mislead conjecture. For this purpose, no danger or violence was too great, and the loss of ship or life was not considered too great a sacrifice to the security of their monopoly of the islands. From this it appears unlikely that much, or very distinct notice of the British isles should occur in the early writings of the Greeks; and the value of the slightest is much increased, by the consideration, that more could not reasonably be looked for. The first of these notices of the two islands, is met in a work which has been sometimes attributed to Aristotle, but which, being dedicated to Alexander, is of that period. In this they are mentioned by their Celtic names of Albion and Ierne.

A notice far more express occurs in a writer of far later date; yet, bearing the authentic stamp of authority of a period comparatively early. At some time between the ninety second and hundred and twentyninth Olympiad, the Carthaginians sent out two maritime expeditions to explore, more minutely, the eastern and western coasts of the world, as then known to them. Of these, that led by Himilco was directed to the Western Islands. Both of these voyagers left accounts of their voyages and discoveries, of which those written by Himilco were inserted in the Punic Annals. From these Festus Avienus, who wrote his poem, De Oris Maritimis, some time in the fourth century, affirms himself to have derived his accounts of the western coasts; and, indeed, asserts an acquaintance with the original Journal. In this account, Himilco is described as coasting the Spanish shores the known Phoenician course to these islands; and stretching from the nearest point across to the Æstrumnides, or Scilly Islands. These are described, in the sketch of the geographical poet, as two days’ voyage from the larger Sacred Island of the Hiberni, near which the island of the Albiones lies.

Ast hinc duobus in sacram sic Insulam Dixere prisci, solibus cursus rati est. Hæc inter undas multum cespitem jacit Eamque late gens Hibenorum colit Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet.— Tartesiisque in terminos Æstrumnidum Negociandi mos erat, Carthaginis Etiam colonis, et vulgus inter Herculis Agitans columnas hæc adibant æquora. —Avienus, De Or. Mar.

In this ancient poem, which has all the authority which can be attributed to the ancient records of the annalists of any country, the description of the place, the colonists, and the ancient trade - the Sacred Island - its natives, with their manners, customs, and the peculiarities of soil and climate - are traced with a truth which vindicates the genuineness of the authority. The intercourse of the Phonician colonies of Spain is marked with equal distinctness.

It has been, from considerations in no way recondite, proved by Heeren, that Ptolemy’s geographical work, must have been derived from Phoenician or Tyrian authorities.* It proves a knowledge of Ireland [20] more minute and early than that of the other British isles. For while his accounts are vitiated by numerous topographical errors in describing these, his description of Ireland, on the contrary, has the minuteness and accuracy of an elaborate personal survey. This, considering that Ireland was at this period unknown within the bounds of the Roman Empire, plainly shows the ancient as well as the intimate character of his authority. This observation seems confirmed also by the peculiarity of giving the old Celtic names to the localities of Ireland, while Britain is described by the Roman names of places. Another ancient geographer† states, that in the earlier periods of Phoenician commerce, the western promontories of Europe were distinguished by three sacred pillars, and known by ancient religious Celtic names. To these must be added the well known testimony of Tacitus. In his Life of Agricola, mentioning the conquest of Britain, he describes it by its position opposite the coast of Hibernia. Describing the latter, he mentions its position:

Medio inter Britanniam atque Hispaniam sita, et Gallico quoque mari opportuna, valentissimam imperii partem magnis nobilem usibus miscuerit... Solum cæclumque, et ingenia cultusque hominum, haud multum a Britannia differunt: Melius aditus portusque per commercia et negociatores cogniti.

The force of the last sentence has been attempted to be removed, by referring the word melius to the former clause of the sentence. The correction has been justly rejected on consideration of style; it is still more objectionable, as it would destroy a sense confirmed by other authority, for one at variance with all; and, also, in some measure inconsistent with the context of the historian, who begins his paragraph by the emphatic description of the new conquest: “Nave prima transgressus, ignotas ad id tempus gentes.” It is indeed quite evident, that there is a distinct and designed opposition between the two descriptive sentences, of which the latter has a reference to the former. The roads and ports, better known by commercial intercourse and to merchants, is altogether, and even strikingly at variance with the nations unknown till then. And the correction supposes a vagueness of style inconsistent with the known character of the writer.

* The fact appears from Ptolemy, who refers to Maximus Tyrius.
† Strabo.

We cannot, in this discourse, dwell at greater length on a topic capable of much extension, and have confined our notice to the more generally known writers. We think, however, that it is quite sufficiently conclusive, that there was an early intercourse between Phonician traders and Ireland; that there may also have been at some period, of which the time cannot be distinctly ascertained, a Phoenician colony settled in the island; by whom, it is in a high degree probable, the Phoenician language, letters, and religious rites, were introduced. These we state as moderate inferences, from the authorities exemplified in this section. Most of them, however, are more conclusively inferred from other considerations.

