CHAPTER I.

THE ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND

[Illustration: Henry O’Brien

_Author of “The Round Towers of Ireland.”_]

THE ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND

OR

THE HISTORY OF THE TUATH-DE-DANAANS

BY HENRY O’BRIEN

A NEW EDITION

_WITH INTRODUCTION, SYNOPSIS, INDEX, ETC._

LONDON: W. THACKER & CO., 2 CREED LANE, E.C.

CALCUTTA: THACKER, SPINK & CO.

1898

[_All Rights Reserved_]

_750 Copies only of this Edition have been printed for Sale and the Type

distributed, of which this is No. 324._

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION vii

SYNOPSIS xxxvii

DEDICATION (FIRST EDITION) lxi

PREFACE (FIRST EDITION) lxiii

DEDICATION (SECOND EDITION) xciii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xcv

AUTHOR’S TEXT (SECOND EDITION) 1

LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL IRISH TOWERS AND CROSSES 525

INDEX 529

INTRODUCTION

“When all is dark, who would object to a ray of light, merely because

of the faulty or flickering medium by which it is transmitted? And if

those round towers have been hitherto a dark puzzle and a mystery,

must we scare away O’Brien, because he approaches with a rude and

unpolished but serviceable lantern?”--_Fraser’s Magazine_ for August

1835.

Henry O’Brien, the most daring and ingenious explorer of that recondite

mystery, the origin and purpose of Irish Round Towers, was born in 1808.

On both his father’s and his mother’s side he came of good descent,[1]

being connected with two of the oldest and most influential families in

the west of Ireland. At the time of his birth that branch of “the

O’Briens” to which he belonged were settled in Kerry, where his father

resided in a wild, mountainous district, known as Iveragh, forming a

portion of the Marquis of Lansdowne’s Irish estates. That his family were

in affluent circumstances is improbable, for up to the age of twelve the

boy’s education seems to have been neglected in a way very uncommon with

Irish people who are well off. “Though I could then tolerably well express

myself in English,” he says,[2] referring to this portion of his life,

“the train of my reflections always ran in Irish. From infancy I spoke

that tongue; it was to me vernacular. I thought in Irish, I understood in

Irish, and I composed in Irish”; and again, “I was twelve years of age

before ever I saw a Testament in any language.” From this unusual neglect,

coupled with the fact of his becoming a private tutor soon after he had

settled in London, and an obscure reference to certain “difficulties” at

the outset of his career as an author, we are probably justified in

assuming that money was a rather scarce commodity in the paternal home.

There is, however, reason to suppose that when he had reached the age of

twelve, or thereabouts, his education was taken in hand, though how, or by

whom, does not appear. Evidence of his having been sent to school and

placed under systematic and qualified instruction is not forthcoming. In

fact, circumstances go to negative that supposition. His acquaintance with

Greek and Latin authors seems to have been more extensive than accurate,

and his quotations from them are marked by solecisms which any properly

taught schoolboy would avoid, but in which the self-educated are prone to

indulge. It is true that (at p. 481) he describes in terms of unqualified

praise a “tutor” with whom he commenced the study of the Greek Testament;

but there is internal evidence in the same passage that such praise was

not wholly deserved, and that the tutor in question was certainly not the

person referred to in Father Prout’s statement that O’Brien had been

“brought up at the feet of the Rev. Charles Boyton.”[3] Mr. Boyton was at

the time a highly distinguished Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, who, in

addition to holding the position of Greek Lecturer at that University, was

the most eminent mathematical “coach” of his day; and the only connection

likely to have existed between him and young O’Brien was that of

college-tutor and undergraduate _in statu pupillari_. The probability is,

therefore, that any instruction which the boy received at this early

period of his life was of a very elementary character, and that his

education was mainly conducted by himself, a probability which is

certainly not discounted by the wide and promiscuous character of his

reading. From the outset of his introduction to letters he is known to

have been an omnivorous reader of all books that came in his way, nor was

his mode of studying classical authors that by which the scholastic

proficiency essential to aspirants for success at college examinations is

usually attained. O’Brien did not resemble the ordinary boy-student, to

whom Roman or Greek classics represent merely a given quantity of “text”

possessing certain peculiarities of diction or allusion which have to be

nicely dissected, analysed, and mastered, but who regards the

subject-matter of each work as being of very minor importance. On the

contrary, he manifestly read them as authors, or rather authorities upon

the subjects with which they respectively dealt, paying, so far as we can

perceive, little or no attention to the diction or distinctive literary

character of their writings. The result was what might be expected. If,

whilst an undergraduate of Dublin University, it be true that he was

regarded by many of his fellow-students as a prodigy of learning, their

seniors appear to have been less enthusiastic about his scholarship, for

we have not been able to discover his name in the college archives.[4]

Still, from the fact of his having obtained, after he took his degree in

1831, the appointment of private tutor to the sons of the then Master of

the Rolls,[5] it is possible that he may have distinguished himself

previously.

What seems absolutely certain is, that during his stay at the University

he must have availed himself to the full of opportunities presented by the

library for which Trinity College is famous. Here, no doubt, he laid the

foundation of that Oriental learning in which he was second to no Irishman

of his day, and probably to few Englishmen. It is hardly too much to say

that in the early part of the century Orientalism was comparatively

untrodden ground. Sir William Jones had indeed, many years before,

thoroughly explored this field of knowledge, but the results of his

splendid labours had not as yet been properly assimilated by the general

mass of readers, or supplemented to any remarkable extent by other workers

in the same field. Hence the scope of European knowledge of the East was

by no means so extensive then as now; and an enthusiastic student thereof,

which O’Brien undoubtedly was, had it in his power to acquire an almost

complete mastery of the subject, so far as it was then known. It was one

peculiarly fitted to his ardent, dreamy, and speculative nature. He read,

he pondered, he divined, he foresaw. Dark places in the history of his own

country began to grow clear in the light of this Eastern dawn. Hitherto,

like so many of his compatriots, he had found no way of accounting for the

extraordinary contrast between the distinctive superiority of “the Ireland

that _was_” and the relative obscurity of “the Ireland that _is_.” To

what, he must apparently have asked himself, was the fact to be

attributed, that a people who in days of old were admittedly pre-eminent

in learning and civilisation, should have afterwards lost all claim to

such distinction; or how was it that, in a land covered with the ruins of

structures evincing the ripest skill and most fanciful artistic device,

architecture should have sunk to a level that was almost barbarous? Why

was it that this decadence did not take place gradually, as one would

expect, but was plainly the result of a sudden check that stopped the

erection of such edifices at once and for ever? Why were the materials,

structure, and conformation of the edifices in question so different from

those of other ancient buildings found in their immediate neighbourhood?

Why had their sculptured ornamentation reference to what was unconnected

with, nay even opposed to, the teachings of that religious faith to which

its execution was attributed; and why did the peasantry, inheriting the

tradition of bygone ages, not recognise them as identified with that

religion? Questions like these are very stimulating to inquisitive young

souls, which usually become fired with an ambition to solve them; and as

O’Brien pored over Sir William Jones and _The Asiatic Researches_--not to

mention his beloved, though decried, Herodotus--it was only natural that

he should draw certain conclusions from the undoubted affinity that exists

between the languages, folk-lore, customs, superstitions, and modes of

thought of his own country and those of the Orient. Similar conclusions

had forced themselves upon older people who did not possess a tithe of his

Eastern lore. Moore, that versatile Anacreontic, in his ill-fitting

disguise of an Edinburgh Reviewer, avowed “That there exist strong traces

of an Oriental origin in the language, character, and movements of the

Irish people, no fair inquirer into the subject will be inclined to deny;”

and it is further instanced by the same reviewer how the famous traveller,

Bishop Pococke, on visiting Ireland after his return from the East, was

much struck with “the amazing conformity” he observed between the Irish

and the Egyptians.[6] From early childhood the questions to which we have

referred seem to have been present to O’Brien--even from the time when he

gazed upon the stunted ruin of Bally-Carbery Round Tower, not far from his

father’s house, and had been told by awestruck peasants that the real name

of that desolate and unsightly object was _Cathoir Ghall_, or “The Temple

of Delight” (p. 48). Since then he had seen other and complete round

towers; had noticed that all were of the same peculiar shape, and possibly

had detected for himself, or learned from other sources, the existence of

that phallic analogy upon which he so strongly insists. He must have read

in Sir William Jones and elsewhere how, in Eastern lands, the idea which

lay beneath this same analogy formed the basis of a widespread religious

faith, and was expressed in structures devoted to public worship. His next

step was, almost inevitably, one of conjecture. If, as the voice of

national tradition asserted, the round towers are “temples,” and if

certain analogous associations are connected with them, might they not

have been temples of a kindred religious belief? Having settled this to

his own satisfaction, the speculation would naturally rise--How came that

particular form of belief to prevail in Ireland? Was it native to the

soil; or if not, by whom was it introduced, and when? His book being

mainly an answer to these questions, we need not continue to follow the

various stages by which conjecture may have passed into theory, and theory

into conviction. With men of O’Brien’s temperament the hypothetical

interval is rarely of long duration. Before he had assumed the _toga

virilis_ of a full-fledged graduate, he probably felt confident that in an

Eastern origin lay the true solution of the mystery of the round towers;

and the more he studied the subject, the stronger grew his belief. Being

an ambitious man, too, he had no intention to forego the honour which he

was persuaded must accrue to the discoverer of this key to a problem that

had baffled so many generations of inquirers, and longed for an

opportunity to display his acquisition.

That opportunity soon came. In December 1830, the Royal Irish Academy

offered the prize of a gold medal and fifty pounds to “the author of an

approved essay on the Round Towers, in which it is expected that the

characteristic architectural peculiarities belonging to all those ancient

buildings now existing shall be noticed, and the uncertainty in which

their origin and uses are involved be satisfactorily removed.”

Unfortunately, the advertisement of this offer escaped O’Brien’s notice,

and he did not join in the competition which it evoked. But on the 21st

February 1832 the advertisement was repeated, and this time it caught his

attention. It declared that none of the essays which had been sent in

“satisfied the conditions of the question,” and extended the period of

competition for another three months (_i.e._ until 1st June 1832), in the

alleged hope “of receiving other essays on said subject,” and also for

allowing the authors of the essays already sent in “to enlarge and improve

them.” Considering the task that was set, new competitors were thus placed

at a singular disadvantage--being expected to do in three months what the

others had been unable to accomplish in two years. With all due respect to

the Royal Irish Academy, it is difficult to believe that its members can

have fully realised the nature of their own conditions. There still exist

some scores of round towers in a more or less perfect state; and they are

scattered all over Ireland, being situated for the most part in remote and

not easily accessible places. The work of visiting and inspecting

these--which was, surely, a necessary preliminary to describing “the

characteristic architectural peculiarities belonging to all”--would

require much time, after which candidates must apply themselves to the by

no means trifling task of dispelling “the uncertainty in which their

origin and use are involved,” and all within three short months.[7]

O’Brien was not, however, to be deterred by considerations of time or

space when confronted with such a chance of winning deathless fame.

Besides, he was, in one respect at any rate, well equipped for the

enterprise, having already made up his mind as to the “origin and uses” of

the Round Towers. That he had examined them all is not to be supposed, nor

is it at all likely that at his age he could have possessed sufficient

technical knowledge of architecture, in its historical and scientific

aspects, to profit much by their inspection. Still, he was probably

acquainted with whatever had been written on that branch of the subject,

and had actually made an examination of some towers, which would give him

a fair general idea of the whole. Moreover, he had a formidable quantity

of Eastern learning to fall back upon, in which latter respect he would

have enjoyed an immense advantage over all other possible competitors, if

his judges had only been qualified to appreciate that learning as it

deserved. Be his equipment for the enterprise what it might, the

enthusiastic young Irishman saw no rocks ahead, felt no mistrust, and

rushed into the fray. “I grappled with the question,” he assures us, “with

all the ardour of my nature; and, _heaven_ and _earth_, _night_ and _day_,

_in difficulties and in sorrow_, I laboured until I finished my ‘essay’

against the appointed hour, when--a brain blow to their (_sc._ the

Academy’s) expectation--I sent it in--fully satisfied, from the

consciousness of its imperturbable axioms, that all the powers of error

and wickedness combined could not withhold from it the suffrage of the

advertised medal.”[8] The meaning of this passionate reference to malign

influences in the background will appear later on; as yet, he had no cause

for misgiving on the subject of fair play, and his overweening

self-confidence precluded any anticipation of failure. Bad omens seem to

have attended his venture from the very outset. The Academy had requested

that each essay should be inscribed with some motto; and it would appear

that the motto appended to O’Brien’s was “Φωνη εν τη ερεμω” (_sic_[9])--a

sorry introduction to the notice of learned Academicians.

The heartburnings of suspense, with which most young authors are familiar,

soon began. Four days after his essay had been sent in, the Academy issued

a _third_ advertisement, requiring all the essays to be taken back, and

extending the period of preparation by an additional month, “so as to

admit of the receiving of other essays on said subject, and for allowing

the authors of essays already given in to improve and enlarge them.”

O’Brien afterwards saw fit to attribute this fresh delay to a cause very

different from that alleged; but just then, being persuaded that his

triumph was merely postponed, he reconciled himself as best he could to

the infliction, and calmly waited for apotheosis. Six months more passed

by--wearily enough, we may be sure; and then, one direful morning, just at

the close of 1832, came news that the premiums had been adjudged as

follows:--“£50 and the gold medal to George Petrie, and £20 to Henry

O’Brien, Esq.”

It may be stated here that an additional premium of £100, which had been

placed by Lord Cloncurry at the disposal of the Academy, was also awarded

in its entirety to Mr. Petrie, and that the essay sent in by that

gentleman was, by order of the Academy, printed in their _Transactions_.

It further appears that O’Brien’s essay was at first accepted for

publication in the _Transactions_, but afterwards rejected on the ground

of having been made too lengthy by the insertion of additional matter,

though in its most enlarged form it never attained to the dimensions of

Mr. Petrie’s work, and, presumably, must have been smaller in its original

than in its present shape. The true reason for its exclusion from the

_Transactions_ (as will, we think, appear from what follows) was that the

Academy took offence at the way in which O’Brien received their decision.

Nor was such resentment to be wondered at. So confidently had our author

reckoned upon an overwhelming triumph for the revelation which, as we have

seen, he believed to be not only unprecedented, but given to the world

with flawless perfection of statement, that the award seems to have almost

maddened him. Belonging to a race which has never been remarkable for the

silent endurance of wrongs, he lost no time in giving expression to his

feelings of disappointment. At first came distant mutterings of the storm

that was brewing. “On hearing of the decision,” he informs us, “I wrote

off to the secretary, tendering, in indignant irony, my thanks for their

adjudication, taking care, however, to tell them that I had expected an

issue more flattering to my hopes.” This dignified attitude having

apparently failed to imbue the Academy with a desire to remedy his

grievance, he flung off the mask of satire, and rushed into downright,

unmistakable personalities of a kind rarely addressed to august and

learned associations. He declared that, from information which had come to

his knowledge, he was prepared to prove “that the Royal Irish Academy, at

the very moment in which they published their second invitation (_i.e._

that by which the time for receiving essays was extended to 1st June

1832), had actually determined to award the gold medal and premium to _one

of their own Council_.”[10] He then went on to denounce the successful

essay as “a farrago of anachronisms and historical falsehoods.” He

prophesied that when both essays were published, and the public given an

opportunity of seeing “the truth,” in the shape of his own essay, there

would be a general acclamation of “This alone is right.” He warned the

Academy that, “though separated from them by a roaring sea” (he was living

in London at the time), his eye was on their plans, and he demanded from

them an opportunity for making his _ascription_ of the Round Towers “a

mathematical demonstration by all the varieties and modes of proof”; and

further, that upon such demonstration they should at once award _him_ the

gold medal and premium, “or, if that could not be recalled, an equivalent

gold medal and premium”--not that, as he is careful to assure them, this

offer was to be construed as an admission that his original essay was not

“all-sufficient, all-conclusive, all-illustrative, and all-convincing.” As

was only to be expected, the reply sent to this challenge ran to the

effect that, “whatever might be the merits of any additional matter

supplied to them after the day appointed by advertisement, the Academy

could not make any alteration or revocation of their award.” Then came

the rejoinder,--“I do not want them either to ‘alter’ or ‘revoke’ their

award; but simply to vote me ‘an equivalent gold medal and premium’ for my

_combined essay_, or, if they prefer, the _new portion_ of it. Should this

be refused, I will put my cause into the hands of the great God who has

enlightened me, and make Him the Umpire between me and the Academy.”[11]

One is not surprised to learn that “no answer was received to this

communication,” which, as already pointed out, may have afforded one of

the reasons why the Academy declined to publish the essay in their

_Transactions_. We may sympathise with O’Brien’s disappointment, and even

go further in deprecation of the attitude assumed by the Academy; but it

is impossible to deny that his conduct showed a want of dignity and common

sense, excusable only on the ground of youth.

As regards the Academy’s decision, assuming that the competition was

conducted fairly,--and, _a priori_, everything seemed in favour of that

assumption,--it is not easy to see how it could well have been other than

it was. With all possible admiration for O’Brien’s talents and learning,

candour obliges us to own that his essay--taken merely as a literary

performance--was inferior to that of his rival. Apart from the question as

to whether his theory was the true one, and that of Dr. Petrie the

reverse, the Academy were in a manner bound by regard for their own

dignity, and by the literary standard then prevailing, to withhold the

meed of their unqualified approval from a composition which violated in so

many respects the established precedents of literary “form,” not to

mention the canons of good taste. Besides, O’Brien was, in archæological

matters, so far in advance of his generation, that a body of elderly

gentlemen, who simply represented the standard of knowledge prevalent at

the time, might well be excused for declining to follow him. They had, in

fact, to decide between the respective merits of two essays,--one of

which was well put together, conforming, at least in appearance, to the

stipulated conditions, expressing the most approved views, bearing the

marks of careful and systematic investigation and of superior technical

knowledge, also of literary skill much above the average; the other,

daring, novel, incoherent, propounding views which were not only

unfamiliar, but even shocking, to grave and reverend seignors, rambling in

method, deficient in proof, and slipshod in language. Was it not, then,

almost inevitable that they should have preferred the former? But if one

has to pronounce upon the way in which the competition was started,

carried on, and finally decided, we are by no means sure that O’Brien had

not some reason to complain. First of all, with regard to his charge of

the Academy having awarded the prize to a member of their own Council, the

evidence to support it is _primâ facie_ strong. Upon turning to vol. xvi.

of the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, we find the names of

“The Committee of Antiquities of the Council” for the year 1830 (that in

which the competition was first invited) given as follows:--“Isaac

D’Olier, LL.D.; Thomas Herbert Orpen, M.D.; Hugh Ferguson, M.D.; Sir

William Betham; John D’Alton, Esq.; _George Petrie, Esq._; and the Rev.

