Such a view of the philosophy of language ought certainly hearten Irishmen in the work of reviving their own tongue. For if the patois and dialects of the literary languages of the world have had, and still have, such a future before them, what may not be the immediate prospect of an independent language such as Irish, fortified as it is by its own group of dialects? And here we may enter upon the last phase of our discussion, and apply the principles we have enunciated to the present condition of our Irish tongue. Their general application is not, perhaps, much affected by the want of systematic and scientific works on our dialects as such. Still such works are devoutly to be wished for. Working from the known to the unknown we should succeed in settling many a textual difficulty, and in locating the dialectic homes of our old Irish texts. The dialects, which we group roughly under the names, Munster, Connaught, and Ulster, would be found to have counterparts in the oldest texts, perhaps too, we should be enabled to recover the characteristics of the old literary Leinster dialect, which is now almost extinct. Editors of Irish texts must, therefore, be on their guard against changing word forms which may not conform to artificial standards, for in doing so they are eliminating evidence of a most important kind, and in the case of poetry are hopelessly damaging it as a work of art. Again, care must be taken in suggesting that unusual word forms are due to a so-called "corruption" as, for instance, that the old and well-known reduplicated future "béarad" is due to the dropping of an ƒ, or that the particle do in a present form like "do cuirthear" is a sporadic intruder, and not, as it really is, an interesting case of the particle do taking over the perfective function of the particle ro, as it has taken over in modern Irish its later and more restricted preterite function. Dialectic differences at the present day may partly take the form of the conservation in one dialect of forms older than those in another. The chronicling of such differences between dialects in the matter of vocabulary, grammatical forms, and pronunciation, offers a wide and fruitful field for the future student of Irish dialects.

Let us now attempt to answer the queries with which we opened our remarks. One we have already answered, two alone remain. Which of the Irish dialects is the best? them would you advise a beginner to study first?

Which of

The answer

to the first question will depend upon the criterion you apply. Is your criterion richness of vocabulary? Then many will tell you that the dialect of poets, like O'Rahilly, and O'Sullivan, is the richest. Is your criterion the eminence and number of great literary names? Then many will return you the same answer. Is your criterion the native character of the populalation? Then you will be told that Cromwell and his followers crowded the best of our race into Connaught, and ergo the best Irish is to be found there. Is your criterion the activity of modern representatives of a dialect? Then you will be told that Munster men display the greatest literary activity. Is your criterion the antiquity of the forms to be found in a dialect? Then you will receive diverse answers, which may or may not be true, and which probably cannot at the present time be given with any certainty. It may even seem at first blush hopeless to seek an answer to such a question; yet a glance back at the history of French dialects may help to clear the air. The factor which, we have seen, was most potent in winning for the dialect of the" Isle de France" its literary preeminence was certainly not at first its literary eminence, for the literature of the Southern troubadours equalled, if it did not outshine, that of the Northern trouvères. Nor was it its close proximity to the parent forms of the language, for the Southern forms were, and still are, more proximate to the parent Latin ones. Neither was it the purer Latin blood in the veins of those who spoke it, for Provence was in fact more Latinised than Northern France. Nor was it finally the possession of a richer vocabulary, for that advantage lay in all probability on the side of the more advanced civilisation of the South. The real factor in determining what should be the future medium of French Literature was the political preeminence of Paris.

Now, "ceteris paribus,” it is clear that the dialect of Dublin the metropolis, if it had one, would soon take the lead over the other dialects of Ireland. It would by degrees develop organically a literary dialect amongst its educated population which would impose itself on the educated minds of the country,. whilst, underneath, a colloquial dialect would co-exist with it, spoken by the masses, as is the case in Paris, London, or Berlin. The Anglicisation of Dublin has, however, prevented any such development up to this, whilst the existing Irish

