Page images
PDF
EPUB

ing distinctly upon each of the kingdoms of the Heptarchy until their union under Edgar, Huntingdon states that, taking Bede as his basis, he added much from other sources, and borrowed from the chronicles which he found in ancient libraries. His descriptions of battles are often more diffuse than in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles. It has been supposed that because these scenes and pictures are not warranted by the existing texts, they are mere historical amplifications; but we find no difficulty in believing that the researches of a writer, who was considered as a most learned antiquarian, should have enabled him to discover a chronicle lost to us, and which contained more fragments of poetry or poetical; prose than the chronicles which have been preserved. It has been remarked that when Henry of Huntingdon is not transcribing Bede, or translating the Saxon annals, he may be placed on the same shelf with Geoffrey of Monmouth;' and the passage describing the battle of Burford (752) has been considered as replete with absurdities,' such as the mention of Amazonian battle-axes;' but why should not the battle of Burford have been sung like the battle of Brunnan Burgh? The inappropriate application of a classical phrase may display the want of skill in the translator without throwing any discredit upon his fidelity.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Huntingdon indicates that he had consulted some chronicle of the kingdom of Essex.

H. H. p. 180. Regnum Estsexe, id est, orientalium Saxonum, incipit, quod primus (ut putatur) tenuit Erchenwin, secundum quod ex veterum scriptis conjicere possumus, qui fuit filius Offæ, filii Biedcan, filii Sigewlf, filii Spoewe, filii Gesae, filii Andesc, filii Saxnat. Post Erchenwin vero regnavit Ślede filius ejus qui, ducens filiam Ermerici regis Cantuariorum sororem scilicet Ethelberti, genuit ex ea Siberctum qui primus regum Estsexe conversus est ad fidem.'

This passage is the only memorial of the foundation of the kingdom of Essex, and affords the most important explanation of the Saxon chronicle. Ethelbert, it is related in the chronicle, appointed his nephew, the son of his sister Ricola, to be king of Essex ; but from this language it could never be inferred that Sebyrht was already entitled to the kingdom by hereditary right, and as the lawful son of the late King. Ethelbert, the Bratwalda,

Saxnote, who appears at the head of this genealogy, was one of the three great deities of the old or continental Saxons. In the capitulary apud Liptinas,' A.D. 743, the form by which the convert renounced idolatry is given. He renounces all the devil's works, and all the devil's words-Thunaer, Woden, and Saxnote.' Thor and Woden or Odin are sufficiently explained by the Scandinavian mythology, but who is Saxmote? The German antiquaries are puzzled, and with their usual spirit of conjectural criticism, propose various emendations and distortions in order to compel the unlucky devil's word to assume a meaning. It would be better to acknowledge that we know nothing about the matter.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

the emperor, or supreme sovereign of England, did not transfer the crown to a branch of his own family as a conqueror; he merely confirmed the possession of the rightful heir. Great light is hereby thrown upon the occurrences of the same nature where equivalent expressions are employed in the Saxon chronicle.

William of Malmesbury possessed a more critical spirit than any of his predecessors. He was an excellent scholar. All the stores of Roman literature were familiar to him; nor was he less diligent in the investigation of the antiquities of his own country. But the literature of Malmesbury, which embellishes his narration, has deprived it of much of the interest which it would have possessed had his taste been less elegant and cultivated. His fastidious ear is shocked by the barbarous appellations of English provinces and English kings. He suppresses such details> lest they should offend the reader, and attempts to mould his matter into classical uniformity, or, as he expresses his plan, to adorn the English history with Roman art. This refinement, perhaps, is the chief defect which can be remarked in: Malmesbury, whose just appreciation of the duties of an historian place him deservedly at the head of the writers of his age. Like Huntingdon he considered Bede as the foundation of his work. He glances at the Saxon chroniclers, condemns Ethelward, and praises Eadmer. A poem which narrated the life and actions of Athelstane in Latin hexameters is quoted by him. But besides these authorities, which he acknowledges, he occasionally abridges the chronicle of Florilegus, which he never names, in such a manner as to leave no doubt of the obligation.

