introduction of lemons at the Roman tables. Juba, king of Mauritania,
was the first who exhibited them at his dinners. And Athenæus introduces
Democritus as not wondering that old people made wry mouths at the taste
of lemons; for, adds he, in my grandfather’s time, they were never set
upon the table. And to this day the Chinese, who grow the fruit, do not
apply it to culinary purposes.
The great use of lemons began with the introduction of sugar, which is
said to have resulted from the conquest of Sicily, by the Arabs, in the
ninth century. Sestini, in his letters from Sicily and Turkey, thinks
that the best sorts of lemons, and the best sorts of sherbet, were
derived from Florence, by the Sicilians. Probably Rome continued, even
in the dark ages, to be the chief seat of luxury and refinement; and had
domesticated the art of making lemonade, before either Messina or
Florence.
In Madagascar slices of lemon are boiled, and eaten with salt.
Pomet, in his History of Drugs, gives the preference over all others to
the lemons of Madeira; but according to Ferrarius, there grows at the
Cape a sweet lemon, to which he gives the name _incomparabilis_.
ORIGIN OF THE POINT OF HONOUR.
We meet with inexplicable enigmas in the codes of the laws of the
barbarians. The law of the Frisians allowed only about the value of a
farthing, by way of compensation, to a person who had been beaten with a
stick; and yet for ever such a small wound it allows more. By the Salic
law, if a freeman gave three blows with a stick to another freeman, he
paid about three halfpence; if he drew blood, he was punished as if he
had wounded him with steel, and he paid about seven-pence halfpenny;
thus the punishment was proportioned to the greatness of the wound. The
law of the Lombards established different compensations for one, two,
three, four blows, and so on. At present a single blow is equivalent to
a hundred thousand.
The constitution of Charlemagne, inserted in the law of the Lombards,
ordains, that those who were allowed the trial by combat, should fight
with clubs. Perhaps this was out of regard to the clergy; or, probably,
as the usage of legal duels gained ground, they wanted to render them
less sanguinary. The capitulary of Louis the Pious, added to the Salic
law in 819, allows the liberty of chusing to fight either with the sword
or club. In process of time none but bondmen or slaves fought with the
club.
Here may be seen the first rise and formation of the particular articles
of our point of honour. The accuser began with declaring, in the
presence of the judge, that such a person had committed such an action,
and the accused made answer that, _he lied_; upon which the judge gave
orders for the duel. It became then an established rule, that whenever a
person had the lie given him, it was incumbent on him to fight.
Upon a man’s declaring he would fight, he could not afterwards depart
from his word; if he did, he was condemned to a penalty. Hence this rule
followed, that whenever a person had engaged his word, honour forbade
him to recal it.
Gentlemen fought one another on horseback, armed at all points; villans
fought on foot, and with clubs.[41] Hence it followed, that the club was
looked upon as the instrument of insults and affronts,[42] because to
strike a man with it, was treating him like a villan.
No one but villans fought with their faces uncovered;[43] so that none
but they could receive a blow on the face. Therefore a box on the ear,
became an injury that must be expiated with blood, because the person
who received it, had been treated as a villan.
The several people of Germany were not less sensible of the point of
honour. The most distant relations took a very considerable share to
themselves in every affront, and on this all their codes are founded.
The law of the Lombards ordains, that whoever goes attended with
servants to beat a man by surprize, in order to load him thereby with
shame, and to render him ridiculous, should pay half the compensation,
which he would owe if he had killed him; and if through the same motive
he tied or bound him, he should pay three fourths of the same
compensation.
Footnote 41:
The club was in use at the Norman Conquest, and in the succeeding
ages. St. Louis had a band of Guards armed with clubs, and was himself
very dextrous in the use of it.
Pennant, in describing the customs of the ancient Bards and Minstrels
of Wales, says, that the lowest of the musical tribe was the
_Datceiniad pen pastwn_, or he that sung to the sound of his club,
being ignorant of every other kind of instrument. When he was
permitted to be introduced, he was obliged to stand in the middle of
the hall, and sing his _cowydd_ or _awdl_, beating time, and playing
the symphony with his _pastwn_ or club; but if there was a professor
of music present, his leave must be first obtained before he presumed
to entertain the company with this species of melody. Wherever he came
he must act as a menial servant to the bard or minstrel.