dialects have led separate existences, interfering little with one another. Amongst them, however, a development is on the point of taking place which will undoubtedly lead to farreaching results. The superior urban condition of Munster renders, and has rendered, its dialects, if not richer, at any rate inore in harmony with the necessities of modern life, and it is just this suitability to a modern environment that is telling in its favour in the capital, in an almost unperceived and unconscious way. It is not due to any greater energy in the individuals who speak it, but to the fact that these individuals are in closer sympathy with the ideas and wants of a town population. If the present boundary of the Irish-speaking country were to be maintained, it might be predicted that Cork, with its important urban life, would impose its literary dialect on the dialects of the less urbanised portions of Irishspeaking Ireland. Already Munster is starting on the road to the creation of a neo-Irish literature, and it is needless in the light of English, French, or, indeed, any other literature, to point out that the production of high class literary works is, next to political and social importance, the most weighty factor in winning for a dialect the function of a general literary medium. What is here written is written in no spirit of "paroisteacas," but in the cool spirit of linguistic history and fact. In a sense it is immaterial which of the Irish dialects develops a general literary function, provided some particular one does so, and thus becomes sufficiently universal to be the medium of educated men. The final result, it may be predicted, will be that the dialect which imposes itself on the metropolis will develop this literay function, and will play in Ireland the part which the literary dialect of the "Isle de France" does in France, and the literary East Midland dialect does in England. In it will be enshrined the future Literature of Ireland.

This by no means implies that other dialects will cease to produce literary works for a long time to come, any more than that the Southern dialects of France failed to do so in the works of the troubadours, which long continued to survive by the side of those of the Northern trouvères, or in England, the Northern and Western dialects, which long continued their literary activity beside the early literature of the East Midlands. It might even happen that after a long period of time the minor

dialects of Irish would produce works similar to those which Burns wrote in his Northern dialect, or which Barnes, in our day, composed in the hitherto unimportant one of Dorsetshire, showing thereby that these were ready to take on the literary function which up to that the East Midland dialect had specialised itself to perform. Whatever may eventually

happen in the case of Irish, the answers we would give to our questions are, perhaps, now clear enough. The best dialect for a man at present to study is surely that one which his environment and, therefore, his opportunities make it easiest for him to acquire. A Connaught man ought to study a Connaught dialect, a Munster man a Munster dialect, and an Ulster man an Ulster one. In the case, however, of those born outside of, or out of touch with, an Irish district, the question to be asked will be: Which of the existing dialects is most likely to survive as a literary medium? This can be answered only by answering the further question: Which of the existing dialects has the greatest literary output and is readiest in adapting itself to the needs of modern civilization? If the Irish literary centre of gravity shifts to Dublin, as in tract of time it will probably do, it must be pointed out that though the literary speech may centralize at first in one of the existing dialects, that dialect itself will in the transfer from its former environment develop in its new home into something different from its parent. The result to be expected would be the creation of both a colloquial Leinster and a literary Leinster dialect, answering in Irish to the East Midland colloquial dialect and the East Midland literary dialect, in which the masterpieces of English Literature from Chaucer to Tennyson are enshrined.

PATRICK M. MACSWEENEY, M.A.

WANTED: A PHILOSOPHY OF DUTY. II.1

FROM

111.

ROM no point of view does the futility of the attempts made 66 common sense moralists to rear a system of ethical philosophy upon the basis of our idea of Duty stand out more conspicuously than from a consideration of the kind of criticism to which they subject rival theories of conduct. I will therefore examine some of these criticisms in detail, in order to lay bare the utter unsoundness of the principles on which they rest. And, first, I will deal with the method of refuting systems of morals grounded upon the idea of interest which is commonly resorted to by writers of this class. Under the general heading of Ethics of Interest I include, for present purposes, the doctrine of Hedonism in all its forms, comprising both Egoism and Universalistic Hedonism or Utilitarianism. Of course I do not mean to raise here any questions relative to the history of Hedonistic theories: for example, I do not now enquire whether Bentham is justly entitled to be called a moralist at all, nor whether and how far the customary résumé of his doctrines fairly represents his thought.

The sum and substance of my charge against the current or eclectic criticism of Hedonism is that it amounts to a mere ignoratio elenchi. It must be understood that in bringing this charge against Eclecticism I do not imply any approval of the views criticised. I hold no brief for any hedonistic theory, and if I am convinced of the weakness of the case made by eclectics against the ethics of interest, I am also of opinion that a very much stronger attack may be brought against it from another quarter. To this point I shall return.

The gist of the eclectics' criticism of Hedonism is that the idea of interest lacks precisely those characteristics of obligation, necessity, and universality, which, as we have already

1 See New Ireland Review, Vol. xviii., No. 2. October, 1902.