Cæsar Otway.” In the next volume of the _Transactions_, extending to 1837,

the above list is given without any alteration, except that Mr. D’Alton’s

name is omitted, that of the Dean of St. Patrick’s being substituted. From

this the inference seems only natural that “George Petrie, Esq.,” was a

member of the Council (being likewise, as we find, “antiquarian artist to

the Academy”) at the time when the idea of offering a prize for an essay

on the Round Towers was first started; that he continued to be a member

while the competition was in progress, and was actually one when the said

prize was adjudicated. Next, as to the charge that the Academy had

predetermined to award the prize to a member of its own Council, we have

the very compromising letter of the Rev. Mr. Otway (himself a member of

the Council) to the editor of the _Dublin Penny Journal_, which is cited

in the Preface to the first edition of this work,[12] coupled with those

repeated postponements of the date for sending in essays, which O’Brien

assures us were inexplicable on any other ground than that of giving Mr.

Petrie time to finish _his_ essay. We are far from contending that the

reasons adduced in support of both these charges should weigh against the

high repute which the Royal Irish Academy has always enjoyed from the time

of its foundation; still, it is impossible to deny that, in the absence of

all satisfactory explanation,--at least so far as we have been able to

discover any,--they wear a rather ugly look.

O’Brien was resolved that, as the Academy would not publish his essay, he

must do so himself; but in the meantime he had been engaged upon a

translation of Dr. Villanueva’s _Ibernia Phœnicia_, which appeared in

1833. Personal liking for the author must have been his motive for

undertaking this task, as his own views do not always harmonise with those

of the Spanish _savant_; and certain letters which are quoted in the

“Translator’s Preface” show that the two were very intimate. Having made

this concession to friendship, he busied himself with the production of an

enlarged and amended version of his essay. The first edition of this was

published, early in 1834, by Whittaker & Co. of London, and J. Cumming of

Dublin. It seems to have met with a ready sale, for a second edition

appeared during the same year, bearing the imprint of Parbury & Allen,

London, and J. Cumming, Dublin. Both editions are in octavo, and to

outward appearance uniform, but differ in some respects. On the title-page

of the first it is described as the “Prize Essay of the Royal Irish

Academy, enlarged”--a description omitted in the second. Further, the

title itself is given as “The Round Towers of Ireland (or the Mysteries of

Freemasonry, of Sabaism, and of Budhism, for the first time unveiled)”;

but the words within brackets are absent from the title-page of the

second. A few corrections, too, appear in the latter edition; but, upon

the whole, it is not much more carefully edited than the first--the

curious omission of chapters vii. and xxxii. being common to both. What is

known in the book-trade as “The Long Preface,” together with an amusingly

comprehensive “Dedication,” is omitted from the second edition, a much

more commonplace dedication to the Marquis of Lansdowne (described, of

course, as “The Mæcenas of his age”) being substituted for the latter. As

the second, and last, edition is that which had the author’s latest

revisions, it has been thought advisable to reproduce it in the present

issue. No interference with its text has been attempted--typography and

pagination being alike preserved. Nor has anything in the shape of comment

been inserted. A few supplementary additions to the original work will

probably not be considered out of place. Together with this Introduction,

they comprise a “Synopsis,” of which the object is to assist readers in

following the track of the main argument--not always an easy task in the

face of the author’s numerous divagations, annotated lists of the

principal Round Towers and crosses, and an Index to the body of the work.

The reception accorded to the book by those whose verdict was most

important to its success, was decidedly hostile, and--what must have been

especially galling to a man like O’Brien--took the shape of ridicule.

Though it cannot be said that he had given no occasion for the latter, it

is equally apparent that much of it was owing to ignorance; for there is

not to be found among all the censorious judgments of those “irresponsible

reviewers” a single attempt at sterling criticism. They attacked his

style, and they laughed his theory out of court, but they never resorted

to anything that deserved to be called refutation; and showed plainly by

the character of their strictures that they were quite in the dark with

respect to the nature of the evidence which he adduced in support of his

statements. It was profanely said of the late Professor Jowett, that

whatever he did not happen to know was held by him not to be _knowledge_;

and such was the view which his critics seem to have taken of O’Brien’s

dependence upon Eastern authorities, with which they themselves were

unfamiliar. As occasionally happens in Irish affairs, a countryman of his

own led the attack. In one of the weakest articles that ever appeared in

the _Edinburgh Review_,[13] Moore, the poet, accused O’Brien of plagiarism

and other misdeeds. Considering the extent of Moore’s acquaintance with

Oriental literature, and the character of his mind, it is perhaps not

surprising that he mistakes the whole drift of O’Brien’s argument, fails

to perceive the force of those analogies upon which the latter chiefly

relied, and, in fact, only succeeds in proving his own incapacity as a

critic. But it is less conceivable that he should seek to overwhelm a

young aspirant for literary honours, who was of his own nationality, and

with whom he was on terms of at least nominal friendship, with unfounded

charges and clumsy ridicule. The secret of this otherwise unaccountable

severity is disclosed to us by “Father Prout,” in his article on “The

Rogueries of Tom Moore.” From it we learn that Moore had endeavoured

unsuccessfully to secure the co-operation of O’Brien in his forthcoming

History of Ireland, and that, upon the negotiation falling through, a

“coolness” ensued between the two. As “Father Prout” had the whole

correspondence laid before him, the story does not rest upon O’Brien’s own

version of what took place. But, be it reliable or not, there is no

denying that the poet went out of his way--and out of his depth, too--in

the effort to crush a young author, who might fairly be supposed to have

some claim upon his sympathy. The scent which Moore thus struck was

followed up by the whole critical pack. The _Gentleman’s Magazine_, for

instance,[14] without attempting anything like serious criticism, quizzed

O’Brien unmercifully. He committed the fatal indiscretion of sending a

lengthy, but for him most temperate, reply, in which he is fain to cite

the _Freemason’s Quarterly Review_ as his solitary backer. The

_Gentleman’s Magazine_ reserved its answer until he was no more; when, in

an obituary notice (November 1835), it flung back this retort: “Fondly

imagining that he was the author of most profound discoveries, and as it

were the discoverer of a new historical creed, Mr. O’Brien was always in a

state of the highest excitement; and when his lucubrations were treated

with ridicule instead of serious refutation, he was acutely

irritated”--which last observation somehow reminds one of that fastidious

man-o’-war’s man, who, whether the bo’sun “hit him high or hit him low,”

took no pleasure in being flogged. In fact, there was no real scholarly

criticism of the book from any quarter, though its eccentricities of style

and treatment received due attention. Superficially regarded, indeed, it

bristled with salient points for attack, and of these the gentlemen of the

press naturally availed themselves. They described it as “wild and

extravagant”--and no one could say them nay; but they failed to point out,

probably because they failed to see, that under this same wildness and

extravagance lay profound knowledge of a most unusual kind, powerful if

somewhat erratic reasoning, and the only theory as to the genesis of

ancient Irish proficiency in the arts of civilisation which is consistent

with the traditions, customs, superstitions, folk-lore, and antiquities of

the country.

O’Brien had now settled in London, where such time as could be spared from

his tutorial duties was spent in the study of his favourite literature. It

appears that he had at least two works then in contemplation--one a

Dissertation on the Pyramids, partly written, and the other a Celtic

Dictionary--which latter project excited the ribaldry, altogether

unfounded,[15] of certain critics. His health, never strong, was now such

as to cause some apprehension to his friends; still he was able to share

the pleasures which London life affords. He went into the fashionable

world--which, by the way, does not appear to have taken him quite

seriously, while acknowledging his talents and erudition. The Marquis of

Lansdowne’s house was open to him; and mainly, no doubt, through the

influence of that kindly nobleman, he was even presented at Court. The

military career, for which, as he informs us (p. 130), he had a

predilection second only to “his love for truth and the rectification of

his country’s honour,” was no longer an object of ambition; and he may be

regarded as having resigned himself contentedly to the peaceful avocations

of a man of letters. Bad health, aggravated by his studious habits, seems

indeed to have been the only drawback from which he suffered; but although

this had previously excited the apprehension of his friends, it was

without any immediate warning that the end came. He had been paying a

visit to some acquaintances in the suburbs of London; had spent with them

an evening, during which he displayed his usual cheerfulness and vivacity;

had retired to rest without any symptoms of indisposition; and the next

morning was found lifeless in his bed,--death having, to all appearance,

taken place quite painlessly during sleep. By those who knew him he was

mourned, and by none more sincerely than the genial “Father Prout,” who

added the following postscript to his article on “The Rogueries of Tom

Moore,” already in print when the news of his young friend’s death reached

him:--

“MEM.--On the 28th of June 1835, died, at The Hermitage, Hanwell,

Henry O’Brien, author of _The Round Towers of Ireland_. His portrait

was hung up in the gallery of Regina on the 1st August following; and

the functionary who exhibits the ‘Literary Characters’ dwelt thus on

his merits:--

“In the village graveyard of Hanwell (_ad_ viii. _ab urbe lapidem_)

sleeps the original of yonder sketch.... Some time back we had our

misgivings that the oil in his flickering lamp of life would soon dry

up; still we were not prepared to hear of his light being thus

abruptly extinguished. “One morn we missed him” from the accustomed

table at the library of the British Museum, where the page of

antiquity awaited his perusal; “another came--nor yet” was he to be

seen behind the pile of _Asiatic Researches_, poring over his

favourite Herodotus, or deep in the Zendavesta. “The next” brought

tidings of his death. His book on the Round Towers has thrown more

light on the early history of Ireland, and on the freemasonry of those

gigantic puzzles, than will ever shine from the cracked pitchers of

the Royal Irish Academy, or the farthing candle of Tommy Moore.... No

emblem will mark the sequestered spot where lies the Œdipus of the

Round Towers riddle--no hieroglyphic.... But ye who wish for monuments

to his memory, go to his native land, and

there--_circumspicite!_--Glendalough, Devenish, Clondalkin,

Inis-Scattery, rear their architectural cylinders; and each proclaims

to the four winds of heaven ... the name of him who solved the problem

of 3000 years, and who first disclosed the drift of these

erections.... Suffice it to add that he fell a victim to the intense

ardour with which he pursued the antiquarian researches that he

loved.”

One portion at least of the good Father’s prophecy was amply fulfilled. In

_Irish Graves in England_, by Michael M’Donagh (_Evening Telegraph

Reprints_: Dublin, 1888), a chapter on O’Brien contains these words:--

“His grave cannot now be identified in Hanwell churchyard. It was

never marked by even a rude stone. In the register of burials the

entry is: ‘No. 526, Henry O’Brien, Hanwell, July 2, years 26. Charles

Birch, officiating clergyman.’ Tho number of the grave did not help

towards its identification, and an examination of every stone did not

result in the discovery of the name of O’Brien.”

So passed out of life a gifted young soul that had just begun to know the

measure of its strength. Had O’Brien been spared, he might have taken the

very highest rank among antiquarians and ethnologists; as it is, his fame

must rest upon a single crude and imperfect work, written in haste, before

his powers were fully ripe, or his learning properly assimilated. Beyond

this, and his translation of Villanueva, he may be said to have left no

trace behind. He had never married, though it is highly improbable that,

with his ardent temperament, and that almost reverential admiration for

the sex to which he gives frequent expression in _The Round Towers_, he

could have reached the age of six-and-twenty heart-whole. From his

portrait by Maclise (a copy of which forms the frontispiece to this

volume), he must, one would think, have been a sufficiently personable

man--though somewhat frail, and looking older than his years--not to have

wooed in vain. But he has left no hint of a love affair, beyond occasional

references to a mysterious “sorrow,” which may have been of this nature.

No stain rests upon his memory; his habits were convivial, but not

vicious; and he had a great reverence for his own religion, in no way

weakened by his sympathy with other less perfect aspects of eternal truth.

It may be said of him that he left the world without having done it any

harm, and in the firm belief that he had nobly served the cause of human

enlightenment,--which surely was no bad ending.

* * * * *

It is one thing to admit the ingenuity, or even the plausibility, of a

writer’s views, and another to accept them as articles of belief. So far

from claiming for O’Brien that he has completely solved the mystery of the

Round Towers, we may even confess a doubt that the latter admits of any

complete solution. Certain links in the chain of evidence are wanting,

which, to all appearance, are not likely to be ever supplied. That, for

instance, the _Tuath-de-danaans_ came from Persia, bringing with them to

Ireland their arts and their religion, is quite possible; but the absence

of any reference to such migration in the more ancient Persian historians,

where we should expect to find it; the want of some adequate explanation

of the motives which could have led a highly-civilised people, accustomed

to a luxurious climate, to prefer as their final settlement the bleak

shores of a remote Atlantic island to the more temperate and, to an

Eastern eye, more beautiful countries through which they must have passed

on their way; the all but complete failure to point out the route which

they followed in their quest of an asylum--these are gaps which require to

be filled up before most of us will be prepared to accept their Eastern

genealogy. Still, it must be confessed that O’Brien’s theory rests upon

other and surer foundations, so far as its essential probability is

concerned; also, that it is entertaining and suggestive to a degree which

renders it, if not a profitable, at least a pleasing mental exercise.

_The Origin of the Round Towers_ (the first branch of the question

proposed by the Royal Irish Academy) is really only part of a much wider

problem which had long engaged the attention of earnest, capable, and

industrious archæologists, with whose names the reader of this work is

likely to become only too familiar. The Round Towers are merely one class

of more or less elaborate architectural or monumental remains, scattered

all over Ireland, and bearing unmistakable signs of a very remote

antiquity.[16] That these remains are inseparably connected in time and

origin, seems to be proved by the fact that no writer upon the subject of

the Round Towers had hitherto been able to treat of the latter

exclusively, without taking into consideration the “crosses” or “temples,”

or other subdivisions of the whole, and that neither Dr. Petrie nor his

rival claimed exemption from the same necessity. A great portion of their

respective works on the Round Towers is devoted, for instance, to a

consideration of other antiquities; and what is perhaps the most valuable

part of O’Brien’s,--namely, that upon which his assumption of a _pagan_

origin chiefly rests,--is the result of investigation into the nature of

that symbolism for which the sculptured crosses are so remarkable. It

seemed, in fact, impossible for those who studied the subject carefully to

resist the conclusion that all these remains belong to a period when

Ireland was inhabited by a race which differed in many respects from the

Irish of a later date. In Dr. Petrie’s opinion, that race consisted of the

early Christian missionaries and their proselytes; in O’Brien’s, it

belonged to an era far antecedent to Christianity itself; and so far, he

is at one with the leading authorities who preceded him. Limiting his

statement to the Round Towers, Dr. Petrie informs us[17] that, up to the

time at which he undertook to decide the matter, two theories prevailed as

to the “origin” of these structures: (1) That they were erected by the

Danes; (2) that they were of Phœnician origin. But O’Brien discards the

Danes altogether, and only allows a very subordinate part indeed to the

Phœnicians, namely, that of having, as sea-carriers, assisted to convey

the _Tuath-de-danaans_ to Ireland. For the grounds upon which Dr. Petrie

attributes an exclusively Christian origin to the Round Towers inquirers

must be referred to the body of his work, where they will find it most

ingeniously, if not quite ingenuously, argued at much length that these

structures were erected between the fifth and thirteenth centuries of our

era by Christian founders. An outline of his rival’s argument to the

contrary is given in the annexed “Synopsis.” The difference between the

respective methods of the two theorists is very marked, and here the

advantage does not rest with O’Brien. Petrie is calm, precise,

authoritative; O’Brien fervid, rambling, and passionately expostulative.

That the former has failed to prove his case, and that the latter has to

some extent succeeded in doing so, may, or may not, be the fact; but it

must be admitted that, if O’Brien was the more successful, he was not the

more dexterous combatant. It has been frequently, and perhaps not without

justice, remarked that “Irishmen have a way of _blundering_ upon the

truth”; and from the eccentric fashion in which he sets about proving his

contention, some may argue that O’Brien’s success merely affords an

instance of this national peculiarity. But it would be hardly fair to do

so in the case of an author who is acknowledged to have prepared himself

for his task by careful study of the authorities bearing upon its subject,

and whose “discovery,” as he calls it, is expressly founded on the results

of that preparation. In this latter respect he presents a marked contrast

to his somewhat dictatorial rival, who is wont to treat the exercise of

private judgment by those who happen to differ from himself as a species

of _lèse-majesté_.[18] On the other hand, O’Brien is always imploring the

reader to follow his argument step by step. “Here,” he ever seems to be

urging, “are the plain, unvarnished facts; here, the incontestable

authorities; with these staring you in the face, surely you cannot think

of denying that such and such an inference is unavoidable?” His reasons

may not be always of the best; but, such as they are, he gives them

freely. Of the two methods, the public, who are usually impressed by

self-assertion, preferred the former; and “Dr. Petrie’s epoch-making book”

was by general consent allowed to have “settled the question of the Round

Towers for ever.” This comforting belief remained undisturbed for more

than a quarter of a century, when, in the year 1867, a book appeared which

challenged its infallibility. The author, a Mr. Marcus Keane, seems to

have started upon an investigation of Irish ruins from sheer curiosity,

and with a dispassionate intention to see and judge for himself. He was

certainly not actuated by any wish to decry the merits of Petrie’s work,

to which he confesses his great obligations, and which he appears to have

taken at first as his guide. But, having carefully examined bit by bit the

ancient architecture still remaining in most of the Irish counties, and

having tested Petrie’s statements by personal investigation on the spot,

he reluctantly confessed that he had lost faith in the latter. “After much

consideration,” he declares,[19] “I have been forced to the conclusion ...

that the generally received theory is not supported by sufficient

evidence. My conviction of the heathen origin of these ruins has been

strengthened in proportion to the increased knowledge which I have

acquired by examination of the ruins themselves.... Not only the Round

Towers, but also the crosses and stone-roofed churches are entirely of

heathen origin.” Further, on all essential points he found himself in

agreement with O’Brien, the difference between them, in respect of the

particular form of paganism to which those remains owe their existence,

being so trifling as hardly to merit notice. Of course, we do not

undertake to say that he is right: the question is one upon which people

have always differed hitherto, and which will probably be a subject of

variance until the end of time. But it seems to us that the dispassionate,

almost reluctant, judgment of this competent, methodical, and eminently

fair observer, who approached his subject, not when controversy was

raging, but after a sufficient number of years had elapsed to admit of

prejudice dying out, is entitled to carry more than ordinary weight, where

the object is to arrive at a conclusion based upon a study of unvarnished

facts.

