Welsh critics allow that Geoffrey’s work was a vitiated translation of
the history of the British kings, written by Tyssilio, or St. Telian,
bishop of St. Asaph, who flourished in the seventh century. Geoffrey in
his work omitted many parts, made considerable alterations, additions,
and interpolations, latinised many of the British appellations, and in
the opinion of a learned Welshman,[45] (Lewis Morris) metaphorically
murdered Tyssillio. We may therefore conclude that Geoffrey ought not to
be cited as historical authority any more than Amadis de Gaul, or the
Seven Champions of Christendom.
Geoffrey’s historical Romance, however, has not only been versified by
monkish writers, but has supplied some of our best poets with materials
for their sublime compositions. Spenser in the second book of his
“Fairie Queene” has given
“A Chronicle of Briton kings
”From Brute to Arthur’s rayne;“
in which he has adorned the genealogy with poetical images, and
introduces it with a sublime address to queen Elizabeth, who was proud
of tracing her descent from the British line.
In this historical romance is also to be found, the affecting history of
Leir, king of Britain, the eleventh in succession after Brutus, who
divided his kingdom between Goneriller and Regan, his two elder
daughters, and disinherited his younger daughter, Cordeilla. Being
ungratefully treated by his elder daughters, he was restored to the
crown by Cordeilla, who espoused Aganippus, king of the Franks. From
this account Shakespeare selected his incomparable tragedy of king Lear;
but improved the pathos by making the death of Cordeilla, which name he
softened after the example of Spenser into Cordelia, precede that of
Lear, whilst in the original story, the aged father is restored to his
kingdom, and survived by Cordeilla.
Milton seems to have been particularly fond of Geoffrey’s tales,[46] to
which he was indebted for the beautiful fiction of Sabrina in the mask
of Comus. In his youth he even formed the design of making the early
period of the British history, from Brutus to Arthur, the subject of an
Epic Poem. The poetical language of Milton was peculiarly suited to this
species of romance; he would have exalted the legends of Geoffrey, and
enriched with the finest imagery the incantations and prophecies of
Merlin, the heroic deeds of Vortimer, Aurelius, and Uther Pendragon.
The fables of Geoffrey have been clothed in rhyme by Robert of
Gloucester, a monk of the abbey of Gloucester. He has left a poem of
considerable length, which is a history of England in verse, from Brutus
to the reign of Edward the first. His rhyming chronicle is, however,
destitute either of art or imagination, and Geoffrey’s prose, frequently
has a more poetical air than this author’s verses. It was evidently
written after the year 1278, as the poet mentions king Arthur’s
sumptuous tomb, erected in that year, before the high altar of
Glastonbury abbey, and he declares himself a living witness of the
remarkably dismal weather which distinguished the day on which the
battle of Evesham was fought in the year 1265. From these and other
circumstances this piece appears to have been composed about the year
1280. It is full of Saxonisms, which indeed abound more or less, in
every writer before Gower and Chaucer.
Geoffrey was also copied by an old French poet, called Maister Wace, or
Gasse, from which Robert de Brunne in his metrical chronicle of England
translated that part which extends from Æneas to the death of
Cadwallader. Wace’s poem is commonly called Roman de Rois d’Angleterre,
and is esteemed one of the oldest of the French Romances.
With respect to the materials this chronicle has afforded to other
writers, I will here give an instance or two.
Tyrrel, in his history of England, acknowledges that his first book is
an epitome of Geoffrey’s pretended history; but at the same time says
that if it had not been more for the diversion of the younger sort of
readers, and that the work would have been thought to be imperfect
without it, he should have been much better satisfied in wholly omitting
it.
In the preface to Stow’s chronicle, (folio, 1631) the editor observes
that Neubrigensis had written several invectives against Geoffrey, but
more out of spleen than judgment. He charges that writer with
maliciously endeavouring to destroy the credit of Geoffrey, because he
himself having been a supplicant for the bishoprick of St. Asaph, had
been rejected by the Prince of Wales, and had thus become the opponent
of the Welsh history. His observations, Stow says, have been confuted by
Sir John Price, Dr. Powel, and also by Lambard, in his perambulations of
Kent. Stow then mentions John of Whethamsted, Polydore Virgil, and
others, who have written against Geoffrey, and afterwards enumerates a
long list of writers, as having uniformly supported him, or in other
words, who have copied his history into their own chronicles.—Hume
occasionally refers to Geoffrey, as an authority for some matters
respecting the Saxon period of his history.
