in a sort of hollow frame or wicker case, where, after the same had been set on fire, they were soon suffocated or burnt to death.

They believed, he says, that thieves, highwaymen, and such like offenders, were the most acceptable offerings to the Deity; but in case these happened to become scarce, the innocent were forced to supply their places. Such is the substance of Cæsar's account of the Druids: They held the immortality of the soul, and its transmigration; they also held the necessity of human expiatory sacrifices, which appear to have generally consisted of malefactors, who were deemed to have forfeited their lives by the atrociousness of their crimes.

Should the reader be shocked at the idea of these ancient British and Gallic human sacrifices, let him remember, that even modern Gaul and modern Britain have also had, and still have their human victims; the number of which, or the circumstances attending their immolation, do not appear at all to fall short of what occurred among their pa

gan

and druidical ancestors. Nay, some of these modern sacrifices are more shocking than those of the ancients, as the conductors of them pretend to act in the name of God, by the authority of Christ, and under the direction of the Gospel! Myriads upon myriads of human beings have been thus immolated in the religious persecutions and religious wars of modern Christendom. Not to mention our frequent executions of numerous malefactors, which perhaps more exactly correspond with the druidical human sacrifices, and like them always assume a sort of religious form or cast.

As to the metempsychosis, or transmigration, the Druids were not singular in their belief of that tenet. It was held by many ancient philosophers of distant nations, and by Origen, and other writers and fathers among the early Christians. Nor has it in modern times, and in our own country, been without its advocates. Of late years a very elegant writer, philosopher, and Christian apologist, avowed his belief, and published a very ingenious defence of it, which excited very general admiration.

J

But,

But, however objectionable this tenet may appear in the eyes of most people, it does not seem chargeable with a licentious, or immoral tendency; as its advocates always connected holiness with happiness and glory, and wickedness, on the other hand, with misery and degradation.

From the preceding observations some idea may be formed of the state of religion, morals, and general knowledge, among our ancestors, when the Romans first came among them. However rude they might be deemed by Cæsar and his countrymen

(for they deemed all other nations barbarians), yet in point of knowledge we presume they were superior to most, and perhaps to all the neighbouring nations. And it seems pretty clear that whatsoever advantage they derived from the Romans, during their long connexion or intercourse with them, they made a much more respectable appearance at the time of their arrival than they did afterwards at the time of their final departure. So that it may be justly said that the Romans left Britain in a much less happy and respectable state than they found it.

O

F all our modern writers on the subject of druidism none have distinguished themselves so much as Messrs. Edward Williams, William Owen, and Edward Davies. They are all very intimately and extensively acquainted with British antiquities and bardic lore, and have thrown considerable light on many of the points they have investigated; but there are some important points on which the

latter differs very widely in opinion from the others. This may not be very hard to account for. Messrs. Williams and Owen, being of the bardic order, would naturally think favourably of druidism; Mr. Davies, on the other hand, being himself of a very different order, would view druidism in a different light, and discover defects in it which the others had overlooked, while he himself, perhaps, would over

look

look defects equally glaring belonging to his own order or hierarchy.

Had the minds of these able writers been sufficiently unbiassed, or divested of prejudice, their disquisitions would, no doubt, have proved more uniform, harmonious, and decisive. But being hampered by strong and opposite prepossessions, it is no great wonder that their portraitures of druidism should appear so very dissimilar. One party had seemingly a pretty strong predilection for druidism, and the other an equally strong aversion to it. The former placed too much reliance on the institutes of the chair of Glamorgan, whose legitimacy is doubted, and the latter was, perhaps, equally influenced and misled by the Bryantian System of Mythology, which, like other systems, has evidently its weak parts, and may, in this investigation, have been often inapplicable. The former may also be said to have been carried too far by a strong attachment to liberty and the rights of man, and the latter by a dread of innovation, and a wish to perpetuate the present established order of things. Under such circumstances their accounts or disqui

sitions would necessarily prove defective, and like too many historical productions, afford the authors but a slender claim to the merit or praise of impartiality.

Considering the different habits, situations, and connexions, of the two bards from those of the rector, it may not be at all wonderful that their views of druidism should differ, and that their two portraitures of it should be in some parts and in several respects very unlike each other. We feel much more surprised at some other circumstances in their writings. Such, for instance, as fancying that Quakerism has emanated from druidism, and that the Quakers in Wales are accustomed to assemble in the open air, within an enclo. sure, called mynwent; and that George Fox, in arranging his system, availed himself of the experience and labours of William Erbury and Walter Cradock all which seem no better than idle conceits *. The same may be said of the good rector's making the vale of Cuch, under the new name of the vale of Cwch, to allude to the ark; and making Emlyn to mean a clear lake, an emblem of the flood, though there is nothing like a

p. 54.

lake

lake in the whole district or near it also his making Nevern to signify a pledge of heaven, whereas Nevern is only a modern, or the English name of the parish; the Welsh name being Nhyfer, a contraction seemingly of Nanhyfer. To which may be added, his making Dinbych (or Tenby) the sacred isle, which is no isle, or any thing like it. That sacred isle, in all probability, was Caldey, which is close by Tenby, and the Ynys Pyr of the ancients, a name sufficiently mythological, and the place seems full as fit for druidical purposes as Bardsey, which he allows to have been so appropriated. Finally, his making the white trefoil a sacred emblem of the mysterious Three in One, as if the Druids had been all sound orthodox Trinitarians, which seems rather unlikely *.

Most of these inaccuracies, and others that might be added, may perhaps be imputed to the misleadings of favourite systems, which the ingenious authors would do well to review and revise. After all, their labours, in general, are certainly very valuable, and have greatly contributed to increase the knowledge of British antiquities.

Another point upon which our antiquaries disagree, is Whether writing was known to our ancestors prior to the arrival of the Romans. Carte and Whitaker take the negative side of the question; while Owen and Davies are no less strenuous on the affirmative side of it. The former lay no small tress on our earliest inscriptions both upon stones and also upon our most ancient coins, being all in Roman characters; which yet may admit of some doubt, at least as to those on the Cadvan +.

grave of

Mr. Owen, on the other side, argues, partly, from the ancient law of Gavelkind, or equal distribution of property among corelatives, which had an universal operation, as he seems to suppose, among the ancient Britons, and upon which many usages were founded which required a direct proof of kindred pedigree for several generations, to attain which resort must be had to writing. Another instance of law usage, he says, requiring no less clear proof, and equally indicating the existence of written records, was that ancient system of time and compensation for crimes, by which the family of

a guilty

druidical, alphabet. It may be seen at the beginning of Owen's Grammar, and also in the Celtic Researches fronting p. 272.

After all, there cannot be found a more decisive proof that writing was really known among our ancestors, before Cæsar's time, than what has been furnished by Cæsar himself, in a passage already noticed, and of which Mr. Davies has given the following translation:-" Nor do they deem it lawful to commit those things (which pertain to their discipline) to writing: though generally in other cases, and in their public and private accounts, they use Greek letters. They appear to me to have established this custom, for two reasons; because they would not have their secrets divulged, and because they would not have their disciples depend on written documents, and neglect the exercise of memory +." This passage, undoubtedly, is as applicable to British as to the Gallic Druids; and therefore, notwithstanding Carte's glosses, must completely decide the question.

CHAP.