Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

been discovered, and it can only be allowed, that as fome mif. fionaries had preceded Patrick, they had not been deprived of the knowledge they acquired in Rome by their refidence in Ireland. But this argument is of no force in deciding the queftion of a national language. The modes of interment, the monaftic hiftory of Ireland, the ecclefiaftical hiftory of this kingdom, and fome mifcellaneous obfervations, follow. The upright ftones our author contends were fepulchral. The wandering life of the Creaghts, fo much refembling that of the ancient Scythians, is curious: the wandering paftoral life is peculiar to the East, and it is not eafy to fay how it was introduced into Ireland, as we have no inftances of the Nomades croffing the feas. The custom was, however, a general one, of very ancient and very diftant nations. It is applied to fhow that this paftoral life was a proof of fome refinement, fince the first stage is that of the hunter. He forgets only, that when this progrefs takes place, it implies a fixed refidence: the early wandering thepherd is in the firft æra of his refinement.

Mr. Ledwich's laft Essays are on Dunmafe and Shean Castle, in the Queen's County, and on the round Towers of Ireland. The latter, he thinks with great reafon, are of Danish origin, and the other hypotheses are examined with much candour and accuracy.

The Effay by Mr. Beauford we have in one point anticipated. It is entitled, Druidifm Revived; or, a Differtation on the Characters and Modes of Writing ufed by the Irish in their Pagan State, and after their Converfion to Chriftianity. The author, with great candour, allows that there are no MSS. of a date prior to the period of the patron faint of Ireland, and that the Druids never committed their tenets to writing; but argues, from the connexion and commerce of that ifland with other countries, that writing was probably known," and that this writing was the Bobeloth and the Ogham, formerly mentioned. The Druids are artfully brought into this difcuffion, becaufe they are faid by Cæfar to have used Greek letters; but it would have been incumbent on the author to have fhown that Druidifm was ever eftablished in Ireland. No hiftorical evidence proves this fact, and the probability is on the oppofite fide, fince the laft firm oppofition of the Druids was in Anglesey. If they had friends and brethren in Ireland, would they not rather have retired to the bogs and fastneffes of that kingdom, where they might have defied the whole Roman power? Again: the fanguinary difpofition of the Druids would have led them to oppofe by the most decifive measures, the progrefs of Christianity; yet we find the reli

gion

gion of Chrift was received not only without a fruggle, but feemingly with ardour. The pagan Irish worshipped the fun and moon; and this fuperftition, known only in thofe places where the Druidical fyftem had not reached, feems to have been inconfiftent with its tenets. The Druids, we have faid, are introduced in this difpute because of their employing Greek letters, and the Greek, it is fuppofed, was the commercial language of the remoteft æra. The latter we believe; for the Etrurians brought their dialect to Italy, and the Latin is only old corrupted Greek; fo that by fimilar means it might have been conveyed to other places; but the Druids are exprefly faid by Cæfar to have employed them as an unknown dialect, to preferve their fecret; fo that our author muft give up their religion or his old Greek. The former neceffarily falls, without our being able to establish the latter as a national language.

We cannot follow our author particularly in his fufpected fyftem of the Irish Druids; in the origin of letters, where he follows the refinements of Warburton too minutely; or in his progrefs of letters, in which we meet with too many difputed facts. If the old language of the Irish was neceffarily derived from any country, it may have been from a Spanish colony of Carthaginian origin, as Mr. Beauford alledges; but Ireland is not obliged to him for denying the inhabitants the use of fpeech till this late æra. Ireland was undoubtedly peopled in the progreffive difperfion of the Noachida, and derived its language from that nation to which it was indebted for its colonies. It is not furprising that the fame nation fhould have produced other colonies, who received a fimilar language, a fimilar religion, and manners diverfified only by the climate. As the different colonies gradually extended, these fimilarities may be obfervable in the remoteft countries in Ireland and Phoenicia, in Egypt and in Otaheite.

Mr. Beauford next examines the Bobeloth, the Ogham, and the Bethluis-non characters, and explains them, as well as the manner of writing, at length, The enlightened antiquaries have already decided on thefe fubjects, and shown what they really are. It is curious, however, to obferve, that what authors of credit have faid of the Phoenicians and Iberians, Mr. Beauford applies to the rith; and as he thinks he has shown that the laft are derived from the two former, he is at liberty to apply their obfervations to his own nation, The real Irish authorities are not fuch as demand a moment's attention.

In the Effay on the Origin and Language of the Irith, and the Learning of the Druids, our author traces the gradual progrefs of different races with fufficient accuracy, except that

he

he makes the Irish to be Celts from Britain, and to have ob tained the name of Scoti (Scythæ) from their wandering life; though the Celts, we apprehend, were never a Nomadic race. The learning of the Druids is collected from the best ancient authors, who we fufpe&t magnified it from the obfcurity ia which it was hid. But Mr. Beauford dreffes it in the most fplendid colours, applies it to Ireland on the authority of Keating, O'Flaherty, and above all the Offian of Macpherson, who, for this purpofe, is carried back to the third century. We fee our author's candour and good fenfe occafionally ftruggling against this load of fiction; at times judging with accuracy, and then again led aftray by the wildeft reveries of the most fabulous authors.

The Effay on the Antiquity of the Irish Language, published separately in 1772, and noticed in our XXXVth volume, p. 240. we need not return to. We fee no reasons for altering our opinions, and have already given our fentiments how this remarkable coincidence of language between Ireland and Phoenicia may have arifen. The history and antiquities of Irish Town and Kilkenny are chiefly a local enquiry, and at this distance from the first publication, cannot be properly the fubject of our remarks.