The History of Geoffrey was printed at Paris, in quarto, in 1508, and
again in the same size, by Ascensius, in 1517. It was also printed with
five other British historians, in folio, at Leyden, in 1587. Ponticus
Virunnius, an Italian author, made an abridgment of it, in six books,
which was printed at London, by Powel, in 1585, and also in the edition
just mentioned.
A translation of Geoffrey’s chronicle was made by Aaron Thompson, and
published at London in 1718, to which was prefixed a long preface,
relating to the authority of the history. Thompson’s vindication of his
author is elaborately written, and he defends him with great skill and
learning; but after refuting the charge of forgery, he has failed in his
attempt to establish Geoffrey’s work as an historical performance, for
he himself invalidates its authority, by acknowledging that it was only
such an irregular account, as the Britons were able to preserve in those
times of destruction and confusion, with the addition of some romantic
tales, which indeed might be traditions among the Welsh, and such as
Geoffrey might think entertaining stories for the credulity of the
times.
Thompson, in his preface, says that in making his translation, he used
two editions of Geoffrey. The first was the Paris edition of Ascensius,
1517, which abounds with abbreviations of words, sometimes rendering
their reading ambiguous. The other was the edition of Commeline, printed
in the year 1587, which is much the most correct. These two were printed
from different manuscripts, and there is a considerable variation
between them, especially in the orthography of persons and places. This
observation extends to the several ancient abridgments of Geoffrey, by
Alfred of Beverley, Ralph Diceto, Matthew of Westminster, Ralph Higden,
and Ponticus Virunnius.
Footnote 44:
Nennius lived in the ninth century, and is said to have left behind
him several treatises, of which all that has been published is the
history, which was printed for the first time in Dr. Gale’s Collection
of British Historians, published at Oxford in 1687 and 1691, in 2
vols. folio. Leland mentions an ancient copy of Nennius’s history,
which he says he borrowed from Thomas Solme, Secretary for the French
language to king Henry the eighth, in the margin of which were the
additions of _Sam. Beaulanius_, or _Britannus_. He has transcribed
several of these marginal annotations, which as it appears, were
afterwards inserted in the body of the history, and were printed in
that manner by Dr. Gale. The Doctor in his notes, mentions Beaulanius
as the Scholiast on the copy which he used, but Leland has a great
many other things, as extracts out of Beaulanius, which Dr. Gale does
not mention to be only in the Scholion. There is also in the Bodleian
Library a manuscript of Nennius apparently nearly 600 years old, in
which the prefaces and all the interpolations, which Leland says are
by Beaulanius, are wanting.
Professor Bertram, of Copenhagen, published in the year 1757,
“Britannicarum gentium Historiæ Antiquæ Scriptores tres; Ricardus
Corinensis, Gildas Badonicus, Nennius Banchorensis: recensuit,
notisque et indice auxit Carolus Bertramus, S. A. Lond. Soc. &c.
Havniæ, 1757.” 8vo. The Professor followed Dr. Gale’s edition of
Gildas and Nennius, but in the latter he has distinguished the
interpolations of Beaulanius from the genuine text. Mr. Gough, (Brit.
Topogr. vol. 1. p. 15.) mentions Mr. Evan Evans having been long
preparing a new edition of Nennius, from the Bodleian and other
manuscripts.
Footnote 45:
Cambrian Register, 1795, p. 947.
Footnote 46:
In 1670, Milton published his History of England, comprising the whole
fable of Geoffrey, and continued to the Norman Invasion. Why he should
have given the first part, which he seems not to have believed, and
which is universally rejected, it is difficult to conjecture. The
style is harsh, but it has something of rough vigour, which perhaps
may often strike, though it cannot please. On this history, the
licenser fixed his claws, and before he would transmit it to the
press, tore out several parts. Some censures of the Saxon Monks were
taken away, lest they should be applied to the modern Clergy; and a
character of the Long Parliament and Assembly of Divines, was
excluded; of which the Author gave a copy to the Earl of Anglesea, and
which being afterwards published, has been since inserted in its
proper place.—_Johnson’s Lives of the Poets, Art. Milton._
LIFTING UP THE HAND IN SWEARING.
