Literature. HISTORY OF IRELAND; Cuculain and his Contemporaries. By STANDISH O'GRADY, vol. ii. London: Sampson, Low, Searle, Marston, & Rivington. Dublin: E. Ponsonby. 1880. THE first volume of Mr Standish O'Grady's History of Ireland appeared in 1878. We read it at the time with unmixed pleasure, and noticed it favourably and at some length in these pages. The volume before us appeared early this year; but it has hitherto been left unnoticed. Some time subsequently to the receipt of the book from the publishers, and before we were able to peruse it, a letter from the author reached us, quite unsolicited, in which he volunteered the following statement:-" As I look over the preface to vol. ii. I feel quite ashamed of the somewhat hasty (or nasty; we are not quite sure which) way in which I have alluded to the noble Scotch traditions and bardic tales and poems which, through Macpherson, have made the name of Ossian famous over the world. In writing so I must have felt a momentary annoyance that the ancient MS. literature of Ireland should be so forgotten and unknown. If I come to a second edition I hope to write more fairly on that subject." Naturally enough, on receipt of this manly, voluntary, and unexpected acknowledgment of the "hasty (or nasty) way" in which he referred to Macpherson, we began to read the book, or rather its long introduction of 88 pages, in which the author treats of the "Early Bardic Literature of Ireland;" and a most interesting and learned dissertation we found it. In it he informs us that, until modern times, history was the one absorbing pursuit of the Irish secular intellect, the "delight of the noble, and the solace of the vile;" but that, at present, the apathy which prevails on the subject among Irishmen is "without parallel in the world. It would seem as if the Irish, extreme in all things, at one time thought of nothing but their history, and, at another, thought of everything but it. Unlike those who write on other subjects, the author of a work on Irish history has to labour simultaneously at a two-fold task-he has to create the interest to which he intends to address himself." The Irish historian stands with dismay and hesitation, not through the deficiency but through the excess of the mass of material ready to his hand, while the English historian has utterly lost record of everything which took place during the centuries to which these extensive Irish records refer. The mass of imaginative literature causes the main difficulty, for it can neither be rejected nor retained; "it contains historical matter which is consonant with and illuminates the dry lists of the chronologist," while at the same time it is said that "popular poetry is not history, and the task of distinguishing in such literature the fact from the fiction-where there is certainly fact and certainly fiction-is one of the most difficult to which the intellect can apply itself. That this difficulty has not been hitherto surmounted by Irish writers is no just reproach. For the last century, intellects of the highest attainments, trained and educated to the last degree, have been vainly endeavouring to solve a similar question in the far less copious and less varied heroic literature of Greece. Yet the labours of Wolfe, Grote, Mahaffy, Geddes, and Gladstone, have not been sufficient to set at rest the small question, whether it was one or two or many who composed the Iliad and Odyssey, while the reality of the achievements of Achilles, and even his existence, might be denied or asserted by a scholar without general reproach. When this is the case with regard to the great heroes of the Iliad, I fancy it will be some time before the same problem will have been solved for the minor characters, and as it affects Thersites, or that eminent artist who dwelt at home in Hyla, being by far the most excellent of leather cutters. When therefore Greek meets Greek in an interminable and apparently bloodless contest over the disputed body of the Iliad, and still no end appears, surely it would be madness for any one to sit down and gaily distinguish true from false in the immense and complex mass of the Irish bardic literature, having in his ears this century-lasting struggle over a single Greek poem and a single small phase of the pre-historic life of Hellas." This argument is particularly apposite and to the point; but it is curious, to say the least, to find the author of such an argument writing, as he does further on, in so dogmatic a manner of Macpherson and his Ossian, and in a style which only an Irishman, who, on that question, borrows his limited information, and his dense prejudices, from Dr Johnson and his Saxon satellites, could use; all of whom hated the Celt and still continue to grudge to him, both in Scotland and in Ireland, anything in literature removed from mere common-place. It is really a pity to find writers like Standish O'Grady adopting such a course, and blindly following the lead of the enemies of his own race to scratch the literary eyes out of his brother Celts of Scotland; but, to tell the truth, this has hitherto been markedly characteristic of Irish literatteurs. They have an Ossian and an Ossianic poetry of their own-mere doggerel and gibberish in comparison with Macpherson's, and they, naturally, but narrowly and mistakenly, grudge their Scottish brethren the noble heritage. We had in vain hoped that in this respect matters were improving, and that the Celts of both countries were beginning to see more eye to eye and becom ing more willing to co-operate rather than to pick out each other's eyes. The