102 



engaged in a task, the interest of which was equalled by its difficulty. 

 In general, the historian derives help, in the execution of his work, from 

 the labours of writers who have preceded him. Though they may have 

 left omissions to be supplied, and mistakes to be corrected, they have, at 

 least, furnished a mass of authentic matter, the possession of which places 

 him in a position more advantageous than that of writers who have to con- 

 struct their narratives out of the crude materials gathered from primary 

 sources, annals, laws, charters, and the incidental notices preserved in 

 ancient documents and monuments of various kinds. But Mr. Gilbert 

 owes nothing to earlier histories of Dublin. The first work on the sub- 

 ject was the imperfect attempt of Harris, published, in a small volume, 

 most inaccurately, after his death, in 1766. On this it would be unfair 

 to pronounce a severe criticism. The design of the author had been 

 left very incomplete, and the office of attempting to fill the outline which 

 he had traced was committed to an incompetent compiler So limited 

 in extent was this small history of the city of Dublin, that but four 

 pages of it were devoted to the description of St. Patrick's Cathedral and 

 eighteen churches. The entire of Harris's imperfect and inaccurate little 

 work was appropriated and reprinted verhatim, without any acknow- 

 ledgment, in 1818, at London, by "Whitelaw and Walsh, whose compi- 

 lation is full of the most absurd errors. Some of the materials of their 

 work were avowedly gathered from unsubstantiated oral communica- 

 tions, others were taken from printed guid^-books of no authority. For 

 instance, the Annals of Dublin, from 1704, the period at which Harris 

 ended, were reprinted without alteration from the concluding pages of 

 a Dublin Almanac. "Without exposing ourselves to the reproach of an 

 undue civic vanity, we may assert that Dublin deserved to be made the 

 subject of a history more elaborate and more authentic than the works of 

 either Harris or Whitelaw and Walsh. The metropolis of Ireland pos- 

 sesses trustworthy annals which reach back for more than a thousand 

 years, and has been the scene on which most famous men, Irish, Danes, 

 Anglo- JN'ormans, and English, have played their parts. A writer con- 

 scious of the dignity of his subject, and anxious to do it justice, would 

 feel that very extensive researches should be made previous to com- 

 mencing a history of Dublin. He would see the necessity of examining 

 every printed book, pamphlet, or tract referring to events connected with 

 the history of the city. He would understand the importance of inves- 

 tigating the charters and deeds of its churches, guilds, and corporations, 

 together with the manuscripts in the libraries of Trinity College and the 

 British Museum, the archives of the State Paper Office, and the un- 

 published records of the Law Courts of Dublin ; he would also make 

 himself familiar with its streets, its public buildings, and its monuments. 

 It is because Mr. Gilbert has given proofs of having used diligence 

 and judgment in the collection of his materials from a vast variety of 

 recondite sources, that his work has secured the approval of those who 

 think that scientific accuracy is an essential element of literary excel- 

 lence. Excluding uncertain or unverified statements, and abstaining 

 from conjectures, he has founded his history solely on documentary evi- 



