A new edition of Toland's History of the druids: - Free History Ebooks

394 NOTES.has happened to that of all other languages. Such mat3uscrjp(sas were written when these letters were in a very rude and illdefined state, would become occult, and hardly intelligible, whenthe alphabet had assumed, in a long series of ages, a better definedand more polished form. This circumstance has given riseto the groundless conjectures about magical and hieroglyphicalletters, «fec. and has led even some of the Irish historians astray.The unintelligibility of a manuscript (if it is occasioned by therudeness of the characters in which it is written) has always beenconsidered as a genuine mark of Hs antiquity; yet the preposterousPinkarton makes it a proof of modernism; and, ratherthan allow that this obscurity has been superinduced on thesemanuscripts by the innovation of letters and of language, in along lapse of ages, forges an occult alphabet for thern in theeleventh century. But so far was the Roman alphabet frombeing generally prevalent in Ireland in the time of St. Patrick,that its use in that kingdom was partial and limited, even as lateas the beginning of the seventeenth century. King James theFirst having subjugated Ireland, wished to disseminate the gospelamong the Irish, and for this pious purpose caused two editionsof the Bible and Neiu Testament to be printed in 1602.Both editions were printed in the Irish (Celtic) language, butone was printed in the Roman, and the other in the Irish characters.Had the Irish alphabet been superseded by the Romanone, or rather had not a considerable part of the Irish nation stillretained their primitive mode of writing, this last edition wastotally unnecessary and gratuitous. On the other hand, hadthese Irish letters been hieroglyphical, mystical, or unintelligible,as has been groundlessly asserted, would King James havebeen guilty of such an act of stupidity, as to make use of themfor the propagation of the gospel. lie certainly did not mean toinsult the Irish with a book which was unintelligible.The Greeks aod Romans inform us that they derived theirl(4(ers from the Phoenicians, and we give them implicit credit.The Irish ascribe theirs to the same source, yet they have beenlaughed to scorn. It is extremely bard thus implicitly to cr^it