rent.

lie? This fketch of mountain scenery," cries Mr. Turner, after he has quoted the paffage in English," comes appropriately from the pencil of a Cambrian, and is judiciously expreffed in a style rumbling, rough, and fierce, like the object defcribed," a mountain tor"The ungrammatical Latin, the wildness of the parenthefis, and the carelefs diforder of the circumftances of the description, finely illuftrate the view. An author lefs defirous to make the found an echo to the fenfe, might have expreffed the effects of an impetuous torrent, on the eyes of the fpectator, which is a ftriking trait of defcription, more intelligibly; but then he would have robbed it of that fublimity which always arifes from the obfcure;" all this the Reviewer fancied to be "falfe criticism," because he did not fee the defign of it. He thought it to be all faid with a ferious face, when it was all spoken with a laughing eye. He fancied it to be foberly true, when it was but flyly ironical. He thus inverted the very nature of the criticifm; and condemned in this inverted pofition, what he must have praised in the natural nor can he be excufed for the inverfion, as the commencing words of the paragraph fo plainly point out the commencing irony. "With that copious perfpicuity of inexhauftible rhetoric," fays Mr. Turner, there concerning a writer, well known to be peculiarly loft in his cloud of words, "which we must often admire in this polished author," the most barbarous of a very barbarous age, "he exclaims," &~. Can irony be plainer? Surely authors are not bound, for the fake of inattentive Reviewers, to put the finger-poft of authority upon all their turns, and here to add, "Nota Bene, this is all irony." Mr. Turner" ought to have recollected," fays the Reviewer, as dogmatical now as he was inattentive before, "that it is very doubtful whether Severus erected any wall in Britain," and that "the whole refts upon the weak authority of Spartian;" but the Reviewer is here as inattentive as he was before, and the dogmatiẩm ends in a grofs mistake. Four others, all hiftorians, all antients, unite with Spartian to attest the construction of a wall by Severus. Thefe are Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Orofius, and Caffiodorus. So egregioufly has the Reviewer erred, in point of fact! Even Horfley, one of our best and most popular antiquarians, declares, in direct contradiction to the Reviewer, that the wall of Severus has better attestations in its favour, than either of the other two.

Portus Adurni, adds the Reviewer, while he is picking, petty objections against Mr. Turner, is not Portsmouth, but Old Shoreham: but, to hew the frivoloufnefs of fuch an objection, we need only remark the uncertainty ftill fubfifting concerning the place. Camden, at one time, thought it might be Arundel, yet at another, agreed with Selden in thinking it might be Aldrington, near Old Shoreham. Where he had no diftances to conduct him, he could be led only by the found of names. Arundel feemed, at first, to reverberate the name, by a transposition of the letters; but Aldrington feemed at laft to reverberate it without any tranfpofition. Horsley, not fatisfied with either pofition, felected Portsmouth as retaining at least the first half of the appellation. Dr. Henry followed Horfley,

NO. XXV. VOL. VI.

A a

and

and Mr. Turner went with him. If the Reviewer likes not their pofition, he is welcome to prove it'wrong, and to produce a better upon proof. But a mere recurrence to an old opinion, as if it had never been opposed, and never could be oppofed, can only prove inaker to be acquainted with the old, and to be ignorant of the

new.

66

the

The Reviewer intimates in his newly affumed pity for that very Gildas, whom he has juft cenfured Mr. Turner for praifing, as he thought, that Mr. Turner has attempted to make him ridiculous, by depicting the poor Britons as fitting withinfide the wall, to be caught like fith with the chained hooks of their adverfaries." But the Reviewer is as fpiteful in his pity for Gildas, as he was in cenfuring Mr. Turner's fuppofed praife of him; only he is fpiteful now to Mr. Turner alone, and was then fpiteful to Gildas as well as him. Mr. Turner is now condemned for the folly of Gildas. Mr. Turner's account is Gildas's own; the whole is a literal tranflation from Gildas, and exprefsly rejected from hiftory, by Mr. Turner, as too burlefque in itself: but the Reviewer muft come in for a share in the folly. He reprobated the paffage as Mr. Turner's, for its ridiculous defcription of the Britons; yet then, to make them more ridiculous, and the paffage more worthy of reprobation, dexteroufly interpolated a couple of words. The Britons are thus reprefented by the Reviewer himself, and not by Mr. Turner or by Gildas, as perions" to be caught like fifb with the chained hooks:" and the Reviewer is thus caught, like a fish, with his own hook.

