embered, appeared in 1862. On comparing the two orks we are struck by the similarity of many passages, me being almost identical. It would seem that when orrow in writing Wild Wales' came to speak of the Welsh bards and their works, or of Welsh chieftains and eir doings, he drew freely upon 'Celtic Bards, Chiefs ad Kings,' sometimes merely transcribing long extracts. triking instances of this are his accounts of Dafydd ap wilym and Twm o'r Nant. There are also two alluons to Wild Wales' in Celtic Bards, Chiefs and ings,' which suggest that the former was still unprinted. orrow tells how, in October 1854, he set out from langollen with John Jones, his faithful companion on is excursions, and walked to Oswestry with the object f paying a tribute to the memory of Goronwy Owen. n the churchyard they encountered the sexton, who roved to be the poet's great-grandnephew. Concluding he account of their conversation, Borrow says, 'Thereupon the sexton and writer shook hands and but what more passed between them in the course of disourse will be found related in the writer's book entitled 'Wild Wales."" In themselves these words might not > convincing; but read in conjunction with another Jassage they are conclusive. Having referred to Goronwy Owen's church in Anglesey, Borrow adds that 'he will here give a short description of it from his book called 'Wild Wales," which contains amongst other things pilgrimages to the native places or spots of burial of the most illustrious Welsh bards.' An allusion to Ellis Wynn affords still more striking proof of our contenion; for in this connexion Borrow remarks that a ranslation of that writer's 'Sleeping Bard' exists in English, though in manuscript only. Now Borrow's version of The Sleeping Bard' was published by John Murray in 1860, and, therefore, Celtic Bards, Chiefs and Kings' must have been written before that date. On he other hand, Borrow refers to writers and characters iguring in Lavengro,' and in such a manner as to preSuppose an intimate acquaintance with that work on the part of the public. Thus Borrow touches on 'Peter Williams in "Lavengro," the Welsh preacher who enterained the opinion that he had committed the sin against he Holy Ghost.' Elsewhere he speaks of Andrew

Brandram and the Bible Society, which institution wa 'more feared by Pope and Cardinals, as the Man in Blac says in "Lavengro," than anything else on earth.' An writing on Ellis Wynn, Borrow observes that he frequently mentioned in the book "Lavengro," a boc which every person has read and most people ha abused, because it contains no claptrap, is written in free and independent style, and above all, because exposes the miserable rage for gentility so prevale amongst all classes of the English.' The fact th Borrow on several occasions describes incidents of Welsh tour in 1854, giving the year and month in qu tion, takes us a step further, and lastly, we have t evidence of the paper on which 'Celtic Bards, Chi and Kings' is written, the water-mark showing the ye 1857. It is, therefore, legitimate to conclude from t above data that the work was composed between 18 and 1860, probably after Borrow's second tour in Wal in the former year.

And what, it will be asked, are the contents 'Celtic Bards, Chiefs and Kings'? The introduction the article in the 'Quarterly Review' which, as alrea explained, we regard as part of the book, attempts set forth the early history of the Welsh people. It merely a flimsy web of worthless speculation. But t body of the work, as found in the Norwich Editio giving as it does an outline of Welsh literature down the end of the 18th century, is of a different characte The outstanding bards, such as Iolo Goch, Dafydd & Gwilym, Rees Pritchard, Huw Morus, Ellis Wynn, Lew Morris, and Goronwy Owen, are all dealt with at lengt We have also extensive digressions on Owen Glendowe Ryce ap Thomas, and Henry VIII, and, one may add, o Griffith ap Nicholas, for it seems certain that the accour of this chieftain printed separately in the Norwic Edition should be inserted after what is said of his bar Gwilym ap Ieuan Hen. Lastly, we have a digression o Methodism and its effect on the Welsh interlude, whic leads to the interlude-writer, Twm o'r Nant.

The work whose contents we have just outlined is remarkable contribution to the study of Welsh literatur particularly if the time of its composition is borne i mind. In the middle of the 19th century the student d

e subject had not the same facilities as are at our dissal. Much of the information was scattered about in riodicals, some of which were not easy of access. The tempt of Borrow, an Englishman, in these circumances to give a connected account of Welsh poetry serves high praise. Naturally his work has its limitaons. Modern research would reject some of his aterial, and in details he sometimes goes wrong. It ould, however, be unjust to ignore Borrow's merits. e wrote with knowledge, the result of some thirty ears' reading. Learning Welsh from a groom at orwich, he may have been directed later in his studies y the Welsh bookseller living in Smithfield for whom he ade his translation of 'The Sleeping Bard' in 1830. At ny rate, he went to the originals and obtained his aformation at first hand. A careful investigation of he sources he used shows how much more at home Borrow was with his theme than his contemporary Matthew Arnold. We miss the brilliant and unreliable eneralisations, it is true; but we feel that the foundaions of Celtic Bards, Chiefs and Kings' are far more ecurely laid than those of The Study of Celtic Literature.'