Up to this point the question may be said to have been regarded solely

from the architectural point of view, which is not the most favourable for

O’Brien; though, considering his necessarily limited knowledge in that

respect, he must be admitted to have made out a fairly strong case. It is

where the argument hinges upon analogies between Irish and Eastern

symbolism that we have him at his best. Here all the resources of his

great Oriental learning come into play, and may be said fairly to have

turned the scale in his favour. Indeed, it is perfectly astonishing,

considering that his book was written more than sixty years ago, when he

was himself a mere youth, how nearly it reaches the level attained by

modern research. In proof of this, it may be as well to refer, by way of

example, to one of the latest authoritative treatises on the subject of

Symbolism, that written by Count Goblet D’Alviella[20] (_Hibbert

Lecturer_ for 1891, and member of the Royal Academy of Belgium), together

with its learned “Introduction” by Sir George Birdwood, K.C.I.E.; and we

do so with the less hesitation because, as neither of these writers

indulges in more than a passing reference to Ireland, no suspicion of a

wish to strengthen their inferences by making out a pagan origin for Irish

antiquities can attach to them. The reader who consults these authorities

will find that they go far to support O’Brien’s interpretation of the

symbolic ornamentation of Irish towers and crosses; that they perfectly

coincide with his views on the nature of Sabaic paganism; and generally

with his theory, that where symbolism of this character is found existing

in Western lands, it must have been introduced there from an Eastern

source. A few sentences taken almost at random from the Introduction to

Count D’Alviella’s work, as well as from the book itself, may be adduced

in support of this assertion. Thus, having stated that “the religious

symbols common to the different historical races of mankind have not

originated independently among them, but have, for the most part, been

carried from the one to the other in the course of their migrations of

conquests and commerce”; that “the more notable of these symbols were

carried over the world in the footsteps of Buddhism”; that they were at

first but “the obvious ideograph of the phenomena of nature that made the

deepest impression on Asiatic man”; that the Sabæans were “the Chaldæan

worshippers of the Host (_Saba_) of Heaven,”[21] it goes on to say:

“Without doubt, the symbols that have attracted in the highest degree the

veneration of the multitude have been the representative signs of gods,

often uncouth and indecent; but what have the gods themselves ever been,

except the more or less imperfect symbols of the Being transcending all

definition whom the human conscience has more and more clearly divined

through and above all these gods?” How, it may be asked, does this differ

from O’Brien’s description of the nature of that “Budh” who forms the

central idea around which he groups the minor significances of Irish

Sabaism? Again we read: “It is sentiment, and, above all, religious

sentiment, that resorts largely to symbolism; and in order to place itself

in more intimate communication with the being or abstraction it desires to

approach. To that end men are everywhere seen either choosing natural or

artificial objects to remind them of the Great Hidden One.[22]... There

exists a symbolism so natural that ... it constitutes a feature of

humanity in a certain phase of development; ... for example, the

representations of the sun by a disc or radiating face, of the moon by a

crescent; ... of the generative forces of nature by phallic emblems.”[23]

Might we not fancy that this was written by O’Brien? Again: “What theories

have not been built upon the existence of the equilateral cross as an

object of veneration?... Orthodox writers have protested against the claim

of attributing a pagan origin to the cross of the Christians, because

earlier creeds had included cruciform signs in their symbolism. And the

same objection might be urged against those who seek for Christian

infiltrations in certain other religions under the pretext that they

possess the sign of the Redemption.” Is not this O’Brien’s argument in a

nutshell? Then we have an entire chapter (iv.), entitled “Symbolism and

Mythology of the Tree,” the substance of which he may be said to have

anticipated; and so on, all through the book. It is needless to multiply

quotations; those already given suffice to show that, in its essential

character, O’Brien’s argument, so far as it relies upon symbolism, is

corroborated by those in the front rank of modern archæologists.

* * * * *

It must, however, be confessed that O’Brien is not always so much in

harmony with modern thought, and that his reasoning from analogies of

language appears to us, occasionally, neither sound nor ingenuous. Perhaps

it would be more correct to say that he sometimes, without meaning

deception, allows enthusiasm to entice him across the line between fact

and fiction. In this respect he is not, perhaps, less scrupulous than the

average etymologist; but even admitting the veniality of his offence, it

seems to us that the philological is the weakest portion of his book. In

his hands Grimm’s then recently discovered “law of the mutation of

consonants” was, as we think, too often strained to cover most

questionable derivations, nor did he shrink, apparently, from coining

forms of words to suit his purpose. As instances of this we may point to

his otherwise skilful treatment of the name _Hibernia_ at p. 128, where,

without any authority that we are aware of, he employs the form νηος for

υῆσος, evidently with a view to strengthen his case; also, to his

wonderful evolution of the word _Lingam_, at p. 284. But whilst the reader

will probably accept his statements on this head with caution, admiration

of his skill in detecting analogies which only require pointing out to

secure our assent, cannot be withheld. That he had in him the making of a

great philologist, is beyond question; and that in course of time, had his

life been spared, he would have made this branch of his argument really

formidable, is very probable. Even as it stands, we may be undervaluing

its merit: philology is not an exact science, and one can rarely be sure

of one’s ground therein from day to day. But, judging the matter by such

light as we possess, it seems to us that the least valuable part of

O’Brien’s book is that upon which he evidently prided himself most: others

may, possibly on better grounds, be of a different opinion, and we gladly

leave this portion of the book to speak for itself.

* * * * *

It may, we think, be said without injustice, that when dealing with that

part of the question which related to the _uses_ of the Round Towers,

O’Brien was more successful in upsetting the theories of other people than

in establishing his own. The purposes for which preceding antiquarians had

severally claimed that the towers were built are almost endless; but Dr.

Petrie has summarised the most prominent of them as follows:[24]--(1)

Fire-temples; (2) places from which to proclaim the Druidical festivals;

(3) Gnomons, or astronomical observatories; (4) Phallic emblems, or

Buddhist temples; (5) Anchorite towers, or Stylite columns; (6)

Penitential prisons; (7) Belfries; (8) Keeps, or Monastic Castles; (9)

Beacons and Watch-towers. Both he and O’Brien agree in holding that the

Round Towers were not appropriated to any one of these purposes

exclusively, though they might have been used for two or more of them. It

is with regard to the selection of these latter that the authors

differ--Petrie adopting views (7), (8), (9); O’Brien, view (3), but with

much reservation; view (4) absolutely, and adding another view of his own,

namely, that they were sometimes devoted to memorial or sepulchral uses.

It has been mentioned already that Moore charged him with plagiarism in

respect of his adoption of view (4); but, like other charges from the same

quarter, the assertion rests upon unstable grounds. O’Brien made no secret

of the fact that on many points he shared the views of General Vallancey,

for whom he invariably expresses respect, and even admiration; but he is

careful to explain that, where their judgments happen to coincide, it is

for very different reasons. “I wish it to be emphatically laid down,” he

says in one place, “that I do not tread in General Vallancey’s

footsteps.... I have taken the liberty to _chalk out my own road_”; and,

in another, “Though his perseverance had rendered him (Vallancey) the best

_Irishian_ of his age, and of many ages before him, yet he has committed

innumerable blunders.” This goes to show that he was unlikely to adopt any

theory merely because Vallancey held it; and to have arrived at the same

conclusion by a wholly different road was surely not “plagiarism.” What is

more, a reference to the published works of General Vallancey,[25] or even

to such extracts from them as may be found in Dr. Petrie’s book, will, if

we are not mistaken, give rise to some doubt of that author having ever

distinctly maintained the Eastern, or pagan, origin of the Round Towers.

His views are, however, so nebulous and shifting, that it is difficult to

say whether he committed himself to any positive theory on the subject.

Starting with the conjecture that the Round Towers may have been the work

of “Phœnicians or Indo-Scythians,” he is soon found attributing them to

certain “African sea-champions,” who, in his opinion, were the “Pheni,”

being likewise, as he goes on to inform us, “a _Pelasgic_ tribe.” Next, he

declares that it was the _Fomorians_ who, having conquered Ireland,

“taught the inhabitants to build Round Towers”; but he afterwards seems to

discard this theory in favour of a “Danish” origin, and ends, to all

appearance, by resigning himself to the notion that they may, after all,

have been built by “Christian” settlers. Nor are his speculations as to

the _purpose_ of those structures less varied and conflicting. At one time

he maintains that they were undoubtedly “fire-temples”; at another, that

they were “belfries”; and yet again, that they were “beacons.” But--what

is especially remarkable in connection with the charge of plagiarism--he

never, so far as we can discover, attributes to them a “phallic”

significance. Upon the whole, then, it seems rather unreasonable to accuse

anybody of having borrowed theories from an author who practically had

none; and the probability is that, without having read General Vallancey’s

works, Moore had, from hearsay, formed a vague general notion of their

contents, which notion he, in the capacity of an irresponsible and not

over-scrupulous reviewer, ventured to utilise for paying off old scores.

Be that as it may, we are not prepared to urge that, upon the evidence,

O’Brien’s theory as to the phallic emblemism of the Round Towers--whether

he borrowed it from Vallancey or not[26]--absolutely deserves credence.

Like his ascription of an Eastern origin to the _Tuath-de-danaans_, it is

one of those things which, so far as we can see, are incapable of proof.

Still, it cannot be said that there is any inherent impossibility in the

notion; in fact, assuming that the Round Towers were built by an Eastern

colony, there is much in its favour. For, as all who are acquainted with

our Indian Empire must be well aware, phallic symbols are there regarded

with a veneration which in its character is entirely free from

associations that appear to be inseparable from them elsewhere. The East

and West have taken different views as to the light in which the physical

agency by which divine creative power has chosen to perpetuate life should

be regarded; and to the Hindoo mind, for instance, there is nothing

inconsistent with the highest moral purity in worshipping an idealised

representation of the generative principle. A similar belief, on O’Brien’s

showing, prevailed in ancient Persia,--indeed, but for its existence

there, the Tuath-de-danaans’ immigration into Ireland could hardly have

taken place,--so that colonisers from that country, if any such

colonisation ever took place, were likely to have introduced corresponding

typical representations wherever they settled. Hence the theory of the

Eastern origin of the Round Towers and that of their phallic significance

are mutually interdependent. Further than this it is useless to go. The

probability of either theory is a matter that, if we are not mistaken,

most readers will determine for themselves, without much respect to

authority; nor has any author who tries to establish a hypothesis on

evidence the bearing of which upon the subject is in itself hypothetical,

a right to complain that this should be so. O’Brien has been in a manner

forced to rely upon such evidence all through his book, and the latter

suffers in consequence. To our thinking, those portions of it are usually

the most convincing where, discarding authority for the most part, he

relies upon his own native shrewdness. His attack upon the “belfry” theory

is one instance of this. Another is the way in which he combats

Montmorency’s notion, that the towers may have been intended as places of

shelter, for persons or property, from hostile invasion. Almost equally

effective is his refutation of the hackneyed argument, that because Round

Towers are usually (not invariably, as some assert) found in the vicinity

of ecclesiastical buildings, they must necessarily be of Christian origin;

though here, as in the case of the “belfry” theory, he might, we think,

have insisted more upon the curious circumstance that Christians should

have discontinued building them as soon as Christianity was firmly

established in Ireland, but before the country had been reduced to a

peaceful or settled condition. If such adjuncts to churches were needed up

to the thirteenth century, there is nothing in the history of Ireland for

the next three centuries, at least, which shows that they might have been

dispensed with. To account for their disappearance by representing it as a

consequence of the transition from Romanesque to Gothic architecture,

which took place about the twelfth century, is to beg the whole question;

for it assumes that the Round Towers are Romanesque--a point on which we

take leave to think that opinions are much divided, as indeed they appear

to be upon almost every topic connected with the subject-matter of this

very remarkable book.

W. H. C.

LONDON, 1897.

SYNOPSIS

CHAPTER I

(PP. 1-15)

The book opens with a preliminary statement, in general terms, of the

object which its author has in view. It is to prove that the round towers

date from a more remote antiquity than that usually assigned to them; that

they were, in fact, erected long before Christianity reached these

islands, and even before the date of the Milesian and Scandinavian

invasions. In support of this view, he contrasts the materials,

architecture, and costliness of their construction with those of the early

Christian churches usually found in their vicinity (cf. p. 514), and

accounts for the contiguity of the latter by stating that the Christian

missionaries selected, as the sites of their churches, localities

previously consecrated to religious use, in order that they might thereby

“conciliate the prejudices of those whom they would fain persuade”; whilst

he points out that a Christian origin has not been claimed for Cromleachs

and Mithratic caves, in the vicinity of which ecclesiastical remains

likewise abound. On the other hand, he insists that the general structure

and decorative symbolism of the round towers is clearly indicative of

pagan times and a pagan origin, more especially of that primitive form of

paganism which, originating in Chaldea, diffused itself eastward until it

overspread a considerable part of Asia, and which is known as _Sabaism_.

Dissenting from the theories of his predecessors in the same field of

inquiry, he rejects the various theories that the round towers were

intended as “purgatorial columns,” or “beacons,” or “belfries,” or

“dungeons,” or “anchorite-cells,” or “places of retreat” in the case of

hostile invasion, or “depositories” for State records, Church utensils, or

national treasures; and he states as his conviction, based on examination

of their structure, that it was not the intention of their founders to

limit their use to any one specific purpose.

CHAPTER II

(PP. 16-32)

Following up this line of argument, he attacks Montmorency, who had

maintained that the founders of the round towers were “primitive Cœnobites

and bishops, munificently supported in the undertaking by the

newly-converted kings and toparchs; the builders and architects being

those monks and pilgrims who, from Greece and Rome, either preceded or

accompanied the early missionaries of the fifth and sixth centuries.”

Reserving a detailed refutation of this theory for subsequent chapters, he

contents himself for the present with showing that it rests upon mere

assumption, which is not borne out by the evidence adduced in

corroboration thereof; and exposes the fallacy of Montmorency’s argument,

that pre-Christian Ireland was in a state of barbarism which precluded the

possibility of such structures as the round towers being erected by its

inhabitants. He further deals with the objections, that the bards do not

allude to these towers as existent in their time, that those undoubtedly

ancient excavations, the Mithratic caves, are never found in the vicinity

of round towers, and that the limited nature of their accommodation made

them serviceable only for some such purpose as that of a belfry or

dungeon. With Vallancey’s views he finds himself more in sympathy, but is

unable to adopt them unreservedly--preferring, as he puts it, to chalk out

his own road.

CHAPTER III

(PP. 33-47)

Continuing his attack upon Montmorency, the author points out that the

towers erected elsewhere by Cœnobite associations are always square, not

round, and that any argument based upon the elevated position of the

entrances to both classes of edifices would apply equally to the pyramids.

He shows that the round towers could not have been intended as places of

refuge, or as depositories of ecclesiastical treasures, and adduces

historical proof that the structures known as “belfries” were wholly

different. Alluding to the supposed band of voluntary Cœnobite workmen

under _Saint Abban_, he points out that their building operations must

necessarily have been carried on in the midst of a raging war; that

although they must have availed themselves of native assistance in the

work, yet the Irish of the early Christian period betray not the slightest

knowledge of the art of building; that the building of round towers ceased

quite suddenly, almost immediately after the introduction of Christianity;

that the native Irish have never attributed these towers to such an

origin; that, so far from being, as Montmorency alleges, assisted by the

munificence of native princes, the Cœnobite monks must have had to deal

with absolute pagans, who would regard their labour with anything but

approval; and that the fact of “kills,” or remains of Christian churches,

being found in the vicinity of Cromleachs, Mithratic caves, and round

towers is simply the result of the reverence felt by the pagan converts

for the scenes and associations of their old belief, and affords no ground

for supposing that the churches were coeval with the latter. Subsequently

(at p. 514) he cites the instance of a round tower without any church near

it.

CHAPTER IV

(PP. 48-62)

In tracing the origin and purpose of the round towers, our author is led

to consider the names given them in ancient records and Irish folk-lore.

The stunted ruin of Bally-Carbery Round Tower, near his own birthplace,

was, he found, known to the peasantry as the “Cathoir ghall,” _i.e._ “the

temple of brightness or delight,” whilst both in the _Annals of the Four

Masters_, the _Ulster Annals_, and the _Annals of Innisfallen_ these

towers are included in the generic name _Fiadh-Neimhedh_, as contrasted

with the names _Cloic teacha_ and _Erdam_ applied to “belfries,” thus

showing that the two kinds of structures are perfectly distinct. He finds

that _Fiadh-Nemeadth_ in all preceding writers on the subject is held to

apply specifically to the round towers, though some of these writers

(_e.g._ Colgan and O’Connor) have wrested its meaning to support their own

particular views, and the true import of this term he subsequently

explains to be “consecrated Lingams” (p. 105), or _phallic temples_. The

“belfry” and the _gnomon_, or “celestial index,” theories are thus

exploded. From historical evidence he is further led to assume that

Ireland is identical with the _Insula Hyperboreorum_ of the ancients, and

that the legendary mission of the Boreadan _Abaris_[27] to Delos took

place during the _Scythian_ occupation of Ireland. This friendly

communication between the ancient Irish and the Greeks he attributes to

their having sprung from a common stock--the _Pelasgi_ and the

_Tuath-de-danaans_ belonging to “the same time as the Indo-Scythæ, or

Chaldean Magi.” He traces briefly the relations between the

_Tuath-de-danaan_ settlers in Ireland and their Scythian (or Milesian)

conquerors, and shows that to the former is due the high state of

civilisation and learning for which ancient Ireland was distinguished, and

which degenerated under Scythian rule; and concludes with a general

statement as to the prevalence of _Sabaic_ worship therein, and the

phallic configuration of the round towers.

CHAPTER V

(PP. 63-76)

Being now fairly launched on the subject of _Sabaism_, or worship of

natural manifestations of the divine energy, he traces its origin,

development, and decadence into idolatry. Amid the heterogeneous confusion

of beliefs that seem to have sprung up among the descendants of Noah,

Nimrod introduced the worship of the sun as a deity, but only as a part of

that general Sabaism which included the whole “host of heaven” as objects

of worship, and recognised the Godhead, of which they were simply

manifestations, under the names of _Baal_ and _Moloch_. Gradually, the

creature was substituted for the Creator, and their names, especially the

former (_Bolati_), were applied to the sun, “as the source and dispenser

of all earthly favours,” while to the moon was attributed a corresponding

reverence under the name _Baaltis_, though in both cases the object of

internal regard was intended to be _Nature_, or “the fructifying germ of

universal generativeness.” From the tendency of man to the concrete, this

central idea was soon lost sight of, and the material element put in its

place--hence came _Fire-worship_. Originating in Chaldea, this degenerated

form of Sabaism in course of time spread eastward until it reached Persia,

where eventually there seems to have been a reversion to the principle

which underlay it, _i.e._ that of _generation_ and _nutrition_, in which

form it afterwards extended to India. Though fire was the ostensible

object of worship, the sun and moon, from which that worship originated,

were regarded and reverenced as “the procreative causes of general

fecundity,” with which was coupled the notion of regeneration after

dissolution of the body. Hence when, as will appear hereafter, Eastern

Sabaism was introduced into Ireland by the Tuath-de-danaans, the round

towers created by them as temples of their worship had both a phallic and

sepulchral meaning.