The authors, whom Mr. Turner has quoted, in p. 154, note 27, fays thris hooked Reviewer, " are comparatively fo recent, that their ⚫ teftimony cannot affect the queftion," whether the Saxons came hither by invitation or not. The first author quoted to prove they came not by invitation, is Treculphus, who lived in 823, The fecond is Sigebertus, who lived about the era of the Norman conqueft. If authors, of such a date as these, are to be rejected from history as recent, the Anglo-Saxons will almost have no hiftory at all. Yet Mr. Turner might have adduced an authority older than either of thefe; even Nennius the Britain, who exprefsly fays, nerunt tres chiulæ a Germaniâ in exilis pulfa, in quibus erant Hors et Hengift-Gortigernus autem fufcepit eos benigné (c. xxviii). And three of the Saxon vetfels," faid accordingly the hiftorian who first noted the paffage, "laden with men and equipped for a defcent, were accidentally hovering on the Kentifh coaft." (History of Manchester, 11. 15. quarto.)

66 ve

From particular criticifms the Reviewer flies off into general. Here I cannot refute, becaufe I can barely deny. What I can do, however, I will do for modeft merit affaulted, and for timid fenfi. bility infulted. "Authors of great reputation and of none," he tells Mr. Turner and the public, authors of veracity, falfehood, &c. are blended in one confufed mafs." This charge I do, ex animo, deny, on a careful perufal of the work. For all the incidents in the hiftory, which are stated as true, by Mr. Turner, a reputable authority is conftantly produced; he has carefully avoided to rest

L.

any

any fact alledged upon a teftimony difcredited. I believe him, indeed, to have been more careful in feparating the true from the falfe throughout our ancient hiftory, than even any writer preceding him. So directly contrary is this charge to the fact. Mr Turner, indeed, has fometimes thought it neceffary to expose antiquarian theorifts or fabling chroniclers to ridicule! And then the better author has been put fide by fide with the worfer, because in their race of abfurdity they have only equal merit. But how different is this practice from that alledged by the Reviewer; and how difhoneft is it in any Reviewer, to found upon fuch a practice such a charge, in full oppofition to the plain tenour of Mr. Turner's conduct?

The Reviewer even descends to a cenfure fo low, as a mere point of orthography. He cenfures Mr. Turner for adopting "the recent mode of expreffing the found of tb by z, in preference to the former mode db." But the cenfure is as falfely stated as it is frivolously conceived. The former mode was not db, as this was not ufed generally; what was used was dd. For this Mr. Turner used z, I doubt not, because the last Lexicographer of Welsh had adopted it, and his Dictionary, from its larger compafs, must exclude every other: z, indeed, is a letter not used in Welsh. It was, therefore, put as a character, to exprefs the Welth tb. Nor can I fee that this is more incongruous in itself, and this is certainly more fanctioned by authority now, than dd.

But the Reviewer mounts at once from that low employment of picking ftraws, to riding the clouds in general abuse of Mr. Turner. With equal injuftice and illiberality, I believe, he intimates Mr. Turner not to be "even in the smallest degree acquainted with the Anglo-Saxon language or remains." I think this very work itfelf demonftrates the contrary. Nor can I conceive any principle except the malignity of prejudice, capable of afferting it does not. Yet even if it did not, no prefumption could lie against Mr. Turner, as if he was unacquainted with what he had no call to produce. He might have the knowledge, yet referve all difplay of it for its proper place. The fact is, that any knowledge which he has fhewn has efcaped from him, and that he has avowedly reserved his display of it for a future volume. The prefent is only the first of three volumes, which he means to publish on the subject. In the third, as he tells us expressly in his Preface, "a review of their laws, manners, government, literature, and religion, will be requifite." Mr. Turner must then, therefore, fhew his acquaintance with, and will (I doubt not) fhew his intimate acquaintance with "the AngloSaxon language and remains." But all these promifes in Mr. Turner's plan, though fo explicitly avowed by him, and though fo grand in themselves, the Reviewer has, with an unpardonable negligence, overlooked, or with more unpardonable perverfenefs, fuppreffed, and then abused the author for not doing what he even does do in part already, what he actually promifes to do in whole hereafter. He blames the rifing fun for not fhining out with the fplendour of noon, pafles over all its affurances of a noon-day fplen

dour hereafter, and reprehends the day-fpring however bright as darknefs itself.

With equal injuftice and illiberality the Reviewer infinuates Mr. Turner to be ignorant, that "in the British Mufeum are hundreds of Saxon manufcripts." Whether Mr. Turner be ignorant, or not ignorant, of this, it is impoffible for the Reviewer to know. He could only, in prefumption, believe, and then in rafhnefs pronounce, Mr. Turner ignorant of it. But the truth is, as I find from a friend of his, that Mr. Turner has long known of this treasure, and has not neglected it; that he hopes in proper time to make the fruits of his application to it visible in the eyes of the public; but that then these manufcripts will be feen not to furnish the important information, which the Reviewer feems fo much at random to promife from them. The Reviewer, however, defcends from his clouds again; and ftoops once more to his petty employ of picking ftraws. Mr. Turner's hefitation concerning Offa's Queen, he fays, fhows him to be a ftranger to the Saxon coins. This is extraordinary indeed. The bolt was foon shot, and missed its aim. Does he think Mr. Turner should have quoted a coin for a name, when he had before him a charter with the Queen's own fignature upon it? If the Reviewer himself doubted the orthography of his Majefty's name, would he look at a guinea in preference to his royal fignature? The Reviewer muft, in conformity to his own argument, but Mr. Turner, with common-fense, conducting him, certainly would not.

