306

POEMS ATTRIBUTED TO LLYWARCH HEN.

country made several centuries after his death. A dialogue between Saints David and Kybi, is also erroneously attributed to "the king of Bards."

Another set of triplets, ascribed by the collector of the Gorchestion to LLYWARCH HEN, belong probably to the same era; as also do two sets of moral verses attributed by the Editors of the Myvyrian Archaiology to the Mab Clav, or the Maer Glas, the son of that aged Bard.

This unique manner of inculcating precepts, is very agreeable; and had Dr. Johnson lived among the Kymry of those centuries, his desire for an aphoristic literature could have been easily gratified. Under these circumstances, conversational talents must have had a fine field for development; and perhaps we ought to attribute partly to these fire-side gatherings, the fluency of speech noticed as remarkable among the common people, and the wit which struck Giraldus so forcibly, of the Cambrian princes, Rhys ab Gruffydd and Owain Kyveiliog. The Kymry generally, though they have no knowledge of Rhetoric, are exceedingly metaphorical in their conversation, and use figures of speech with quite as much propriety, and much more naturally, than many very distinguished orators; their irony is perfect, and their sarcasm terrible; but they are more impulsive than persevering; and their mental qualities are more brilliant than profound. The didactic verses of the bards are smooth, graceful, and mellifluous; and in their hands, as in those of the Hebrews, moral science was perfectly reconciled to popular poetry.

I must now bring this section to a close; the results arrived at will probably startle many of my countrymen; but the reasons in each case have been fully stated; and a candid perusal will most probably show that my conclusions are uniformly correct. Our attention in the next place will be occupied by the Chroniclers and Historians of the centuries here considered.

1 Myv. Arch. vol. i. p. 545.

SECTION V.

PROSE LITERATURE,—THE CHRONICLES.

We must not suppose that poetry was the only form in which the national mind made itself manifest; for there were the prose romances, which shall be noticed hereafter, and the Triads. In addition to these there were Chronicles and Genealogical records, of which Giraldus makes mention. Of the former, Gildas, Nennius, Geoffrey, and Caradoc may be cited as examples; but as Gildas and Nennius had lived previous to the time included in this Essay, our notice will be devoted to Geoffrey and Caradoc. Asser may justly be claimed for the literature of Wales, though he wrote in Latin; and there are several other historical records, now slumbering in MSS.

Of a work so well known as GEOFFREY'S Chronicle, it is unnecessary to give examples; and our principal efforts will be devoted to solve the questio cerata, is it a translation, or an original work? The critics of Wales, England, and France, have come to the decided conviction that it is full of fables; but it is still a matter of doubt, who was the inventor of these fables. His own account is as follows:-That while studying the History of the Kings of Britain, and wondering why Gildas and Bede had not made mention of the kings who lived in Britain prior to the Christian era, nor of Arthur, and many others, he was agreeably surprised by a request from Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a man of great eloquence, and learned in foreign histories, to translate a book in the British tongue, which Walter had brought from Brittany, and which related the actions of all the kings. of Britain, from Brutus the first king, down to Cadwaladr

the son of Cadwallo. Now is the story about the book being brought from Brittany true, or not? On the negative side we have Dr. Giles, who thus states his objections ;—

"There are lamentable defects of a grave character, attending upon this British Volume :

I. It was first made known six hundred years after the events which it relates.

II. No MS. copy is now in existence, nor any record of its ever having been multiplied by transcription.

III. It relates stories utterly at variance with acknowledged history.

IV. It abounds in miraculous stories, which, like leaven, ferment and corrupt the whole mass.

V. It labours under great suspicion from the mendacious chaacter of the people, whose credit it was written to support." Bohn's Edition, 1848, p. 292.