Sanchoniathon, a reputed Phoenician historian, the supposed remains of whose history are preserved by Eusebius, furnishes an account of the early superstitions of the Phoenicians, which, by comparison, manifest remarkable coincidences with those which can be traced to the [21] heathen antiquity of Ireland. This work rests, however, on doubtful grounds; inasmuch as it is, by some learned writers, supposed to be the forgery of Philo Byblius, its alleged translator from the Phoenician original. This is therefore the point of importance. The nature and value of the testimony to be derived from it, scarcely warrant a minute and critical re examination of the question: but we may state the reasons on which it has been thought proper to set aside even this quantum of our argument. The absence of all previous notice of a work, affirmed to be written before the Trojan war, until its translation by Philo Byblius, seems to discredit the assertion of its previous existence; and this the more, as it seems only to have been brought to light, by the only testimony we have for it, for the purpose of supplying an argument against Christianity. These reasons are of no weight: the obscurity of a Phoenician mythological work, in the time of Philo, was too likely a circumstance to be made an objection of; and the supposed argument is obliged to be given up, as unsustained by his authority, by the acute Porphyry. The errors which have been detected in the chronology, amount to no valid objection to the genuineness of the work. Stillingfleet, who exposes them with much learning and acuteness, does not think so. A copy of Sanchoniathon’s work is said to have been recently discovered in Germany, and is now in process of translation.* The worship and early religious opinions of the Phoenicians, as described by this author, so nearly resemble the ancient superstitions of the heathen Irish, that the attention of antiquaries was drawn to the subject, by the points of resemblance, before actual investigation confirmed the conjecture of their original causes of the resemblance. The worship of Baal may be considered as a sufficiently authentic character of both, not, indeed, resting on the authority of any doubtful writer. The Phoenicians worshipped the sun under this name, and celebrated the vigil of their annual festival by kindling a great fire: the same custom is familiar to every one, who knows the country, as an Irish custom. Dr Parsons, who describes it with the accuracy of an antiquary, observes, “In Ireland, the 1st of May is observed with great rejoicings by all those original people through the kingdom; and they call May day Bealtine, Beltine, or Balteine, the meaning of which is, “the fire of Baal.” Mr Plowden observes, that the analogies and coincidences” between the still existing customs of the Irish, and the history of Sanchoniathon, are very striking; and, we would here observe, in addition to our previous remarks on the genuineness of that ancient writer, that as it could not have been forged for the purpose of this comparison, such coincidences are, to a certain extent, confirmatory of its authority; and, at all events, indicate a common fountain of authentic tradition from which the history of the ancient Phoenician worship must have been drawn. The Old Testament may have supplied an accurate outline, but no more. It can scarcely be supposed to supply a clue to details which are so faithfully reflected in the existing customs of the Irish people. The sun and moon were, it appears, worshipped under the appellations of Bel and Samhin; and O’Halloran has observed, that [22] the most cordial wish of blessing among the Irish peasantry is, “ The blessing of Samen and Bel be with you.“ The Latin translator of Eusebius, remarks on the Phoenician word Bel Samen, that Baal Schamain among the Hebrews has the same signification; and Plowden remarks also, that in the Punic lines, to which we have already referred, this familiar invocation of the great deity of the Phoenicians twice occurs.

* Report of Proceedings in the Royal Irish Academy.

Plutarch mentions an island in the neighbourhood of Britain, inhabited by a holy race of people. Diodorus is more particular: he describes an island over against Gaul, which answers to the description of Ireland, both as to position and extent, as well as the habits and peculiarities of its people. “This island,” he says, “was discovered by the Phoenicians, by an accidental circumstance; “ and adds, “the Phoenicians, from the very remotest times, made repeated voyages thither, for of commerce.”* purposes He also mentions the rites of sun worship, the round temples, the study of the heavens, and the harp. These particulars, Mr Moore thinks, he may possibly have learned from the occasional report of Phoenician merchants; while he is at the same time inclined to rank the hyperborean island of the historian, along with his island of Panchea, and other such fabulous marvels. There is, we admit, ground for this. But even allowing for the fictitious colouring, which so largely qualifies the statements of this historian, we are on our part inclined to estimate them by a principle, which, from the extent of its application, cannot be lost sight without mistake: the value which separate testimonies derive from their concurrence with universal consent.

* Quoted from Dalton’s Essay. [23]

The fanciful colouring of the writer is, in the class of cases here supposed, invariably grounded on some origin in reality. To draw the line between the fancy and the fact, might be impossible; but the object is here different: our immediate argument does not require the minute estimation of the writer’s character, and the confirmation of every portion of his statement. Even the scenery and outline of a fable may be confirmatory or illustrative of the localities and incidents of history; and, if the coincidence be sufficient, become historical. The account of Diodorus, offered as history, has the sufficient value of accordance with various notices and testimonies; and is to be regarded as an indication of a received opinion, not in the slightest degree impaired by the author’s known lubricity of statement. In the investigation of traditionary periods, no single statement can be received as historically authentic. The object is rather of the nature of that process which fixes a point, by the concurrence of the lines which pass through it. The concurrence is the principal ground of inference. It is, indeed, on the same principle, that to interpret justly the remains of Irish antiquity, it becomes necessary to enlarge the student’s scope of investigation to the view of all antiquity. The confident theory which stands upon a small basis of a few remote and isolated facts, may be destroyed by the discovery of a single new incident; and is depreciated by inferences, numerous in an inverse proportion to the number of these data. It is not until the truth is recognized, [23] that the antiquity of Ireland is a fragment of universal antiquity, or utterly fallacious, that a catholic principle of historic interpretation can be found to govern investigation, and put an end to the thousand errors of partial views and inadequate inductions. The reader, who appreciates the state of Irish ancient history, will easily excuse our dwelling minutely on this consideration in our history so much more important than in that of any other modern state.

Of the ancient idolatry of the sun in Ireland, we have already noticed some proofs. The festival of Samhin, one of the great divinities, whose worship is said to have been imported into Phoenicia from Samothrace, is clearly ascertained to have existed in Ireland, until the very introduction of Christianity. Strabo, on the authority of some ancient geographers, mentions an island near Britain, in which worship is offered to Ceres and Proserpine, like to that in Samothrace. But the reader, who may chance to be aware of the vast ocean of antiquarian learning into which this branch of the argument must needs lead, will see the necessity of our being summary in our notice of authorities. Among the numerous indirect authorities which, by their descriptions of the ancient religions of Eastern nations, enable us to pursue the comparison of these with our own antiquity, the features of comparison too often demand extensive discussion, and the application of critical learning, to fall in with the popular discussion. Sanchoniathon, Herodotus, and many other ancient names of the earliest geographers and historians, enable the industrious antiquary to collect the real features of Oriental antiquity. In the application of their authorities, there are, it is true, some difficulties, arising from the fact of the common antiquity of so many early races. From this, some differences between the ablest writers, and not a little uncertainty has arisen: the reader is at first not a little confused by conjectures which appear to be different, while they are substantially the same; that is, so far as any question of the least importance is concerned. All agree in tracing to an early Oriental origin, names, customs, and superstitions, distinctly, and beyond all question, identified with the names, language, and local remains of Irish antiquity.