CHAPTER VI

(PP. 77-90)

That purer form of _Sabaism_ in which the central idea of “the All-good

and All-great One” predominated over materialism, seems to have prevailed

in ancient Egypt, and to a more definite extent in India, whilst in both

these countries, and also in Ireland, its material side led to the

cultivation of astronomy. Hence the _pyramids_ of Egypt, the _pagodas_ of

India, and the _round towers_ of Ireland had both a religious and a

scientific purpose. There is no ground, however, for supposing that the

round towers were “fire-temples.” Though temples of the latter kind

undoubtedly exist in Ireland, their structure is altogether different, and

they evidently belong to a later period, showing, in fact, traces of an

Italian origin. Fire-worship was probably introduced into Italy from

Greece, where it had been practised by the old Pelasgic stock, who, on

their expulsion from Thessaly, settled in Etruria, bringing their worship

with them.

CHAPTER VIII

(PP. 91-106)

From a careful study of Eastern records and Sabaism, the author is led to

take up the position that the round towers were constructed by early

Indian colonists of Ireland (the _Tuath-de-danaans_), in honour of “the

fructifying principle of nature,” of which the sun and moon are

representative. The emblem of this principle was the _phallus_ in the case

of the sun, and the _crescent_ in that of the moon. The round tower was

simply a monumental _phallus_, which fact is taken to explain the terms

“Cathoir ghall” and “Fidh-Nemphed” to which he alludes in chap. iv.;

whilst the _crescent_ ornament by which many of these towers were

surmounted is symbolical of the female nature. A corroboration of this

theory is found in the circumstance that the name _Budh_, by which these

towers are “critically and accurately designated, signifies in Irish,

first, the _sun_, and secondly, what φαλλός, _phallus_, does in Greek and

Latin,” a view which is supported by the analogy of Egyptian sun and moon

worship.

CHAPTER IX

(PP. 107-126)

Having thus committed himself to the view that the paganism which founded

the Irish Round Towers was a religion of which _Budh_ (_i.e._ the sun and

the _phallus_) was the central idea, and which, therefore, resembled in

its essence the faiths of India and Egypt, the author proceeds to trace

the origin of this religion. In India the latter is known as _Buddhism_,

or that form of Sabaism taught by Buddha; but the author is persuaded that

there never was such a person as Buddha--at least, when the religion first

shot into life, which was almost as early as the creation of man--though

in later times several enthusiasts assumed that name. The origin of the

religion was, in fact, “an abstract thought,” which cannot easily be

expressed in words until it is reduced to the materialised forms of that

practical Sabaism which each nation framed for itself, and which consisted

in the worship of generative and productive power under its various

manifestations. Hence the objects of worship ranged from the sun and moon

even to agricultural operations, and, of course, included sexual

physiology. Indian Buddhism worshipped the _Lingam_ (or _phallus_) as the

emblem of_Budh_ (_i.e._ the Sun), but without any sensual alloy in such

reverence, which, in fact, necessitated the observance of a strict moral

code. Among other requirements of this code was the performance of works

of charity, _Dana_ (_i.e._ the giving of alms), and the religionists were

hence called _Danaans_ or _Almoners_. The bearing of all this upon Irish

paganism is explained by referring to the intimate connection that in

early times existed between Ireland and the East, from whence its

Tuath-de-danaan colonists were derived. The name _Erin_, together with its

Greek form _Ierne_, and its Latin transmutation _Hibernia_, is shown to be

identical with _Iran_, the ancient name of _Persia_, which, modified into

_Irin_, was applied by the Greek historians to the “Sacred Island” of the

West, and recognised by Gildas and Ordericus Vitalis as the established

designation of Ireland in their time.

CHAPTER X

(PP. 127-141)

Developing this last argument, our author shows that, while _Iran_ (or

“the sacred _land_”) was a name applied to both Persia and Ireland, the

form _Irin_ (Sacred _Island_) is exclusively applied to Ireland, and that

_Irc_, _Eri_, _Ere_, and _Erin_ are but modifications of the latter. The

Greeks commuted this name of _Irin_ into _Ierne_, which is merely a

translation (ἱερός + νῆσος); and the Latins, by putting an _H_ for the

rough breathing of ἱερός, and interpolating a _b_ for sound’s sake,

transformed the latter into _Hibernia_, the meaning “Sacred Island” being

preserved. But by its own inhabitants it continued to be known as

_Fuodhla_, _Fudh-Inis_, and _Inis-na-Bhfiodhbhadh_, names associating the

worship which prevailed therein with the profession of the worshippers,

for they respectively denote the land or island of _Fuodh_ or _Budh_ and

_Budhism_. The _Budh_ here mentioned was identical with the phallic deity

worshipped by the Tuath-de-danaans under the name of _Buodh_ (known also

as Moriagan and Fareagh or Phearagh), which name the Scythian invaders

afterwards adopted as their war-cry (_Boo_ or _A-boo_). The peculiar

tenets of Irish Budhism were embodied in a mass of literature committed to

the flames by Saint Patrick; but the history of pagan Ireland still

survives in MSS. scattered over Europe, whilst an image of _Buodh_, or

_Fareagh_, bearing a close resemblance to those of the Eastern _Buddha_,

and to the idols of _Matambo_ “whose priests are sorcerers or magicians”

(afterwards shown to be the meaning of _Tuath-de-danaans_), has been

unearthed at Roscommon, and is now in the Museum of Trinity College,

Dublin.

CHAPTER XI

(PP. 142-156)

From India our author now diverges to Egypt. The similarity between the

regal title “Pharaoh” and _Phearagh_ or _Fareagh_ just mentioned is

accounted for by the invasion of Egypt by the _Uksi_, or _Hyksos_ (Royal

Shepherds or Shepherd Kings), who, according to Manetho, came “from the

East.” The Indian _Vedas_, which corroborate his account, term them

_Pali_, or “shepherds”; and the rigorous nature of their sway accounts for

the dislike manifested by the Egyptians towards the Israelites, who were a

pastoral people. That they introduced their form of worship into Egypt, is

shown by the description which Herodotus gives of the rites, ceremonies,

and usages of the Egyptian priests, resembling those practised by the

Brahmins. Historical evidence points to the erection by them of the

greater pyramids, also to their introduction of those magical arts for

which the Egyptians became notorious. This latter fact brings the _Uksi_

into connection with the _Tuath-de-danaans_ (whose name is indicative of

proficiency in magic), and serves to strengthen the author’s opinion that

both belonged to the same Chaldean stock.

CHAPTER XII

(PP. 157-166)

The pyramids of Egypt may be said to correspond, with one significant

difference, to the round towers of Ireland. Both are characterised by the

highest architectural skill; both are constructed with an evident

reference to astronomical purposes; both afford indications that they were

_inter alia_ appropriated to sepulture; and both are distinctively of

phallic or, more strictly, Sabaic import. But in this last feature a

divergence becomes evident. The symbolism of the principle of “generative

production” common to both is in the form of the pyramid more emblematic

of the _female_ nature (see pp. 267-269), whilst the round towers typify

the _male_--a divergence which the author subsequently treats in more

detail. To it may be due the circumstance that these excavations or

“wells” which exist beneath the pyramids have not hitherto been found

under round towers.

CHAPTER XIII

(PP. 167-176)

In connection with the last paragraph, attention is, however, drawn to the

fact that round towers have usually been erected in the vicinity of water;

and that this may have been owing to a real, though less dominant,

veneration of the female principle, is probable from the extensive use of

bathing in the worship of _Astarte_, the representative of that principle

whose peculiar emblemism is apparent in the ornamentation of the round

towers. Traces of the apparatus for a bell found on the summit of one of

the latter edifices affords no proof of its original purpose as a belfry.

For though bells were used in pagan ceremonials, they were not rung to

summon worshippers; and the fact may have been that, after their

conversion to Christianity, the Irish applied round towers occasionally to

the only purpose for which they could then be used in connection with

public worship.

CHAPTER XIV

(PP. 177-192)

Recurring to the affinity of Ireland with ancient Persia (Iran), the

history of the latter country is traced from its settlement by the

_Aryans_. According to tradition preserved in the collection of sacred

books known as the _Zendavesta_, the original seat of that people was the

_Eriene-Veedjo_, a district situated in the north-western highlands of

Asia, of great fertility, and enjoying a singularly mild climate, having

seven months of summer and five of winter. Then “the death-dealing Ahriman

smote it with the plague of cold, so that it came to have ten months of

winter and only two of summer”; and was in consequence deserted by its

inhabitants, who gradually overspread the low-lying countries, as far

south as the Indus, including _Fars_, as Persia was then termed. They were

a vigorous and energetic race these Aryans, who soon became dominant in

their new quarters, substituting the name of their own country (_Iran_, or

the _sacred land_, formed from the ancient Zend _Eriene_) for that of

Fars, and founding a dynasty, or rather succession of dynasties, which

superseded the government formerly in existence. The mixture of races led

to a certain diversity of language, and thus originated the Zend and

_Pahlavi_ or Sanskrit dialects, which bear a remarkable affinity to Irish

(cf. _Palaver_). There was further a diversity of religions, the old

religion of _Hushang_, a predecessor of Zoroaster, being professed by many

long after fire-worship became the dominant faith of Persia.

CHAPTER XV

(PP. 193-210)

This ancient religion of Hushang, which was doubtless that of the Aryans,

seems to have been of that _Sabaic_ order practised by the Chaldeans,

which, as we have seen, recognised the heavenly bodies as the most

imposing representatives of a divine power, and cannot therefore be fairly

described as _idolatry_. It was idealistic, in so far as it regarded the

different energies of nature simply as manifestations of a great creative

power, whereas the idolatrous stage did not supervene until this purer

faith degenerated into materialism. With this religion that of the ancient

Irish harmonized. The dominance of sun and moon worship in the latter is

shown by the way in which the various titles of these luminaries are

interwoven with the language; most of the Irish local names, as well as

the names of traditional festivals, consisting of variants of different

epithets applied to the sun and moon, which the pagan Irish considered to

be united in matrimony, just as the Egyptians did _Osiris_ and _Isis_,

their equivalents.

CHAPTER XVI

(PP. 211-226)

A faith thus compounded of love, religion, and astrology has necessarily a

triple aspect; and, according to the particular component kept in view, or

the etymology professed, may be termed _Sabaism_, _Buddhism_, or

_Phallism_. It constitutes the most primitive form of worship, and is the

source from whence all the faiths of the world have been derived. Hence

the corresponding features in distinct mythologies. Brahminism, for

example, is an offshoot from Buddhism, owing to the apostasy of Paramon,

the son of Budh-dearg; and the essential notions of Christianity, the

doctrines of a virginal conception, a vicarious sacrifice, and a

resurrection, have their counterparts in both these faiths. The phallic

element, ignored by Christianity, maintained its place in Oriental and

Irish paganism. The adjuncts of _Lingam_ worship occur in the worship of

_Budh_. The pagodas of India have their counterparts in the round towers.

The symbolism expressed in the sculptures of Elephanta, Ellora, and

Salsette is reflected in the carvings at Clonmacnoise, Kilcullen, and

Knockmoy. The Cross is universal, not distinctive; and the purposely

mutilated cryptograms of the Crescent and the Serpent belong to a paganism

long antecedent to the Christianity which partially effaced them.

CHAPTER XVII

(PP. 227-239)

Researches into the distinctive character of Irish paganism show that its

main element was the phallic type of _Sabaism_, the Irish language

affording remarkable evidence of this fact. Many of its words and all its

letters embody a twofold meaning, denoting in the first place some

_passion, quality, or virtue_, and in the next its _sensible index_. For

example, _Budh_ or _Fiodh_ means primarily a _lingam_, or _phallus_, and

secondarily a _tree_; and this peculiarity of an esoteric meaning known

only to the learned, and an esoteric one understood by the masses, it

shares with Hebrew, which belongs to the same linguistic family. Of this

we have an example in the scriptural allegory of “Eve and the _tree_ of

knowledge,” wherein the esoteric import of “tree” is _phallus_. We thus

arrive, as it were, at the fount of Buddhism. Eve may be regarded as the

first Buddhist, and her son Cain, who offered the fruits of the earth to

“the God of nature and of increase” (Budh), as the first priest of that

order. This allegory is found repeated in different forms among the

various populations of the world--in Egypt, India, Persia, and elsewhere.

It gave rise to many typical commemorations in various countries, such as

the “Maypole festivals” of Eastern lands, whence the custom emanated to

Ireland (with the _Tuath-de-danaan_ settlers), where it is still

practised.

CHAPTER XVIII

(PP. 240-251)

The scriptural allegory of the “Fall of Man,” involving, as it does, the

history of Cain, has an intimate bearing upon the ancestry of the

_Tuath-de-danaans_. Cain had a son, Enoch, whose name connotes as usual a

twofold meaning, signifying first, _Initiation in sacred rites_; secondly,

_an assembly of congregated multitudes_. The son of Enoch was named

_Irad_, i.e. _consecrated to God_ (_Budh_); hence the region where he

dwelt was called _Iran_, meaning _the land of those so consecrated_; from

which it is argued that in that precise region the Budhists first

established the insignia of their empire. Now, the _Dabistan_ records

declare that although _Kaimours_ was generally regarded as the first king

of Persia (Iran), he had many predecessors; and that long before the time

of Zoroaster the Persians venerated a prophet called _Mahabad_ or

_Maghabad_ (the Great, or Good, _Abad_), whom they considered as “the

Father of men,” and who had thirteen successors of his own family, all

styled _Abad_. This _Abad_, or _Maghabadean_, dynasty eventually became so

corrupt that it was banished to _the woods and mountains_, when _Kaimours_

was called to the throne. For various reasons the author is persuaded that

the Maghabadeans were the direct descendants of Cain. Their name had the

usual twofold signification: first, The unity of the Godhead; secondly, a

sacerdotal institution; and _Tuath-de-danaan_ is simply a translation or

ampliative rendering of the latter--_Tuath_ being a modification of

_Budh_, and also signifying _magic_; _De_, the vernacular term for the

Deity; and _Danaan_ signifying Almoners--the whole thus meaning

_Magician-god-almoners_, or the Almoner-magicians of the Deity.

CHAPTER XIX

(PP. 252-263)

Assuming that the _Tuath-de-danaans_ originally occupied Iran, or Persia,

their migration to Ireland is thus explained. An internecine variance,

arising out of a purely religious question, sprang up among them. They

became divided into two sects--one maintaining that the _male_ influence

was dominant in the production of offspring; the other that _female_

influence was more effective. Each adopted a distinguishing title,

emblematic of the sex whose virtues it proclaimed. The former did not find

it necessary to change the name _Tuath-de-danaan_, since the esoteric

meaning of _Tuath_ (i.e. _Budh_) was the emblem of _masculinity_; but the

others adopted the title of _Pish-de-danaans_, because _Pish_, or _Pith_

(synonymous with _Yoni_), denoted that of _femininity_. The war which

resulted from this variance of opinion was waged with all the bitterness

which usually marks polemic differences; and the _Pish-de-danaans_,

proving completely victorious, expelled their rivals from the sacred soil

of Iran. The _Tuath-de-danaans_, or at least a portion of them (cf. p.

443), fled westward, and after many vicissitudes reached Europe, where

traces of them are found in parts of Greece, Italy, and Spain; and from

the country last named (by help of the _Phœnicians_, who were the great

sea-carriers of those days), they made their way to Ireland. It is

remarkable that a parallel account appears in Hindu records of the

severance which took place between the _Lingajas_ and the _Yonijas_ on a

precisely similar question.

CHAPTER XX

(PP. 264-284)

Although the Persian historians maintain silence, the evidence of other

authorities in support of this episode is not wanting. For instance, when

referring to Buddha, Oriental writers agree that he was born in _Maghada_;

also that he was the son of _Suad-de-dana_--_Suad_ being convertible with

_Tuath_, and both resolvable into _Budh_. Without professing to map out

the exact route by which the _Tuath-de-danaans_ made their way to Ireland,

the author maintains that the fact of their having occupied that country

for a considerable time is incontrovertible. As for their rivals, the

_Pish-de-danaans_, it has already been stated that they, in their turn,

had to leave Persia when _Kaimours_ was called to the throne; and the

presumption is that they were identical with those _Uksi_, or Shepherd

Kings, who overran Egypt, and to whom the erection of pyramids

emblematical of the female nature is ascribed. Their distinctive views

may, it is pointed out, have prevailed among them from the time when they

formed a portion of the Noachidæ; for the “Ark” was typical of the

dominant idea in their belief, and the same idea was typified under

another form in the pyramids. A variant symbol of this idea is the

_crescent_ (or _lunar boat_), of which certain Irish ornaments are

representative. It is further possible that the _Pish-de-danaan_ tradition

of the deluge may have been communicated to Moses during his stay in

Egypt, and that the narrative is more figurative than historical.

CHAPTER XXI

(PP. 285-304)

Among the sculptured symbols of the faith held by the ancient Irish, that

of the _Cross_ stands pre-eminent; but it would be a mistake to infer from

this circumstance the existence of Christianity in Ireland at the time

when these sculptures were wrought. The cryptogram of the Cross is found

everywhere, both in the Old and New World, among the relics of nations

whose paganism does not admit of doubt, and it dates from a period long

antecedent to Christianity. Buildings of cruciform structure, and

evidently devoted to religious uses, exist all over the East and West; and

both they and the _Mithratic caves_, for which no one has ever claimed any

but a pagan origin, partake of the same character. To aver that the Cross

was emblematical of a _vicarious sacrifice_ by which the redemption of

mankind was accomplished, is merely to say that it expresses a belief

common to many Sabaic faiths of the pagan world--a belief of which it was

the recognised emblem in Egypt, India, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, and

America, as well as in Ireland.

CHAPTER XXII

(PP. 305-324)

The argument as to the pagan origin of Irish cross-symbolism is pursued

and developed, and the connection of the symbol in question with the Irish

_Budh-gaye_ (corresponding to the Hindu _Budha-gaya_), or representative

of generative power (_gaye-phallus_), demonstrated. The symbolism of which

it forms a type is ubiquitous, being found in archaic sculpture all over

the Eastern and Western World: nor did Plato exaggerate when he said--‘The

letter X is stamped upon the universe.’

CHAPTER XXIII

(PP. 325-340)

A remarkable instance of this widely prevalent doctrine of the vicarious

sacrifice of some incarnation of the Deity accomplished by a purely

virginal conception is afforded in the Hindu _Puranas_, which recount the

incarnation of _Vishnu_ (or _Crishna_) in the _White Island_, and the

subsequent crucifixion of the fruit of this conception, under the name of

_Sulivahana_ (cf. the Irish patronymic _Sulivan_), called also

_Dhanandhara_, _i.e._ the _Sacred Almoner_ (cf. _Danaan_ and its meaning).