We find this significant ceremony of lifting up the hand in swearing,
practised by the Greeks and Trojans. Thus Agamemnon swears in Homer,
(Iliad, 7, 412)
“To all the gods his sceptre he uplifts.”
And Dolon requiring an oath of Hector, (Iliad, 10, 321)
“But first exalt thy sceptre to the skies,
”And swear——“
So in Virgil, (Æn. 12, 196) we find Latinus, when swearing, looking up
to heaven, and stretching his right hand to the stars.
And we even meet with traditionary traces of their gods swearing in like
manner. Thus Apollo, in Pindar, orders Lachesis, one of the Fates, to
lift up her hands and not violate the great oath of the gods.
Giving one’s hand _under_, or to another was a token of submission. It
was acknowledging his own power subject to that of the other. In this
manner all the princes submitted to Solomon, (1 Chron. 29, 24) and
Hezekiah commands the children of Israel, (2 Chron. 30, 8) to give the
hand to JEHOVAH, that is to submit themselves and ascribe the power and
the glory to him.
Homage is still performed in many places by the homager’s kneeling down
and putting his hands between those of his lord, then taking an oath of
fealty to him; after which they kiss each other’s cheek, in token of
friendship and fidelity.
Giving the hand, was also a token of promising; it was a kind of staking
their active powers for the performance of some promise or engagement.
(See Ezra, 10, 19.)
The joining or taking of hands, among the ancients, betokened
confederacy, or confirmation of some promise. This is illustrated by
Homer’s expression, (Iliad, 21, 286) where Neptune and Minerva appear to
Achilles, in a human shape, and confirm their promise, by taking his
hand in their’s. So (Iliad, 6, 233) Glaucus and Diomed took hold of each
other’s hands, and plighted their faith. On which line, Eustathius
remarks, they plighted their faith to each other, by the accustomed
ceremony of joining their right hands.[47]
We observe the same mode of joining hands in our marriage ceremony; and
the custom of shaking hands, has also reference to some engagement for
the future, as well as being a token of friendship and amity.
Footnote 47:
Parkhurst’s Heb. Lex. 271.
VILLIERS, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
A treaty of marriage between Charles, prince of Wales, (afterwards
Charles I.) and the Infanta of Spain, having been a long time in
agitation, Buckingham, in 1623, persuaded Prince Charles to make a
journey into Spain, and to fetch home his mistress, the Infanta, by
representing to him, how brave and gallant an action it would be, and
how soon it would put an end to those formalities, which, though all
substantial matters were already agreed upon, might yet retard her
voyage to England many months. It is suggested by Lord Clarendon, that
Buckingham’s motive for this journey, was an unwillingness that the Earl
of Bristol, the ambassador in Spain, should have the sole honour of
concluding the treaty of marriage. However, the king was vehemently
against this journey, and indeed with good reason; but the solicitations
of the prince, and the impetuosity of Buckingham, prevailed.
It appears that Buckingham, during his stay in Spain, behaved with great
insolence to the Earl of Bristol, the English ambassador at that court.
In a letter, written by the Earl to king James, we have the following
particulars:—“Let your Majesty call some certain men unto you, and sift
out of them the opinion of the more moderate parliament-men; and enquire
of those that come out of Spain, who did give the first cause of falling
out? Whether the Duke of Buckingham did not many things against the
authority and reverence due to the Prince? Whether he was not wont to be
sitting, whilst the Prince stood, and was in presence; and also to have
his feet resting upon another seat, after an indecent manner? Whether,
when the Prince was uncovered whilst the Queen and Infanta looked out at
the window, he uncovered his head or not? Whether, sitting; at table
with the prince, he did not behave himself unreverently? Whether he were
not wont to come into the prince’s chamber, with his clothes half on, so
that the doors could not be opened to them that came to visit the prince
from the king of Spain, the door-keepers refusing to go in for modesty
sake? Whether he did not call the prince by ridiculous names? Whether he
did not dishonour and profane the king’s palace with base and
contemptible women? Whether he did not divers obscene things, and used
not immodest gesticulations, and wanton tricks with players in the
presence of the prince? Whether he did not violate his faith to the Duke
d’Olivarez, the Spanish prime minister? Whether he did not presently
communicate his discontents, offences, and complaints, to the
ambassadors of other princes? Whether in doing of his business, he did
not use frequent threatenings unto the catholic king’s ministers, and to
apostolical nuncios? Whether he did not affect to sit at plays presented
in the king’s palace, after the manner and example of the king and
prince, being not contented with the honour that is ordinarily given to
the high steward or major-domo of the king’s house?”
