heard to prefer even to Taliessin, Merlin, and Aneurim, the effusions of
the immortal Cadwallo, and indeed this was the only subject upon which
he was ever known to dispute with eagerness and fervour. In the midst of
the controversy, he would frequently produce passages from the Pastoral
Romance, as decisive of the question. And to confess the truth, I know
not how to excuse this piece of jockeyship and ill faith, even in Rice
ap Thomas, whom I regard as the father of my family, and the chief
ornament of my beloved country.

Some readers will probably however be inclined to apologise for the
conduct of Mr. Thomas, and to lay an equivalent blame to my charge. They
will tell me, that nothing but the weakest partiality could blind me to
the genuine air of antiquity with which the composition is every where
impressed, and to ascribe it to a modern writer. But I am conscious to
my honesty and defy their malice. So far from being sensible of any
improper bias in favour of my ancestor, I am content to strengthen their
hands, by acknowledging that the manuscript, which I am not at all
desirous of refusing to their inspection, is richly emblazoned with all
the discoloration and rust they can possibly desire. I confess that the
wording has the purity of Taliessin, and the expressiveness of Aneurim,
and is such as I know of no modern Welchman who could write. And yet, in
spite as they will probably tell me of evidence and common sense, I
still aver my persuasion, that it is the production of Rice ap Thomas.

But enough, and perhaps too much, for the question of its antiquity. It
would be unfair to send it into the world without saying something of
the nature of its composition. It is unlike the Arcadia of sir Philip
Sidney, and unlike, what I have just taken the trouble of running over,
the Daphnis of Gessner. It neither on the one hand leaves behind it the
laws of criticism, and mixes together the different stages of