The evidence becomes more really important, as less liable to various or opposing comment, when traced in the actual remains of the ancient native literature. Of this we do not feel it necessary to say much here: it must be sufficient for the purpose, to say that it is now admitted to exist to a large extent; and the genuineness of the most considerable part is not questioned. From these, our ancient history has been compiled by Keating, in a work which has been much, though undeservedly, discredited, by the mistakes and interpolations of its translator. Of this Vallancey says, “Many of these MS. were collected into one volume, written in the Irish language, by Father Jeoff Keating. A translation of this work into English appeared many years ago, under the title of Keating’s History of Ireland. The translator, entirely ignorant of ancient geography, has given this history an English dress, so ridiculous, as to become the laughing stock of every reader!” To this, amongst other such causes, may be attributed the long unpopularity and the scepticism, now beginning to disappear.

The whole of these ancient materials correspond distinctly with the [24] ancient annals of Phoenicia, “translated out of the books of king Hiempsal’s library for Sallust;” they agree with the ancient Armenian history compiled by a writer of the fifth century; and with many other ancient traditions and histories of the several nations having a common affinity. But, what is more, they contain the most distinct details of the early migrations and history of many of these tribes now extant.

Such is a slight sketch of a class of facts, which the reader, who looks for distinct detail, will find amply discussed in numerous writers. We only here desire to enforce the general probability in favour of those writers, who, abandoning partial views, and taking the general ground of historic principle, have adopted the more ancient view of the origin of our native Irish race.

The most probable illustration of the text of ancient writers, is their coincidence with the whole current of our national traditions; the more valuable, because it is easy to perceive that such a coincidence is altogether undesigned. The whole of these, again, is confirmed by the remains of antiquity, which are thickly scattered through every district. These last mentioned indications are indeed curiously mingled, and present, at first view, a vast confusion of national monuments and characteristics. But this confusion is not greater than, or in any way different from, that of the varying traditions of our earlier ages. Both are consistently and satisfactorily explained in one way, and in no other. The accidental allusions of ancient foreign writers - the monuments of various and unlike races the traditions bearing the stamp of customs and superstitions of different ancient type, -are all the evident and distinct confirmations of a traditionary history, which records the several invasions, settlements, changes, and incidents of national intercourse, from which these indications might be inferred as the necessary consequences. Now, if such an extended and various adaptation does not amount to a proof of the general correctness of the ancient history, which our soundest antiquarian writers have inferred from it, the sceptical writer may lay aside any degree of reasoning, inference, or apparent facts, which he pretends to possess, as a worthless instrument and useless materials.

Not to enter into any premature detail, it is probable that the first race of the ancient Celtic stock, retaining the more recent customs, worship, and characters of Oriental antiquity, sooner or later (we are only speaking of antecedent probability) received a fresh infusion of Celtic blood, which had flowed farther from the primitive source; thus adding, to the more ancient form of paganism, the more recent characters of a more advanced and more corrupt idolatry. Other colonies, at farther stages, brought the changes and left the monuments of ages and climates far separated from the first. But these changes were, for the most part, melted down into the prevailing tone of nationality, preserved by the primitive population, which still constituted the main body of the inhabitants; and whose native peculiarities of character gave one national impress to the whole. Such is the view to be deduced from the comparison of indications, previous consideration of national tradition. Before leaving this point, it should be observed, that it is an important addition to the value of [25] the chains of coincidence thus explained, that they are all distinctive, being exclusively characteristic of Irish history, and cannot therefore be resolved by any general theories on the antiquity of modern European nations.

Antiquities. Let us now offer a few examples, taken from among the best known antiquities of the country, to give the reader a distinct idea of the materials for the latter part of this comparison.

The reader whose curiosity is sufficiently active, may find ample information in recent and authoritative works; and every day is now adding to the abundance and distinctness of this information, under the active and able investigations of the Ordnance Survey, and the antiquarian department of the Royal Irish Academy. The Rath, the Cromlech, the Cairn, the Rocking Stone, with various remains of ancient weapons, utensils, and implements, offer abundant indications of a far distant period in the antiquity of the human race. Of these, many can be traced to other ancient nations, and these for the most part the same to which tradition assigns the origin of some or other of the races by which Ireland was anciently colonized. At a sitting of the Royal Irish Academy, 9th April, 1838, a letter from Dr Hibbert Ware* was read, describing a Cromlech near Bombay, in India, discovered by his son. As two very clever sketches accompany this letter, the slightest inspection is sufficient to identify these Indian remains, in character and intent, with the numerous similar ones in every district of this island. The same letter adverts to Maundrel’s similar discovery on the “Syrian coast, in the very region of the Phonicians themselves.” At a previous meeting of the same learned body, February 26, a very curious and interesting account was given by Mr Petrie, of a remarkable collection of remains of this class, near the town of Sligo. Amongst many interesting facts and observations concerning these, Mr Petrie, after having mentioned that they contain human bones, earthen urns, &c., and conjectured that they are the burial places of the slain in battle, goes on to mention the highly curious fact: “Such monuments,” he states, “are found on all the battle fields recorded in Irish history as the scenes of contest between the Belgian or Firbolg and the Tuath de Danaun colonies;” after which, Mr Petrie is stated to have observed, “as monuments of this class are found not only in most countries of Europe, but also in the East, Mr Petrie thinks that their investigation will form an important accessory to the history of the Indo-European race, and also that such an investigation will probably destroy the popular theories of their having been temples and altars of the Druids.” In June, 1838, a paper, read by Sir W. Betham, on the tumulus lately discovered in the Phoenix Park, contains some observations not less confirmatory of the same general view. From indications of an obvious nature, he refers this class of monuments to a more remote antiquity, “at least of 3000 years.“ Sir W. Betham affirms it to be his opinion, that the sepulchral monument here alluded to chiefly, is similar to the ancient Cromlech, and affirms the opinion, that all Cromlechs are “denuded sepulchral [26] chambers.” We might, were such an object desirable, enumerate a large consent of authorities, and bring forward many cases; we shall only further mention, that Sir William Ousley discovered structures of the same description in Persia; and it is not without value, as a confirmation, that the remarkable Cromlech near Cloyne, retains a name significant of coeval ancient superstition, being called, in the Irish, Carig Cruath, or Rock of the Sun. The Cromlech, by its construction, seems to imply a command of mechanic resource, which must be referred to a very remote period. The management of the enormous masses of rock which form these ancient structures, is little consistent with any thing we know of the more recent antiquity, when wood and hurdle were the only materials of building: but not wanting in analogous character with the period of the Pyramids and Theban remains. This observation applies with still more force to the rocking stone, of which many remains are yet found, some of which still retain their balance. Of these, one stands not far from Ballina; another near Lough Salt, in the county of Donegal; there is also one in the county Sligo, at Kilmorigan. The above inference, from structure, applies with still more force to these, but their history offers a nearer approach to the same inference.

