during the same period. Save where ancient documents are cited, there is in Keating's writings, to quote Dr. Atkinson again, scarcely a line which, at this day, "an Irish-speaking native will not at once get a grip of."
The language used by our author is described by O'Curry as "the modified Gaedhlic of Keating's own time": which merely means that Keating elected to write in the living language, not (like the O'Clerys and Mac Firbis) continuing to employ forms long obsolete, and to copy strictly ancient models. O'Curry says further of Keating, whom he elsewhere calls "a most learned Gaedhlic scholar":—"Although he has used but little discrimination in his selections from old records, and has almost entirely neglected any critical examination of his authorities, still, his book is a valuable one, and not at all, in my opinion, the despicable production that it is often ignorantly said to be." In another passage, however, O'Curry rather tones down this censure, and thus appreciates Keating:—"It is greatly to be regretted that a man so learned as Keating (one who had access, too, at some period of his life, to some valuable and ancient MSS. since lost) should not have had time to apply to his materials the rigid test of that criticism so necessary to the examination of ancient tales and traditions—criticism which his learning and ability so well qualified him to undertake. As it is, however, Keating's book is of great value to the student, so far as it contains at least a fair outline of our ancient history, and so far as regards the language in which it is written, which is regarded as a good specimen of the Gaedhlic of his time." From O'Curry's standpoint, and taking into account the purpose of his work, we cannot expect a more favourable estimate.
But O'Donovan himself says of Keating's History of Ireland:—"This work, though much abused by modern writers, on account of some fables which the author has inserted, is, nevertheless, of great authority, and has been
