No. CCCLXIX.

VOL. LXII.

DURING the last fifty years great light has been thrown upon the early period of English history by Sharon Turner and Kemble, who professedly wrote upon the history of the AngloSaxons; but scarcely less advantage has been derived incidentally from philological criticism. On the Continent, the language of the AngloSaxons has been investigated, on the principles of comparative grammar, by Rask and Jacob Grimm; the critical comparison of the various Germanic dialects, instituted by the latter, has produced most important results.

The interest awakened by these inquiries led scholars to collate the numerous manuscripts in our public libraries. In the year 1831, the Society of Antiquaries determined to publish those Anglo-Saxon or Old English records, which existed only in manuscript, or had been imperfectly edited. In the following year, an excellent edition of "Caedmon" appeared, with an English translation by Benjamin Thorpe, who was already known as the translator of Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar. The poem of Beowulf was edited by Kemble, with a literal translation and a glossary.

The labours of Wright and Halliwell have rendered great service to the cause of Old English literature; and the study is now so far advanced that a critical and historical knowledge of the English language is en

VOL. LXII.-NO. CCCLXIX.

joined in the schools, and required in competitive examinations.

Hence, many points are now familiar even to schoolboys, which were unknown to Dr. Johnson, Horne Tooke, and David Hume. The change has been effected by an improvement in method; we have found that an enlightened study of language teaches much more than words; and that if we mean to investigate history, we must consult the original sources in the original languages.

Our present object is to inquire whether similar results may be obtained by studying the Cymric language and antiquities.

It is a hopeful sign that scholars are directing attention to the Celtic languages. The "Grammatica Celtica" of Zeuss, in which he discusses the dialects of the Cymric and Gaelic branches, must produce its own effect in due time; but a work of that kind requires twenty or thirty years, to be fully appreciated.

Apart from grammatical studies, however, we wish to know whether historical and literary discoveries may be made---whether, in fact, there are the same treasures in Cymric as in Anglo-Saxon.

Now, in the first place, we cannot tell what there is to explore, until we have made diligent search. Many persons dispose of the question in limine by saying, "Oh! the Welsh have no literature," without ever

17*

giving themselves the trouble to inquire what Cymric manuscripts exist, or what they contain. The treasures unfolded in the Anglo-Saxon would never have come to light unless investigation the most careful and energetic had taken place; and it often happens that the researches of the philologist are, in the highest degree, useful to the historian. Similarly, persons have asserted that the Irish have no literature; but in Eugene Curry's "Manuscript Resources of Ireland" we can point to a satisfactory answer.

We must remember, that in the Cymric there are documents of professed antiquity; there are the poems of the early bards, and the historic Triads. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that these productions are of little value, and are the work of a later age. Still, the British historian should be competent to pass judgment upon them; he should be able to hear and give reasons upon both sides of the question. But this he cannot do if he is ignorant of the language in which the alleged documents are written. The Greek poems ascribed to Orpheus, are not admitted as authentic; but on this subject we should pay little regard to the opinion of an individual who could not read a single line in any one of them.

But if, it is urged, such a mine of historic and philological lore lies buried in the Cymric, why has not more been done by the Welsh themselves to this we rejoin, much that has been done, has been written in Welsh, and is inaccessible to the literary world; and, besides, much that has been written in English on this subject, is confined to the shelves of antiquaries. On all points of inquiry, and on none more than this, popular errors are current, which are known by a few investigators to be errors, but which are allowed to pass unchallenged.

Unfortunately, we must add, that the Welsh are not agreed among themselves as to the principles of criticism. The scholars of Wales may be divided into two classes; we have

(1.) The traditional school, at the head of which was the lamented Ab Ithel (Reverend John Williams, late Rector of Llanymowddwy, Merioneth). His views are well known to

the readers of the Cambrian Journal, of which he was the editor; and his principles of criticism may be gathered from his preface to the "Brut y Tywysogion," which he edited for the Master of the Rolls. His spirit was eminently patriotic, and he was sometimes tempted to strain a point in favour of tradition; but no man was better acquainted with the ancient literature of Wales, and we can ill afford to lose him.