* To Sir W. Betham.
† Report of the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

The rocking stone of the Egyptians is minutely described by Bryant, and Pliny supplies a description still more exact “Juxta Haspasus oppidum Asia, cautes stat horrenda, uno digito mobilis; eadem si toto corpore impellatur, resistens.” The same, or nearly similar, stones are described by Sanchoniathon, as objects of Phoenician worship, and are still imagined by them (in the writer’s time) to have been constructed by the great god Onranos. These remains of ancient superstition, were, however, probably common to Phoenicia, with every Asiatic race, and therefore to be simply regarded as indications of Eastern descent. They are found in Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall, and have been described by travellers as having been met in various parts of Asia.

The sacredness of hills is not peculiar to Irish, but known among the remains of early superstitions common to the primitive races of mankind. A more peculiar significance appears to belong to the known sacredness attached to certain hills which stood upon the boundaries of provinces or kingdoms. A French writer,* cited by Mr Moore, among the “ holy mountains of Greece, “ “ has enumerated nearly a dozen, all bearing the name of Olympus, and all situated upon frontiers.“ The custom is proved to have pervaded the early nations of Asia; and connects them, in a common worship of the very remotest antiquity, with Ireland, in which the hill of Usneach, standing on the common frontier of five provinces, has always been held sacred, from the earliest times within the reach of inquiry. The sacredness of hills is indeed attested by many ancient customs, of which authentic traditions remain. Their kings were crowned on hills, and their laws seem to have derived sanctity from having been enacted on sacred heights.

* Dulame, des Cultes anterieure à l’Idolatrie, c. 8.

The dedication of these artificial hills to the sun, is, however, [27] probably a distinct appropriation, confined to those Eastern countries in which the Cabini superstition prevailed. The more peculiar and (looking to the earliest periods still) recent connexion between Ireland and the East, will be observed to be indicated in the Irish names. The probability of a Phoenician origin, for this appropriation, is increased, by some traces of the same occurring in the mythological traditions of other nations, whose early history has an undoubted connexion with Phoenicia.

The reverence shown towards stones by the ancient Irish, is a mark of their Eastern descent. Of this there is one instance, of which the tradition has a very peculiar interest. It follows the singular fortunes of the stone on which the ancient kings of Ireland were crowned, through its various removals, from Ireland to Scone, and from Scone to Westminster, where it yet preserves its ancient place of honour in the coronation of our monarchs. Of this curious history there is no doubt, authoritative enough for notice.

”When the Tuatha de Danano came over, they brought with them” four curiosities or monuments of great antiquity. The first was a stone which was called Lia Fail, and was brought from the city of Falias; from which stone that city received its name. This stone was possessed of a very wonderful virtue, for it would make a strange noise, and be surprisingly disturbed whenever a monarch of Ireland was crowned upon it; which emotion it continued to show till the birth of Christ, who contracted the power of the devil, and in a great measure put an end to his delusions. It was called the Fatal Stone, and gave a name to Inisfail, as the poet observes in these verses:

From this strange stone did Inisfail obtain
Its name, a tract surrounded by the main.

This stone, called Lia Fail, had likewise the name of the Fatal Stone, or the stone of destiny; because a very ancient prophecy belonged to it, which foretold, that in whatever country this stone should be preserved, a prince of the Scythian race, that is, of the family of Milesius, king of Spain, should undoubtedly govern; as Hector Boetius gives the account, in his History of Scotland: -

Ni fallat fatum, Scoti quocunque locatum Invenient lapidem, regnare tenenter ibidem.

In the Irish language it runs thus: -

Cineadh suit saor an fine munab breag an fhaisdine, Mar abhfuigid an Lia fail dlighid flaithios do ghabhail.

In English: -

Unless the fixed decrees of fate give way, The Scots shall govern, and the sceptre sway, Where’er this stone they find, and its dread sound obey.

“When the Scythians were informed of the solemn virtue of this stone, Fergus the great, the son of Earca, having subdued the kingdom, resolved to be crowned upon it. For this purpose, he sent messengers to his brother Mortough, the son of Earca, a descendant from [28] Heremond, who was king of Ireland at that time, to desire that he would send him that stone to make his coronation the more solemn, and to perpetuate the succession in his family. His brother willingly complied with his request; the stone was sent, and Fergus received the crown of Scotland upon it. This prince was the first monarch of Scotland of the Scythian or Gadelian race; and, though some of the Picts had the title of kings of Scotland, yet they were no more than tributary princes to the kings of Ireland, from the reign of Heremond, who expelled them the kingdom of Ireland, and forced them into Scotland, where they settled. Fergus therefore was the first absolute monarch of Scotland, who acknowledged no foreign yoke, nor paid any homage to any foreign prince. This stone of destiny was preserved with great veneration and esteem, in the abbey of Scone, till Edward the First of England carried it away by violence, and placed it under the coronation chair in Westminster Abbey, by which means the prophecy that attended it seems to be accomplished; for the royal family of the Stewarts succeeded to the throne of England soon after the removal of this stone; a family that descended lineally from the Scythian race, from Maine Leamhna, son of Corc, king of Munster, son of Luighdheach, son of Oilioll Flanbeg, son of Fiacha Muilleathan, king of Munster, son of Eogan Mor, son of Oilioll Ollum, king of Munster, who descended lineally from Heberus Fionn, son of Milesius, king of Spain; every prince of which illustrious family successively received the crown upon this stone.”*

* Keating.