work before us has, however, undeceived us. The author seems strongly depressed and impressed throughout with the dense ignorance of his own countrymen regarding their own history, and he cumulates the wailing and piles on the agony thus :-"A history dealing with the early Irish kings and heroes would not secure an audience." "A rational scientific history of Ireland will be acceptable in proportion to the readableness of the style, and the mode in which the views of its author may harmonise with the prevailing humour and complexion of his contemporaries." "There is not in the country an interest on the subject to which to appeal. A work treating of the early Irish kings in the same way in which the historians of neighbouring countries treat of their own early kings would be, to the Irish public generally, unreadable. It might enjoy the reputation of being well written, and as such receive an honourable place in half-a-dozen libraries, but it would be otherwise left severely alone. It would never make its way through that frozen zone which, on this subject, surrounds the Irish mind." "Intensity of application" on the part of the Irish reader "is a condition of the public mind which no historian of this country can count.” "Educated Irishmen are ignorant of, and indifferent to, their history." "I think I do not exaggerate when I say that the majority of educated Irishmen would feel grateful to the man who informed them that the history of their country was valueless and unworthy of study." These are only a few specimens of the complimentary vocabulary in which the author of the work before. us refers to his countrymen-to "educated Irishmen," And yet, he hesitates not to address them regarding Macpherson's Ossian in a manner which can only be justified by his friends on the supposition that he is just as ignorant on that question as they-his educated countrymen-are, if we accept his authority, of the history of their own country. Some of his educated but "ignorant" brother-Irish have recorded their narrow and prejudiced opinions of Macpherson's Ossian in the "Transactions of the Irish Ossianic Society," and Mr O'Grady appears to have adopted their ignorant and prejudiced conclusions without having made any enquiry of his own. The paper in the Transactions of the Ossianic Society is as shallow and one-sided a criticism as it has ever been our fortune or misfortune to peruse, and did it fall within the scope of this notice there would be little difficulty in showing that its arguments are bad; that the so-called facts on which they are based are no facts at all; that history itself had been perverted; and that the conclusions arrived at are exactly neither more nor less than the natural outcome of these false premises. They seem, however, to have been considered good enough for the author of the "History of Ireland ;" and the only satisfaction derivable from all the circumstances is the manly and voluntary acknowledgment which the author has made that he is "ashamed" of the nasty manner in which he has written of Macpherson and his Ossian. After wading through several sneering and depreciatory remarks regard. ing Macpherson, we finally land, page 45, upon the following curious compliment and peculiar "justice" to Macpherson and his countrymen, addressed mainly, of course, to the "educated" of whose dense ignorance we have learned more in this volume than we are really willing to believe : "To Macpherson, however, I will do this justice, that he had the merit to perceive, even in the debased and floating ballads of the Highlands, traces of some past greatness and sublimity of thought, and to understand, for the first time, how much more they meant than what met the ear. But he saw, too, that the historical origin of the ballads, and the position in time and place of the heroes whom they praised, had been lost in that colony removed since the time of St Columba from its old connection with the mother country. Thus released from the curb of history, he gave free rein to the imagination, and in the conventional literary language of sublimity, gave full expression to the feelings that arose within him, as to him, pondering over those ballads, their gigantesque element developed into a greatness and solemnity, and their vagueness and indeterminateness into that misty immensity and weird obscurity which, as constituent factors in a poem, not as back-ground, form one of the elements of the false sublime. Either not seeing the literary necessity of definiteness, or having no such abundant and ordered literature as we possess, upon which to draw for details, and being too conscientious to invent facts, however he might invent language, he published his epics of Ossian-false indeed to the original, but true to himself, and to the feelings excited by meditation upon them. This done, he had not sufficient courage to publish also the rude, homely, and often vulgar ballads a step which, in that hard critical age, would have been to expose himself and his country to swift contempt. The thought of the great lexicographer riding rough-shod over the poor mountain songs which he loved, and the fame which he had already acquired, deterred and dissuaded him, if he had ever any such intention, until the opportunity was past. "Macpherson feared English public opinion, and fearing lied. He declared that to be a translation which was original work, thus relegating himself for ever to a dubious renown, and depriving his country of the honest fame of having preserved through centuries, by mere oral transmission, a portion, at least, of the