Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive.) THE ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND [Illustration: Henry OâBrien _Author of âThe Round Towers of Ireland.â_] THE ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND OR THE HISTORY OF THE TUATH-DE-DANAANS BY HENRY OâBRIEN 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 AUTHORâS TEXT (SECOND EDITION) 1 LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL IRISH TOWERS AND CROSSES 525 INDEX 529 INTRODUCTION âWhen 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 OâBrien, because he approaches with a rude and unpolished but serviceable lantern?â--_Fraserâs Magazine_ for August 1835. Henry OâBrien, 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 fatherâs and his motherâs 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 âthe OâBriensâ 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 Lansdowneâs Irish estates. That his family were in affluent circumstances is improbable, for up to the age of twelve the boyâs education seems to have been neglected in a way very uncommon with Irish people who are well off. âThough I could then tolerably well express myself in English,â he says,[2] referring to this portion of his life, âthe 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 Irishâ; and again, âI was twelve years of age before ever I saw a Testament in any language.â 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 âdifficultiesâ 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 âtutorâ 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 Proutâs statement that OâBrien had been âbrought up at the feet of the Rev. Charles Boyton.â[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 âcoachâ of his day; and the only connection likely to have existed between him and young OâBrien 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. OâBrien did not resemble the ordinary boy-student, to whom Roman or Greek classics represent merely a given quantity of âtextâ 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 OâBrien 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 âthe Ireland that _was_â and the relative obscurity of âthe Ireland that _is_.â 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 OâBrien 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 âThat 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;â 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 âthe amazing conformityâ 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 OâBrien--even from the time when he gazed upon the stunted ruin of Bally-Carbery Round Tower, not far from his fatherâs house, and had been told by awestruck peasants that the real name of that desolate and unsightly object was _Cathoir Ghall_, or âThe Temple of Delightâ (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 âtemples,â 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 OâBrienâs 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 âthe 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.â Unfortunately, the advertisement of this offer escaped OâBrienâs 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 âsatisfied the conditions of the question,â and extended the period of competition for another three months (_i.e._ until 1st June 1832), in the alleged hope âof receiving other essays on said subject,â and also for allowing the authors of the essays already sent in âto enlarge and improve them.â 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 âthe characteristic architectural peculiarities belonging to allâ--would require much time, after which candidates must apply themselves to the by no means trifling task of dispelling âthe uncertainty in which their origin and use are involved,â and all within three short months.[7] OâBrien 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 âorigin and usesâ 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. âI grappled with the question,â he assures us, âwith all the ardour of my nature; and, _heaven_ and _earth_, _night_ and _day_, _in difficulties and in sorrow_, I laboured until I finished my âessayâ against the appointed hour, when--a brain blow to their (_sc._ the Academyâs) 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.â[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 OâBrienâs was âÎ¦ÏÎ½Î· ÎµÎ½ ÏÎ· ÎµÏÎµÎ¼Ïâ (_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, âso 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.â OâBrien 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:--âÂ£50 and the gold medal to George Petrie, and Â£20 to Henry OâBrien, Esq.â It may be stated here that an additional premium of Â£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 OâBrienâs 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. Petrieâs 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 OâBrien 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. âOn hearing of the decision,â he informs us, âI 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.â 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 âthat 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_.â[10] He then went on to denounce the successful essay as âa farrago of anachronisms and historical falsehoods.â He prophesied that when both essays were published, and the public given an opportunity of seeing âthe truth,â in the shape of his own essay, there would be a general acclamation of âThis alone is right.â He warned the Academy that, âthough separated from them by a roaring seaâ (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 âa mathematical demonstration by all the varieties and modes of proofâ; and further, that upon such demonstration they should at once award _him_ the gold medal and premium, âor, if that could not be recalled, an equivalent gold medal and premiumâ--not that, as he is careful to assure them, this offer was to be construed as an admission that his original essay was not âall-sufficient, all-conclusive, all-illustrative, and all-convincing.â As was only to be expected, the reply sent to this challenge ran to the effect that, âwhatever 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.â Then came the rejoinder,--âI do not want them either to âalterâ or ârevokeâ their award; but simply to vote me âan equivalent gold medal and premiumâ 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.â[11] One is not surprised to learn that âno answer was received to this communication,â 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 OâBrienâs 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 Academyâs 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 OâBrienâs 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 âform,â not to mention the canons of good taste. Besides, OâBrien was, in archÃ¦ological 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 OâBrien 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 _primÃ¢ facie_ strong. Upon turning to vol. xvi. of the _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, we find the names of âThe Committee of Antiquities of the Councilâ for the year 1830 (that in which the competition was first invited) given as follows:--âIsaac DâOlier, LL.D.; Thomas Herbert Orpen, M.D.; Hugh Ferguson, M.D.; Sir William Betham; John DâAlton, Esq.; _George Petrie, Esq._; and the Rev. CÃ¦sar Otway.