In fine. There is nothing more satisfactorily confirming the general truth of the accounts contained in the ancient tradition of Irish antiquity, than its strict conformity with the general analogy of human history. And this is so clear, as to admit of being stated as an extensive system of social institutions, manners, opinions, incidents, and events, which no human ingenuity could have framed together in all its parts, and so combined with existing remains, as to challenge not a single authoritative contradiction. If this vast and well devised combination be attributed to the invention of the bards, it assumes for these so much moral, civil, and political knowledge, as would do much honour to the discipline and experience of the 19th century. If it be attributed to the imagination of antiquarian theorists, we must say, that the most fanciful, credulous, and superstitious legendaries, have, after all, displayed more skill, method, and consummate wisdom, in devising a political and moral system, than their sober opponents have shown in detecting their error and credulity. And we should strongly advise our modern constitution menders, and constructors of history, to take a lesson at their school.

That the language of the bards is largely combined with fiction, is no more than to say that they were poets; and the poetry of the age and country, as well as the state of the profession, led to a vast increase of this tendency; that the legends of the monks were overflowing with romance and superstition; and that the sober paced annalists, to a great extent, falsified their records, by omission; and partial statement. All this may be admitted. The manifest fictions [29] and extravagancies, and anachronisms, may be allowed to prove so much. But the admission does not unsettle a single support, or shake down the slightest ornament, which belongs to the main structure of the ancient history of Ireland. The sceptic has to account rationally, not only for the history itself, but for the language, and the very letters, in which it is written; and must adopt a chain of denials, affirmations, and reasonings, of the most abstruse, inventive, and paradoxical kind, to establish the falsehood of traditions, which, had they no proof, are yet the most likely to be the truth, and are quite unobjectionable on the general ground of historic probability.

On the fictions of the ancient legends, it is, however, well remarked by Sir Lawrence Parsons,* that they generally affect the opinions of the writers, and not their veracity, as they most commonly consist of extravagant explanations of common and probable incidents. Such are the varied narrations, in which the various calamities of sickness, famine, fire, flood, or storm, are ascribed to the magicians. If indeed the portion of common probability in the most fictitious legends be acceded to, as the necessary foundations of popular invention, there will be nothing worth contending for.

* The MS. of our half volume was unfortunately completed, when we received a copy of this Essay, by far the ablest on the subject. We have thus lost many conclusive arguments.

To sum briefly the general inferences to be drawn from the statements of our antiquaries, as to the origin of the Irish nation: As their letters and ancient language and traditions, are standing monuments of immemorial antiquity; as these are confirmed by a great variety of lesser, but still decided, indications to the same effect; we must conclude, that the people to which they belong, are a race derived from very ancient stock. Secondly, as there is no distinct tradition, assigning the origin of this race to any probable period, within those limits of time which commence the records of modern nations, it is to be inferred, as most likely, that this ancient people have sprung up from some earlier origin within the prior limits of ancient history.

If so, they must have derived those immemorial traditions, letters, language, and barbaric civilization, from that remote and primitive antiquity, and that ancient Eastern stock, of which they bear the decided characters. And the assumption may be taken, by antiquaries, as the solid basis of research, and probable conjecture. If these introductory remarks were indeed written to meet the eye of learned antiquaries, it must be observed, that these reasons would now be needless. Among the learned, there can scarcely be said to be a second opinion, so far as regards the main line of our argument. But with the vast and enlightened body of the reading public, it is, as we have already stated, otherwise. The claim of Irish history is regarded with a supercilious suspicion, very justifiable among those who know nothing of Irish antiquities.

Ancient State. The reader will easily collect the political constitution of ancient Ireland, from our notices of the kings in whose reigns were effected the successive steps of its formation. We may here [30] make this easier by a few general facts. To Eochaidh Eadgothach is referred the first step in the process of social institution on which all civilization rests as a foundation: the regulation of ranks and orders, without which a crowd of men can become no more than a herd of wild beasts, levelled in the brutal disorder of promiscuous equality. * Legislation began with Ollamh Fodla, and subsequent kings effected. various improvements and modifications, from which the historian can easily trace the prosperity and adversity of after ages.

* We would not be understood to assert that this absolute equality ever existed. It is manifestly inconsistent with any state of human nature, until we reach that low level out of which no civilization can take its rise.

There were five orders the royal, aristocratic, priestly, poetical, mechanic and plebeian; of these, viewed as composing the body politic, they are more summarily distributed into kings, priests, and people: who assisted, or were represented, in the great assembly, or Fes.

The monarchy was elective, but the election was, by the law at least, limited to the members of the royal family. From this many evils arose; one consequence, however, may be enough to mention here: the tendency of the succession to assume an alternate order, such that, on the death of a monarch, he was succeeded by the son of his predecessor.

The disorders appurtenant to the elective principle, were in some degree limited, by the election of the successor of the monarch, or the chief (for the same rule of succession was general), at the time of their succession. This person was, in the case of the monarchy, called the Roydamna; in that of chiefs, the Tanist; and in both cases was endowed with proportional honours and privileges. [“]As to the law of Tanistry, by an inquisition taken at Mallow on the 25th of October 1594, before Sir Thomas Norris, vice president of Munster, William Saxey, Esq., and James Gould, Esq., chief and second justices of the said province, by virtue of a commission from the Lord Deputy and Council, dated the 26th of June before; it is found, among other things, “that Conogher O’Callaghan, the O’Callaghan, was and is seized of several large territories, in the inquisition recited, in his demesne, as lord and chieftain of Poble Callaghan, by the Irish custom, time out of mind used; that as O’Callaghan aforesaid is lord of the said country, who is Teig O’Callaghan, and that the said Teig is seized as Tanist by the said custom of several Plowlands in the inquisition mentioned; which also finds, that the custom is further, that every kinsman of the O’Callaghan had a parcel of land to live upon, and yet that no estate passed thereby, but that the lord (who was then Conogher O’Callahan) and the O’Callahan for the time being, by custom time out of mind, may remove the said kinsman to other lands; and the inquisition further finds, that O’Callaghan Mac Dermod, Trrelagh O’Callaghan, Teig Mac Cahir O’Callaghan, Donogho Mac Thomas O’Callaghan, Conogher Genkagh O’Callaghan, Dermod Bane O’Callaghan and Shane Mac Teig O’Callaghan, were seized of several Plowlands according to the said custom, subject, nevertheless, to certain seigniories and duties payable to the O’Callaghan, and that they were removeable by him to other lands at pleasure.” †

†Ware’s Antiquities

[31]

The religion of the heathen Irish was, as the reader will have collected, an idolatry of a mingled form, to which many successive additions had been made by different races of the same general type. Their chief god was the sun, or Bel the god of the sun.

