at the foot, and, in the case of the notes to the present volume, which are chiefly 'various readings,' the number of the line to which they refer will be given, and so the appearance of our text, which is of some importance, will not be marred by the insertion of too many figures.
Not only among the "strange facts wildly put," and the traditions gathered by Keating, but also in the more authentic portions of his narrative, there will be found recorded occurrences which may offend certain readers who would fain judge every age and people by the standards of modern European civilization; or, rather, by their own narrow experience and reading, and their ill-informed prepossessions. Persons whose susceptibilities are so easily shocked, and who cherish their convictions so tenderly, have no business studying the history of human progress in ancient times, or during the middle ages, or among people who have developed under special conditions; or, indeed, any subject outside of the commonplace.
Among the many writers who have censured Geoffrey Keating's work and method, as the introduction to Haliday points out, Roderick O'Flaherty, at least, had a sufficient knowledge of the language and the subject: but, without this title to a hearing, Isaac D'Israeli presumes to denounce Keating and O'Flaherty, alike, in the most sweeping manner, among the various literary cranks and humbugs whom he criticises. We need not wonder, therefore, though we may regret, that Thomas Moore, in his History of Ireland, speaks slightingly of Keating, whose text he could not read, but there is reason to believe that Moore subsequently recognised the need of acquaintance with the native records; as it is well known that he expressed to O'Curry and Petrie his conviction, that without this knowledge he should not have undertaken to write a History of Ireland, a work, now, in its turn, notwithstanding its fascinating style, almost as much neglected as, and of far less value than, either Keating or O'Flaherty.
