CHAP. III. GILDAS.

OF Gildas, the supposed author of the third work contained in this volume, little or nothing is known. Mr. Stevenson, in the preface to his edition of the original Latin, lately published by the English Historical Society, says: "We are unable to speak with certainty as to his parentage, his country, or even his name, the period when he lived, or the works of which he was the author." Such a statement is surely sufficient to excuse us at present from saying more on the subject, than that he is supposed to have lived, and to have written what remains under his name, during some part of the sixth century. There are two legends* of the life of St. Gildas, as he is termed, but both of them abound with such absurdities that they scarcely deserve to be noticed in a serious history. Of the present translation, the first or historic half is entirely new; in the rest, consisting almost entirely of texts from Scripture, the translator has thought it quite sufficient to follow the old translation of Habington, correcting whatever errors he could detect, and in some degree relieving the quaint and obsolete character of the language. It has been remarked by Polydore Virgil, that Gildas quotes no other book but the Bible; and it may be added, that his quotations are in other words than those of the Vulgate or common authorized translation. The title of the old translation is as follows: "The Epistle of Gildas the most ancient British Author : who flourished in the yeere of our Lord, 546. And who by his great erudition, sanctitie, and wisdome, acquired the name of Sapiens. Faithfully translated out of the originall Latine." London, 12mo. 1638.

CHAP. IV. NENNIUS.

THE History of the Britons, which occupies the fourth place in this volume is generally ascribed to Nennius, but so little is known about the author, that we have hardly any information handed down to us respecting him except this mention of his name. It is also far from certain at what period the history was written, and the difference is no less than a period of two hundred years, some assigning the

* Both these works are given in the appendix to the editor's "History of the Ancient Britons."

work to seven hundred and ninety-six, and others to nine hundred and ninety-four. The recent inquiries of Mr. Stevenson, to be found in the Preface to his new edition of the original Latin, render it unnecessary at present to delay the reader's attention from the work itself. The present translation is substantially that of the Rev. W. Gunn, published with the Latin original in 1819, under the following title: "The Historia Britonum,' commonly attributed to Nennius ; from a manuscript lately discovered in the library of the Vatican Palace at Rome: edited in the tenth century, by Mark the Hermit; with an English version, fac-simile of the original, notes and illustrations." The kindness of that gentleman has enabled the present editor to reprint the whole, with only a few corrections of slight errata, which inadvertency alone had occasioned, together with the two prologues and several pages of genealogies, which did not occur in the MS. used by that gentleman.

CHAP. V.-GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.

GEOFFREY, surnamed of Monmouth, is celebrated in English literature as the author, or at least the translator, of Historia Britonum, a work from which nearly all our great vernacular poets have drawn the materials for some of their noblest works of fiction and characters of romance. He lived in the early part of the twelfth century, and in the year 1152 was raised to the bishopric of St. Asaph.

The first of his writings, in point of time, was a Latin translation of the Prophecies of Merlin, which he undertook at the request of Alexander bishop of Lincoln. His next work was that on which his fame principally rests, the Historia Britonum, dedicated to Robert, duke of Gloucester, who died in 1147. Into this second work he inserted the Latin translation above-mentioned, which now appears as the seventh book of Historia Britonum. A third composition has also been ascribed to Geoffrey, entitled Vita Merlini, in Latin hexameter verse: but the internal evidence which it affords, plainly proves that it is the work of a different author.

Although the list of our Chroniclers may be considered as complete, without the addition of this work, yet we hav thought it worthy of a place in our series for many reasons. It is not for historical accuracy that the book be

fore us is valuable; for the great mass of scholars have come to the decided conviction that it is full of fables. But it is the romantic character which pervades the narrative, together with its acknowledged antiquity, which make it desirable that the book should not sink into oblivion. Those who desire to possess it as a venerable relic of an early age, will now have an opportunity of gratifying their wish; whilst others, who despise it as valueless, in their researches after historic truth, may, nevertheless, find some little pleasure in the tales of imagination which it contains.

The value of this work is best evinced by the attention which was paid to it for many centuries; Henry of Huntingdon made an abstract of it, which he subjoined as an appendix to his history: and Alfred of Beverley, a later writer, in his abridgment of this work which still exists, has omitted Geoffrey's name, though he calls the author of the original, Britannicus.