Footnote 42:
Among the Romans it was not infamous to be beaten with a stick.
Footnote 43:
They had only the club and buckler.
GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.
Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first person, after the conquest, who
attempted to write any thing concerning the ancient history of Britain.
Although the century, in which he lived, is known, yet neither his
family, the time of his birth, nor the place of his education has been
ascertained. We are only informed that he was born at Monmouth, and
became archdeacon of that place, and that he was consecrated bishop of
St. Asaph, in 1152, which he resigned to live in the monastery of
Abingdon. By some writers he is called a monk of the Dominican order,
but, according to Leland, without sufficient authority. Warton says that
he was a Benedictine monk.
The history which has made his name celebrated, is entitled _Chronicon
sive Historia Britonum_. This history, written in the British or
Armorican language, was brought into England by Walter Mapes, otherwise
Calenius, archdeacon of Oxford, a learned man, and a diligent collector
of histories. Travelling through France, about the year 1100, he
procured in Armorica, this ancient chronicle, and, on his return,
communicated it to Geoffrey, who, according to Warton, (History of
English Poetry,) was an elegant Latin writer, and admirably skilled in
the British tongue. Geoffrey, at the request and recommendation of
Walter, translated this British chronicle into Latin, executing the
translation with some degree of purity, and fidelity, insomuch that
Matthew Paris speaking of him with reference to this history, says that
he approved himself _Interpres verus_. With whatever fidelity the
translation might be made, Geoffrey, however, was guilty of several
interpolations, for he confesses that he took some part of his account
of king Arthur’s achievements, from the mouth of his friend Walter, the
archdeacon. He also owns that the account of Merlin’s prophecies was not
in the Armorican original. The speeches and letters were his own
forgeries, and in the description of battles, he has not scrupled to
make frequent variations and additions.
Geoffrey dedicated his translation to Robert, Earl of Gloucester,
natural son of king Henry the first; this, however, did not protect him
from the lash even of his contemporaries, for his fables, it appears,
were soon discovered, and William Neubrigensis, who lived about the same
time, in the beginning of the history which he wrote, thus speaks of
him; “In these days a certain writer is risen, who has devised many
foolish fictions of the Britons; he is named _Geoffrey_, and with what
little shame, and great confidence does he frame his falsehoods.”
William himself, however, did not escape censure for thus animadverting
upon Geoffrey.
It is difficult to ascertain at what period the original of Geoffrey’s
history was compiled. The subject of it, when divested of its romantic
embellishments, is a deduction of the Welsh princes, from the Trojan
Brutus to Cadwallader, who reigned in the seventh century; and this
notion of their extraction from the Trojans, had so infatuated the
Welsh, that even so late as the year 1284, archbishop Peckham, in his
injunctions to the diocese of St. Asaph, orders the people to abstain
from giving credit to idle dreams and visions, a superstition which they
had contracted from their belief in the dream of their founder Brutus,
in the temple of Diana, concerning his arrival in Britain. The
archbishop very seriously, advises them to boast no more of their
relation to the conquered and fugitive Trojans, but to glory in the
victorious cross of CHRIST.
The Welsh were not singular in being desirous of tracing their descent
from the Trojans, for several European nations were anciently fond of
being considered as the offspring of that people. A French historian of
the sixth century ascribes the origin of his countrymen to Francio, a
son of Priam, and so universal was this humour, and to such an absurd
excess of extravagance was it carried, that under the reign of
Justinian, even the Greeks themselves were ambitious of being thought to
be descended from their ancient enemies the Trojans. The most rational
mode of accounting for this predilection, is to suppose, that the
revival of Virgil’s Æneid, about the sixth or seventh century, which
represents the Trojans as the founders of Rome, the capital of the
supreme Pontiff, and a city on various other accounts in the early ages
of christianity, highly reverenced and distinguished, occasioned an
emulation in many other European nations of claiming an alliance to the
same celebrated original. In the mean time it is not quite improbable,
that as most of the European nations had become provinces of the Roman
empire, those who fancied themselves to be of Trojan extraction might
have imbibed this notion, or at least have acquired a general knowledge
of the Trojan story from their conquerors, more especially the Britons,
who continued so long under the Roman Government.