Curiously enough, the mystic, or esoteric, name of ancient Ireland was

_Muc Inis_, meaning _White Island_; and the details of a similar

crucifixion are, with strictly pagan accompaniments, reproduced in the

sculptures at Knockmoy, in Galway, which further closely resemble not only

a sculptured portrayal on the temple of Kalabche, in Nubia, but a

distinctly Eastern Buddhist group on the _Tuath-de-danaan_ cross at Old

Kilcullen, County Kildare.

CHAPTER XXIV

(PP. 341-355)

A striking instance of the resemblance between the Nubian and Knockmoy

sculptures consists in the attire of the principal figures. In both the

philibeg, or kilt, is worn; and this peculiarity is reproduced in idols of

the Irish pagan god, _Phearagh_, or _Farragh_, or _Budh_, which have been

from time to time exhumed. The headdresses and collars also correspond. In

Buddhist Indian mythology Deva _Thot_ is represented as crucified; in

fact, the expectation of salvation through the atonement of a crucified

Mediator characterises the whole system of pagan (Sabaic) beliefs as

thoroughly as it did Hebraism. It is expressed in one of the names of

Ireland, namely, _Criach-na-Fuineadhach_ (meaning _the asylum of the

expectants, or the retreat of those looking forward_), which was given to

that country long before the advent of Christianity.

CHAPTER XXV

(PP. 356-367)

The round towers and crosses at Clonmacnoise, Clondalkin, and elsewhere,

abound in sculptured devices of a similar character, there being in all a

manifest reference to Buddhist, or Eastern, ceremonial; whilst the

representation of a dog (an animal esteemed sacred by the

Tuath-de-danaans) on one of the crosses at Clonmacnoise seems to exclude

the possibility of its relation to Christianity. But perhaps the most

significant feature of these sculptures is the profusion of _snake_

ornamentation, pointing to a time when that form of Sabaism known as

“serpent-worship” was in the ascendant. The frequency of this emblemism

was so obnoxious to the early Christian missionaries, on account of the

evident reverence with which it was regarded by the Irish, that St.

Patrick thought it advisable to efface it when practicable; and in this

sense he may be entitled to the credit of having banished snakes from

Ireland.

CHAPTER XXVI

(PP. 368-395)

Reverting to his proper subject of the origin and purpose of the round

towers, our author examines the evidence bearing on the date of their

erection. The Ulster Annals record the destruction of fifty-seven of these

towers by an earthquake in A.D. 448, the natural inference being that they

must have existed before the fifth century, but how long before is matter

of conjecture. Tradition connects them with a personage styled the _Goban

Saer_ (Freemason Sage); but this title being the name of a class, not of

an individual, and having no settled place in chronology, does not further

the solution of the difficulty. A better clue is found in the name of the

place whereon was fought the first decisive battle between the

Tuath-de-danaan invaders and the Celtic (Firbolg) inhabitants, which gave

the supremacy of the island to the former. From the number of

commemorative towers erected there by the conquerors, this came to be

known as _Moytura_ (in Irish, _Moye-tureadh_, _i.e._ “the field of the

towers”); and as the date of the second battle, fought centuries later, is

approximately B.C. 600 (p. 449), there is reason for assigning the

erection of round towers to a period long preceding that of Christianity.

The ascription of these towers to the Tuath-de-danaans is in a degree

warranted by the fact that the word “_Tuathan-Tower_” is a well-known

Irish expression, and that there seems to be no other word in the language

which conveys the same idea.

CHAPTER XXVII

(PP. 396-411)

The identity of Ireland with the _Insula Hyperboreorum_ is deduced from a

description of the latter, copied by Diodorus Siculus from the writings of

Hecatæus and from a compendium by Marcianus Herocleotes of the works of

Artemidorus. Both Hecatæus and Artemidorus lived before the Christian era,

and an allusion in the latter author to certain “round temples,” of which

the officiating priests were called _Boreades_, that existed in

“_Juvernia_, a British isle, bounded on the north by the ocean called the

_Hyperborean_, but on the east by the ocean called the _Hibernian_,”

coupled with the fact that (with the exception of those at Brechin and

Abernethy) no remains of round temples are found in any of the British

Isles save Ireland,[28] goes far to prove the identity in question, also

the pre-Christian antiquity of the round towers, together with the

existence of an exceptional, and therefore by natural inference an

_imported_, civilisation in that island. The latter inference is

strengthened by continually-recurring traces of the great proficiency of

its inhabitants in the fine, or useful, arts at an era when the adjacent

islands were still plunged in barbarism.

CHAPTER XXVIII

(PP. 412-431)

These proofs of an adventitious civilisation bearing the marks, not of

gradual growth, but of full development, point to the colonisation of the

island by a highly-cultured race, such as were the ancient people of

_Iran_ (Persia). The round towers, for instance, could not well have been

the work of the Phœnicians, who were a maritime and mercantile race, by no

means prone to arts and letters, and in none of whose admitted settlements

is any trace of similar buildings to be found. Neither the Firbolgs (or

Celtic inhabitants of Ireland), nor the Fomorians, nor the Scythians,

Scoto-Milesians, nor Danish invaders, were at all given to the refinements

of civilisation, and simply regarded the construction of permanent

buildings as unworthy of a race of warriors. Everything, in fact, goes to

show that the Tuath-de-danaan settlers alone could have erected these

towers, introduced the Boreadan ceremonial, and given to the country of

their adoption a name taken from that of their native land. With the

Scythian conquest, it became, of course, inevitable that this name (_Irin_

or _Eirin_) should be changed into _Scuitte_ or _Scotia_ (the land of the

_Scythians_), and that there should have been a partial exodus of the

vanquished Tuath-de-danaans--some of whom, settling in what is now

Scotland, gave it the name of _Iran_ or _Eran_ (which survives in _Erne_

or _Erse_), which was afterwards changed into _Scoitte_ or _Scotia_, out

of compliment to the Scythian rulers of the adjacent island, with whom its

Pictish inhabitants had formed alliance.

CHAPTER XXIX

(PP. 432-444)

As for the unfounded theory,--that Ireland was colonised by Phœnicians

arriving from Spain, whose last settlement in the island was established

by Heber and Heremon, sons of Milesius, and descendants of _Feni an fear

soid_, “the Phœnician wise man,”--it is pointed out that Heber and Heremon

(brothers of Amergin, the bard) were in reality the sons of _Gallamh_, and

invaded Ireland at the head of a Scythian, not Phœnician, colony (p. 393).

Upon historical evidence, the date of this invasion is fixed at B.C. 1002;

while it is agreed on all hands that the _Tuath-de-danaans_ had landed

about two hundred years before, or B.C. 1202, which latter date exactly

corresponds with that given by most Oriental authorities for the exodus of

the Buddhists from India. About this time, indeed, Ireland seems to have

borne the character of an Oriental asylum--a circumstance to which may be

attributed the Eastern costumes and aspect of the figures depicted in its

ancient sculptures, the Eastern character of traditional religious and

ceremonial usages, and the national reverence for the shamrock,

corresponding with that shown to the trefoil (or _trisula_) in Persia

(_Iran_).

CHAPTER XXX

(PP. 445-474)

The duration of Tuath-de-danaan supremacy may have been some six

centuries, dating from the first battle of Moytura, in B.C. 1202 (p. 435),

to the second battle, in or about B.C. 600, between the Firbolgs, or Celts

(who had been gradually reasserting themselves), and a reinforcement of

Tuath-de-danaans, coming this time, not from Persia, but from India,

whence they had been expelled by the Brahmins (p. 443). Although this

second invasion proved successful, the power of the Tuath-de-danaans was

now on the wane, and the height of civilisation to which they had raised

the island rapidly declined before the inroads of the Scythians. Their

ritual became merged in that of the Druids, and their taste for letters

vitiated. Possibly, with a view to arrest this decadence, they began to

cultivate intercourse with Greece, the result being a strong reciprocal

influence, exercised by the languages of the two countries on each other,

and more especially by Irish upon Greek. A corresponding influence

resulted from the migration of discontented Tuath-de-danaans into

Scotland. Nor was it confined to language; for certain peculiarities of

ancient Irish architecture are found reproduced in Mycenian and Caledonian

structures, as, for example, in the _Treasury of Atreus_ (Mycenæ) and the

_Dune of Dornadilla_ (Scotland); and that religion was not wholly

unaffected is proved by the discovery of Irish relics showing that the

oracular superstitions of Dodona had their counterpart in Ireland.

CHAPTER XXXI

(PP. 475-497)

The relics of Tuath-de-danaan occupation, which exist in the shape of

gigantic crosses, and of sculptured ornamentation in which cross-symbolism

is prominent, point to a mystery far more esoteric than that involved in

the Christian emblem. The cross had become representative of the number

_ten_, because in Irish the same word, _lambh_, denoted equally a _cross_

and the human _hand_, or the number of fingers on both hands; whilst the

“triangle of _ten_” (p. 268) embraced “all that was solemn in religion and

in thought,” being, in fact, “the index of male and female united,” and

the prototype of the ark and pyramid. This _Sabaic_, and only

intelligible, explanation of these highly figurative sculptures disposes

of the theory that they are the product of a Christianity with which they

have nothing in common but a shape which is not peculiar to any one

religion in any part of the world.

CHAPTER XXXIII

(PP. 498-524)

Serpent-worship is perhaps the most significant form of _Sabaism_,

involving, as it does, the expression of its source. For in the sacred

language of _Iran_, whereof Irish is the leading type, the word _Sabh_

(the root of _Sabaism_) has three distinct, yet connected, meanings--(1)

_Voluptuousness_, or the _Yoni_; (2) a _Snake_, or sinuosity; (3) _Death_.

Through all these runs the central idea of sexual relation, which, as the

most elementary part of social life, has been symbolised all over the

world in connection with religion. The scriptural reproach, “generation of

vipers,” is probably equivalent to _offspring of concupiscence_, as will

appear from the indignant repudiation of those to whom it was

addressed--“We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even

God.” The part which the serpent plays in Brahminism is well known. In

Mexico a widespread faith called Nagualism had the _Culebra_, or snake,

for one of its principal deities; whilst the _Gadelglas_ of the ancient

Irish (Gadelians) meant simply the _green snake-god_, from which latter,

and not from the verdure of its soil, Ireland may have obtained the

designation of the _Emerald_ Isle. In fact, Sabaism, Ophiolatry, and

Gadelianism were one and the same; and, while purporting to be the worship

of the serpent, or of the stars (_vide_ p. 505), were in reality the

worship of _Sabh_ or _Yoni_, the representative of female nature. It was,

however, masculinity (_Budh_) that was typified in the phallic form of

those round towers, which the author now proceeds to describe with more

minuteness of detail than heretofore. Incidentally, he disposes of the

argument in favour of the Christian origin of these towers, which is based

upon the assumption that remains of Christian churches are invariably

found in their vicinity, by adducing an instance to the contrary (at

Giant’s Ring, County Down).[29]

W. H. C.

DEDICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION

TO

THE LEARNED OF EUROPE

TO THE HEADS OF ITS SEVERAL UNIVERSITIES

TO THE TEACHERS OF RELIGION AND THE LOVERS OF HISTORY

MORE ESPECIALLY

TO THE ALIBENISTIC ORDER OF FREEMASONS

TO THE FELLOWS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY

TO THE FELLOWS OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ARCHÆOLOGIA SCOTICA

TO THE COMMITTEES OF THE SOCIETIES FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE

GOSPEL AND THE DIFFUSION OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE

AND

TO THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED

AS A NOVEL EXPOSITION OF LITERARY INQUIRIES IN WHICH

THEY ARE SEVERALLY INTERESTED

AND AS AN INTIMATION OF RESPECT FROM

THE AUTHOR

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

In _Fraser’s Magazine_ for the month just expired, there has appeared an

article headed the “Arcana of Freemasonry,” which will save me the trouble

of an introductory dissertation. The style is quaint, but that will be

overlooked; its author is evidently a true mason and a good man; and,

initiated as he is in all the fundamentals of his fraternity, he will be

the more ready to recognise the truth of my disclosures, as well as to

admit the originality of the proofs which I adduce. To him, therefore,

whoever he is, do I with confidence refer.

“In the spirit of the mighty dead,” says he, “the great ones of the earth,

that seem ever and anon to look down through the clouds of this murky

atmosphere and to beckon us heavenward, nothing strikes more keenly, in

our conviction, than that passion for divine truth which burned

unquenchably within them. With what hallowed devotion they worshipped it,

with what intense aspirations they loved it, we must remember but too

painfully, when we converse with men as they are, and read the writings

they applaud.

“Yes--it must be so! The first and noblest object to which the ambition of

man can aspire is the discovery and propagation of truth, on which the

felicity of all created thinkers absolutely depends; and, fortunately, the

glory of its discovery is nothing superior to the joy of its

communication. And therefore have the finest and freest souls, that have

caught the brightest glimpses of truth’s eternal radiation, ever most

earnestly sought to lead their brethren and kindred to the same difficult

and solitary height from which they themselves first witnessed the

dawnings of the prophetic dayspring.

“How many illustrious names, however venerable, have from time’s eldest

records sought out with indefatigable assiduity the relics of divinest

Wisdom! How often beneath her charmed inspirations they wandered forth,

exulting over the boundless fields of metaphysical and physical

science--endeavouring by the things that are manifest to retrace the

hidden Divinity--to look through nature up to nature’s God! And if happily

they discover some strange and stirring indications of the Almighty’s

elaborating hand, or some bright testimony of His vivifying though

impalpable Spirit, have they not hastened with glowing hearts, and souls

overcharged with adoration, to whisper the mystery in secret, or to

proclaim the marvel to the world?

“The history of Freemasonry being in fact the history of the gradual

progression of devotion and philosophy in the youth, maturity, and

declension of our planet’s millenary circle, is intensely interesting to

the philosophic mind, as the ages of the one have a thousand mystic

correspondences with the ages of the other. After taking a luminous survey

of the advances of human intelligence as revealed in Scripture, it traces

the perpetual tradition of divine wisdom among the _hierophantic_

academies of classic memorial. None understood so well the essential truth

of their _theo-astrological mythologies_ and their _symbolical mysteries_.

They track every subtle declension of lofty and bright-souled truth into

the shadowy circumference of hostile error; and thus, establishing their

minds on the deepest foundations of history, they continually build up

superstructures of all that is precious in literature or elegant in art.

“In thus eulogising Freemasons, we of course allude to Freemasons

initiated into the deep spirit of divine philosophy, and not mere nominal

professors. True masons,--those who are made _free_ by their free devotion

to God’s spiritual service, and _accepted_ by emulating the

self-immolation of their celestial prototype of heaven and earth for just

and disciplined worthies,--we would discourse of these, and these alone.

It would be as unfair to judge of Freemasonry in its hidden sanctuary

within the veil, by its irregular members, as to judge of its religious

illustration without the veil by merely nominal Christians.

“But for true, or free, or speculative masons. These are the men who,

attached to their celestial Saviour with filial enthusiasm incommunicable,

and to each other by fraternal sympathies that melt them into beautiful

unanimity of immortal emulation, these are the men who feel a more

especial and endearing interest in the whole history of mankind. To them,

whatever is “wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best,” in all the records

of humanity, hath a kind of kindred familiarity of association unknown to

others; for in all true men they recognise their ancestry or their

brotherhood, and they watch the broad line of their genealogical descent

with the reverent fondness of a lineal and loyal progeny. In their history

they love to contemplate the magnificent economy of Providence for the

gradual perfectionising of all lapsed intelligences. In this they view

every variation of Churches and States with tranquil and unbroken

satisfaction, and from it they look forward to the future with that fine,

free, and fearless confidence which Christian philosophy alone inspires.

“In the present times, these relations to society have assumed a somewhat

deeper and still more thrilling intensity; they know well enough that old

age hath come upon the earth, and that the latter day is at hand; and that

the prophecies relating to her dissolution and bright regeneration are,

ere long, to be accomplished in their fulness.

“They confess, with rejoicing, the vast spread of intellectual light and

freedom that now gilds the concluding pages of our planet’s history. They

believe that the true and venerable principles of Church and State will be

confirmed and illustrated in their breadth and length, and height and

depth, by the last and prophetic experience of pious and patriot sages,

ere the kindling judgment breaks out upon the astonished world.

“Such is the position of Freemasons in society at present. And when we

consider the extent of this chosen band of good and wise men, bound

together by the fellowship of indissoluble benevolence, and scattered over

every kingdom and republic, we cannot but observe their influences with

peculiar scrutiny of attention; for, by keeping fast their own counsel,

and preserving mutual good faith, they ever possess a strong, though

secret domination of philanthropy over all the affairs of Church and

State. In her peaceful and inviolable retirement, Masonry is, as it were,

the _primum mobile_ and mainspring of society,--unseen herself, but urging

the whole visible mechanism into harmonious and musical action.

“In the present time, Freemasons cannot but feel that a terrible

responsibility is committed to their charge. The ancient interests and

ambitions of Churches and States are coming into perpetual and jarring

collision with the new. The ebb-tides of bigotry and despotism are

clashing with the advancing currents of enthusiasm and dissolute passion.

The spray of the whirling eddies already whitens the deep, and the roar of

the conflicting breakers is heard far away upon the wind. God saith, ‘I

will overturn, overturn, overturn, until He shall come whose right the

kingdom is’; and the sea and the waves are roaring upon every shore, and

men’s hearts fail them for fear, and for looking on those things which are

coming on the earth. To true masons is entrusted the hazardous charge of

piloting the vessel athwart the boiling whirlpools. They will save, if

they can, earth’s latest age from indecent strife and confusion, and

struggle hard against the unfilial and disloyal apostates, that would

bring down her grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.”[30]

Here I would willingly close my Introduction; but as it may seem strange

that a work which bears upon its title-page the character of “Prize Essay”

should not have been published by the Society that have awarded it the

prize, I am obliged to open up a statement of facts which I had rather

have concealed; yet, in doing so, I shall take care, now that all vexation

has passed over, that no symptoms of asperity shall escape my pen; all the

colouring of language I shall equally avoid; nay, even inferences, however

obvious, I shall not press into observation, but confine myself strictly

to a matter-of-fact detail as to the conduct of the party in the case in

question.

In December 1830, the Royal Irish Academy, after many fruitless efforts to

obtain information on the subject of the Round Towers, proposed a premium

of a gold medal and fifty pounds to the author of an approved Essay, in

which all particulars respecting them were expected to be explained. This

intimation I never saw. The stipulated time for the composition of

treatises--namely, a full twelvemonth--expired, and the several candidates

sent in their works. After a perusal of two or three months, the Council

agreed upon giving the premium to one of them; but his work being

deficient in some of the conditions required,[31] it was furthermore

resolved that he should be allowed some additional interval for the

supplying of these defects, and this determination they put into practice

by the following advertisement:--

“ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY HOUSE, DUBLIN,

“_21st February 1832_.

