Nash's doctrine,--in some respects very salutary,--
'that the common assumption of such remains of the date of the sixth
century, has been made upon very unsatisfactory grounds.' It is
true, it has; it is true, too, that, as he goes on to say, 'writers
who claim for productions actually existing only in manuscripts of
the twelfth, an origin in the sixth century, are called upon to
demonstrate the links of evidence, either internal or external, which
bridge over this great intervening period of at least five hundred
years.' Then Mr. Nash continues: 'This external evidence is
altogether wanting.' Not altogether, as we have seen; that assertion
is a little too strong. But I am content to let it pass, because it
is true, that without internal evidence in this matter the external
evidence would be of no moment. But when Mr. Nash continues further:
'And the internal evidence even of the so-called historic poems
themselves, is, in some instances at least, opposed to their claims
to an origin in the sixth century,' and leaves the matter there, and
finishes his chapter, I say that is an unsatisfactory turn to give to
the matter, and a lame and impotent conclusion to his chapter;
because the one interesting, fruitful question here is, not in what
instances the internal evidence opposes the claims of these poems to
a sixth-century origin, but in what instances it supports them, and
what these sixth-century remains, thus established, signify.
Pages:
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70