We have hitherto considered the chroniclers and historians possessing a greater or lesser degree of literary relationship. But there are others, which cannot be classed with precision, and whose pretensions require individual examination. If the era in which Nennius is placed by his editors could be considered as the real date of the work, the British writer would be equal in age, if not in authority, with Gildas the Wise, but the writer himself gives the positive date of 858 as the year of the composition of the work, in a passage which, as we are informed, is found in every good manuscript; and it is difficult to discover any possible reason which could induce the supposition of higher antiquity.

William of Malmesbury is generally supposed to have died in 1143, though it is probable that he survived this period some time, for his modern history terminates at the end of the year 1142, and it appears that he lived long enough after its publication to make many corrections, alterations and insertions in that work as well as in the other portion of his history.'—(William of Malmesbury translated by the Rev. John Sharpe, London, 1815, Pref, p. viii.) Mr. Sharpe's translation is a valuable addition to the English historical library.-Why has he not fulfilled his promise of translating William of Newburgh?―His labours would surely be amply rewarded.

Nennius

[ocr errors]

Nennius appeals to the historical monuments of his countrymen, but they appear to have consisted chiefly of oral traditions, and he accounts for the absence of written monuments by supposing that the calamities of war and pestilence frustrated the endeavours of the teachers' as well as of the transcribers. Isidore, Jerome, Prosper, and Eusebius, and the Roman annals, together with the histories of the Scots and Saxons, are enumerated, amongst his authorities, a display which would lead us to expect a more ample production than is comprehended in the sixty-five chapters, or rather paragraphs, of which the apology' is com.posed.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In this limited compass, however, Nennius includes the remains of the earliest history and earliest fables, both of the Britons and of the Anglo-Saxons. From the traditions of his own people, Nennius .probably derived the tale of the settlement of England by Brutus and the Trojans, the birth and prophecies of Merlin, and the battles of the mythic Arthur. Instead of the brief notices of the arrival and victories of the Saxon chiefs, preserved in the chronicle, Nennius affords a romantic narrative of the prowess and wiles of Hengist, the charms of his daughter, and the weakness of Vortigern. Amongst other events he relates the slaughter of the Britons' chiefs, when the dread signal of bloodshed, Nimed eure Saxes,' was given by the Anglo-Saxon chieftain. This portion seems to indicate an Anglo-Saxon authority, Appended to the history are some curious Saxon genealogies, interspersed with very brief historical notices. Nennius adapts the British orthography to the Anglo-Saxon names, and his style is extremely barbarous. But the uncouth phraseology of the work adds to its value by proving its antiquity; and without determining the extent of the admixture of fiction, we may confidently receive the rude, and romantic compilation as exhibiting the history of Britain in the manner in which it was believed by the British countrymen and contemporaries of the author.*

Geoffrey of Monmouth repeats the narrative of Nennius, but with portentous additions. The faint and evanescent outline brightens into a complete picture. Brutus and his honoured successors Lud, Bladud, and Belinus, Leir, and Cassibelan are presented in awful majesty, and Arthur appears as the rival of Alexander, the conqueror of a wider empire than ever was ruled by the Roman eagle.

Geoffrey inscribes his work to Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and relates the mode of its compilation. He had oftentimes re

Nennius will be read to the greatest advantage in the edition published by the Rev. W. Gunn, (Lond. 1819,) from a Vatican MS. with copious illustrations from British sources.