antique Irish literature. To the magnanimity of his own heroes he could not attain :— Oscar, who feared not armies- "Of some such error as Macpherson's I have myself, with less excuse, been guilty, in chapters xi. and xii., vol. i., where I attempt to give some conception of the character of the Ossianic cycle." This is another manly confession; yet, Mr O'Grady, it is hardly fair that you should measure Macpherson's corn by your bushel. You may be willing to admit that you have feared English public opinion, and fearing lied; but Macpherson admitted no such thing. It has yet to be proved; and you must not assume, that because you did so and confess it, he was also capable of condescending to such literary degradation. Having reached and perused what Mr O'Grady's letter evidently referred to, we immediately wrote to him asking if the letter addressed to us was to be considered private-in which case the work would have to be reviewed as if the letter had never existed-or whether we were to hold it as a public document, and to be permitted to make such use of it as we thought right in the circumstances. We at once received his reply, giving us full permission to use it in whatever manner we thought proper, and we had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it ought to be at once published; for it is, at best, only problematical that a second edition of the History of Ireland may ever appear. And we consider it only fair that Irishmen and Scotchmen alike should know that the opinions expressed regarding Macpherson and his Ossian in his published work are not the present and more matured opinions of the accomplished author of the History of Ireland. Apart from this unconsidered attack upon Macpherson and his Ossian, which we felt bound in justice to his memory to resent, the present volume is an interesting and valuable work, and well worthy of its predecessor. TRADITIONS AND FOLK LORE OF STRATHGLASS.-The first of a series of papers on this subject will be commenced by Mr Colin Chisholm, exPresident of the Gaelic Society of London, in our next. "Educated Irishmen are "I think I do not ex which no historian of this country can count." ignorant of, and indifferent to, their history." aggerate when I say that the majority of educated Irishmen would feel grateful to the man who informed them that the history of their country was valueless and unworthy of study." These are only a few specimens of the complimentary vocabulary in which the author of the work before us refers to his countrymen-to "educated Irishmen," And yet, he hesitates not to address them regarding Macpherson's Ossian in a manner which can only be justified by his friends on the supposition that he is just as ignorant on that question as they-his educated countrymen-are, if we accept his authority, of the history of their own country. Some of his educated but "ignorant" brother-Irish have recorded their narrow and prejudiced opinions of Macpherson's Ossian in the "Transactions of the Irish Ossianic Society," and Mr O'Grady appears to have adopted their ignorant and prejudiced conclusions without having made any enquiry of his own. The paper in the Transactions of the Ossianic Society is as shallow and one-sided a criticism as it has ever been our fortune or misfortune to peruse, and did it fall within the scope of this notice there would be little difficulty in showing that its arguments are bad; that the so-called facts on which they are based are no facts at all; that history itself had been perverted; and that the conclusions arrived at are exactly neither more nor less than the natural outcome of these false premises. They seem, however, to have been considered good enough for the author of the "History of Ireland ;" and the only satisfaction derivable from all the circumstances is the manly and voluntary acknowledgment which the author has made that he is "ashamed" of the nasty manner in which he has written of Macpherson and his Ossian. After wading through several sneering and depreciatory remarks regarding Macpherson, we finally land, page 45, upon the following curious compliment and peculiar "justice to Macpherson and his countrymen, addressed mainly, of course, to the "educated" of whose dense ignorance we have learned more in this volume than we are really willing to believe : "To Macpherson, however, I will do this justice, that he had the merit to perceive, even in the debased and floating ballads of the Highlands, traces of some past greatness and sublimity of thought, and to understand, for the first time, how much more they meant than what met the ear. But he saw, too, that the historical origin of the ballads, and the position in time and place of the heroes whom they praised, had been lost in that colony removed since the time of St Columba from its old connection with the mother country. Thus released from the curb of history, he gave free rein to the imagination, and in the conventional literary language of sublimity, gave full expression to the feelings that arose within him, as to him, pondering over those ballads, their gigantesque element developed into a greatness and solemnity, and their vagueness and indeterminateness into that misty immensity and weird obscurity which, as constituent factors in a poem, not as back-ground, form one of the elements of the false sublime. Either not seeing the literary necessity of definiteness, or having no such abundant and ordered literature as we possess, upon which to draw for details, and being too conscientious to invent facts, however he might invent language, he published his epics |