To the former, I shall reply, that Stanihurst’s description of the “excubias in castelli vertice,” upon which it would seem to have been founded, does not at all apply to the case; because, while the “castella” have vanished, the Round Towers—which never belonged to them—do, many of them still firmly, maintain their post; and as to the latter, the boldness with which it has been put forward, by its author before named,[47] requires a more lengthened examination than its utter instability could otherwise justify.
CHAPTER II.
This chivalrous son of Mars, more conversant, I should hope, with tactics than with literary disquisitions, has started with a position which he is himself, shortly after, the most industrious to contradict; namely, “that the gods, to punish so much vanity and presumption, had consigned to everlasting oblivion the founders, names, dates, periods, and all records relating to them.”[48]
Surely, if they were intended for the despicable dungeons which the Colonel would persuade us was their origin, there existed neither “vanity” nor “presumption” in that humble design; and when to this we add the nature of that security, which he tells us they were to establish, one would think that this should be a ground for the perpetuity of their registration, rather than for consigning their history to “everlasting oblivion.”
But secure in the consciousness of the whole history of those structures, and satisfied that truth will never suffer anything by condescending to investigation, I will, to put the reader in full possession of this adversary’s statement, here capitulate his arguments with all the fidelity of an honourable rival.
His object, then, being to affix the Round Towers to the Christian era, he begins by insisting that, as “the architects of those buildings were consummate masters in masonic art,” it follows, that “a people so admirably skilled in masonry never could have experienced any impediments in building substantial dwellings, strong castles, palaces, or any other structures of public or private conveniency, some fragments of which, however partial and insignificant, would still be likely to appear, in despite of the corroding breath of time or the torch of devastation.”
His next argument is, “that the busy and fantastic bard, whose occupation led him to interfere in private and public concerns,—who, in truth (he adds) is our oldest and most circumstantial annalist,—on the subject of the Pillar Tower is dumb and silent as the dead”; whence he infers the “non-existence of those Towers during the remote ages of bardic influence,”—“and of their being utterly unknown to them, and to our ancestors, anterior to the reception of the Christian faith.”
His third proposition is, that as “Strabo, Pomponius Mela, Solinus, Diodorus Siculus, and other writers of antiquity, have represented the condition of Ireland and its inhabitants to be barbarous in their days,—in common with their neighbours the Britons, Gauls, and Germans, to whom the art systematically to manufacture stone had been unknown,—ergo, those barbarians could not be set up as the authors of the Pillar Tower.”