In the third volume, the fubject of the Brehon laws is continued; and it is now found that they contain fome Perfian words; in the preface alfo we find fome fanciful opinions relating to an eastern or Tartarian origin. It is not furprising that fome words in almost every language fhould be fimilar, for there must have been one common language of early origin. The fame reafon may be affigned for the accidental coincidences here pointed out between the Chinese and Japanefe languages, and the old Irish. In the Eaft and the Welt, the more fecluded fpots, there has only been lefs variation, lefs corruption of language than in any other place. The dialect is the old Celtic, one of the earliest languages of which any trace remains. On the fame principle it is not furprising, that round towers fhould occur in Bulgaria and Ireland. Col. Vallancey, from a building of this kind defcribed by Pallas, thinks them of Scythian origin: Mr. Ledwich is probably more correct in afcribing them to the Danes. We fhall make no remarks on Mr. Pownal's and col. Vallancey's oppofite accounts of the Shiptemple, till they can give either fyftem more probability, or till they have fettled the real appellation. The form appears to us to be accidental.

Mr. O'Connor's Reflections on the Hiftory of Ireland follow; but he compliments col. Vallancey on what he has not done, and attempts to do what we think is impoffible; efta

bliss

blish the existence of a Milefian colony from Spain, and trace the history of Ireland through three distinct periods, previous to A. D. 130. He has not proved what ought to have been his first attempt, that his boasted MSS. existed previous to the fixth century, or were fupported by older ones.

The ancient topography of Ireland contains the etymology of different names of places, deduced from the purest Celtic roots. But etymology, always a fufpicious ground of argument, is particularly fo when the fubjects are Iberno-Celtic, for the converfion of different letters, the varieties derived from pronunciation, on fubjects where the names were for ages traditional, renders it eafy for a skilful etymologift to make what he pleases of different names; and in more than one part of thefe volumes, the most heterogeneous and oppofite derivations of the fame words are introduced. Another infance we formerly quoted in our review of col. Vallancey's Effay.

The Letter to Governor Pownal, the author of the Obfervations on the Ship Temple, by Mr. Ledwich, contains many juft and accurate remarks; and, on the whole, a more connected and undifputed fyftem of Irish antiquities than these volumes have yet produced. It is clear, bold, manly, and confiftent. Yet we think he fails in one point, which cannot have been an important part of his view; that Ireland was originally colonized from Britain. It was undoubtedly peopled by the fame race from Scandinavia in the north, and probably from Spain or France in the fouth; nor can we deny that it may have received Belge from Britain or the weft. Our author may, therefore, be confidered as only accidentally and partially in an error. The application of his fyftem to Mr. Pownal's Ship Temple, we are unwilling to criticize minutely; in reality, criticism is mifapplied to it, for the facts are not yet afcertained with fufficient clearness.

Our limits remind us that it is time to ftop, and delay the remainder of this Collection to a future Number.

Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in anfawer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 1. By R. Porfon 8vo. 6s. Boards. Egertons.

IF

F the doctrine of the divinity or the equality of Chrift depended on a fingle text, it might be of importance to examine it again and again with the moft fcrupulous attention and the most anxious care; to guard against error from the pious frauds of zealous interpolators, careless tranfcribers, or defigning polemics. The text, which Mr. Travis has fo zealously defended, is indeed an important one, fince it speaks VOL. LXX. Nov. 1790.

PP

more

more explicitly than any other part of Scripture, except perhaps one verfe of the evangelift John (x. 30); but it is fo far from being fingle or unfupported, that we have no hesitation, after going once more over the ground of this controversy, in confidering it as fpurious; having obtained a place, according to Dr. Benton (as a mystical interpretation of the three that bear witness in earth), in the margin, it, by accident or defign, crept into the text. No demonflration in Euclid can be plainer than this: if it is in no early Greek manufcript; if it is not quoted by the earlier fathers, who on this fubject prefs every paffage which can moft remotely affift them into their fervice; if it first appears in the margin, and afterwards, apparently in confequence of an evident alteration, in the text, it cannot have been written by the pen of the apostle. In our account of Mr. Travis' Letter (Vol. LX. p. 161.) we gave the fame opinion, which farther enquiry and more attentive examination has abundantly confirmed.

In all Mr. Gibbon's volumes, there is not perhaps a sentence more correctly juft in every part, than this which has drawn down the indignation of the archdeacon, if we except only the infinuation of fraud in R. Stephens. It seems to have been merely a typographical error. Mr. Travis for a time reigned defpotically though we ventured to point out fome mistakes in his letters, and at least gave room for much doubt and hesitation, they have been quoted as irrefragably decifive of the authenticity of the text. Mr. Porfon, however, who joins to the most extenfive knowledge of the subject an intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, is a very formidable antagonist. He purfues the archdeacon through all the intricacies of the path, detects him in copying the tranf lation of Martin, as he has retailed the errors of his tranflator, and the typographical mistakes of the English copy; points out many unsupported assertions, much inconclufive reafoning, and by a feries of acute argument, pointed raillery, and accurate investigation, has given a mortal wound to the oppofite opinion. We have feen nothing of late fo juft and fatisfactory on a polemical question.

Yet Mr. Porfon is not without his faults. He speaks early of his contempt of the world, he treats a ferious question too often with raillery, which we had almoft called indecent, and with a truly Bentleian acrimony, he expreffes the most cordial contempt of his antagonist in language often illiberal. In fhort, the seasoning of the controversy' is much too high. To go over the whole ground of the difpute would be now. improper and ufelefs. In the preface, Mr. Porfon has pointed out the most important publications on this fubject, and

6

the

« ZurückWeiter »