“It having appeared to the Royal Irish Academy that none of the Essays

given in on the subject of the ‘Round Towers,’ as advertised in

December 1830, have satisfied the conditions of the question, they

have come to the following resolutions:--

“1st. That the question be advertised again as follows:--

“‘The Royal Irish Academy hereby give notice that they will give a

Premium of Fifty Pounds and the Gold Medal to the author of an

approved Essay on the Round Towers of Ireland, in which it is expected

that the _characteristic architectural peculiarities belonging to all

those ancient buildings now existing shall be noticed_, and the

_uncertainty_ in which their origin and uses are involved be

satisfactorily removed.’

“2nd. That the time be extended to the 1st of June next, for receiving

other Essays on said subject, and for allowing the authors of the

Essays already given in to enlarge and improve them; for which purpose

they will be returned, on application at the Academy House.

“All Essays, as usual, to be sent post free to the Rev. J. H. Singer,

D.D., Secretary, at the Academy House, 114 Grafton Street, Dublin;

each Essay being inscribed with some motto, and accompanied with a

sealed billet, superscribed with same motto, in which shall be written

the author’s name and address.”

A few days before this appeared, I heard, for the first time, of the

subject having been for competition. Wishing to ascertain whether it was

decided or not, I availed myself of a pretext for calling upon Dr.

M’Donnell, one of the Secretaries to the Academy, when the following

conversation took place between us:--

“I wish to know, sir,” said I, “whether the Council would patronise a

translation of _Ibernia Phœnicia_, which I have just embarked in, with Dr.

Villanueva’s consent?”

“The Council have already subscribed to the _original_, and I believe they

feel no difficulty in understanding it in that form,” was the reply.

“I do not at all question their competency,” I rejoined; “but to the

public, Doctor, it is a sealed volume; and I cannot think it foreign from

the spirit of your institution to countenance such an idea. Besides, it is

not a mere echo of the original that I intend to give. I purpose to

enlarge it by many additions of my own, accompanying it all through with

notes and illustrations.”

“To what points in particular will those additions refer?”

“To the development of the mystery which overhangs the Round Towers.”

“Oh! On that head the Academy have already made up their minds. What is

_your_ theory about them?”

“Surely, Doctor, if the Academy have already made up their minds upon the

subject, my information can be to you of no value! Good-morning.”

If my disappointment at this interview was great, my delight, a few

mornings after, was incomparably greater, on beholding the advertisement

above introduced; and though the _shortness_ of the time allowed, with the

_positiveness_ of the assertion so recently and reluctantly extorted, made

me suspect at once that there was some _management_ in the business, yet,

having thoroughly assured myself, from the wording of that manifesto, that

I was entitled to enter the lists, I plunged into the discussion without

further delay, and day and night, in sorrow and in difficulties, I

laboured, until I finished my Essay against the appointed day, when I sent

it in accordingly to await its chance.

Four days, however, had only passed over, when the Council, having

perceived that they had been taken at their word, by the appearance of a

new candidate, allowed their friend to take back his Essay for one month

more, to render it more perfect! And in the exercise of their discretion,

they had the modesty to advertise, by a document precisely similar to that

already inserted, that their object in so doing was to “obtain _new_

Essays on said subject.”

This last advertisement was not published for some days after their friend

had removed his work from the Council Board; so that there were no more

than about _three weeks_ remaining, for the inditing of _new works_ upon a

subject for which _lives_ have been found inadequate, and for which their

friend had already been allowed a period nearly approaching to two years!

Soon as informed of this manœuvre, I called upon Dr. Singer, as the

Secretary, and entreated of him, with much ardour, that he would put a

stop to those proceedings; stated that I was myself the author of one of

the Essays, which I would not further particularise; and that, as I had

reason to apprehend something wrong was in contemplation, I would feel

obliged if he exerted himself to have the Essays detained, and determined

upon by their merits as they then stood. He asked me to explain the ground

of my apprehensions. I complied; whereupon he assured me that I was

mistaken in that quarter, as “the individual,” says he, “at whose request

we have extended the time is one for whom we all have a regard, and is by

no means the person on whom your suspicions light!”

It was but little consolation to me that the person in whose favour all

this partiality was exerted was “not the person on whom my suspicions

lighted”! I remonstrated, but in vain. Every syllable that transpired

afterwards tended only to show that the decision was already

pronounced--that the premium was already awarded. I then hinted at the

injustice of seducing me into the competition, at the very risk of my

life, upon so short a notice, and not vouchsafing now so much as to

examine my production. This had some effect, and I left the Doctor with an

assurance that I “_should, at all events, get a hearing_.”

The day for the reception of the _amended Essays_ again came, and mine

again made its appearance. In the interim was started a periodical, under

the direction of some members of the Council, the most prominent of whom

was the _favoured_ individual himself. In the second number of this

periodical, on the Saturday after the last sending in of the Essays, there

appeared an article, written by the Rev. Cæsar Otway, a member of the

Council, under the assumed name of Terence O’Toole, in which half

playfully and half mysteriously, _he lets the cat out of the bag_, and

actually asserts, as the event verified, that the premium was already

determined _to a member of their own body_!

Here are his words:--

“The Round Tower, to the right, is a prodigious puzzler to antiquarians.

Quires of paper, as tall as a tower, have been covered with as much ink as

might form a Liffey, in accounting for their origin and use. But all these

clever and recondite conjectures are shortly, as I understand, to be

completely overthrown, and the real nature of these Round Towers clearly

explained, for the first time, in a Prize Essay presented to the Royal

Irish Academy by an _accomplished antiquarian_ of our city.”[32]

Notwithstanding the disguise here assumed of “as I understand,” and so

forth, the writer of this announcement had, at this moment, not only

_perused_ his colleague’s Essay, but actually registered his vote in its

favour! And as to his pretending that the development was a discovery, by

saying “for the first time,” he betrays therein the extreme either of

_untruth_ or of _ignorance_, as the theory alluded to is but the _echo_,

in all particulars, of Montmorency’s book, every sentence in which I prove

erroneous in the early chapters of the present volume! I could no longer,

however, be ignorant as to the _identity_ of the person in whose favour

Dr. M’Donnell had told me the Council had “made up their minds”;--casually

corroborated afterwards by Dr. Singer!--I saw at once that the

“_accomplished_ antiquarian of our city” was Mr. Petrie, the antiquarian

_artist_ of the Royal Irish Academy--himself a member of their Council!

However, Dr. Singer had promised that I “should get, at all events, a

hearing.” And this was performed with a vengeance. _Three_ months was the

time devoted to the examination of all the former Essays. It remained,

therefore, only publicly to announce what was privately resolved upon.

But as my Essay, the _only new one_, was at all taken in, it was

indispensable but that they must read it, and _six_ long months did they

appropriate thereto. At the end of this period they saw that the position

assumed was right, and that I was entitled to the premium. But they had

already pledged themselves to give it to their friend, whose theory was

the direct opposite of mine; and, consequently, every sentence in it, or

in mine, must be wrong--a discrepancy, however, which they thought to

reconcile by leaving the original prize undisturbed, and voting me a

separate one.

Had they had the candour to avow that this was their dilemma, I should

never have murmured, but quietly submitted to the issue; instead of which,

however, they worded their resolution in such a form as led the public to

think that there were _two_ premiums all along intended, and that the

first of these was given to the _best_ composition, and the second to that

which approached it in quality.

It was as follows:--

“ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY HOUSE.

“On Monday, December 17, a meeting of the Council of the Royal Irish

Academy was held, for the purpose of deciding on the merits of essays

received, pursuant to advertisement, on _The Origin and Use of the

Round Towers of Ireland_, when the following premiums were adjudged,

viz.:--

“Fifty pounds and the gold medal to George Petrie.

“Twenty pounds to Henry O’Brien, Esq.”

Now, be it observed that it was not only of the gold medal and fifty

pounds that I was deprived by this manœuvre, but of the one hundred

additional pounds which Lord Cloncurry had offered upon the same subject.

Of this the Academy were also the dispensers, on the understanding that

whoever should get their gold medal and fifty pounds--the only premium

which they had offered--should also get his lordship’s hundred; so that

by this stratagem they assigned to their friend not only their own, but

his lordship’s patronage!

I was in London at the time, and signified my dissatisfaction by letter.

Several were interchanged, in one of which I gave them to understand that

I would submit to the injustice if they would but publish my work in their

_Transactions simultaneously_ with Mr. Petrie’s. This they declined,

assuring me that they would publish it, but _not simultaneously_, and not

_until_ after. No comment is necessary for this.

Meanwhile, their periodical, which, from the first moment of its starting,

whenever reference was made to the Round Towers, unqualifiedly asserted

that they were Christian, and only _coeval_ with the _monasteries_,[33]

thought proper now to change its tone; but as an open acknowledgment of

_error_ would be too self-abasing for _Academicians_, they only put forth

a _feeler_, as if implying _doubt_ on the matter, which would have the

twofold effect of screening the “Council’s” verdict--as the result of

doubt or ambiguity--and of preparing the public mind for the _altered_ and

_novel_ conclusion to which _all_, I trust, will ere long, as well as

_themselves_, have arrived.

My eye, however, was on their plans, though separated by “a roaring sea.”

I knew that where there were so many windings to mature the plot, there

must be as many to prevent its detection; and, accordingly, the very first

move they made in these, their _new tactics_, I _checkmated_ at once by

the following letter:--

(No. 1.)

“LONDON, _March 16, 1833_.

“DEAR DR. SINGER,--The _Dublin Penny Journal_ of February 23rd, on the

article, ‘Devenish Island,’ contains this sentence, viz.: ‘Whether the

towers are the accompaniment to the churches, or the churches to the

towers, is a question not yet decided.’

“Now _this_--coupled with the circumstance of the Committee having

awarded _two_ premiums to _two_, as I understand, _conflicting

ascriptions_, and that when only _one_ was _originally

proposed_--induces me, with all deference, to offer this memorial,

through you, to the Academy.

“As the development of _truth_ in the elucidation of _history_ is the

object of the _antiquarian_, and, as the ‘labourer is worthy of his

hire,’ I take the liberty respectfully to ask whether, if I make _my

ascription_ of the Round Towers a _mathematical_ demonstration, with

_every other incident_ relating to their founders, comprehending _all_

the antiquities of Ireland, as connected therewith--and this by _all_

the _varieties_ and _modes_ of proof--whether, I say, in _that_ event,

will the Academy award me _the gold medal_ and premium? or, if that

cannot be _recalled_, an equivalent gold medal and premium.

“My intercalary work, _substantiating_ all the above, is now finished,

and can be forwarded to the Committee by return of the same post which

will favour me with your answer.--I have the honour to be, dear sir,

your obedient, etc.

“HENRY O’BRIEN.

“To the Rev. Dr. J. H. Singer,

“_Secretary to the Academy_.”

By the above proposal I must not be understood as _admitting_ that my

_original_ essay “was not _sufficiently_ conclusive”; but as I had more

arguments still in reserve, I wanted to elicit from the Academy the

admission that it was _truth_ they sought after. After waiting, however,

more than three weeks, and getting no reply, I forwarded some other

proofs, accompanied by a letter, of which the following was the

conclusion, viz.:--

(No. 2.)

“These are but _items_ in the great body of discoveries which this

intercalary work will exhibit. In truth, I may without vanity assert

that the whole _ancient history of Ireland_, etc., is therein

rectified and elucidated--which it never was before. Am I, therefore,

presumptuous in appealing to the Royal Irish Academy--the heads of

Irish literature and the avowed patrons of its development--for the

reward of my labours?

“I shall with confidence rely upon their _justice_.--I have the honour

to be, with sincere regard, etc.

“HENRY O’BRIEN.

“To the Rev. Dr. J. H. Singer,

“_Secretary to the Academy_.”

(No. 3.)

“ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY HOUSE,

“_April 16, 1833_.

“SIR,--Your _improved_ essay and letter were yesterday laid before

Council, and as Dr Singer is at present confined with the gout, it

devolves on me to communicate to you the following extract from the

minutes:--

“‘Resolved, that the Secretary be directed to reply to Mr. O’Brien,

and to state that any alteration or revocation of their award cannot

be made, _whatever may be the merits_ of any additional matter

supplied to them after the day appointed by advertisement; but if Mr.

O’Brien be willing that the new matter be printed along with the

original Essay, the Council will have the same perused, in order to

ascertain the expediency of so enlarging their publication.’--By

order.

“RICH. ROW, _Clerk to the Academy_.

“To H. O’Brien, Esq.”

(No. 4.)

“LONDON, _April 18, 1833_.

“SIR,--Had I a _notion_ that the Academy’s reply would be such as your

letter has this day imparted, I would never have sat down to indite

those additions, much less have forwarded them for _their perusal_.

For why did I write to the Secretary _three weeks_ ago, but to

ascertain _whether_ or _not_, in the event of _my_ doing _so_ and

_so_, would the _Academy_ act _so_ and _so_, and thus repair that

injury which they had before inflicted? What could be more easy than

to give me a categorical answer, one way or the other? Instead of

which, however, they left me to my own conclusions, which, as usual in

such circumstances, leading me to construe silence into acquiescence,

I transmitted my documents on the tacit faith that though the Academy

would not pledge themselves by a written promise, they would,

notwithstanding, if my researches proved adequate, reward my industry

by a suitable remuneration.

“Now, however, when my papers have been received, and my developments

communicated, I am told that, _be their merits what they may_, the

_award_ is _irrevocable_; and I have no alternative, in the writhings

of my mortification, but the consolation of being _injured_ and

_duped_ at the same time.

“You will say, perhaps, that my new evidences have not yet been read,

and that therefore my property is secure and sacred. But has not the

_accompanying letter_ been read? And what was _that_ but a _programme_

of their contents?

“_I_ had _thought_ that the Royal _Irish_ Academy were not only a

_learned_, but a _just_ and a _patriotic_ Society. _I_ had _thought_

that having marshalled themselves into an institution, with the

_avowed_ object of _resuscitating from death_ the almost _despaired-of

evidences_ of our _national history_, they would not alone _foster_

every _advance_ toward that desirable consummation, but shower

_honours_, and _acclamations_, and _triumphs_ upon him who has not

only _infused a vital soul_ into those _moribund remains_, but made

the history of Ireland, at this moment, the _clearest_, the most

_irrefragable_, and withal the most _interestingly comprehensive

chain_ of _demonstrational proofs_ in the _whole circle of universal

literature_.[34]

“But it is not alone the being deprived of my reward that I complain

of, and the transferring of that reward to _another, every sentiment

of whose production must inevitably be wrong_, but it is the

_suppression_ of my labours, and the keeping them back from the public

eye, in deference to my _opponent’s_ work, lest that the _discernment_

of the public should bestow upon me those _honours_ which the

_discretion_ of the Academy has thought proper to _alienate_, that

affects me as most severe.

“Indeed, it has been stated from more quarters than one, that the

withholding of the medal from me, in the first instance, and the

substituting thereinstead a _nominal_ premium of twenty pounds,

originated from a personal pique against me individually. Such a

report I would fain disbelieve, and yet it is hard not to give it some

credence, seeing that the _irresistible cogency_ of my _truths_ and

the _indubitable value_ of my literary discoveries are not only not

rewarded, but kept back from publication, _until someone else_ more

fortunate, or rather _more favoured_, shall _run away with_ the credit

of my cherished disclosures.[35] I wish--I desire--I most intensely

covet--that the Academy would convince me that _this is not an act of

the most aggravated injustice_.

“You will please lay this before the Council, and tell them from me,

respectfully, that I do not want them either to ‘alter’ or ‘revoke’

their award, but _simply_ to vote me ‘_an equivalent gold medal and

premium_’ for my _combined essay_, or, if they prefer, the _new

portion_ of it. Should this be refused, _I will put my cause_, etc.

etc.--I have the honour to be, etc. etc.

“HENRY O’BRIEN.

“To the Rev. Richard Row,

“_Clerk to the Academy_.”

They bestowed some days in consultation upon the above; meanwhile, the

transmission of the _Dublin Penny Journal_ to London was countermanded,

and not a copy of it was allowed, for some months afterwards, to come

within hundreds of miles of the place of my residence. In the interim the

ingenious author of the _Celtic Druids_, and who had been _partly_ in

possession of my development of the “Towers” for some time previously,

favoured me with a visit, during which we conversed principally on

historical questions. The next day I addressed him a _note_, a copy of

which, with its _answer_, I take leave to subjoin, for the sake of the

_terminating_ clause of the latter, being the _self-convicting

acknowledgment_ of the “Academy’s” _disingenuousness_.

(No. 5.)

“_May 2, 1833._

“DEAR SIR,--I hope you will not feel displeased at the frankness of

this question which I am about to propose to you, viz. have you any

objection to show me in manuscript, before you send to print, the

terms in which you speak of me, in reference to those points of

information which I entrusted to your confidence--such as the ancient

names of Ireland and their derivation, the towers and founders, dates,

etc.?

“Should you think proper to consent to this feeling of anxiety on my

part, I shall be most willing to share with you those other ‘points’

which I exclusively retain.

“To the full extent you shall have them. The only condition I require

is, the credit of originality, which I have laboriously earned. Please

to drop me a line in reply to this, and allow me to subscribe myself,

with great respect,--Dear sir, your obedient,

“HENRY O’BRIEN.

“Godfrey Higgins, Esq.”

(No. 6.)

“_May 3, 1833._

“MY DEAR O’BRIEN,--You may be perfectly assured I shall print nothing

which I have learned from you without acknowledging it. But I have

really forgotten what you told me, because I considered that I should

see it in print _in a few days_. Anything I shall write on the subject

will not be printed for years after your books have been before the

public. You did not tell me the name of Buddha, but I told it you,

that it was Saca, or Saca-sa,[36] which I have already printed a

hundred times, and can show you in my great quarto, when you take your

tea with me, as I hope you will to-morrow. _Sir W. Betham_ told me of

the fire-towers being Phalluses last night at the Antiquarian

Society.--Yours truly,

“G. HIGGINS.”

Who, now, can pretend to think that the _neutralising award_ of the

“Council” was the effect of scepticism or legitimate doubt? Here Sir

William Betham, the Ulster King-at-Arms! the Goliath of _antiquaries_!--as

he is, undoubtedly, of _pedigrees_,--being himself a _member_ of the

“deciding tribunal,”--proclaims, in the midst of a venerable literary

assembly, that _my solution_ of the Round Tower enigma is accurate; and

yet in the _teeth_ of this _confession_, and of the _conviction_ which

_extorted_ it, he joins in voting away _my medal_ to a _compilation of

errors_, and in substituting thereinstead twenty pounds!

(No. 7.)