â In the next volume of the _Transactions_, extending to 1837, the above list is given without any alteration, except that Mr. DâAltonâs name is omitted, that of the Dean of St. Patrickâs being substituted. From this the inference seems only natural that âGeorge Petrie, Esq.,â was a member of the Council (being likewise, as we find, âantiquarian artist to the Academyâ) 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 OâBrien 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. OâBrien 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. Villanuevaâs _Ibernia PhÅnicia_, 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 âTranslatorâs Prefaceâ 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 âPrize Essay of the Royal Irish Academy, enlargedâ--a description omitted in the second. Further, the title itself is given as âThe Round Towers of Ireland (or the Mysteries of Freemasonry, of Sabaism, and of Budhism, for the first time unveiled)â; 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 âThe Long Preface,â together with an amusingly comprehensive âDedication,â is omitted from the second edition, a much more commonplace dedication to the Marquis of Lansdowne (described, of course, as âThe MÃ¦cenas of his ageâ) being substituted for the latter. As the second, and last, edition is that which had the authorâs 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 âSynopsis,â 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 authorâs 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 OâBrien--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 âirresponsible reviewersâ 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 OâBrienâs 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 OâBrien of plagiarism and other misdeeds. Considering the extent of Mooreâs acquaintance with Oriental literature, and the character of his mind, it is perhaps not surprising that he mistakes the whole drift of OâBrienâs 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 âFather Prout,â in his article on âThe Rogueries of Tom Moore.â From it we learn that Moore had endeavoured unsuccessfully to secure the co-operation of OâBrien in his forthcoming History of Ireland, and that, upon the negotiation falling through, a âcoolnessâ ensued between the two. As âFather Proutâ had the whole correspondence laid before him, the story does not rest upon OâBrienâs 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 _Gentlemanâs Magazine_, for instance,[14] without attempting anything like serious criticism, quizzed OâBrien unmercifully. He committed the fatal indiscretion of sending a lengthy, but for him most temperate, reply, in which he is fain to cite the _Freemasonâs Quarterly Review_ as his solitary backer. The _Gentlemanâs Magazine_ reserved its answer until he was no more; when, in an obituary notice (November 1835), it flung back this retort: âFondly imagining that he was the author of most profound discoveries, and as it were the discoverer of a new historical creed, Mr. OâBrien was always in a state of the highest excitement; and when his lucubrations were treated with ridicule instead of serious refutation, he was acutely irritatedâ--which last observation somehow reminds one of that fastidious man-oâ-warâs man, who, whether the boâsun âhit him high or hit him low,â 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 âwild and extravagantâ--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. OâBrien 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 Lansdowneâs 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 âhis love for truth and the rectification of his countryâs honour,â 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 âFather Prout,â who added the following postscript to his article on âThe Rogueries of Tom Moore,â already in print when the news of his young friendâs death reached him:-- âMEM.--On the 28th of June 1835, died, at The Hermitage, Hanwell, Henry OâBrien, 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 âLiterary Charactersâ dwelt thus on his merits:-- âIn 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. âOne morn we missed himâ from the accustomed table at the library of the British Museum, where the page of antiquity awaited his perusal; âanother came--nor yetâ was he to be seen behind the pile of _Asiatic Researches_, poring over his favourite Herodotus, or deep in the Zendavesta. âThe nextâ 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 Ådipus 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.â One portion at least of the good Fatherâs prophecy was amply fulfilled. In _Irish Graves in England_, by Michael MâDonagh (_Evening Telegraph Reprints_: Dublin, 1888), a chapter on OâBrien contains these words:-- âHis 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: âNo. 526, Henry OâBrien, Hanwell, July 2, years 26. Charles Birch, officiating clergyman.â 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 OâBrien.â So passed out of life a gifted young soul that had just begun to know the measure of its strength. Had OâBrien 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 âsorrow,â 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 writerâs views, and another to accept them as articles of belief. So far from claiming for OâBrien 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 OâBrienâs 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 archÃ¦ologists, 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 âcrossesâ or âtemples,â 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 OâBrienâs,--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. Petrieâs opinion, that race consisted of the early Christian missionaries and their proselytes; in OâBrienâs, 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 âoriginâ of these structures: (1) That they were erected by the Danes; (2) that they were of PhÅnician origin. But OâBrien discards the Danes altogether, and only allows a very subordinate part indeed to the PhÅnicians, 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 rivalâs argument to the contrary is given in the annexed âSynopsis.â The difference between the respective methods of the two theorists is very marked, and here the advantage does not rest with OâBrien. Petrie is calm, precise, authoritative; OâBrien 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 OâBrien was the more successful, he was not the more dexterous combatant. It has been frequently, and perhaps not without justice, remarked that âIrishmen have a way of _blundering_ upon the truthâ; and from the eccentric fashion in which he sets about proving his contention, some may argue that OâBrienâs 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 âdiscovery,â 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 _lÃ¨se-majestÃ©_.[18] On the other hand, OâBrien is always imploring the reader to follow his argument step by step. âHere,â he ever seems to be urging, âare 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?â 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 âDr. Petrieâs epoch-making bookâ was by general consent allowed to have âsettled the question of the Round Towers for ever.â 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 Petrieâs 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 Petrieâs statements by personal investigation on the spot, he reluctantly confessed that he had lost faith in the latter. âAfter much consideration,â he declares,[19] âI 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.â Further, on all essential points he found himself in agreement with OâBrien, 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 OâBrien; 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 DâAlviella[20] (_Hibbert Lecturer_ for 1891, and member of the Royal Academy of Belgium), together with its learned âIntroductionâ 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 OâBrienâs 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 DâAlviellaâs work, as well as from the book itself, may be adduced in support of this assertion. Thus, having stated that âthe 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 commerceâ; that âthe more notable of these symbols were carried over the world in the footsteps of Buddhismâ; that they were at first but âthe obvious ideograph of the phenomena of nature that made the deepest impression on Asiatic manâ; that the SabÃ¦ans were âthe ChaldÃ¦an worshippers of the Host (_Saba_) of Heaven,â[21] it goes on to say: âWithout 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?â How, it may be asked, does this differ from OâBrienâs description of the nature of that âBudhâ who forms the central idea around which he groups the minor significances of Irish Sabaism?
{'title': "The Round Towers of Ireland; or, The History of the Tuath-De-Danaans by O'Brien", 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}