in his own words, and with his additional remarks upon it, is as follows :—“The story, as collected from himself, Leland, Bale, and Pitts, is that Walter Mapes, alias Calenius, archdeacon of Oxford, who flourished in the reign of Henry I, and of whom Henry of Huntingdon, and other historians as well as Geoffrey himself, make honourable mention, being a man very curious in the study of antiquity, and a diligent searcher into ancient libraries, and especially after the works of ancient authors, happened while he was in Armorica to light upon a History of Britain, written in the British tongue, and carrying marks of great antiquity. And being overjoyed at it, as if he had found a vast treasure, he in a short time after came over to England; where inquiring for a proper person to translate this curious but hitherto unknown book, he very opportunely met with Geoffrey of Monmouth, a man profoundly versed in the history and antiquities of Britain, excellently skilled in the British tongue, and withal (considering the time,) an elegant writer both in verse and prose; and so recommended this task to him. Accordingly, Geoffrey, being incredibly delighted with this ancient book, undertook the translating of it into Latin, which he performed, with great diligence, approving himself, according to Matthew Paris, a faithful translator. At first he divided it into four books, written in a plain simple style, and dedicated it to Robert, earl of Gloucester, a copy whereof is said* to be at Bennet College, in Cambridge, which was never yet published; but afterwards he made some alterations and divided it into eight books, to which he added the book of Merlin's Prophecies, which he had also translated from British verse into Latin prose, prefixing to it a preface, and a letter to Alexander, bishop of Lincoln. A great many fabulous and trifling stories are inserted in the history but that was not his fault; his business as a translator was to deliver them faithfully such as they were, and leave them to the jndgment of the learned to be discussed. "To prove the truth of this relation, and to answer at once all objections against Geoffrey's integrity, one needs no other argument than an assurance that the original manuscript which Geoffrey translated, of whose antiquity the curious are able to judge in a great measure by the character, or any See Pitts and Voss. ancient and authentic copy of it, is yet extant. And indeed, archbishop Usher* mentions an old Welsh Chronicle in the Cottonian Library, that formerly was in the possession of that learned antiquary, Humphrey Lhwyd, which he says is thought to be that which Goffrey translated. But if that be the original manuscript, it must be acknowledged that Geoffrey was not merely a translator, but made some additions of his own: since, as that most learned prelate informs us, the account that we have in this History of the British Flamens, and Archflamens, is nowhere to be found in it. But besides this, there are several copies of it in the Welsh tongue, mentioned by the late ingenious and learned Mr. Lhwyd in his Archæologia Britannica.' And I myself have met with a manuscript history of our British affairs, written above a hundred years ago by Mr. John Lewis, and shortly to be published, wherein the author says, that he had the original of the British History in parchment written in the British tongue before Geoffrey's time, as he concludes from this circumstance, that in his book Geoffrey's preface was wanting, and the preface to his book was the second chapter of that published by Geoffrey. My ignorance of the Welsh tongue renders me unqualified for making any search into these matters; and though the search should be attended with never so much satisfaction, to those who are able to judge of the antiquity of manuscripts, yet to the generality of readers, other arguments would perhaps be more convincing." The passages which we have here quoted at length, will give the reader the most ample information concerning the nature of the question, and it only remains to inform the reader what is my own opinion on this long-agitated literary controversy. To those who have read the plain and simple statements of Julius Cæsar and the other classic historians who have described the early state of Britain, it will be morally certain that all such accounts as we have in Geoffrey of Monmouth are purely fabulous. The uncertainty of every thing, save the bare fact, connected with the siege of Troy, is so great, that to connect its fortunes with those of a distant and at that time unheard-of island like Britain, can be admissible only in the pages of romance. But in the latter part of the Brit. Eccl. Prim. cap. 5. work which contains the history of Britain, during its corr quest by the Saxons, we may possibly find the germs o facts unnoticed elsewhere. This view does not militate against the veracity of Geoffrey, who professes to have translated from an original in the British language, but whether any manuscript copy of this original now exists, is a point which has not been satisfactorily ascertained. In 1811, the Rev. Peter Roberts published the Chronicle of the Kings of Britain, translated from Welsh manuscripts, and being in substance almost identically the sanie as Geoffrey's History of the Britons,-but it is most likely that these Welsh MSS., which are all comparatively modern, are themselves re-translations from the Latin of Geoffrey. If no other arguments could be adduced to prove the utter incredibility of the earlier parts of this history, the following Chronological Table would furnish quite sufficient arguments to establish it, by the extraordinary anachronisms which it contains. For instance, between the reigns of Brutus and Leil, is an interval of 156 years; and yet Geoffrey makes the capture of the ark contemporaneous with the reign of Brutus, and the building of Solomon's temple with that of Leil. Now the interval between these two events cannot by any possibility be extended beyond eighty years. It is, moreover, impossible to bring the chronology of the British kings themselves into harmony with the dates before Christ, as there is no mention made of the exact interval between the taking of Troy and Brutus's landing in Britain. Geoffrey inscribes his work to Robert, earl of Gloucester, son of Henry the Second. Ignoge 1. Brutus at the age of 15 kills his father. (I. 3.) Reigns twenty · four years. (II. ¡.) At this time Eli governed Israel, and the ark wis taken by the Philistines, and the sons of Hector reigned in Troy and Sylvius Æneas, uncle of Brutus, in Italy. (I. 17.) 2. Locrin 3. Guendolana (Locrin by Estrilda has Sabre, who being drowned in the Sever, gives name to that river. 15 years. 1. 10 yrs. 4. Maddan. II. 6. 40 yrs. 1 At his time Samuel governed Israel, and 5. Mempricius 20 yrs. 6. Ebraucus 40 yrs. (or 60, quære, 11. 7, 8) Malim S Saul reigns in Judæa, Eurystheus in Lacedæmon. { King David-Sylvius Latinus-Gad-Nthan and Asaph. 7. Brutus II., 12 yrs. and 19 other sons and 30 daughters, II. 8. At length arose Dunwallo Molmutius, son of Cloten, king c 28. Gorbonian 29. Arthgallo 30. Elidure 31. Vigenius 32. Peredure Arthgallo was deposed in favour of Elidure, who, after a reign of five years, restored his brother, who reigned 10 years afterwards. Elidure then reigned a second time but was deposed by Vigenius and Peredure: after whose deaths he reigned a third time. 33. Gorbonian's son, III. 19. |