Borrow brought a tremendous enthusiasm to bear on is task. Sometimes, it must be admitted, his zeal outuns his judgment, as when he claims for his favourite Dafydd ap Gwilym that he is Ovid, Horace, Tibullus, Martial, and Tyrtæus all in one. Borrow himself anticiates objections, and explains that before ap Gwilym an ever be appreciated in English he must find a great ranslator, even as Homer found Pope. A lucky thing or Homer, thinks Borrow, that his name was not David Williams and that he did not write in Welsh. One need not take this too seriously, for it was never Borrow's way to do or say things by halves, and he is almost qually lavish in his praises of others among his favourite Welsh poets. Occasionally, moreover, he turns his mowledge of foreign literature to better account than discussing Dafydd ap Gwilym. Thus, in dealing with Ellis Wynn's 'Sleeping Bard' he recalls the 'Visions' of Quevedo, finding a similarity to which attention has ecently again been drawn. In speaking of the interades of Twm o'r Nant he introduces a contrast with

Calderon and bestows on him the epithet of the Wels Calderon,' a more suitable title at any rate than wh Southey saw on a portrait of Tom in the Strand-the Welsh Shakespeare.' In the main, too, it must admitted that Borrow's estimate of the relative i portance of the Welsh poets is not out of proportio True, there are some names we might hear less of dispense with altogether, and others of whom we wou fain hear more, but those writers to whom Borr devotes most space and care are the great bards Wales. Borrow was, therefore, by no means devoid taste or judgment; he had at least some sense of d crimination. But he was not a great critic, and bottom he was more interested in human nature th in æsthetic values. Literature appealed to him in t first place, as he repeatedly shows, as a revelation of t author's character.

pero

efe

Interwoven with Borrow's account of the bards is good deal of history, that of the Celtic chieftains a kings. When Borrow included these in his book he h in mind Owen Glendower, Griffith ap Nicholas, Ry ap Thomas, and the two Tudor sovereigns, Henry V and Henry VIII. Incidentally he drew a striking pictu of the intriguing nobles who defeated Richard III at placed Henry VII on the throne and also of Henry VII contemporaries, Ferdinand and Isabella, Maximilia. Francis, Wolsey, and the Popes. It need scarcely be sa that Borrow is not a dispassionate historian. On tl contrary, he is a keen partisan and paints his characte in the brightest or blackest colours, according to h leanings. His violent dislike of Roman Catholicis led him to sympathise with Henry VIII, who becan his hero. He portrays him as an innocent youth pr testing first of all to his father against the marriage his deceased brother's wife, and later to his Privy Counc These protests were overruled by worldly wisdom at tl time, but ultimately a healthy revolt against an w natural marriage ended in the divorce which Borro regards as justified. Henry was singularly amiable ar willing to help his friends; but they exploited h generosity and laughed at him behind his back. It w only through the divorce that Henry's eyes were opene and then his wrath was terrible. Borrow sees in Hen

e

t a brutal Bluebeard but a noble character, transrmed by treachery, deceit, and ingratitude into a rtent. If he was full-blooded, he was not licentious, d in his early life was not cruel, though Borrow admits at in his closing years he committed acts both bloody id unjust. At any rate, he stood out head and shoulders ove the other monarchs of the time, in that he always pt his word.

Borrow not only finds excuses for his hero but overhelms his opponents with abuse. Take, for example, hat he says of Maximilian:

'0, that Maximilian! the union of the man, the fox and le swine in that being constituted something perfectly stounding! Had the present writer lived in his time, he ould rather have gone to look at him than at either FerdiAnd or the Pope.. .. O, that Maximilian! The writer as boy used to stare at his portrait in old Emanuel van leteren's "History of the Netherlands " till his eyes were most starting. Yes, in his little sleeping garret by the ght of a rushlight, he would stare over the half-human, alf-bestial features of that being's portrait in the huge, orm-eaten, oak-bound folio, till his eyes all but started om their sockets.'

Of the Emperor Charles V, Borrow also has little ood to say, though he does allow him some small meed f praise for his courage and his recognition of the bligation to defend his relations' interests. The very tle of Ferdinand and Isabella, 'Los Reyes Catholicos,' enough to open the floodgates of Borrow's invective; nd when he speaks of the Popes he loses all self-control. a point of fact, by the violence of his diatribes Borrow efeats his own object. He becomes so absorbed in his heme that all sense of balance is destroyed, and the ader yawns over the disproportionate amount of space llotted to these religious feuds in a book entitled 'Celtic ards, Chiefs and Kings.'

On the other hand, Borrow's denunciation of Wolsey more effective because it is less prolonged.

'Now only one word,' he says, 'on a piece of hypocritical onsense, which has won for him the sympathy of millions nd will doubtless still win him the sympathy and comiseration of more millions still. "Had I served my God as have served my King, He would not have deserted me in