Such scorn could not have been felt by one living in an age of
bardic production. That independence and originality of thought,
which caused Milton to despise the poets of the Restoration, are
impossible in the simple stages of civilisation. The scribe who
appended this very interesting comment to the subject of his own
handiwork must have been removed by centuries from the date of its
compilation. That the tale was, in his time, an ancient one, is
therefore rendered extremely probable, the scribe himself
indicating how completely out of sympathy he is with this form of
literature, its antiquity and peculiar archaeological interest
being, doubtless, the cause of the transcription.

Again, a close study of its contents, as of the contents of all the
Irish historic tales, proves that in its present form, whenever
that form was superadded, it is but a representation in prose of a
pre-existing metrical original. Under this head I have already made
some remarks, which, I shall request the reader to re-peruse [Note:
Pages 23 to 27]

Once more, it deals with a particular event in Irish history, and
with distinct and definite kings, heroes, and bards, who flourished
in the epoch of which it treats. In the synchronisms of Tiherna, in
the metrical chronology of Flann, in all the various historical
compositions produced in various parts of the country, the main
features and leading characters of the Tan-bo-Cooalney suffer no
material change, while the minor divergencies show that the
chronology of the annals and annalistic poems were not drawn from
the tale, but owe their origin to other sources. Moreover, this
epic is but a portion of the great Ultonian or Red Branch cycle,
all the parts of which pre-suppose and support one another; and