There is sufficient reason for believing, that most of these queries may
be answered in the affirmative.
KING ARTHUR.
In a century (A.D. 400 to A.D. 500) of perpetual, or at least implacable
war, much courage, and some skill, must have been exerted for the
defence of Britain, on the departure of the Roman legions, against the
Saxon invaders. Yet if the memory of its champions is almost buried in
oblivion, we need not repine; since every age, however destitute of
science or virtue, sufficiently abounds with acts of blood and military
renown. The tomb of Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, was erected on the
margin of the sea-shore, as a landmark formidable to the Saxons, whom he
had thrice vanquished in the fields of Kent. Ambrosius Aurelian was
descended from a noble family of Romans, his modesty was equal to his
valour, and his valour, till the last fatal action, was crowned with
splendid success. But every British name is effaced by the illustrious
name of ARTHUR, the hereditary prince of the Silures, who inhabited
South Wales, and the elective king or general of the nation. According
to the most rational accounts, he defeated, in twelve successive
battles, the Angles of the North, and the Saxons of the West; but the
declining age of the hero was embittered by popular ingratitude and
domestic misfortunes. The events of his life are less interesting, than
the singular revolutions of his fame. During a period of five hundred
years the tradition of his exploits was preserved, and rudely
embellished, by the obscure bards of Wales and Armorica, who were odious
to the Saxons, and unknown to the rest of mankind. The pride and
curiosity of the Norman conquerors, prompted them to enquire into the
ancient history of Britain; they listened with fond credulity to the
tale of Arthur, and eagerly applauded the merit of a prince, who had
triumphed over the Saxons, their common enemies. His romance,
transcribed in the latin of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and afterwards
translated into the fashionable idiom of the times, was enriched with
the various, though incoherent ornaments, which were familiar to the
experience, the learning, or the fancy of the twelfth century. The
progress of a Phrygian colony from the Tyber to the Thames, was easily
engrafted on the fable of the Æneid; and the royal ancestors of Arthur
derived their origin from Troy, and claimed their alliance with the
Cæsars, His trophies were decorated with captive provinces and imperial
titles; and his Danish victories avenged the recent injuries of his
country. The gallantry and superstition of the British hero, his feasts
and tournaments, and the memorable institution of his knights of the
_round table_, were faithfully copied from the reigning manners of
chivalry, and the fabulous exploits of Uther’s son, appear less
incredible than the adventures which were achieved by the enterprising
valour of the Normans. Pilgrimage and the holy wars, introduced into
Europe the specious miracles of Arabian magic. Fairies and giants,
flying dragons, and enchanted palaces, were blended with the more simple
fictions of the west; and the fate of Britain depended on the art, or
the predictions of Merlin. Every nation embraced and adorned the popular
romance of Arthur and the knights of the round table: their names were
celebrated in Greece and Italy; and the voluminous tales of Sir Lancelot
and Sir Tristram were devoutly studied by the princes and nobles, who
disregarded the genuine heroes and historians of antiquity. At length
the light of science and reason was rekindled; the talisman was broken;
the visionary fabric melted into air, and by a natural, though unjust
reverse of the public opinion, the severity of the present age is
inclined to question even the _existence_ of Arthur.
ALCHEMY.