An English translation of the work was first published by Aaron Thompson, of Queen's College, Oxford, [8vo. Lond. 1718,] and lately revised and reprinted by the editor of this volume. [8vo. Lond. 1842.] A long preface is prefixed to that translation, wherein the author endeavoured to prove Geoffrey of Monmouth to be a more faithful historian than he is generally considered to be. His words are as follow:

"I am not unsensible that I expose myself to the censures of some persons, by publishing this translation of a book, which they think had better been suppressed and buried in oblivion, as being at present generally exploded for a groundless and fabulous story, such as our modern historians think not worthy relating, or at least mention with contempt. And though it is true, several men, and those of learning too, censure this book who have but little considered it, and whose studies no ways qualify them to judge of it; yet, I own this consideration has for a long time deterred me from publishing it and I should not at last have been able to surmount this difficulty, without the importunity and encouragement of others, to whom I owe a singular regard. I had indeed before I entered upon the work perused the principal writers both for and against this history, the effect of which upon my own judgment, as to the swaying it to the one side more than the other, was but very small; and I

must confess, that I find the most learned antiquaries the most modest in their opinions concerning it, and that it seems to me to be a piece of great rashness, to judge peremptorily upon a matter, whereof at this great distance of time there are no competent witnesses on either side. At least I cannot but think it a sufficient apology for my publishing this book, to consider only, that though it seems to suffer under a general prejudice at present, yet it has not long done so ; but that upon its first appearing in the world, it met with a universal approbation, and that too, from those who had better opportunities of examining the truth of it, as there were then more monuments extant, and the traditions more fresh and uncorrupted concerning the ancient British affairs, than any critics of the present age can pretend to; that it had no adversary before William of Newburgh about the end of the reign of Richard the First, whose virulent invective against it, we are told, proceeded from a revenge he thought he owed the Welsh for an affront they had given him; that his opposition was far from shaking the credit of it with our succeeding historians, who have, most of them, till the beginning of the last century, confirmed it with their testimonies, and copied after it, as often as they had occasion to treat of the same affairs: that its authority was alleged by king Edward the First and all the nobility of the kingdom, in a controversy of the greatest importance, before Boniface the Eighth; that even in this learned age, that is so industrious to detect any impostures, which through the credulity of former times had passed upon the world, the arguments against this history are not thought so convincing, but that several men of equal reputation for learning and judgment with its adversaries, have written in favour of it; that very few have at last spoken decisively against it, or absolutely condemned it; and that it is still most frequently quoted by our most learned historians and antiquaries. All these considerations, I say, if they do not amount to an apology for the history itself, show at least that it deserves to be better known than at present it is; which is sufficient to justify my undertaking the publishing of it."

It is unnecessary in the present day to prove that king Brute is a shadowy personage, who never existed but in the regions of romance: but as the reader may justly expect to

find in this place some account of the controversy which has existed respecting this work, the following remarks will not be deemed inappropriate. There seems no good reason for supposing that Geoffrey of Monmouth intended to deceive the world respecting the history of which he professed to be the translator; and it may be readily conceived that he did no more than fulfil the task which he had undertaken, of rendering the book into Latin out of the original language. But those who, even as late as the beginning of the last century, supported the authenticity of the history, have grounded their opinions on such arguments as the following:

1. That, upon its first appearance in the world, the book met with universal approbation, and that too from those who had better opportunities of examining the truth of it, as there were then more monuments extant, and the traditions were more fresh and uncorrupted, concerning the ancient British affairs, than any critics of the present age can pretend to.

2. That except William of Newburgh, about the end of the reign of Richard I, it met with no opponents even down to the seventeenth century, but was, on the contrary, quoted by all, in particular by Edward I, in a controversy before Boniface the Eighth.

3. That we see in this history the traces of venerable antiquity.

4. That the story of Brute, and the descent of the Britons from the Trojans, was universally allowed by Giraldus Cambrensis and others, and was opposed for the first time by John of Wethamstede, [Nicolson's Eng. Hist. Lit. 2nd ed. p. 1, c. v.] who lived in the 15th century: that Polydore Virgil's contempt for it proceeded from his wish to preserve unimpaired the glory of the Romans, and Buchanan's observations betray his ignorance of the story.

5. That Leland, who lived under Henry the Eighth, Humphrey Lhwyd, Sir John Price, Dr. Caius, Dr. Powel, and others, have supported the story of Brute, etc.

Such arguments may have satisfied the credulous students of the seventeenth century, but the more enlightened criticism of the present day will no longer listen to them. It may not, however, be uninteresting to hear the account which Thompson, the English translator gives of this work, which,