Geoffrey produces Homer in attestation of a fact asserted in his
history; but in such a manner as shews that he knew little more than
Homer’s name, and was but imperfectly acquainted with Homer’s subject.
Geoffrey says that Brutus having ravaged the province of Aquitaine with
fire and sword, came to a place where the city of Tours now stands, _as
Homer testifies_.
This fable of the descent of the Britons from the Trojans was solemnly
alleged as an authentic and undeniable proof in a controversy of great
national importance by king Edward the first, and his nobility, without
the least objection from the opposite party. It was in the famous
dispute concerning the subjection of the crown of Scotland to that of
England, about the year 1301. The allegations are contained in a letter
to Pope Boniface, signed and sealed by the king and his lords. This is a
curious instance of the implicit faith with which this tradition
continued to be believed, even in a more enlightened age; and an
evidence that it was equally credited in Scotland.
As to the story of Brutus in particular, Geoffrey’s hero, it may be
presumed, that his legend was not contrived, nor the history of his
successors invented, until after the ninth century; for Nennius,[44] who
lived about the middle of that century, not only speaks of Brutus with
great obscurity and inconsistency, but seems totally uninformed as to
every circumstance of the British affairs which preceded Cæsar’s
invasion. There are other proofs that this piece could not have existed
before the ninth century. Alfred’s Saxon translation of the Mercian law
is mentioned; and Charlemagne’s twelve peers, by an anachronism not
uncommon in romance, are said to be present at king Arthur’s magnificent
coronation, in the city of Caerleon. It were easy to produce instances,
that Geoffrey’s chronicle was, undoubtedly, framed after the legend of
St. Ursula, the acts of St. Lucius, and the historical writings of
Venerable Bede, had procured a considerable circulation in the
neighbouring countries. At the same time it contains many passages which
incline us to determine, that some parts of it, at least, were written
after or about the eleventh century.
Warton, (Hist. of Eng. Poetry, Dis. 1.) in order to prove these
positions, says, that he will not insist on that passage, in which the
title of legate of the apostolic see is attributed to Dubricius, in the
character of the primate of Britain, as it appears for obvious reasons,
to have been an artful interpolation of Geoffrey, who, it will be
remembered, was an ecclesiastic. Other arguments present themselves,
possessing more efficiency; Canute’s forest, or Cannock Wood, in
Staffordshire, occurs, and Canute died in the year 1036.
At the ideal coronation of king Arthur, just mentioned, a tournament is
described, as exhibited in its highest splendour. “Many knights,” says
this Armoric chronicler, “famous for feats of chivalry, were present,
with apparel and arms of the same colour and fashion. They formed a
species of diversion, in imitation of a fight on horseback, and the
ladies being placed on the walls of the castles, darted amorous glances
on the combatants. None of these ladies esteemed any knight worthy of
her love, but such as had given proof of his gallantry, in three several
encounters.” Here is the practice of chivalry, under the combined ideas
of love and military prowess, as they seem to have subsisted after the
feudal constitution had acquired greater degrees, not only of stability,
but of splendour and refinement. And, although a species of tournament
was exhibited in France, at the reconciliation of the sons of Lewis the
Feeble, at the close of the ninth century, and at the beginning of the
tenth, the coronation of the emperor Henry, was solemnized with martial
entertainments, in which many parties were introduced fighting on
horseback, yet it was long afterwards that these games were accompanied
with the peculiar formalities, and ceremonious usages here described. In
the mean time, we cannot answer for the innovations of a translator, in
such a description. The burial of Hengist, the Saxon chief, who is said
to have been interred not after the _Pagan_ fashion, as Geoffrey renders
the words of the original, but after the _manner of the Soldans_, is
partly an argument, that our romance was composed about the time of the
Crusades. It was not till those memorable campaigns of mistaken
devotion, had infatuated the western world, that the Soldans, or sultans
of Babylon, of Egypt, of Iconium, and other eastern kingdoms, became
familiar in Europe. Not that the notion of this piece, being written so
late as the crusades, in the least invalidates the doctrine here
delivered. Not even if we suppose that Geoffrey was its original
composer. That notion rather tends to confirm, and establish this
system.
