but what you say will do little harm; for it is plain that you have not studied the subject sufficiently. What you say of the similarity of style throughout the Old Testament convinces me that you have never read Lowth de Hebraica Poesi, or his Translation of Isaiah:-it is not incumbent on me to enter into a discussion of that subject, or of others of the like nature.

But I would seriously recommend it to you to set down what you have said in the shape of queries, and then subjoin your answers: this will show you that you have been in too great a hurry. The queries to be thus: who was Bayle? who were the wisest Rabbis? when did they live? how should their authority be the best?

This is for yourself, and not written with any view of obtaining an answer.

I have only to beg, that, in your future publications, my name may not be mentioned as a correspondent of yours: at least, while you can perceive no difference between Jehovah and the Demons of barbarous nations; or between the religion of the Jews, and that of the Hottentots.

MR. DOUCE TO MR. PINKERTON.*

1786.

I have read over the Preface to Le Grand very attentively all that he says relating to your

Francis Douce, Esq. author of Illustrations of Shakspeare, and Ancient Manners, a man than whom no one possesses a

inquiry, is, that the circumstance of the Saracens being in possession of Spain, some provinces in France, and the Holy Land, gave rise to the productions of the three earliest "Ouvrages Romanesques," in each of which Charlemagne is the hero. One makes him undertake an expedition into Spain; another into Languedoc; and the third into Palestine. He says the authors of these romances were monks; but he omits to say who they were, or when the romances were written. He afterwards speaks of four devotional romances by the Troubadours, one of which is Philumena, composed by a monk under the name of a pretended secretary to Charlemagne. This contains the exploits of the Emperor against the Saracens in Spain, and the miracles of the Abbey of Grasse, of which place the author was a monk. The authors of "l'Histoire Littéraire de la France," he says, carry the date of it as high as 1015; the Count de Caylus places it in the reign of Saint Louis; and, however well founded Mr. Le G. thought this latter opinion, he still meant to refer to the romance as one of the three "Ouvrages Romanesques" before mentioned, for fear of being suspected of an inclination to diminish the glory of the Provençals.

Although I do not think the above will answer your purpose, yet I have hazarded the communication of it, lest you might hereafter accuse me

richer fund of knowledge connected with ancient customs, poetry, and history, and than whom, certainly, no one is more ready and more disinterestedly liberal in offering his treasures to the use of any one disposed to profit by them.

of inattention, from a difference in opinion. I should have almost doubted of the existence of any specimen of the French language so early as 1100 (for the laws of William are dubious), if I had not recollected something that Massieu,* I think, has said. Massieu misled me, and I had then never seen Otfrid's work,† which is Francic. Will not the writings of Wicliffe, and the Translation of the Polychronicon by Trevisa, fill up the chasm between Maundeville and Caxton?

GENERAL CHARLES VALLANCEY TO

MR. PINKERTON.‡

Feb. 1st, 1786.

I am favored with yours of the 28th ult. with the list of Pictish Kings inclosed, desiring an interpretation of their names. I shall endeavor to perform the task on my return to Ireland. At the first view of the list, I cannot avoid

* Histoire de la Poésie Française. Paris, 1739.

+ Hickes, in his Grammatica Franco-Theotisca, p. 5, gives a long and interesting account of Otfrid and his works, among which he particularly mentions tria magna Volumina of a Commentary upon the Psalms, and a Volumen Pseudo-Rythmicum Evangeliorum, divided into five books, both written in the Francic tongue. He also speaks of Otfrid, as the man, 'qui maximè omnium perpolivit et eliminavit patriam linguam.'

↑ Author of a Grammar of the Irish Language, the Collectanea Hibernica, &c., one of the most profound scholars, and, let me add from my own experience, one of the most friendly and obliging men of his day.

thinking it fabulous, and the work of a modern Scot or Irishman, from the name of the first, viz., Cruidne, written I suppose for Cruitne. Cruitne na Cuann, i tir Tarrcon, fogus na Brutnaoi Mor, is the description of this people in the oldest Irish Chronicles: the English of which is, the Crotoni of the harbors, in the country of Tarcon (Targuin), near the Brutii majores.

If words can possibly point out a people and country, these were the Crotoni of Italy, an old colony of the Pelasgi, who were Scythi from Greece; but Cruith, or Cruth, in Irish, signifies form, image, &c., signifying the act of forming; whence Cruithoir, the Creator: the modern Scots, then, apply the Latin Picti to this name, and will translate the old Crotoni by Picti, and the Picti by Cruitne: they were as distant and distinct a people as the country of Scandinavia is from Italy. In one of my Collectanea I have cleared up this passage the Brutnaoi being joined in the same sentence, I think has been the cause of their mistake these, say they, must be Britons-why not the Britons of Mount Caucasus? for there exists an ancient people of that name there at this day. All the Brutii or Britani derive their name from refiners of metal or pitch, &c. Bruith-oir is a refiner of gold in the Gaodhlic at this day.

You are much mistaken with respect to my researches into history and languages. I have carefully studied all the northern writers; and, finding nothing in the history to my purpose, I turned to the eastern writers, where I was instantly at home.

The northern languages contain much of the Asiatic in their obsolete words. In the list you sent me stands Ce, the illustrious-it is Chaldaic, Arabic, Persic, Irish, and enters into many compounded proper names.

Junius, I believe, you would not have me give much attention to; yet I think you are much mistaken in your opinion of the abilities of that author.

Ur is a common epithet; signifying, radiant, more brilliant. See Majansius de Vocibus in Ur. It may also be corrupted from our Aire-we have both.

BISHOP OF DROMORE TO MR. PINKERTON.

Dromore House, Feb. 11th, 1786.

Your first very obliging favor of 19th November would not have remained unacknowledged, till your second of January 23d reminded me how long I had been in your debt, had I not been uncertain whether I should be at Dublin this winter or not, in order to execute your first commands; and I delayed writing till that was decided, which it is now in the negative. Very important business of this See will keep me here altogether in the country; and, having sent my proxy to Parliament, my attendance there is excused. On this account, I fear I cannot be of that use to you in your researches, to which the slightest intimation of your wishes and my own