flected

[ocr errors]

flected on the silence observed both by Bede and, Gildas réspecting the early and brighter periods of British history. The deeds of the Kings who ruled in Britain before the Saxon invasion, were unrecounted by them, nor had they commemorated the exploits of Arthur and his successors, though worthy of immortal praise. Whilst such thoughts yet occupied his mind, he was fortunately enabled to supply the deficiencies. Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, deeply learned in foreign history, offered to him a very ancient chronicle, written in the British language, and including the deeds and annals of the British kings, from Brutus the grandson of Eneas, to Cadwallader, the son of Cadwallon. Such is Geoffrey's account of his own work, which was assailed on its first publication with the most bitter criticism.-William of Newburgh points out all the wild impossibilities of Arthur's history, and not contented with exposing the figments of the Britons,' he maintains that Geoffrey falsified the falsities of the original, and that the work called the history of the Britons is a tissue of impudent and impertinent lies.'-In spite, however, of this severe attack, Geoffrey's history succeeded completely. Translated first into the Norman dialect by Master Wace, and again into English by Layamon, the Brut' became equally familiar in the castle and the cloister, in the bower and in the hall, the foundation alike of the minstrel's tale and of the national history. When Edward I. asserted his claim as superior lord' of Scotland, the supremacy of the English crown was traced to the first division of the island between the three sons of Brutus, Locrine, Albanact, and Camber. From Locrine the kingdom of Loegria or England was derived, and the provident father having settled the pre-eminence upon the eldest of his progeny, it followed as a necessary conséquence that the vassal states of Scotland and Wales, allotted to the two juniors, Albanact and Camber, were to be subject to the supremacy of his representatives. A confirmation of that seigniory was deduced from the prowess of Arthur, who, after chastising the Scottish rebels, bestowed the Kingdom upon Anguseles. And when Arthur held his court at Caerlon and the vassal king attended to grace the festivity, Anguselés performed the grand serjeantcy due for Scotland, by bearing the sword before his sovereign liege Lord. The Scottish ambassadors, without in the slightest degree impugning the credibility of these statements, of which on the contrary they fully admitted the truth, deduced their title from the second settlement of Scotland effected by Gathelos and Erk, the husband and the son of Scota, the daughter of Pharaoh, King of Egypt. And though Arthur did subdue Scotland for a time, was he not slain by Loth, son of the lord of Lothian, in a battle which restored the country

to

to its pristine liberty?*Little stress can be laid upon the Scottish traditions, though it is probable that the name of Arthur had been long familiar to the inhabitants of Lothian; but the history of Caledonian Britain has been investigated by Sir Walter Scott with such acumen and ability as to render it unnecessary to bestow any further discussion upon that question.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was, as he asserts, merely the translator of a British chronicle. According to the uncivil accusations preferred against him both in ancient and modern times, he enlarged and improved the meagre fables of the British bards; and his assertion is little better than a fiction. A satisfactory investigation of the subject can only be effected by those who are conversant with the ancient British language. We shall therefore content ourselves with observing, that the statement made by Geoffrey does not involve such improbabilities as to raise a vehement suspicion of its fidelity. The non-existence at the present day of the alleged British original does not convince us of the falsity of the story. We will not contend that the volume in the possession of the archdeacon of Oxford was very ancient or very authentic. No term is applied with greater latitude than that of ancient. Supposing that in the age of Geoffrey the manuscript was but two centuries old, this degree of antiquity would probably be sufficient to induce him to select the epithet which he has employed. The classical genealogy of Brutus may perhaps cause us to suspect that the history has been thus adorned by monkish erudition.Nennius, it may be answered, attests that the belief of the Trojan origin of the Britons was at least as old as the ninth century, and it is difficult to prove that such a belief may not have prevailed amongst the Britons. We are apt to consider this and similar traditions as bearing the impress of the spurious erudition of the dark ages, but perhaps without sufficient reason. If the ancient Teutons traced the wanderings of Ulysses to the borders of the Baltic; if they boasted of the city which he had founded; if they pointed out the altars which he had raised it was surely possible that the fame of the Trojan heroes might in like manner have reached the island of Britain, whose shores were so much more accessible to the natives of the south than the inhospitable wilds of the Hercynian forest. The wish to flatter the prejudices of the Romans might even have induced the Britons to favour a legend which proved their relationship to their masters.

[ocr errors]

William of Newburgh's criticism was rendered more venomous by national feeling. The Cambro-Britons maintain that the Saxon' was also incited by personal pique. 'It appears,' saith

* Fordun, lib. xi. cap.40, 41.

Dr.

« PreviousContinue »