66

(2.) The critical school is represented by Mr. Thomas Stephens, of Merthyr Tydvil, the author of the "Literature of the Kymry." By ardent Welshmen of the more enthusiastic party he is often denounced as an infidel," merely because he refuses to believe in the tales about Gomer, Hu Gadarn, and Prydain ab Aedd Mawr. The critical ability of Mr. Stephens is remarkable; but even moderate partisans of the traditional school are inclined to think that he sometimes carries scepticism too far. Without doubt, however, his services to Cymric literature deserve very high praise.

What we want is a judicious application of modern criticism to the ancient traditions; but, while it frequently happens, that Welsh scholars are little versed in philology, we have to regret, on the other hand, that our English philologists are ignorant of the Cymric language. If anything important is to be achieved, one or other of two things must take place; either Welsh scholars must acquire the principles of modern philology, or our European philologists must learn Welsh.

The inquiry whether there are any portions of our history and literature on which Cymric studies may reasonably be expected to throw light, involves a consideration of the early period of British history, of the romantic literature of the middle ages, and of the revived study of British antiquity under the Tudors.

The most interesting documents relative to the early history of Britain, that most obscure portion of our history, are the poems of the early bards and the historic Triads. Very conflicting opinions have been advanced, as to the character of these productions. Let us see how the controversy stands.

In the beginning of the present

century, three enthusiastic Welshmen, Edward Williams, W. Owen (afterwards better known as Dr. Owen Pughe), and Owen Jones, resolved to publish the most ancient Cymric records, poetic or in prose. The result was the Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales, the first and second volumes of which appeared in 1801; the third in 1807.

The first volume contained the works of the earliest bards from the sixth to the middle of the tenth century, and the works of the later bards from the twelfth to the fourteenth century. The most important of the poems were those ascribed to Taliesin, Aneurin, and Llywarch Hen, and assigned to the sixth century. The second and third volumes were in prose, containing the Triads, Chronicles of British Kings, and the laws of Howel Dda.

It has been a sort of usage in Wales for men of letters to assume bardic titles and other distinctive appellatives; thus Edward Williams called himself Iolo Merganwg, i.e., Edward of Glamorgan; Dr. Owen Pughe was styled Idrison; and Owen Jones took the appellation of Myvyr, that is "meditator" or "student." The literary labour was principally supplied by the two former; but as Owen Jones (Myvyr), a wealthy furrier of Thames-street, London, furnished the necessary funds, it was only fair that he should have some consideration; and in his honour, the work was entitled the Myvyrian Archaiology.

Soon afterwards, Sharon Turner published his history of the AngloSaxons, and quoted these poems of the early Cymric bards, as illustrating certain passages of history. For this he was vigorously assailed by the reviewers, who contended either that these poems did not really belong to the sixth century, or that there was not sufficient evidence of their authenticity. In reply, Sharon Turner wrote his celebrated Vindication of the early bards, wherein he endeavoured to show that the poems are quoted or referred to by a series of writers from the age succeeding that of the bards, through the middle ages, down to our own time. Opinions are divided upon the Vindication, almost as much as upon the original question. Ab Ithel thought it satisfactory; other scholars consider it inconclusive, and question

the authority of the very writings which are adduced in corroboration. It is said, that in the preparation of this treatise, the assistance of Dr. Owen Pughe was largely employed; it now forms part of the appendix to the third volume of Sharon Turner's history.

The controversy was agitated for a while, and then subsided. Nothing of importance was advanced on either part of the question till 1849, when Thomas Stephens published his "Literature of the Kymry," a treatise which gained the prize at the Abergavenny eisteddfod. This work is devoted to the literature of the period 1080-1322; but as Mr. Stephens assigns to this period many of the poems usually ascribed to Taliesin, he is led to pronounce an opinion upon the rest; and he concludes that of seventy-seven poems attributed to Taliesin, twelve are historical, and as old as the sixth century. The rest, he thinks, are doubtful, or romances of the middle ages. It did not form part of his design to criticise the "Gododin" of Aneurin; but he is disposed to allow considerable historic value to that poem.