Of the manners, arts, and knowledge of the first periods of Irish antiquity, we shall here say little, as it has long been the popular portion of the subject, on which most general information abounds, and on which the scepticism of the public is little involved.

The bards were divided into three orders: - the Filea, the Seneachie, and the Brehon. They were historians, legislators, and antiquaries. They enlightened and soothed the privacy of kings and chiefs, roused their valour, and celebrated their deeds in the field.

Poetry was in the highest esteem: it comprised the learning, philosophy, and history, of the primitive forms of society. The poets were rewarded, caressed, and the exercise of their art regulated and restrained, as of the highest importance to the transmission of records, or the extension and perpetuation of fame. But the influence which they acquired over the passions of men was found to be excessive. poet, and perhaps above all, the Celtic bard, when allowed to become in any way the organ of political feeling, has a tendency to faction, not to be repressed by discretion. The bower “where

“Pleasure sits carelessly smiling at fame”

is his most innocuous sphere, until his head and heart have been enlightened and enlarged by true Christian philosophy. The sword which may haply lurk within the flowery wreath, while its occasional sparkles are seen to glitter through the fragrant interstices, may give spirit, and an undefined charm, to the emanation of grace and sweetness which delights the sense. But to abandon a metaphor, with which an Irish bard of the highest order has supplied us, wo betide the land where the passions of party shall have caught the fever of poetic inspiration! The throne of poetic genius is, in our eyes, sovereign: but the hearts it can move to action, are never of the noblest order, and the passions it can awaken best, are not those which conduce most to the furtherance of sober truth, the peace of society, or the happiness of the human race.

Music has, perhaps in every age, had its fountain in the Irish temperament. It may perhaps be admitted as a fact by those who have an extensive knowledge of music, that the most perfect specimens of that part of musical expression which depends on the fine melody of an air, belong to the national music of the Celtic races. The ancient music of the Irish is celebrated by all writers in Irish history; but music and poetry appear to have been inseparably united in the same class of professors.

The introduction of Christianity changed the uses and, with these, the character of both these kindred arts. The Danes crushed them, together with the whole, nearly, of the graces and refinements of the primitive civilization of Ireland. Yet they lingered on still, and being deeply seated in the genius of their race, continued to shoot bright, but fugitive gleams, among the dust and ashes of national decay. [32]

Cormac, the celebrated king and bishop of Munster; was a poet, and the harp of Brian still exists,

” Though the days of the hero are o’er.“

We shall, hereafter, have occasion to offer a sketch of the history of the Irish bards.

The ancient architecture of Ireland has been too much the subject of controversy, to be discussed in an essay not designed for the purpose of inquiry. There is sufficient reason to conclude, that dwellings were constructed of wood.

“The subject of my inquiry, here, is only of the dwelling - houses of the ancient Irish, which, as they were neither made of stone nor brick, so neither were they (unless in a few instances) subterraneous caves or dens, like the habitations of the ancient Germans, according to Tacitus, in his description of that people; but they were made of rods or wattles, plaistered over with loam or clay, covered with straw or sedge, and seldom made of solid timber. These buildings were either large or small, according to the dignity or quality of the inhabitant, and for the most part were erected in woods, and on the banks of rivers.” *

* Ware’s, Antiquities.

Of the handicraft arts of the earlier age of antiquity, we are left to the inferences we can draw from the regulations of the mechanic class, which are such, as to indicate a superior attention to the various manufactures then employed. These chiefly consisted of articles of arms, dress, religious, and perhaps culinary uses. If we give any credit to the descriptions of regal state, and the enumerations of articles contained in the writings of the bards, these uses appear to have been various and splendid.

From the same sources, gleams of manners are to be collected. These are such as might be inferred both from the state and natural genius of the people. But the subject is too merely inferential, to find a place here.

Of their moral knowledge, a highly favourable idea may be collected from an ancient writing, of unquestionable authenticity, by Cormac, the son of Act. Of this too, we shall hereafter give a large specimen.

The traditionary history of ancient Iernè may be comprehended in a narrow compass: for, though bards have engrafted on it much poetic invention, it is nothing more in itself than an old table of descents.

It appears probable that the first inhabitants of Ireland were from Britain and Gaul. To this source may be referred the Wernethæ, Firbolgs, Danaans, and Fomorians. Of these the settlements were probably various, and at various periods. The Belgians, who were a Gaulish stock, and having numerous settlements in England, were the principal among these. Their possession continued eighty years, in the form of a pentarchy, under the paramount government of one. the end of the period here mentioned, the island was invaded by the Tuath de Danaans and Fomorians, who overthrew the Belgians in a pitched battle, and made themselves masters of the whole country.

[33]

The occupation of this race lasted one hundred and ninety - eight years. Their power was put an end to by the arrival of the Scythian, or Scottish race, a thousand years before the Christian era.

The frequent invasions of Spain, at this period, by the neighbour Eastern nations, seems to account for the migration of this colony, which had been settled in the northern parts of Spain. A race, to which navigation was already known, and which had already been separated, by one migration, from the parent stock, was the more likely, under such circumstances as rendered their settlement insecure, to have recourse to the same means, for the attainment of a settlement more secure, beyond the reach of their persecutors.

According to the most ancient records, collected in the ninth century, by the celebrated king of Munster, and corrected by a careful comparison of all the records and traditions then extant, it would appear, that the Spanish Celts, intent on discovering a new home, sent a chief to obtain intelligence as to the expedience and possibility of a descent on this island. The purpose of this envoy was discovered, and he was put to death; on which the sons of Milesius, roused by resentment to decision, made extensive preparations, and effected the conquest of the country.

