Message #142052

[Majir]

to observe that the existence of the manuscript in question at the present moment is open to doubt--the prize offered at the Eisteddvod failed to bring it forth. Still we are in hopes that it is not irretrievably lost, and it may be in the possession of some person who "careth for none of these things."

We trust that these reasons are sufficient to justify us in our conclusion, that Iolo Morganwg had nothing whatever to do with the original compilation of the main documents, which form the present collection, and that he merely transcribed older materials, which from some sources or other had fallen into his hands.

Failing the attempt to convict Iolo Morganwg as a literary impostor, the sceptics of the present day profess to discover the sources in question in the Eisteddvodau, which were held subsequently to the beginning of the 15th century, more especially those of 1570, 1580, and 1681. A body of curious matter is found to exist, purporting to have come down to us, through the medium of the Chair of Glamorgan, as genuine remains of the theology and usages of the Bards. This is an incontrovertible fact. Again, history notes with equal sternness the authorization, at the above mentioned Congresses successively, of what was likewise called Bardism: and the not unnatural inference is, that they are one and the same. But, apparently for no other reason than that the code thus promulgated was not formally committed to writing before, a higher origin is denied to it, and of course the Bards of those periods, Ieuan ab Hywel Swrdwal, Gwilym Tew, Lewys Morganwg, Meurig Davydd, Davydd Benwyn, Llywelyn Sion, Davydd Llwyd Mathew, Edward Davydd, and others, are

p. xxi

boldly charged with being its sole inventors. As they were not all contemporaries, and as they held various positions in life, and were also members of different religious communions, it would be difficult to account for the unanimity with which they adopted the strange and curious system, which these volumes present to our view. To accuse them of being under the influence of that spirit, which led to the overthrow of the monarchy, and to the establishment of the commonwealth on its ruins, merely because their system represents the three orders of Bard, Druid, and Ovate, as co-equal in rank and privilege, is, to say the least, not warranted by facts. History does not point out a single Bard of those times as mixing in any political intrigue. On the contrary they, one and all of whom we have any knowledge, appear to have led quiet lives, paying due and just homage of loyalty to the existing government of the day, without opposition, and without complaint. Besides, it may be interesting to know, why the Bards in question should have selected this particular form, whether as the embodiment of their own creed, or as the representation of ancient Druidism? There was nothing in the prevailing philosophy of the day to suggest it; and to say that they derived it from the traditions of the Brahmins, would be to give them credit for a greater extent of knowledge than their positions in life would warrant. Could they, then, have compiled the whole system--ingenious, complex, and yet harmonious and symmetrical as it was, out of the mere allusions to it, which are contained in the works of the earlier Poets? The Rev. Edward Davies observes,--"It does not appear, from their

p. xxii