Chapter M: Coquebert De Montbret (4)

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.

The controversy has now been some time finally decided, and the best 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.

The CRANFIELDS, Earls of Middlesex, rose from Lionel Cranfield, a citizen of London, bred up in the custom house. He became, in 1620, Lord Treasurer of England. The Duke of Dorset is descended from Frances, sister and heir of the third Earl of Middlesex, married to Richard, Earl of Dorset.

The noble family of INGRAM, Viscount Irwin, was raised in the reign of queen Elizabeth, by Hugh Irwin, citizen, merchant, and tallow-chandler, who died in 1612. He left a large fortune between two sons; of whom Sir Arthur, the younger, settled in Yorkshire, and purchased a considerable estate, the foundation of the good fortune afterwards enjoyed by the family. The present Marchioness of Hertford is the representative of the Ingrams, being the daughter and co-heir of the last Viscount Irwin.

Sir STEPHEN BROWN, son of John Brown, of Newcastle, Lord Mayor of London, in 1438, and again in 1448, was a grocer, and added another peer, in the person of Sir Anthony Brown, created Viscount Montagu, by Philip and Mary, in 1554.

The LEGGES rose to be Earls of Dartmouth.—The first who was raised to the peerage was that loyal and gallant naval officer, George Legge, created Baron of Dartmouth in 1682. He was descended from an ancestor who filled the Pretorian Chair of London in the years 1347 and 1354, having by his industry in the trade of a skinner, attained great wealth.

Sir GEOFFREY BULLEN, Lord Mayor in 1458, was grandfather of Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire, father of Anna Bullen, and grandfather of queen Elizabeth, the highest genealogical honour the city of London ever possessed.

Sir BAPTIST HICKS was a great mercer at the accession of James the first, and made a large fortune, by supplying the court with silks. He was first knighted, and afterwards created Viscount Campden. It is said he left his two daughters one hundred thousand pounds each. He built a large house in St. John’s street, for the justices of Middlesex to hold their sessions in, which (till its demolition a few years ago, upon the erection of a new sessions house on Clerkenwell Green,) retained the name of Hicks’ Hall.

The CAPELS, Earls of Essex, are descended from Sir William Capel, draper, Lord Mayor in 1503. He first set up a cage in every ward of London, for the punishment of idle people. It is probable that he had his mansion on the site of the present Stock Exchange, in Capel Court, so called after him.

MICHAEL DORMER, mercer, Mayor in 1542, was the ancestor of the Lords Dormer.

EDWARD OSBORNE, was apprentice to Sir William Hewet, clothworker. About the year 1536, when his master lived in one of those tremendous houses on London bridge, a servant maid was playing with his only daughter in her arms, in a window over the water, and accidentally dropped the child. Young Osborne, who was witness to the misfortune, instantly sprung into the river, and beyond all expectations brought her safe to her terrified family. When she was marriageable, several persons of rank paid their addresses to her, and among others the Earl of Shrewsbury; but Sir William gratefully declined in favour of Osborne.—“OSBORNE _saved her_,” said he, “_and_ OSBORNE _shall enjoy her_.” In her right he possessed a most ample fortune. He became sheriff of London in 1575, and Lord Mayor in 1583, and from his loins sprung the Dukes of Leeds.

From Sir WILLIAM CRAVEN, merchant tailor, Mayor in 1611, sprung the gallant Earl Craven, who was his eldest son, and was greatly distinguished by his actions in the service of the unfortunate Elector Palatine, by his attachment to the Dowager, and his marriage with that illustrious Princess.

Lord Viscount DUDLEY AND WARD is descended from William Ward, a wealthy goldsmith in London, and jeweller to Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles the first. His son Humble Ward, married Frances, grand-daughter of Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley; who, on the death of her grand-father, became Baroness Dudley; and he himself was created in 1643, Lord Ward of Birmingham.

LAST MOMENTS OF QUEEN CAROLINE.

A little before the Queen died she asked the physician who was in attendance, “How long can this last?” And on his answering “Your majesty will soon be eased of your pains;” she replied “The sooner the better!” The queen then repeated a prayer of her own composing, in which there was such a flow of natural eloquence, as demonstrated the vigour of a great and good mind. When her speech began to falter, and she seemed expiring, she desired to be raised up in her bed, and fearing that nature would not hold out long enough without artificial support she called to have water sprinkled upon her, and a little after desired it might be repeated. She then with the greatest composure and presence of mind, requested her weeping relations to kneel down and pray for her. Whilst they were reading some prayers, she exclaimed “Pray aloud, that I may hear,” and after the Lord’s prayer was concluded, in which she joined as well as she was able, said “So,” and waving her hand, lay down and expired.

THE BRITONS, ACCORDING TO THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS.

Strabo observes in his Geography, that “the woods are their towns; for having fenced round a wide circular space with trees hewn down, they there place their huts, and fix stalls for their cattle; but not of long duration. They have dwellings of a round form, constructed of poles and wattled work, with very high pointed coverings of beams united at a point.”

Diodorus Siculus asserts, that “they inhabit very wretched dwellings, composed for the most part of reeds (or straw) and wood.”

Cæsar thus describes, not Londinium, but the capital of Cassivellaunus: “The Britons call a place, a town, when they have fortified thick impassable woods, by means of a _vallum_ and fosse, or a high bank and a ditch; in which sort of a place they are accustomed to assemble together, to avoid the invasion of enemies.”

