After that Iulius Cesar had thus made the Britains tributaries to the
Romans, and was returned into Gallia, Cassibellane reigned 7 yeares,
and was vanquished in the ninth or tenth yeare after he began first to
reigne so that he reigned in the whole about 15 or as some haue 17
yeares, and then died, leauing no issue behind him. There hath bin an
[Sidenote: _Fabian._]
old chronicle (as Fabian recordeth) which he saw and followeth much in
his booke, wherein is conteined, that this Cassibellane was not
brother to Lud, but eldest sonne to him: for otherwise as may be
thought (saith he) Cesar hauing the vpper hand, would haue displaced
him from the gouernement, and set vp Androgeus the right heire to the
crowne, as sonne to the said Lud. But whatsoeuer our chronicles or the
British histories report of this matter, it should appere by that
which Cesar writeth (as partlie ye haue heard) that Britaine in those
[Sidenote: _Cæsar._]
daies was not gouerned by one sole prince, but by diuers, and that
diuers cities were estates of themselues, so that the land was diuided
into sundrie gouernements, much after the forme and maner as Germanie
and Italie are in our time, where some cities are gouerned by one
onelie prince, some by the nobilitie, and some by the people. And
whereas diuers of the rulers in those daies here in this land were
called kings, those had more large seigniories than the other, as
[Sidenote: Cassibellane a King.]
Cassibellane, who was therefore called a king.
And though we doo admit this to be true, yet may it be, that in the
beginning, after Brute entered the land, there was ordeined by him a
monarchie, as before is mentioned, which might continue in his
posteritie manie yeares after, and yet at length before the comming of
Cesar, through ciuil dissention, might happilie be broken, and diuided
into parts, and so remained not onelie in the time of this
Cassibellane, but also long after, whilest they liued as tributaries
to the Romans, till finallie they were subdued by the Saxons. In which
meane time, through the discord, negligence, or rather vnaduised
rashnes of writers, hard it is to iudge what may be affirmed and
receiued in their writings for a truth; namelie, concerning the
succession of the kings that are said to haue reigned betwixt the
[Sidenote: _Cor. Tacit. in uita. lib. Agr._]
daies of Cassibellane, and the comming of the Saxons. The Roman
writers (and namelie Tacitus) report, that the Britains in times past
were vnder the rule of kings, and after being made tributaries, were
drawne so by princes into sundrie factions, that to defend and kéepe
off a common ieopardie, scarselie would two or thrée cities agrée
togither, and take weapon in hand with one accord, so that while they
fought by parts, the whole was ouercome. And after this sort they say
that Britaine was brought into the forme of a prouince by the Romans,
from whom gouernors vnder the name of legats and procurators were sent
that had the rule of it.
But yet the same authors make mention of certeine kings (as hereafter
shall appeare) who while the Romane emperors had the most part of the
[Sidenote: _Gildas in epist._]
earth in subiection, reigned in Britaine. The same witnesseth Gildas,
saieng: Britaine hath kings, but they are tyrants: iudges it hath, but
the same are wicked, oftentimes spoiling and tormenting the innocent
people. And Cesar (as ye haue heard) speaketh of foure kings that
ruled in Kent, and thereabouts. Cornelius Tacitus maketh mention of
[Sidenote: Some take Prasutagus and Aruiragus to be one man.]
Prasutagus, and Cogidunus, that were kings in Britaine: and Iuuenal
speaketh of Aruiragus: and all the late writers, of Lucius. Hereby it
appeareth, that whether one or mo, yet kings there were in Britain,
bearing rule vnder the Romane emperors.
[Sidenote: _Gal. Mon._]
On the other part, the common opinion of our chronicle-writers is,
that the chiefe gouernment remained euer with the Britains, & that the
Romane senat receiuing a yearelie tribute, sent at certeine times (_Ex
officio_) their emperors and lieutenants into this Ile, to represse
the rebellious tumults therein begun, or to beat backe the inuasion of
the enimies that went about to inuade it. And thus would these writers
inferre, that the Britains euer obeied their king, till at length they
were put beside the gouernement by the Saxons. But whereas in the
common historie of England, the succession of kings ought to be kept,
so oft as it chanceth in the same that there is not anie to fill the
place, then one while the Romane emperors are placed in their steads,
and another while their lieutenants, and are said to be created kings
of the Britains, as though the emperors were inferiors vnto the kings
of Britaine, and that the Romane lieutenants at their appointments,
and not by prescript of the senat or emperours, administred the
prouince.
This may suffice here to aduertise you of the contrarietie in writers.
Now we will go foorth in following our historie, as we haue doone
heretofore, sauing that where the Romane histories write of things
done here by emperors, or their lieutenants, it shall be shewed as
reason requireth, sith there is a great appearance of truth oftentimes
in the same, as those that be authorised and allowed in the opinion of
the learned.
* * * * *
_Of Theomantius, the tearme of yeares that he reigned, and where he
was interred; of Kymbeline, within the time of whose gouernment Christ
Iesus our sauiour was borne, all nations content to obeie the Romane
emperors and consequentlie Britaine, the customes that the Britaines
paie the Romans as Strabo reporteth._