Yet the Reviewer, in picking straws, finds one fo like what he had picked before, that he takes it up for mere love of trifles, and produces what I have rejected before. He now produces, however, one a little different. Mr. Turner was branded before, as not even in the smallest degree acquainted with the Anglo-Saxon---remains," and as ignorant that" in the British Museum are hundreds of Saxon manufcripts." But a cold iron only is now paffed over his brow, and he is charged merely with non-application of a coin to his argument. In proof that Mr. Turner is "un-acquainted with the public treafures of Saxon lore," the Reviewer fays Mr. Turner might have illuftrated his argument, P. 367, by a coin of Athelitan infcribed "Rex totius Britanniæ." The charge, however, is too heavy, and the piece recoils violently. Mr. Turner might have forgotten or might have neglected, to alledge the coin; and yet not be un-acquainted with the public treafures of Saxon lore." To infer the one from the other, indeed, is the extreme of folly. I have hitherto noted only the malignity of the Reviewer; but I now fee his foolishness. This will be even more apparent as I proceed with him on the point. Mr. Turner's argument was a rejection of the tale, that Egbert was formally crowned and entitled King of England. Alfred, he fays, was more properly the first Monarcha; or, in greater ftri&iness, AthelNow if he has proved his affertion without this coin, he had no occafion to alledge it. And, if he has not proved without the coin, to alledge the coin would not have helped him an atom in the proof. The coin could not weigh a grain in the balance, because it

ftan was.

does

does not call Athelftan; "Rex primus totius Britanniæ," but calls him fimply "Rex totius Britanniæ." The queftion therefore, who was the King fo called first, remains all un-refolved by the coin. If Egbert had the title firft, Athelitan would be fure to have it after him. Yet whether Athelstan or Egbert had it first, the coin announces no more, than whether the one was a baftard and the other legitimate. And nothing but folly, reflected from a mirror of malignity, heightened in its glare, and redoubled in its force, could have blinded the eyes of the Reviewer fo much, as to make him produce fuch an accufation of ignorance upon evidence fo ridiculous in itself.

The Reviewer at laft, like a dying fnake, collects all his ftrength into one exertion, darts upon his prey, and fixes his fangs on the flesh. But his fangs have loft their poifon and their power. He lofes his hold, and drops harmlefs to the ground. He affails Mr. Turner thus, in affailing the antient Welch bards cited by him. He affirms them to be fpurious. To a general accufation, however, a vindication equally general is all that is requifite in reply. Such I now make, afcribing his want of belief to his want of knowledge, and attributing his accufation to his ignorance. But as he comes out of his covert, and advances into open day-light, I encounter him hand to hand at once. All the pieces, affigned to the early poets of Wales, he then fays, are unknown equally to Nennius, Geoffry, and Caradoc. Here mark the boldness of prefumptuous ignorance. The affertion is abfolutely falfe in every point. Caradoc had no occafion to mention the poets of Wales, becaufe his history commences after their deaths; yet even he, as appears from the only copy of his work known, the trans lation, mentions exprefsly the poems of one of them, Myrddin or Myrzin Wylt. Yet the Reviewer has the hardiness to aver, that all the early bards of Wales were unknown to Caradoc. Geoffry alfo has actually left a poem in elegant verfification, addreffed to his patron the Bishop of Lincoln, upon Myrddin and Talieffin. Yet this is the man, whom the Reviewer affirms to have known neither of them. And Nennius, the laft of the Reviewer's three witneffes, though the first cited by him as ignorant of all these bards, in a paffage pretty plain of itfelf, but very plain as corrected by Evans, mentions a number of them together. I recite the paffage as in the printed copy of Nennius, and fubjoin the corrections of Evans in hooks. "Talhaern Talanguen" [Talhaiarn "Tatangwn," a bard cited by Talieffin himfelf]," in poemate claruit; et Nuevin [Aneurin," whofe poems are ftill exifting], et Talieffin" [a poet well known] et Blachbar [Llywarch, a poet as well known] "et Cian qui vocatur Gueinchguant [Gwyngwéon," a poet men tioned both by Aneurin and by Talieffin], fimul uno tempore," [in the fixth century],"in poemate Britannico claruerunt." Thus does Nennius, who was alledged by the Reviewer to be ignorant of all thefe bards, actually fhow himself to be very familiar with no lefs than five of them, all his contemporaries wholly or nearly, and all

* Nennius, c. lxiv. and Evans, Pr. 66-68.