About the year 296, the Emperor Diocletian published a very remarkable
edict which instead of being condemned as the effect of jealous tyranny,
deserves to be applauded as an act of prudence and humanity. He caused a
diligent enquiry to be made for all the ancient books which treated of
the art of making gold and silver, and without pity committed them to
the flames; apprehensive, it is remarked, lest the opulence of the
Egyptians should inspire them with confidence to rebel against the
empire. But if Diocletian had been convinced of the reality of that
valuable art, far from extinguishing the memoirs, he would have
converted the operation of it to the benefit of the public revenue. It
is much more likely, that his good sense discovered to him the folly of
such magnificent pretensions, and that he was desirous of preserving the
reason and fortunes of his subjects from the mischievous pursuit. It may
be remarked that these ancient books, so liberally ascribed to
Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more
recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or to the
abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited
the discoveries, the arts, and the errors of mankind, there is not the
least mention of the transmutation of metals, and the persecution of
Diocletian is the first authentic event in the history of Alchemy. The
conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the
globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in
China as in Europe, with equal eagerness, and with equal success. The
darkness of the middle ages ensured a favourable reception to every tale
of wonder, and the revival of learning gave new vigour to hope, and
suggested more specious arts of deception. Philosophy, with the aid of
experience, has at length banished the study of alchemy; and the present
age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler
means of commerce and industry.
ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL NOBLE FAMILIES IN ENGLAND WHO OWE THEIR ELEVATION TO
THE PEERAGE TO THEIR ANCESTORS HAVING BEEN ENGAGED IN TRADE.
It is a striking and peculiar feature in the constitution of England,
that men who render themselves eminent in the liberal sciences, in the
arts, or in commerce, frequently find their pursuits conduct them to a
high degree of rank and estimation in the state; and the sovereign has,
in numerous instances, conferred the honour of the Peerage on certain
individuals, who have contributed by their abilities to enlarge and
promote the manufactures and commerce of the nation. Among the families
whose ancestors have deserved well of their country, and who owe their
elevation to the Peerage to their forefathers having been engaged in
trade, the following are honourable instances.
The EARLS OF COVENTRY are descended from John Coventry, son of William
Coventry, of the city of that name. The former was an opulent mercer,
and resided in London, of which city he was Lord Mayor in 1425, and one
of the executors of the celebrated Whittington. He was a resolute and
determined magistrate, and was highly commended for his spirited
interference in the dreadful quarrel between Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester, and the insolent Cardinal Beaufort, which he successfully
quelled.
The family of RICH, Earls of Warwick and Holland, arose from Richard
Rich, an opulent mercer, sheriff of London in the year 1441. His
descendant, Richard, was distinguished by his knowledge of the law;
became Solicitor General in the reign of king Henry the eighth, and
treacherously effected the ruin of Sir Thomas More; was created a baron
of the realm in the reign of Edward the sixth, and became Lord
Chancellor by the favour of the same monarch.
The HOLLES’S, Earls of Clare, and afterwards Dukes of Newcastle, sprung
from Sir William Holles, Lord Mayor of London in 1540, son of William
Holles, citizen and baker. His great-grandson was the first who was
called to the House of Peers, in the reign of James the first, by the
title of Lord Haughton, and soon after was advanced to the dignity of
Earl of Clare. The fourth peer of that title was created by king
William, Duke of Newcastle; but the title became extinct in his name in
1711.
Sir THOMAS LEIGH, Lord Mayor of London, in 1558, furnished the Peerage
with the addition of two. He was the son of Roger Leigh, of Wellington,
in Shropshire. Sir Thomas’s grandson, Francis, was created by Charles
the first, Lord Dunsmore, and afterwards Earl of Chichester; and Sir
Thomas’s second son, Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh, had the honour of
being called to the House of Peers by the title of Lord Leigh, of
Stoneleigh.
The PLEYDELL-BOUVERIES, Earls of Radnor, descend from Edward De
Bouverie, an opulent Turkey merchant, who died in 1694.
DUCIE, Lord Ducie, is descended from Sir Robert Ducie, who belonged to
the company of merchant tailors, and was sheriff of London in 1621, and
Lord Mayor in 1631. He was immensely rich, and was made banker to king
Charles the first, and on the breaking out of the rebellion, lost
£80,000, owing to him by his Majesty. Nevertheless he is said to have
left at the time of his death, property in land, money, &c. to his four
sons, to the amount of £400,000.
PAUL BAYNING, sheriff of London in 1593, had a son of the same name, who
was first created a baronet, and in the third of Charles the first, a
baron of the realm, by the title of Baron Bayning, and soon after a
viscount, by the title of Viscount Bayning of Sudbury. He was buried in
the paternal tomb, in the church of St. Olave’s. His house was in
Mark-lane. After the fire of London, the business of the custom house
was transacted in that which went under the name of Lord Bayning’s.