In this work, Mr. Stephens does not consider the Triads at any length. His opinion may thus be condensed: that some of the Triads are possibly as old as the time of the Druids; but the collections we have are as late as the twelfth and down to the fifteenth century. However, he has since written some articles in the Cambrian Journal, arguing that the Triads are a compilation of later times, put together by the Bards of Glamorgan. This position, again, is combated by Professor Walter (Das alte Wales. Bonn: 1859), who seems to hold a middle place between the two schools. Professor Walter's book is valuable, and ought to be translated.

The most recent English statement of the controversy has been given by D. W. Nash, of Cheltenham, in his "Taliesin, or the Bards and Druids of Britain." London : 1858. When Mr. Nash attacks the Mythological Poems, and the Neo-Druidism of Edward Williams and his associates, he is great. His sledge-hammer comes down with iconoclastic force. But his remarks on the Historical Poems are by no means so satisfactory. His criticism upon the "Gododin" is

scanty or incidental; and he would limit the Historical Poems of Taliesin to little more than the Battle of Gwenystrad and the Battle of Argoed Llwyvain. As for the Songs to Urien, commonly ascribed to Taliesin, he says:

"Without, therefore, venturing to decide that these Songs to Urien,' were not rewritten in the twelfth century from materials originally of the date of the sixth, and that there are no poetical remains in the Welsh language older than the twelfth century, we may nevertheless assert that the common assumption of such remains of the date of the sixth century has been made upon very unsatisfactory grounds, and without a sufficiently careful examination of the evidence on which such assump

tion should be founded. Writers who claim for productions actually existing only in manuscripts of the twelfth an origin in the sixth century, are called upon to demonstrate the links of evidence, either internal or external, which bridge over this great intervening period of at least five hundred years. This external evidence is altogether wanting; and the internal evidence, even of the so-called Historical Poems' themselves, is, in some instances at least, opposed to their claims to an origin in the sixth century."

This is only saying, in other words, that, in the present state of the controversy, we must suspend judgment and inquire further; and so far we quite agree with Mr. Nash. But when we have granted that all the manuscripts are no older than the twelfth century; that the orthography is comparatively modern; that interpolations and corruptions may have been introduced; we may still reasonably doubt whether the "Gododin" and the other Historical Poems are pure fabrications of the Middle Ages.

And there is a point raised by English scholars, which gives peculiar interest to this inquiry. Wherever the Celts came in contact with the Germanic invaders, they called them Saxons, Saeson, Sassenach, &c.; but the Angles had sufficient influence to give their name to the country Englaland, and to the language, which was called Englise. Some critics suspect that the Anglian share in the invasion was more important than has hitherto been supposed.

Now the Historical Poems of the Cymry have reference principally to the struggle which was carried on in

the country between the Humber and the Frith of Forth, precisely the scene of the Anglian invasion. Whether the battle of Cattraeth (the subject of the "Gododin") took place near Catterick, in Yorkshire, or upon a rampart which ran from Galashiels to the Forth, makes no difference to the argument. The scene is still upon the battle-ground of the Angles. Similar reasoning will apply to the historical poems attributed to Taliesin. We shall see that the legends connected with Arthur, and the battles against the West Saxons, were more popular in Brittany than in the Island of Britain; but the earliest British poetry, such as we have it, turns upon the Anglian invasion of the north.

If then, there is even a chance of extracting from these undoubtedly very ancient as well as most curious sources information about the early history of the country, a conscientious historian will not throw that chance away. Some, however, are influenced by foolish prejudice, while others are deterred, it must be owned, by sheer

idleness.

Having said thus much upon the historic bearing of these interesting relics, it is next well worth considering what has been the influence of British legends upon the romance literature of Europe.

For the earliest development of this literature we must look to the country now called France. From various causes, the cultivation of the romance language in Gaul preceded that of the Italian in Italy; and as the language was divided into two dialects, there was a corresponding division in the literature-the poetry of the troubadours flourished to the south of the Loire, that of the trouvères to the north. Now nothing can be more striking than the difference between these two schools of poetry. All that we have from the troubadours partakes of a lyric character, while the poetry of the trouvères is decidedly epic. The first was earlier by a century, but, after giving the fairest promises, produced no great work; the other, though later in development, took the first rank in European literature.

The trouvères were distinguished by producing the romances of chivalry, which are so far epic that they are narrative heroic poems.

66