“LONDON, _May 2, 1833_.

“DEAR DR. SINGER,--I exceedingly grieve to hear of your ill-health.

Its announcement, I assure you, made me look within myself, and for a

moment lose sight of my own hardships. I hope, however, that you are

now so far recovered as to send me a favourable answer to this my

_last_ appeal.

“Taking it for certain that the Academy’s having not replied to the

tenor of my late intimation arose from the circumstance of there

having been no ‘Council day’ since; and, as I anticipate, that on

Monday next my _question_ will be _finally_ disposed of, I am anxious,

for the good of _all parties_, and for the _triumph_ of _truth_, to

show you in _one view_ how I have amputated the last _supports_ of

error, and covered its advocates with ignominy and shame.

* * * * *

“Thus _every leaf_ unfolds _evidences_ to the _realisation_ of _my

victory_. I took my stand at the outset on the pedestal of _truth_;

and I challenge scrutiny to insinuate that, in the _multiplied

developments_ which I have since revealed, I have deviated from my

_grand_ position one single iota.

“Let it not be supposed, in the observation with which I am now about

to conclude, that I mean anything disrespectful to the Council of the

Academy. Many years have not passed since I knew several of them in a

different relation; and however little effect college associations may

produce on _other_ minds, _I_ find not their influence so fleeting or

transient. It is with extreme reluctance, therefore, that I would

split with a body who have lectured me as tutors. But time has

_advanced_; _I am now right, and they are wrong, and the cause which

they patronise will not do them much credit_.

“I do not, however, yet give up my hopes but that the Academy will

_wisely_ retrace their steps. Revocation of the _former_ medal I do

not require--much less the exercise of a single grain of _partiality_.

My demand merely is, as my former letters have indicated, the

substitution of _justice_.

“Please receive the assurance of my consideration, and in confident

reliance that you will use your influence in this matter, and favour

me with the upshot instantly after Monday’s Board,--I remain, ever

sincerely yours,

“HENRY O’BRIEN.”

(No. 8.)

“LONDON, _May 9, 1833_.

“DEAR DR. SINGER,--My appeals are over; and I regret to say that they

have not been attended to. The _virtuous_ and _enlightened part_ of

the Academy, therefore, cannot blame me, if, in the assertion of my

honest right, I try the effect of a public remonstrance.

“In the interim, I transmit to you by this night’s post some

additional leaves, which, in the anxiety of despatch, as well, indeed,

as from fear that they would not be inserted _because they overwhelm

for ever the antiquarian pretensions of the Dublin Penny Journal_,[37]

have omitted to copy. However, I will _now_ forward them, and claim

that they may be printed along with those already sent in the original

Essay.

“... I have exhausted all the forms of blandness and conciliation, in

the vain hope of inducing the Council to redeem _themselves_ from

_disgrace_, by doing _me_ common _justice_. I have strove in the

mildest terms of conscious rectitude, invigorated by a phalanx of

overwhelming proofs, to make them reconsider their course, and spare

me the unpleasant task of exposing a deed which I am loth to

characterise by its proper designation. But the ‘heart of Pharaoh’ was

hardened; the ‘voice of the charmer’ not listened to; and to my soft

importunities nothing was returned but the coldness of obduracy and

disregard.

“The Rubicon, therefore, is crossed; my patience feels insulted; and

the only consideration I value, in the resolve to which I have at last

been driven, is, that _you_ had nothing to do with the ‘job’ of the

Round Towers.

“Little did the Academy know what arguments I could adduce in

elucidation of _certain mysteries_. As little do they now dream what

proofs I can summon, though _you_ cannot have _forgotten_ one of them,

while I promise I shall make _Dr. M’Donnell recollect_ another; and

would not the _Rev. Cæsar Otway_, with whom I have never so much as

exchanged a look, be surprised at my quoting him as a reluctant third

witness, to show that the gold medal and premium were predetermined to

Mr. Petrie before ever I became a candidate; and that, _consequently_,

the advertisement under which I was _invited_ to contend, but from

which the Council never expected an intruder, was but a specious

delusion.

“In this determination I violate no act of private regard, nor set

light by the claims of individual acquaintance. You know yourself how

earnestly I struggled, before the consummation of this nefarious

proceeding, to stem the agency of that despicable under-current which

I had just detected. I knew that fraud of some kind was at work; and

though unable at the moment to fix upon the person in whose favour it

was set agoing,--nay, though _mentally_ fastening the blame thereof

upon another, whose name, however, I never _let slip_, and to whom, I

rejoice to say I have since made more than recompense for this ideal

injury,--yet could I not be persuaded but that something _sinister_

was designated; and to frustrate the influence of such prominent

deceit, you know how vehement was my address. I implored you, I

besought you, and all but upon my _knees_, and with _tears_, I invoked

you, by your regard to justice and your fear of a Creator, to _check

this trickery_, and allow _merit alone_ and _anonymous_ to decide the

issue.

“I now, in the same spirit of solemn self-composure, adjure the

‘Council’ through you, in the name of that God before whom they and I

shall one day appear, that they will have my cause redressed, and make

me reparation, not only for the substantial injury, but for the mental

disquietude and agony which this ‘business’ has occasioned. If they do

not, rest satisfied that _my path is already chalked_. All the

_evolutions_ of the Council, as displayed upon the Towers, and with

which I am but too familiar, shall be immortalised in letterpress; and

I do not yet despair of the _hereditary fairness_ of my country but

that it shall _register_ its dissent from the decision of that

tribunal, which could have had at once the _obtuseness_ of intellect

and the _perverseness_ of conduct to _stultify_ their own verdict by a

contradictory award; and, after _inveigling me into a competition

which they never meant to remunerate, deprive_ me of the fruits of my

indubitable triumph, in the pursuit of which I had almost lost my

life, and cut short my existence in the very spring of my manhood.

“I mean no offence, individually or collectively, to the Academy or

its members; but as they have been deaf to the justice of my private

‘appeals,’ I shall try the effect of a public ‘remonstrance’; and as

to _ulterior_ consequences I greatly err, else the upshot will show

that the motto[38] adopted as my fictitious signature in the ‘Essay’

was not the random assumption of inconsiderateness or accident, but

the true index to the author’s resources.

“My proposal is this--my unshaken position from which I will not

swerve or retract--a _gold medal and premium equivalent to those

originally advertised_.--I am, dear sir, yours sincerely,

“HENRY O’BRIEN.

“To the Rev. Dr. J. H. Singer,

“_Secretary to the Academy_.”

(No. 10.)

“GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN,

“_May 13, 1833_.

“DEAR SIR,--I have been directed by the Council of the Royal Irish

Academy to reply to your last letters on the subject of your Essay,

and the additional matter recently sent over. As to the latter, I am

directed to say that the Council had engaged to examine and publish,

if approved, some small additions to your former Essay; but the papers

you have sent are so large as to be nearly equal in bulk to the

original dissertation; under these circumstances the Council cannot

publish them as additional to, or incorporated with, the Essay to

which they awarded twenty pounds prize, _as thereby its character

might be so altered that it would not appear in print the same Essay

on which they had formed their opinion_. The Council, therefore, wish

to know how they may transmit to you the papers you have sent. When

the gentlemen to whom your Essay has been submitted for examination

report, you shall be made aware of the extent of alteration they

suggest; and if you think that your paper requires the additions you

have sent, and would therefore wish to publish it with them yourself,

I have no doubt the Council will entertain any notice to that

effect.--I am, dear sir, your most obedient,

“J. H. SINGER.

“H. O’Brien, Esq.”

(No. 11.)

“LONDON, _May 20, 1833_.

“DEAR DR. SINGER,--I do not quite understand the closing observation

of your last letter. If the Academy mean me a kindness, I should trust

that my nature is too sensible of such advances not suitably to

acknowledge it; and I should be sorry that, either from obscurity in

the diction, or want of quickness in my perception, I were to lose the

opportunity of making a grateful return. Let me, therefore, put the

following interrogatory to set myself right, viz.:--

“Will the Academy procure me a publisher for my _enlarged_ work? And

will they advertise that, having previously done me injustice, by the

transfer of my medal, they now, on being convinced of their error,

adopt this as the only mode of reparation, the award itself not being

to be recalled?

“Without some such course as this, it is obvious that the offer which

they make, instead of being a _kindness_, would be a _mockery_; and,

instead of making amends for _oppression_, would be adding _insult_ to

_persecution_! For who, let me ask, would publish a work which a jury

have branded with the stamp of _inferior_, doling out their

surreptitious twenty pounds as an eleemosynary deodand, while the

_darling_ of their adoption, though disfigured by all the

imperfections of _blindness_, _lameness_, and _untruth_, and

recommended only by a few _painted gew-gaws_, which never entered into

the requisites of the original advertisement, _will pass current in

Dublin amongst the creatures_ of party!

“I have already applied to Mr. ----, and he, intimidated by the

vicious state of society in Ireland, declined my proposal; but though

his apprehensions were sufficient to deter him from the speculation,

they were totally unfounded; for, despite of all corruption, all

chicanery, and all cabals, the etc. etc. etc.

“This complaint, observe, does not refer to the new papers only, but

extends itself equally to the original Essay. Why do the Academy keep

it back? Believe me, it is in vain for them to defer ‘the evil day’ of

their exposure. Their doom was sealed the very moment they did me

injustice! I have watchfully reconnoitred their course, and have

proofs of the intricacies of their internal machinery, ample as those

before adduced for the solution of the Round Tower enigma, to effect

their overthrow; and if the present generation be not virtuous enough

to redress my cause, it shall be no fault of mine if any future age

shall be ignorant of the names of the individuals who constitute the

present _Council_; and in what light they shall be considered, their

own conscience can furnish them with a tolerable foretaste!

“Was it not a cruelly perverse thing of them, after determining

beforehand to award the medal to Mr. Petrie, to inveigle me into the

competition by a deceptious advertisement? And then, after signally

beating them under all disadvantages, to _manœuvre me off by a

beggarly cheat_? Shame, foul shame for ever upon the Academy!

“Why, sir, the very terms of your letter show their

self-convictedness, though they have not honesty enough to avow it

overboard! What do they mean by saying that the new matter would ‘make

my Essay not appear in print the same as that on which they formed

their opinion’? Are they afraid that it would make it appear worse?

Not at all; they would rejoice at the pretext, and publish it

_instanter_ as a cloak to their verdict! But as they have, in spite of

them, admitted those additions to be an _improvement,[39] why do they,

I ask, who have advertised for truth, again repress its effulgence_?

“It is now easy to see what they designed by the clauses of

‘expediency,’ ‘if approved,’ and ‘subject to revisal’; viz., if false,

we will insert them in _self-vindication_; but if true, we will not,

_as being too great a victory over our own ignorance and favouritism_!

“My Essay, however, does not want those new papers: the Council,

therefore, will please have them sealed and handed over to the custody

of Mr. Tims, my bookseller, in Grafton Street. The only additions

which I shall insist upon being inserted are those contained in my

letters in appropriate places, as I shall point out.

“I conclude by giving notice that I shall claim Lord Cloncurry’s

premium; nor do I despair of _recovering that_, as I should think that

his lordship is _too honest a man to sacrifice the interests of

literature to the intrigues of a faction_!--I have the honour to be,

etc.,

“HENRY O’BRIEN.”

(No. 12.)

“ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY HOUSE, DUBLIN,

“_May 27, 1833_.

“SIR,--I am directed by the Council of the Royal Irish Academy to

inform you that they feel themselves compelled, in consequence of your

late letters, to decline the publication of your Essay, or the

maintaining any further correspondence with you on the subject.

“Your Essay and the additional matter will be sent, as you desire, to

Mr. Tims, Grafton Street, as soon as a copy of the former can be

taken.--I am, sir, your most obedient,

“J. H. SINGER, _Secretary_.

“H. O’Brien, Esq.”

The discontinuance of the correspondence was to be expected, but their

declining the publication of my Essay in their _Transactions_, merely

because of my giving utterance to some unpalatable truths, was an excess

of _magnanimity_ which I did not think that even the “Council” would

personify.

However, you suppose that they, at all events, returned me my Essay, as

promised? Far from it! In violation of all honour, and of the written

engagements of their Secretary, they have detained it ever since in their

hands, thereby putting me to the vast expense of procuring new plates,

instead of those which the original contained--an inconvenience, I must

affirm, which they had hoped I could never have surmounted; while, in the

interim, they should push out their _bantling_ upon the public, secure in

the consciousness of having cushioned my work, that they should ride over

the market without a rival.

They should have known, however, that the person who, at _three months’

notice_, undertook to solve the Towers, and then kept them at bay for six

months before they could chouse him out of his prize, was not to be

deterred by such an obstacle as the above. And the reader may be satisfied

that, though it has occasioned _me_ some hardship, _he is in no respect

thereby a loser_.

I have stated that the effect of my Letter No. 1 was to interrupt the

transmission of the _Dublin Penny Journal_ to London. I have now to point

out the result of the menace conveyed in Letter 8 of my determining to

expose--as I enclosed the proofs that I could refute--the _antiquarian

errors_ of their organ. It was that they _instantly took the hint, and

sold their interest in the concern_! And its new proprietor, edified no

doubt by a friendly lesson at their hands, very wisely intimates, in his

opening number, that he shall forego _antiquities_, and make literary

_jobbing_ no part of it.

Here are his words: “From the concluding paragraph of the last number of

this little publication, its readers will be aware that it is now in the

hands of a new editor and proprietor, and they will naturally expect that

in the present number something should be said relative to its future

management. ‘Deeds, not words,’ has ever been the motto of its (present)

conductor, and he will therefore merely say that it is his intention to

give his readers good value for their money; that the _Dublin Penny

Journal_ shall not be a mere ‘catchpenny,’ depending upon the number and

excellence of its woodcuts for extensive circulation, but containing, as

he considers a publication of the kind should do, such a variety of

interesting and useful matter as shall render it really valuable. In

future, therefore, while the _antiquities_ of the country will not be

neglected, the work shall exhibit a more _general character in the

subjects of its contents_.”[40]

* * * * *

_N.B._--As I am a member of no club, belong to no literary society, and

have no facilities otherwise for watching periodicals, whether newspapers,

magazines, or reviews, I shall feel obliged if any gentleman who, in the

exercise of a free judgment, should think proper to dissent from me, and

to express such dissent in offensive language, would be pleased to forward

me a copy of the work wherein his strictures may appear, and I promise

that I shall reply to them with deference, and perhaps satisfaction. I

also trust that, from the singularity of my position, I do not expect too

much when I express a hope that any publication which speaks against me

will allow me to reply through the same medium--a request certainly which

cannot be refused, unless the design be hostile and factiously malicious.

Any suggestions for improvement, with a view to a second edition, I very

cheerfully court.

All communications addressed to me, to the care of my publisher, Mr.

Whittaker, Ave Maria Lane, St. Paul’s, London, will reach me, and be

attended to.

THE ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND;

OR

THE HISTORY OF THE TUATH-DE-DANAANS

_FOR THE FIRST TIME UNVEILED_.

BY HENRY O’BRIEN, ESQ., A.B.

[Illustration]

“Hic sacra, hic genus, hic majorum multa vestigia.”

CICERO.

... “were of fame,

And had been glorious in another day.”

BYRON.

SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:

PARBURY AND ALLEN, LEADENHALL STREET;

DUBLIN:

J. CUMMING, LOWER ORMOND QUAY.

MDCCCXXXIV.

TO THE MOST NOBLE THE MARQUIS OF LANSDOWNE, ETC. ETC. ETC.

MY LORD MARQUIS,

Many reasons concur why I should feel ambitious to associate your name

with the following production. To enumerate these would neither become my

humility, nor be acceptable to your good taste. But there is one motive

which, as it is the offspring of the heart, implanted there at a period

when adulation was not dreamt of, I may be allowed to particularise,--I

was born upon your estates--you are the landlord of that spot which

imparted my earliest images--the first soarings of my fancy were derived

from that scene--and to the native notes which I have lisped in that

primitive and retired region, more than to the vaunted advantages of a

subsequent collegiate career, am I beholden for the clue with which I have

traversed the ancient world; and of which Envy herself must yet

acknowledge, that I have here rectified the history in its very widest

amplitude--as well sacred as profane.

It is to do honour to this clue _in the eyes of the Mecænas of his age_,

and, under the auspices of his approval, to promote its revival, that I

give utterance to this sentiment; and so, hoping that you will view it in

this light, and not as the empty chaunt of a reprehensible egotism, I beg

leave to subscribe myself, with the most profound consideration and

respect,

My Lord Marquis,

Your Lordship’s most devoted

And most faithful, humble Servant,

HENRY O’BRIEN.

LONDON, _September 1834_.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PAGE

PORTRAIT OF HENRY O'BRIEN, BY MACLISE _Frontispiece_

DEVENISH ROUND TOWER 38

ARDMORE " " 71

CLONDALKIN " " 101

EFFIGY OF FARRAGH, OR MORIAGAN 138

SAMONA OF BUDDHA 140

ROUND TOWER, WITH DEVOTEE ON SUMMIT 169

SYMBOLIC SCULPTURE FOUND AT VINDOLANA 223

PALENCIAN SCULPTURE OF THE SYMBOLIC “TREE,” WITH FIGURES 229

PYTHAGOREAN TRIANGLE OF TEN 268

SYMBOLIC CRESCENT-ORNAMENTS 273, 274

EFFIGY OF CRUCIFIED BUDDHA, SACA, OR MACHA 296

BRECHIN ROUND TOWER (SCOTLAND), WITH DOUBLE-ARCH AND EFFIGIES 299

OBELISK AT SANDWICK (ROSS-SHIRE) 306

PHOENICIAN MEDALS, STAMPED WITH CROSS, LAMB, AND ROSARY 314

SHAFT OF CROSS AT FORRES (SCOTLAND) 316

" " " REVERSE SIDE OF SAME 319

MONOLITH AT CARNAC (EGYPT) 322

SCULPTURE IN KNOCKMOY ABBEY 329, 330

SCULPTURE ON TEMPLE AT KALABCHE (NUBIA) 341, 342

KILCULLEN, CROSS AT 338

CLONMACNOISE, " 358

FINGLAS " 366

KELLS " 491

FACSIMILE OF MS. DISCOVERED AT ICOLMKILL 419

PHEELEAS, OR ORACLE-TUBE, FOUND AT BALLYMONEY 460

GLENDALOUGH, CURIOUS SYMBOLIC SCULPTURE ON RUINS OF 467

THE MAGI--WOODCUT FROM AN ANCIENT BLOCK-BOOK 482

MEDALS OF CHRIST, FOUND AT ISLAND OF ANGLESEA AND AT CORK 509

THE ROUND TOWERS, _&c._

CHAPTER I.