On the whole it may be affirmed, that Geoffrey’s chronicle, which is
supposed to contain the ideas of the Welsh bards, entirely consists of
Arabian inventions. And in this view no difference is made, whether it
was compiled about the tenth century, at which time, if not before, the
Arabians, from their settlements in Spain, must have communicated their
romantic fables to other parts of Europe, especially to the French; or
whether it first appeared in the eleventh century, after the crusades
had multiplied these fables to an excessive degree, and made them
universally popular. And although the general cast of the inventions,
contained in this romance, is alone sufficient to point out the source
from whence they were derived, yet it is thought proper to prove to a
demonstration what is here advanced, by producing and examining some
particular passages.
The books of the Arabians and Persians abound with extravagant
traditions about the giants Gog and Magog. These they call Jagiouge and
Magiouge; and the Caucasian Wall, said to be built by Alexander the
Great from the Caspian to the Black Sea, in order to cover the frontiers
of his dominion, and to prevent the incursions of the Scythians, is
called by the orientals the WALL OF GOG AND MAGOG. One of the most
formidable giants, according to our Armorican Romance, who opposed the
landing of Brutus in Britain, was Goemagot. He was twelve cubits high,
and would uproot an oak as easily as a hazel wand; but after a most
obstinate encounter with Corinæus, he was tumbled into the sea from the
summit of a steep cliff on the rocky shores of Cornwall, and dashed in
pieces against the huge crags of the declivity. The place where he fell,
adds our historian, taking its name from the giants fall, is called SAM
GOEMAGOT, or GOEMAGOT’S LEAP to this day. A no less monstrous giant,
whom king Arthur slew on St. Michael’s mount in Cornwall, is said by
this fabler to have come from Spain. Here the origin of these stories is
evidently betrayed. The Arabians, or Saracens, as has been before
hinted, had conquered Spain, and were settled there. Arthur having
killed this redoubted giant, declares, that he had combated with none of
equal strength and prowess, since he overcame the mighty giant, Rytho,
on the mountain Arabius, who had made himself a robe of the beards of
the kings whom he had killed. A magician brought from Spain is called to
the assistance of Edwin a prince of Northumberland, educated under
Solomon king of the Armoricans. In the prophecy of Merlin, delivered to
Vortigern, after the battle of the Dragons, forged perhaps by the
translator Geoffrey, yet apparently in the spirit and manner of the
rest, we have the Arabians named, and their situations in Spain and
Africa. “From Conan shall come forth a wild boar, whose tusks shall
destroy the oaks of the forests of France. The ARABIANS and AFRICANS
shall dread him; and he shall continue his rapid course into the most
distant parts of Spain.” This is king Arthur. In the same prophecy,
mention is made of the “Woods of Africa.” In another place Gormund, king
of the Africans occurs. In a battle which Arthur fights against the
Romans, some of the principal leaders in the Roman army are Alifantinam,
king of Spain; Pandrasus, king of Egypt; Broccus, king of the Medes;
Evander, king of Syria; Micipsa, king of Babylon; and a Duke of Phrygia.
The old fictions about Stonehenge were derived from the same
inexhaustible source of extravagant imagination. We are told in this
Romance, that the giants conveyed the stones which compose this
miraculous monument from the farthest coasts of Africa. Every one of
these stones is supposed to be mystical, and to maintain a medicinal
virtue; an idea drawn from the medical skill of the Arabians, and more
particularly from the Arabian doctrine of attributing healing qualities,
and other occult properties to stones. Merlin’s transformation of Uther
into Gorlois, and of Ulfin into Bricel, by the power of some medical
preparation is a species of Arabian magic, which professed to work the
most wonderful deceptions of this kind. The attributing of prophetical
language to birds was common among the Orientals, and an eagle is
supposed to speak at building the walls of the city of Paladur, now
Shaftesbury.