From these the Scots of Ireland claim their descent. They were a race possessing the letters and civilization of their parent stock - a fact authenticated beyond question, by the letters, monuments, and even the legends of Irish antiquity, which are the remains of a civilized and lettered race.

Of the various methods which might be used in confirmation of this, the most suitable to the cursory design of this essay, is that afforded by the industry of O’Conor, which we shall here give, as it occurs in his work on Irish history.

The earliest accounts of foreign nations (as illustrated by Sir Isaac Newton), compared with those of Ireland: -

*FOREIGN TESTIMONIES.

THE NATIVE FILEAS.

I. An emigrant colony of Iberians, from the borders of the Euxine and Caspian seas, settled anciently in Spain. * II. A colony of Spaniards, by the name of Scots or Scythians, settled in Ireland, in the fourth age of the world. † III. The Phoenicians, who first in.. troduced letters and arts into Europe, had an early commerce with the Iberian Spaniards.‡ * Rudas ex Appian, in Æneid., lib. ix., ad ver. 582. † Newton. Buchanan. ‡ Strabo.

I. The Iberian Scots, bordering originally on the Euxine sea, were expelled their country; and, after various adventures, settled ultimately in Spain. * II. Kinea Scuit (the Scots), and the posterity of Ebre Scot (Iberian Scythians), were a colony of Spaniards, who settled in Ireland about a thousand years before Christ. * III. The ancient Iberian Scots learned the use of letters from a celebrated Phenias, from whom they took the name of Phenii, or Phoenicians. * * All the statements on this side, are from a very ancient Irish manuscript, called the Leabar Gabala.

[34]

Passing over three other similarly compared statements, in which Newton’s accounts are remarkably coincident with those of the old Irish historian, we come to the last, which has more especial reference to the statement we have made: -

In the days of the first Hercules, or Egyptian conqueror of Spain, a great drought parched up several countries. - Newton.

The conquest of Spain, together with a great drought, forced the Iberian Scuits, or Scots, to fly into Ireland. - Ogyg. Domest., p. 182.

If the genuineness of the old Irish MSS. be allowed, and they are not disputed, these parallels require no comment; but amount to proof, as certain as the records of history can afford, of the facts in which they agree. The only reply of which the argument admits, is, that Newton’s accounts are drawn from the old Irish; and this no one will presume to assert.

In these old records of the Fileas, it is granted that there is a mixture of fiction; but it is such as to be easily sifted away from the main line of consistent history which runs through the whole, with far more character of agreement with ancient writers, than the native records of any other existing nation. The fictions are connected by visible links, and traceable coincidences with the truth.

[End of introduction (pp.3-34; there follows here an introduction to the Political Series of biographies:]

 

I. POLITICAL SERIES.

THE ancient Irish historians, upon authorities of which it is difficult to pronounce the true value, reckon a long line of kings, from Slainge, the son of Dela, to Criomthan Madhnac, in the twelfth year of whose reign the Christian era is supposed to have commenced. Of these accounts it is not improbable, that much that is true forms the nucleus of much fiction, such as would be most likely to mingle itself, from a variety of causes, in the course of traditions handed down from generation to generation, and to be fixed in the form of records by the excusable credulity of their first compilers. But it would be an unpardonable waste of time and expense, to encumber our pages with lives which, whether the persons ever lived or not, are manifestly overlaid with statements which cannot, in possibility, be authentic. Some eminent names among these are, however, liable to recur frequently in Irish history; and are supposed to stand at the fountainhead of those political institutions and arrangements, which are among the most interesting facts of Irish antiquity. Of these a few may be considered as useful preliminaries to our first biographical period.

In the year of the world 3082, Ollamh Fodla is represented as monarch of Ireland. He is said, with much reason, to have been the wisest and most virtuous of the Irish kings. The most useful laws and institutions, which can be traced in the historical records of the ancient Irish, are attributed to his profound design, and to the wisdom of his celebrated council, held in the ancient kingly seat of Tara.

The account of this assembly is the following:- Ollam Fodla, with [35] the natural forecast of a sagacious legislator, and the zeal of a habitual student of antiquity, observed, that the records of his kingdom were in a state not likely to be durable. The honour of his illustrious ancestors the events worthy of perpetual note, on which it was his pleasure to dwell - and the glorious name which it was his hope to transmit - all forbade the neglect of any longer leaving the records of his kingdom to the growing obscurity of tradition. To deliver to posterity a faithful digest of the known traditions of former time, and provide for its authentic continuation, he summoned the chiefs, priests, and poets of the nation, to meet in council at Tara. This assembly he rendered permanent. It was called Feis Feamhrach, and was to meet every third year. Their first business was to collect, clear from error, and digest into order, the mass of extant records and traditions of the kingdom. Next, they were to revise the laws; and, by suitable additions, omission, and alteration, accommodate them to the age. They carefully read over every ancient chronicle, and erased any falsehoods they could detect. A law was agreed on, that any falsifier of history should be degraded from that assembly be fined, imprisoned, and his works destroyed.

With the assistance of this assembly, Ollamh regulated the different orders of rank amongst its members. He also made laws for the respect of their dignity, and protection of their persons. A still more important law was made for the protection of his female subjects, against the ungallant violence to which there appears to have been a national propensity in that remote age. For this, the offender was to suffer a merited death; to ensure which the more effectually, Ollamh placed the crime beyond the reach of the royal prerogative to pardon. Keating, who has somewhat strangely fixed the meeting of this parliament before the comparatively modern festival of “ All Saints, ” describes, with great minuteness of detail, the long but narrow apartment in the palace of Tara, where this parliament used to meet. Before proceeding to business, they were entertained with a magnificent feast; in the description of which, the whole colouring and incidents are manifestly drawn from imaginations filled with the pomps and splendours of British and European customs in the middle ages. After the feast was removed, and the attendants withdrawn, the ancient records were introduced and discussed, as the annalist of the period would now describe it, “over their nuts and claret.” From this assembly is deduced the ancient Psalter of Tara; which ancient record, says Keating, “is an invaluable treasure, and a most faithful collection of the Irish antiquities; and whatever account is delivered in any other writings, repugnant to this, is to be deemed of no authority, and a direct imposition upon posterity.”