“A lively desire of knowing and recording our ancestors so generally

prevails, that it must depend on the influence of some common

principle in the minds of men. We seem to have lived in the persons of

our forefathers; our calmer judgment will rather tend to moderate than

suppress the pride of an ancient and worthy race. The satirist may

laugh; the philosopher may preach; but reason herself will respect the

prejudices and habits which have been consecrated by the experience of

mankind.”[41]

Of all nations on the globe, the Irish, as a people, are universally

admitted to possess, in a pre-eminent degree, those finer sensibilities of

the human heart, which, were they but wisely controlled, would exalt _man_

above the level of ordinary humanity, and make him, as it were, a being of

another species. The numerous instances adduced in all periods of their

history, of ardent and enterprising zeal, in every case wherein personal

honour or national glory may be involved, are in themselves sufficient to

establish this assertion. But while granting their pre-eminence as to the

possession of those feelings, and the capability of the feelings

themselves to be refined and sublimated to the very acme of cultivation,

we may still doubt whether the _mere possession_ of them be not less a

blessing than a curse--whether, in fact, their quick perception of

disquietudes and pains be not more than a counterpoise to their keen

enjoyment of delight or pleasure.

Foremost, however, in the train of the _many virtues_ which flow

therefrom, is that “amor patriæ,” or love of country, which, unsubdued

often by the most galling miseries and the most hopeless wants, throws a

halo round the loneliness of their present despair in the proud

retrospection of their former buoyancy. This spirit it is which, despite

of obvious advantages to be derived from emigration, has riveted the Irish

peasant so immutably to his home, that any effort on his part to dissolve

those local fetters would be equivalent to the disruption of all the ties

and attachments which nature or habit had implanted within him.

“The lofty scenes around their sires recall,

Fierce in the field and generous in the hall;

The mountain crag, the stream and waving tree,

Breathe forth some proud and glorious history--

Urges their steps where patriot virtue leads,

And fires the kindred souls to kindred deeds.

They tread elate the soil their fathers trod,

The same their country, and the same their God.”

But it may be said that this is a day-dream of youth--the hereditary

vanity of one of Iran’s sons, arrogating antiquity and renown for an

inconsiderable little island, without a particle of proof to substantiate

their assumption, or a shadow of authority to give colour to their claims.

Why, sir, cast your eye over the fair face of the land itself, and does

not the scene abound with the superfluity of its evidences? What are those

high aspiring edifices which rise with towering elevation towards the

canopy of the “_Most High_”?[42] What are those stupendous and awful

structures of another form--the study at once and admiration of the

antiquarian and the philosopher, to be found on the summits of our various

hills[43] as well as in the bowels[44] of the earth itself?--what are they

but the historical monuments of splendour departed--surviving the ravages

of time and decay, not as London’s column, to “lift their heads and lie,”

but to give the lie and discomfiture to those, who, from the interested

suggestions of an illiberal policy, or the more pardonable delusions of a

beclouded judgment, would deny the authenticity of our historic records,

and question the truth of our _primeval_ civilisation?

It is true, the magnificence which those memorials demonstrate is but the

unenviable grandeur of druidical, as it is called, idolatry and

unenlightened paganism,--when man, relinquishing that supremacy consigned

to him at his creation, or rather divested thereof in punishment for the

transgression of his degenerate disposition, lost sight of that Being to

whom he owed his safety and his life, and bent himself in homage before

perishable creatures that crawl their ephemeral pilgrimage through the

same scene with himself. Granted; yet that cannot well be objected to _us_

as a disgrace, which, co-extensive in its adoption with the amplitude of

the earth’s extension, equally characterised the illiterate and the sage;

and if, amidst this lamentable prostration of the human understanding,

anything like redemption or feature of superiority may be allowed, it must

be, unquestionably, to the adherents of that system, which, excluding the

objects of matter and clay, recognised, in its worship of the bright

luminaries of the firmament, the purity and omnipotence of that Spirit

who brought all into existence, and who guides and preserves them in their

respective spheres;--and when I shall have _proved_ that the intent and

application of those _Sabian[45] Towers_,--or, to speak more correctly,

those _primitive Budhist Temples_,--which decorate our landscape and

commemorate our past renown, appertained to this species of purified

idolatry, which worshipped only the host of heaven, the moon and the solar

body, which gives _vigour_ to all things, I shall, methinks, have removed

one obstacle from the elucidation of our antiquities, and facilitated the

road to further adventure in this interesting inquiry.

Let me not be supposed, however, by the preceding remarks to restrict

their destination to one single purpose. All I require of my readers is a

patient perusal of my details; and I deceive myself very much, and

overrate my powers of enunciation, else I shall establish in their minds

as thorough a conviction of the development of the “Towers” as I am myself

satisfied with the accuracy of my conclusions. I shall only entreat, then,

of their courtesy that I be not anticipated in my course, or definitively

judged of by isolated scraps, but that, as my notice for this competition

has been limited and recent, allowing but little time for the observance

of _tactique_ or rules, in the utterance of the novel views which I now

venture to put forward, the proofs of which, however, have been long

registered in my thoughts, and additionally confirmed by every new

research, the merits of the production may not be estimated by parcels,

but by the combined tendency of the parts altogether.

To begin, therefore. The origins I have heard assigned to those records

of antiquity,--however invidious it may appear, at this the outset of my

labours, to assume so self-sufficient a tone, yet can I not avoid saying

that, whether I consider their multiplicity or their extravagance, they

have not more frequently excited my ridicule than my commiseration. That

specimens of architecture, so costly and so elegant, should be designed

for the paltry purposes of purgatorial columns or penitential heights, to

which criminals should be elevated for the ablution of their

enormities--while the honest citizen, virtuous and unstained, should be

content to grovel amongst lowly terrestrials ’mid the dense exhalations of

forests and bogs, in a mud-wall hut, or at best a conglomeration of

wattles and hurdles--is, I conceive, an outrage upon human reason too

palpable to be listened to.

Not less ridiculous is the idea of their having been intended for beacons;

for, were such their destination, a hill or rising ground would have been

the proper site for their erection, and not a valley or low land, where it

happens that we generally meet them.

The belfry theory alone, unfounded in one sense though it really be, and

when confined to that application equally contemptible with the others,

is, notwithstanding, free from the objection that would lie against the

_place_, as it is well known that the sound of bells which hang in plains

and valleys is heard much farther than that of such as hang upon

elevations or hills: for, air being the medium of sound, the higher the

sonorous body is placed, the more rarefied is that medium, and

consequently the less proper vehicle to convey the sound to a distance.

The objection of situation, therefore, does not apply to this theory; and,

accordingly, we shall find that the exercising of bells--though in a way

and for an object little contemplated by our theorists--constituted part

of the machinery of the complicated ceremonial of those mysterious

edifices.

The truth is, the “Round Towers” of Ireland were not all intended for one

and the same use, nor any one of them limited to one single purpose; and

this, I presume, will account for the variety in their construction, not

less perceptible in their diameters and altitudes than in other

characteristic bearings. For I am not to be told that those varieties we

observe were nothing more than the capriciousness of _taste_, when I find

that the indulgence of that caprice, in one way, would defeat the very

object to which one party would ascribe them, whilst its extension, in a

different way, would frustrate the hopes of another set of speculators.

But what must strike the most cursory as irresistibly convincing that they

were not erected _all_ with _one_ view, is the fact of our sometimes

finding two of them together in one and the same locality.

Now, if they were intended as beacons or belfries, would it not be the

most wasteful expenditure of time and wealth to erect two of them together

on almost the same spot? And when I mention expenditure, perhaps I may be

allowed, incidentally, to observe, that, of all species of architecture,

_this_ particular form, as it is the most durable, so is it also the most

difficult and the most costly.

Need I name the sum of money which Nelson’s monument has cost in modern

times? or that imperfect testimonial in the Phœnix Park which commemorates

the glories of the hero of Waterloo. No; but I will mention what Herodotus

tells us was the purport of an inscription upon one of the pyramids of

Egypt, the form of some of which, be it known, was not very dissimilar to

our Irish pyramids, while their intent and object were more congenial;

viz. that no less a sum than 1600 talents of silver, or about £400,000 of

our money, had been expended upon radishes, onions, and garlic alone, for

360,000 men, occupied for twenty years in bringing that stupendous fabric,

that combined instrument of religion and science, to completion!

Our Round Towers, we may well conceive, must have been attended, at the

early period of their erection, with comparatively similar expense: and

assuredly, the _motive_ which could suggest such an outlay must have been

one of corresponding import, of the most vital, paramount, and absorbing

consideration.

Would the receptacles for a bell be of such moment? And that, too, whilst

the churches, to which, of course, they must have appertained, were

thought worthy of no better materials than temporary hurdles, and so leave

behind them no vestiges of their local site,--no evidence or trace of

their ever having existed! And, indeed, how could they?--for existence

they never had, except in the creative imagination of our hypothetical

antiquaries.

Ruins, it is true, of chapels and dilapidated cathedrals are frequently

found in the vicinity of our Round Towers; but these betray in their

_materials_ and architecture the stamp of a later age, having been founded

by missionaries of the early Christian Church, and purposely thus

collocated--contiguous to edifices long before hallowed by a religious

use--to at once conciliate the prejudices of those whom they would fain

persuade, and divert their adoration to a more purified worship.

And yet, upon this single circumstance of proximity to ecclesiastical

dilapidations--coupled with the bas-relief of a crucifix which presents

itself over the door of the Budhist temple of Donoghmore in Ireland, and

that of Brechin in Scotland--have the deniers of the antiquity of those

venerable memorials raised that superstructure of historical imposture,

which, please God, I promise them, will soon crumble round their ears

before the indignant effulgence of regenerated veracity.

It might be sufficient for this purpose, perhaps, to tell them that

similar ruins of early Christian churches are to be met with abundantly in

the neighbourhood of Cromleachs and Mithratic caves all through the

island; and that they might as well, from this vicinity, infer that those

two other vestiges of heathenish adoration were contrived by our early

Christians as appendages to the chapels, as they would fain make out--by

precisely the same mode of inference--that the Round Towers had been!

But this would not suit; they could find no ascription associated with

Christianity which cave or cromleach could subserve; and thus have the

poor missionaries escaped the cumbrous imputation of having those colossal

pagan slabs and those astounding gentile excavations affiliated upon them.

Not so fortunate the Towers. After ransacking the whole catalogue of

available applications appertaining to the order of monastic institutions

with which to _Siamise_ those temples, Montmorency has at last hit upon

the noble and dignified department of a “dungeon-keep” or “lock-up!” as

the sole use and intention of their original erection!

As I intend, however, to unravel this fallacy in its proper quarter, I

shall resume, for the present, the thread of my discourse.

Besides the absurdity, then, of bestowing such magnificence upon so really

inconsiderable a thing as a belfry, while the supposed churches were

doomed to dwindle and moulder in decay, is it not astonishing that we find

no vestiges of the like fashion, or structures of the like form, in any of

those countries where the people to whom the advocates of this theory

ascribe their erection have since and before exercised sway?

The Danes had dominion in Britain longer and more extensively than they

ever had in _this_ island; and yet, in the whole compass of England, from

one extremity to the other, is there not one fragment of architecture

remaining to sanction the idea of identity or resemblance!

Nay, in all Denmark and Scandinavia, the original residence of the Ostmen

and Danes, there is not a single parallel to be found to those columnar

edifices!

Ireland, on the contrary, exhibits them in every quarter; in districts and

baronies where Danish authority was never felt; and surely our forefathers

were not so much in love with the usages and habits of their barbarian

intruders, as to multiply the number of those stately piles, solely in

imitation of such detested taskmasters.

But what renders it _demonstrative_ that those professional pirates had no

manner of connection with the Irish Round Towers, is the glaring fact,

that in the two cities of Wexford and Waterford--where their power was

absolute, their influence uncontrolled--there is not a solitary structure

that could possibly be ascribed to the class of those which we now

discuss!

In Scotland alone, of all European countries besides Ireland, do we meet

with two of them,--one at Brechin, and the other at Abernethy;--but they

are smaller than the Irish, and, with other characteristics, seem to have

been built, after their model, at a comparatively recent period, by a

colony from this country, “as if marking the fact,” to use Dalton’s

_accidentally_[46] appropriate phrase, “of that colonisation having taken

place when the rites, for which the Round Towers were erected, in the

mother-country, were on the decline.”

But, forsooth, they are called “cloghachd” by the peasantry, and that,

without further dispute, fixes their destination as belfries! Oh! seri

studiorum quîne difficile putetis?

That some of them had been appropriated in latter times, nay, and still

are, to this purpose, I very readily concede; but, “toto cœlo,” I deny

that such had ever entered into the contemplation of their constructors,

as I do, also, the universality of the very name, which I myself know, by

popular converse, to be but partial in its adoption, extending only to

such as had been converted by the moderns to the purpose described, or

such as may, originally, have had a clogh, or bell, of which I admit there

were some, as part of their apparatus.

The first bells of which we have any mention are those described by Moses,

as attached to the garments of the high-priest. From these, the Gentiles,

as they affected to rival the Israelites in all their ceremonies, borrowed

the idea, and introduced its exercise into the celebration of their own

ritual. By “Israelites,” however, I deem it necessary to explain that I do

not understand those who, in strictness of speech, are so denominated as

the descendants of Israel, _i.e._ Jacob, who, in fact, were a

comparatively modern people; but I particularise that old stock of

patriarchal believers which existed from the Creation, and upon which the

Israelites, rigidly so called, were afterwards engrafted.

Our Irish history abounds with proofs of the “ceol,” and “ceolan,” the

bell and the little bell, having been used by the pagan priests in the

ministry of their religious ordinances; and to the fictitious sanctity

which they attributed to this instrument may we ascribe that superstitious

regard which the illiterate and uneducated still continue to entertain for

the music of its sound.

From the Sabian ceremonial--succeeded by the Druidical--it unquestionably

was that the Christian missionaries in Ireland first adopted the use of

bells, wishing, wisely, therein to conform as much as possible to the

prejudices of the natives, when they did not essentially interfere with

the spirit of their divine mission. I shall hereafter relate the

astonishment excited in England, at the appearance of one of those bells,

brought there in the beginning of the sixth century by Gildas, who had

just returned after finishing his education in Ireland; and this, in

itself, should satisfy the most incredulous that the Britons, as well

pagan as Christian, were ever before strangers to such a sight; and no

wonder, for they were strangers also to such things as Round Towers, to

which I shall prove those implements properly and exclusively belonged.

“Clogad” is the name, and which literally signifies a “pyramid,” that has

led people into this “belfry” mistake. To conclude, therefore, this

portion of our investigation, I shall observe, in Dr. Milner’s words,

“that none of these towers are large enough for a single bell of a

moderate size to swing about in it; that, from the whole of their form and

dimensions, and from the smallness of the apertures in them, they are

rather calculated to stifle than to transmit to a distance any sound that

is made _in_ them; lastly, that though possibly a small bell may have been

accidentally put up in one or two of them at some late period, yet we

constantly find other belfries, or contrivances for hanging bells, in the

churches adjoining to them.”

I fear greatly I may have bestowed too much pains in dispelling the

delusion of this preposterous opinion. But as it had been put forward with

so much confidence by a much-celebrated “antiquarian,”--though how he

merited the designation I confess myself at a loss to know,--I thought it

my duty not to content myself with the mere exposure of the fallacy,

without following it up with proofs, which must evermore, I trust,

encumber its advocates with _shame_; and the rather, as this great

champion of _Danish civilisation_ and proclaimer of his _country’s

barbarism_ is at no ordinary trouble to affect ridicule and contempt for a

most enlightened and meritorious English officer, who, from the sole

suggestion of truth, promoted by observation and antiquarian research,

stood forward as the advocate of our ancestral renown, to make amends, as

it were, for the aspersions of domestic calumniators.

Both parties are, however, now appreciated as they ought; and though

Vallancey, certainly, did not understand the purport of our Round Towers,

his view of them, after all, was not far from being correct; and the

laborious industry with which he prosecuted his inquiries, and the

disinterested warmth with which he ushered them into light, should shield

his memory from every ill-natured sneer, and make every child of Iran feel

his grateful debtor.

Having given Milner a little while ago the opportunity of tolling the

death-knell of the belfry hypothesis, I think I could not do better now

than give Ledwich, in return, a triumph, by demolishing the symmetry of

the anchorite vagary.

“It must require a warm imagination,” says this writer,--after quoting the

account given by Evagrius of Simeon Stylites’ pillar, upon which

Richardson, Harris, and Milner after them had founded the anchorite

vagary,--“to point out the similarity between this pillar and our ‘tower’:

the one was solid, and the other hollow--the one square, and the other

circular: the ascetic _there_ was placed without _on_ the pillar; with

_us_ enclosed _in_ the tower. He adds, these habitations of anchorites

were called _inclusoria_, or _arcti inclusorii ergastula_, but these were

very different from our round towers; for he mistakes Raderus, on whom he

depends, and who says, ‘The house of the recluse ought to be of stone, the

length and breadth twelve feet, with three windows, one facing the choir,

the other opposite, through which food is conveyed to him, and the third

for the admission of light--the latter to be always covered with glass or

horn.’

“Harris, speaking of Donchad O’Brien, Abbot of Clonmacnois, who shut

himself up in one of these cells, adds, ‘I will not take upon me to affirm

that it was in one of these towers of Clonmacnois he was enclosed.’ It

must have been the strangest perversion of words and ideas to have

attempted it. Is it not astonishing that a reverie thus destitute of

truth, and founded on wilful mistakes of the plainest passages, should

have been attended to, and even be, for some time, believed?”

Thus have I allowed him to retaliate in his own words; but in order to

render his victory complete, by involving a greater number within his

closing denunciation, he should have waited until he had seen a note

appended to the fourteenth of Dr. Milner’s _Letters_, which,

unquestionably, would deserve a similar rebuke for its gross perversion of

a “cell” into a “tower.”

It is this: “We learn from St. Bernard, that St. Malachy, afterwards

Archbishop of Armagh, in the twelfth century, applied for religious

instruction, when a youth, to a holy solitary by name Imarus, who was shut

up in a ‘cell,’ near the cathedral of the said city, _probably in a Round

Tower_.” Risum teneatis?

But I am tired of fencing with shadows and special pleading with casuists.

And yet, as I would wish to render this Essay systematically complete, I

am forced, however reluctant, to notice the conjecture, which others have

hazarded, of those Round Towers having been places of retreat and security

in the event of invasion from an enemy; or depositories and reservoirs for

the records of State, the Church utensils and national treasures!

To the _former_, I shall reply, that Stanihurst’s description of the

“excubias in castelli vertice,” upon which it would seem to have been

founded, does not at all apply to the case; because, while the “castella”

have vanished, the Round Towers--which never belonged to them--do, many of

them still firmly, maintain their post; and as to the _latter_, the

boldness with which it has been put forward, by its author before

named,[47] requires a more lengthened examination than its utter

instability could otherwise justify.