Tacitus describing the strong holds, to which Caractacus resorted, observes: “They then fortified themselves on steep mountains; and, where-ever there was any possibility of access in any part, he constructed a great bank of stones, like a _vallum_.”

The curious reader is referred to the first volume of King’s Munimenta Antiqua, for prints and plans, both of the Welsh houses and fortresses, _of which some are yet entire_ and others in ruins, in every part of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. No book, either in our tongue, or in any of the European languages, is so complete and satisfactory on this interesting and domestic subject: the prints are excellent.

Diodorus Siculus also notices that the Britons laid up their corn in subterranean repositories, whence they used to take a portion every day; and having bruised and dried the grain, made a kind of food from it of immediate use. Martin in his description of the Western Isles, (p. 204.) describes this sort of diet, and the quick mode of preparing it, as yet continued. King, in the 48th and following pages of his first volume, _has detected, and delineated these rude monuments of our ancestors_.

It is highly curious to trace the appearance of the persons of our forefathers and their manners. Cæsar remarks that they painted themselves with vitrum, or woad; and Herodian, that some of them on the sea-coast punctured or _tattooed_[48] their bodies with figures resembling various kinds of animals; in consequence of which they also went without garments, that they might not cover, nor conceal, these marks. The other natives were, in _general_, clad with skins. They had long lank hair, but were shorn in every part of the body, except the head and upper lip.

A wretched substitute for salt was obtained merely by pouring sea-water on the embers of burning wood.

The Irish drank the blood of animals and even of their enemies.

King, in the latter half of the first volume, (_Munim. Ant._) gives prints of the altars, or _Cromlechs_, yet entire, in many situations in Ireland, the Highlands, and England, on which human victims were cruelly murdered.

The Druids were richly clad; some of them even wore golden chains, or collars, about their necks and arms; and had their garments dyed with various colours, and adorned with gold. Chains also both of iron and gold, were worn by some of the chieftains and nobler ranks. These facts will appear so incredible, that the reader must be informed, that in most of the tumuli, or old British graves, described by King, these ornaments are found in our days. It is a remarkable omission in Mr. King, that he did not quote the three verses from the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah so descriptive of the Babylonian regal tumuli, similar to the British: “All the kings of the nations lie down in glory, each in his own sepulchre: To meet thee, O Sennacherib, Hades rouseth his mighty dead: he maketh them rise up from their thrones. All of them shall accost thee, and shall say unto thee, Art thou become weak as we? Art thou made like unto us? Is then thy pride brought down to the grave? Is the vermin become thy couch, and the earth-worm thy covering?”

Strabo, at the end of his third book, says, that “the Cassiterides, or Islands of Tin, were inhabited by men dressed in black garments, in tunics descending to the feet, a girdle around their breast; walking erect with a staff in their hand; and permitting the beard to grow like that of a goat. They subsist on their cattle, in general spending an erratic pastoral life.”

Some of the common order of Britons wore, instead of the skins of beasts, very thick coarse wrappers made of wool; a sort of blanket or rug, fastened about the neck with a piece of sharp pointed stick. They used also a coarse, slit, short vest, with sleeves; it barely reached down to the knees.

As armour, the Britons had a long two-handed sword, hanging by a chain on the right hand side; a great long wooden shield as tall as a man; long spears; and a sort of missile wooden instrument, like a javelin, longer than an arrow, which they darted merely by the hand: modern writers call these two last mentioned, _Celts_, fixed on the end of staves and sticks. Some of them used slings for stones, others had breast plates, made of plates of iron, with hooks, or with wreathed chains: some had helmets of different forms. Many went to battle nearly naked, and some wound chains of iron around their necks and loins.

They generally lay and reposed themselves on the bare ground, yet most of them ate their food sitting on seats. A very beautiful print is given by Mr. King of their various dresses. The plaid seems to be derived from them. The coins of the old British, which are engraven in Speed, in Borlase’s Cornwall, in Gough’s edition of Camden’s Britannia, and in Plot’s History of Oxfordshire, will explain these descriptions of the classics. Even Julius Cæsar had noticed that the Britons used either brass money, or iron circular coins reduced to a standard weight. In the scale of civilization, therefore, the ancient Britons were as advanced in the era of Cæsar, as the Romans themselves at the expulsion of their kings; as the Grecians in the age of Homer; as the Mexicans at the Spanish conquest; and as the modern Tartars.[49]

Footnote 48:

The practice of tattooing is of great antiquity, and has been common
to numerous nations in Turkey, Asia, the Southern parts of Europe, and
perhaps to a great portion of the inhabitants of the earth. It is
still retained among some of the Moorish tribes, who are, probably,
descendants of those who, formerly, were subjected to the Christians
of Africa, and who to avoid paying taxes, like the Moors, thus
imprinted crosses upon their skins, that they might pass for
Christians. This custom, which originally might serve to distinguish
tribes by their religion, or from each other, became afterwards a mode
of decoration that was habitually retained, when all remembrance of
its origin was effaced.

It may be inferred that the Canaanites and the other nations of the
East, were in the habit of tattooing their skins, because Moses,
(Levit. xix, 28.) expressly enjoins the Israelites not to imprint any
marks upon their bodies, in imitation of the heathens.