Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PREFACE TO VOL. V.

NEW SERIES,

The Provisional Editors of the Archæologia Cambrensis have much satisfaction in presenting its readers with another complete volume. They feel that it is due to themselves to give an account of the office from which they have just retired.

Late in the month of December, 1853, the editorship of the Journal became vacant. The Committee of the Association had received no previous intimation of it, and it was impossible at that season to convoke them. The General Secretaries accordingly undertook the duty of conducting the publication until that body should make some permanent arrangement for its management. At the time when they entered upon their office there was not enough matter in hand for a single number, although the first number of the volume was due in less than a fortnight. To this cause chiefly must be attributed the irregular appearance of the Journal during the past year, which, it is to be feared, will necessarily continue for some months. But the Editors venture to think that in point of interest and ability the present volume is not inferior to the average of its predecessors.

In one important point of view, however, the Editors are only too ready to acknowledge the inferiority of this volume to most of those which have preceded it. They speak of its illustration. The funds at the disposal of the Publisher for this purpose were lamentably inadequate, mainly in consequence of the irregular payment of their subscriptions by the Members of the Association. The Editors beg to acknowledge with thanks the liberality of the following gentlemen in contributing illustrations : The Rev. W. Basil Jones, and William Rees, Esq.; and they wish at the same time to express their gratitude to those who have supplied original articles and other papers during the past year.

The Provisional Editors resigned their office to the Committee at the Ruthin Meeting. A Special Committee was then appointed, to superintend the publications of the Association, consisting of C. C. BABINGTON, Esq., St. John's College, Cambridge,

Chairman ; E. A. FREEMAN, Esq., Oaklands, Dursley ; Rev. W. Basil Jones, University College, Oxford ; Rev. H. LONGUEVILLE JONES, Privy Council Office; Rev. J. WILLIAMS, Llanymowddwy, Dinas Mowddwy.

This Committee has entered into new arrangements with the Publisher, and a Third Series of the Archæologia Cambrensis will commence in the year 1855, to be carried on under their direction.

In taking leave of their readers the Provisional Editors think it right to notice a point of deep interest to them. They allude to the opposition which has been manifested in some quarters towards the Association and its periodical. They believe that the entire aggregate of persons opposed to it is not large, but since it appears to be founded upon misapprehension, they feel bound to do all in their power to remove it. It would appear that the proceedings of the Association are in some degree offensive to two classes of

persons. Some dislike its objects, and others its mode of pursuing them.

The former are angry with us for making antiquities the matter of our study. Or, when they are driven out of this position, they attack us for devoting our exclusive attention to them. “Why not add some other science,' say they, “Geology for instance ?To both of these objections the answer is plain. We are an Antiquarian and we are not a Geological Association. And whatever may be thought of the abstract possibility of combining physical with archæological researches, in the case of our own Association those of our Members, and we have many, who are eminent in natural science, have given their undivided and unhesitating opinion against it. Then our objectors fall back upon their aversion to archæology eo nomine. “It has neither the dignity of a science nor the utility of an art.” To that which aspires to the dignity of a science, its lack of apparent utility is no objection. If utility is to be the measure of the esteem in which a science is to be held, some of the noblest exploits of science would sink far below the rank which they now hold in popular opinion. Where was the utility of completing the

map

of the Polar Regions, when all hopes of a commercial thoroughfare in that direction were at an end, so that brave men should risk and lose their lives in the endeavour ? Where is the utility of the scarcely less perilous task of measuring the motion of a glacier ? Ask the Astronomer to tell you the utility of his study, and he will treat your question with the scorn which it deserves. No: knowledge is its own reward; and although we are quite ready to defend our labours even against this charge, we prefer to rest their value on its true basis. But they have not “the dignity of a science.” The words are not ours, and we are doubtful about their precise signification. The dignity of a science, if the words mean anything, is to be measured by two distinct standards, the certainty of its conclusions, and the dignity of its subject-matter. As regards the former, it is evident that Archæology does not aspire to absolute demonstration. Neither does Geology, nor Ethnology, nor Philology, nor any Palæontological science whatever. And the other inductive sciences, however they aim at it, fail partially to attain it.

But as regards the dignity of its matter, there can be no question as to the position of Archæology, and there is no question when other than national antiquities are under consideration. Nobody despises the labours of a Belzoni or a Layard, while it is thought contemptible and childish to investigate the monuments of our own ancestors. But, it may be said, the antiquities of Egypt are the memorials of a great nation, the antiquities of Nineveh are remarkable works of art. Yet the nation of which the former are the memorials is one which has exercised no appreciable influence on the progress of humanity; the grotesque imagination which devised the latter was blind and barbarous as compared with the graceful taste which reared the choir of Brecon or the naye of Llandaff.

And indeed, we contend not merely for the dignity of Archæology, but for its dignity as compared with the natural sciences. It stands as much above Astronomy or Zoology, as mind is above dead matter or brute life.

« AnteriorContinuar »