The Arabians cultivated the study of Philosophy, particularly Astronomy,
with amazing ardour. Hence arose the tradition, reported by our
historian, that in king Arthur’s reign, there subsisted at Carleon in
Glamorganshire, a college of two hundred philosophers, who studied
astronomy and other sciences; and who were particularly employed in
watching the courses of the stars, and predicting events to the king
from their observations. Edwin’s Spanish magician above mentioned, by
his knowledge of the flight of birds, and the courses of the stars, is
said to fortel future disasters. In the same strain, Merlin
prognosticates Uther’s success in battle by the appearance of a comet.
The same Enchanter’s _wonderful skill in mechanical powers_, by which he
removes the Giant’s Dance, or Stonehenge, from Ireland into England, and
the notion that this stupendous structure was raised by a PROFOUND
PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MECHANICAL ARTS, are founded on the
Arabian literature. To which we may add king Bladud’s magical
operations. Dragons are a sure mark of orientalism. One of these in our
Romance is a “terrible dragon flying from the west, breathing fire, and
illuminating all the country with the brightness of his eyes.” In
another place we have a giant mounted on a winged dragon; the dragon
erects his scaly tail, and wafts his rider to the clouds with great
rapidity.
Arthur and Charlemagne are the first and original heroes of Romance. And
as Geoffrey’s history is the grand repository of the acts of Arthur, so
a fabulous history ascribed to Turpin is the ground work of all the
chimerical legends which have been related concerning the conquests of
Charlemagne and his twelve Peers. In these two fabulous chronicles the
foundations of romance seem to be laid. The principal characters, the
leading subjects, and the fundamental fictions which have supplied such
ample matter to this singular species of composition, are here first
displayed. And although the long continuance of the Crusades imported
innumerable inventions of a similar complexion, and substituted the
achievements of new champions, and the wonders of other countries, yet
the tales of Arthur and Charlemagne, diversified indeed, or enlarged
with additional embellishments, still continued to prevail, and to be
the favourite topics; and this, partly from their early popularity,
partly from the quantity and the beauty of the fictions with which they
were at first supported, and especially because the design of the
Crusades had made those subjects so fashionable in which Christians
fought with Infidels. In a word these volumes are the first specimens
extant in this mode of writing. No European history before these has
mentioned giants, enchanters, dragons, and the like monstrous and
arbitrary fictions. And the reason is obvious; they were written at a
time when a new and unnatural mode of thinking took place in Europe,
introduced by our communication with the East.
Geoffrey, in his chronicle, gives a genealogy of the kings of Britain,
from the days of Brutus, including a list of seventy monarchs, who
governed this island, previously to the invasion of Julius Cæsar. This
list is very distinct and plain, but bears so many marks of invention,
either of himself, or of the author, from whom he translated his
chronicle, that it has long since been treated as a mere fiction. With
respect to the story of Brutus, the bishop of St. Asaph is of opinion,
that this forgery was intended to pass off the English kings, as being
as nobly descended as the kings of other nations, by drawing their
descent from the Trojans, according to the belief of the age in which
the author lived. Sir William Temple, in his introduction to the History
of England, (p. 19.) accounts the story of Brutus, as a fabulous
invention.
Bishop Nicolson (Hist. Libr. p. 37.) says, that the best defence that
can be made for Geoffrey’s history, is that which was written by Sir
John Price, and published at London, in quarto, in 1573, under the title
of _Historiæ Britannicæ Defensio_. This was dedicated by the author, to
Lord Burleigh. (See Herbert’s Ames, vol. 2. p. 935, 1056.)
The chronicle of Geoffrey of Monmouth, has occasioned a long
controversy, and divided the learned world as much as any other work
given to the public. By some it has been treated as a forgery imposed
upon the world by Geoffrey himself, whilst by others the ground work is
considered as true, although the history, like most monkish writings, is
mixed with childish fables and legendary tales.