Ollamh Fodhla reigned, according to O’Conor, six hundred years before the Christian era. The events of his time cannot be considered as within the compass of authentic history; yet his reign itself is sufficiently authenticated by the sure evidence of institutions. He was to Ireland the first legislator; and his name and character stand out from the surrounding obscurity, with the same clear and steady light which has preserved so many of the greater sages, heroes, and bards, of primitive times, to the veneration of all ages.

[36] The political constitution of the country, as settled in this reign, may be generally included under three heads: the institution of the Fes, or legislative assembly; the enactment of a code of laws; and the precise and orderly distribution of the orders of society. The classes were three: the nobility, the druids and learned men, and the common people. In an age in which literature was still confined to a privileged class, it is easy at once to perceive the impossibility of long preserving the balance required for the stability of any form of government. The main disadvantage, however, of this ancient constitution consisted in the crown being elective. Of this the consequence is noticed by O’Conor.

“It is evident that such elections could seldom be made with sufficient moderation. Factions were formed; the prevalent party carried it; the losing party collected all their strength to set aside the monarch duly elected; and accordingly most of our princes died with swords in their hands.”

It is, perhaps, also not unimportant to observe, that the frame of government, thus described, is stamped with the authentic features of the common type of primitive institutions. The system of a balanced combination of orders is itself, not to look further, a sufficient indication of a forward stage in the progress of civilization; and should the mere idea of such a system be found extant in really ancient records, or should it, with sufficient distinctness, be traceable in old customs and traditions, it ceases to be worth the sceptic’s while to contend. His proposition must be reduced to something very frivolous, before it can be argued with any clearness.

[Ênd Intro to Political Series (pp.34-36). There follows here the biography of Hugony - the first in the Political Series of the 1st Volume. ]

This work was issued by Wills in six volumes, most comprising several parts (1 & 2, or merely 1), published between 1839 and 1847 [var. 1840-47], and issued again in a uniform edition of 1847 at the completion of the last. Some three years after his father’s death, the work was ‘continued’ by his son Freeman Wills in 1871 to form a new edition containing for the most part the lives written and compiled by his father along with some others, in which the plates and - crucially - the pagination of the previous edition remained the same. This is to say that the same plates were used to print the new edition. Excepting only the first serialised edition, which was published in by MacGregor and Pilsin in Dublin and Belfast during 1839-47, the whole was published by Fullarton in Edinburgh, London and Edinburgh and Dublin at different times from 1847 onwards. (A New York edition exists with the names of Fullarton and McNab on the title page.)

The edition issued by the author’s son Freeman appeared with an altered title as The Irish Nation, Its History & Its Biography, by James Wills, D.D., and F[reeman] Wills, M.A., 4 vols. (London: A Fullarton & Co, 1871) - and this was reprinted as Do. (Edinburgh, London & Dublin: A Fullarton & Co. 1875), ill. [24 ports.]. Each volume of this edition is is accessible via HathiTrust in an edition held at Wisconsin Univ. Library digitised by Goodle - online]. A facsimile reprint has been published by Thoemmes Ltd., in 1997 (2,880pp.) and, unsurprisingly, this is not available on Internet.

]wis edition is sometimes referred to for short as The History of Ireland in the Lives of Its Famous Men - in reaiity a subordinate part of the original title which appeared on the spine. It is clear, however, that this ungainly phrase - the more so since it seems like a reiteration of the initial phrase was actually part of the original title conceived by Wills for the the first (serialised) edition. It is no wonder, moreover, that his son abbreviated it to The Irish Nation, Its History and Biography, in editions after 1871.

Some of the copies listed in British and American libraries catalogues lack dates of publication on the title pages while others bind the title-pages of all volumes at the end of Vol IV rather than the beginning, the bibliography is difficult to unravel with certainty. Is this simply a manner of advertising the prior volumes? What clearly emerges is that Fullarton did reissued James Wills’s his book in 1847. It is probable but less certain that this was reprinted in 1850 and 1860 but certain that his son Freeman issued a new edition, with some additional ‘lives’ in his own hand, and with his name added as co-author to the title page, but in 4 volumes rather than six while adopting the simplified title of The Irish Nation, Its History & Its Biography, in 1871. And this is the form in which it was reprinted in 1875.

At the same time, the title Irish History in the Lives of Irishmen can be met with on the spine of editions issued solely by James Wills in his own lifetime and this is often often taken up in library catalogues as the proper title of the work then published although, in fact, the title-page of the same volumes was invariably bears the longer name of Live of Illustrious and Distinguished Irish, with the added phrase embodying a History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen added to all in editons after 1847.

The thinking behind this is repetition is obscure, or perhaps even anomalous. It seems to signify that Woççs considered the a mass of national biographies he assembled was tantamount to a “history of the nation” in keeping with the principle made famous by Thomas Carlyle to the effect that the history of a country is the biography of its famous men. Wills may have indeed believed that but certainly it was a convenient idea since he admits in his Introduction that a chronological narrative is particularly uncertain in relation to to early Irish history, given the prevalence of myth, legend, folklore, hagiography, and a general deficiency of reliable and mutually-consistent historical records. Ergo, the only history of Irland you could write would be a biography of famous Irishmen.

It is notable that he shorter title History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen is used both by Luke Gibbons (Transforations in Irish Culture, 1996) and Joep Leerssen (Remembrance and Imagination, 1996) in citing te origin of quotations from the work, both citing p.3 which is, in fact, a constant in the pagination of all editions of the work [See Quotations, as attached.] The short passage concerned which glistens with the idea of an “oneiric” vision of Irish history was unquestionably written by James Wills himself and not added by his son for the 1871 repubiication. The fact that the Gibbons dated it conjecturally at 1845 suggests that he consulted the undated edition of 1847 which can be found in the Boston College Library and which call now be reached at Internet Archive online; accessed 03.10.2024).