On the affirmative side we have the names of Ellis, Turner, and the older names of Archbishop Usher, Leland, and several Kymric writers of note. Professor Rees, a most careful and acute critic, speaks positively upon the subject, and states that "a Welsh version of the original is preserved, which shows that (Geoffrey) merely made a free translation, inserting occasionally interpolations of his own.” A foreigner of note, the Abbé de la Rue, in a work containing the results of forty years of study, called an "Historical Essay on the Bards, Jongleurs, and Trouveres, Norman and Anglo-Norman," takes the same view of this matter. Living in Brittany, the Abbé had the means of forming an opinion upon the subject, and much importance should be attached to the conclusion at which he has arrived,-that the British history of Geoffrey is in reality a translation of a collection of the ancient traditions of Bretagne. To prove the truth of this opinion, the author shows that Geoffrey's most bitter contemporary opponents charge him with collecting fables, not with inventing them. William of Newburgh expressly allows this; and Malmsbury merely says, that Arthur was a monarch whose fame deserved rather to be set forth by the historian than by the fabulist. It must be borne in mind too as the Abbé says,

"That Geffry was a learned man, and his Latin poems prove him to have been well acquainted with the classical authors then in use. Now, if this writer having learning and talent, had actually fabricated the works attributed to him; is it believable that he would not have endeavoured to give them an air of probability which they do not possess? Would he, as Mr. Ellis has well remarked, represent Italy as menaced with her Breton knights, at a period when the splendid and authentic exploits of Belisarius had filled the whole empire with his glory? Would he above all, Welsh as he was, have made Hoel, an Armorican prince, act the chief part in the continental wars of Arthur, and represent him as but auxiliary to the first? Besides, how can it be said that Geffry invented these tales, when many of them may be read in the works of Nennius and the pseudo-Gildas, who wrote three hundred years earlier? It appears to me further, that if Geffry of Monmouth had wished to have imposed upon his readers, and to have given his marvels the appearance of truth, he might have supported himself upon an authority, which at this period would have given the greatest weight to his statements,-I mean the lives of the saints. In truth, we find in the middle age legends, many tales relating to Arthur and his knights. Thus the exploits of Arthur are incorporated with the life of St. Dubritius, and were sung in the cathedral of Llandaff centuries before Geffry translated his British History. In the life of St. Gildas, the seduction of Arthur's wife, by Melvas, Earl of Somerset, and the peace subsequently made through the mediation of the saint is to be found. The life of St. Pair, Bishop of Vannes, bears testimony to Arthur's deeds on the continent, and the ravages committed in Armorica by Karadoc. In the life of St. Paul of Leon, the conversion of King Mark, husband of Yseult la Blonde, is met with; and in the life of St. Kentigern, we find how the Jongleurs altered the names of the heroes of the Round Table. None of these are once altered by Geffry; and to the victorious argument of Mr. Ellis, I will add a last which is unanswerable. We have seen how Gaiman stood in need of books and how his patroness sent to Walter l'Espec to obtain from the Earl of Gloucester, the history which he had caused to be translated from the Welsh. This proves that a history of the British kings existed in Wales in the twelfth century; and the same Trouvere attests that he had also to aid him in his work, the Brût brought from Bretagne, by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, and that this second book had suggested several advantageous corrections of the first. This testimony suffices to repel the charge of imposture, which is attempted to be cast upon Geffry of Monmouth."!

We do not often find English writers favourable to the

1 Quoted from a translation in the Athenæum, No. 425.

pretensions of Kymric literature; it is therefore pleasing to see so profound a critical authority as the Athenæum leaning to the same side,

"We have always thought that the circumstance of a Welshman being called upon to translate a Breton History, is another corroboration of Geffrey's statement. Archdeacon Walter Calenius might have sought in vain among the English and Norman learned men, for one who would condescend to learn a mere dialect of a French province; but to the scholar who was a Welshman, the Breton was almost as familiar as his native tongue. And it is reported, that even during the late war, those prisoners confined at Brest who understood Welsh, had no difficulty in making themselves intelligible to the people around them."i

Again, we have the authority of the Rev. T. Price, in an excellent digest of the authentic history of Arthur, in support of the same conclusion. This accumulated testimony, makes out a very strong case; and an opinion so firmly founded upon a variety of cogent arguments, cannot be devoid of truth.

According to the ignoratio elenchi, contained in Dr. Giles's more candid than courteous fifth proposition, I ought to take the affirmative side; but my views on this long agitated question, differ from all that I have yet seen. Geoffrey's statement appears to be partially, but not wholly true. In the earlier portions, he has probably extended, and perhaps invented some of the narratives; but still there appears sufficient reason to believe, that the greater part cannot be purely imaginary. It would be well to enquire in the first place, whether there are any statements in the book which may not have been obtained at home. From the words of Nennius it is abundantly evident that there were historical records among the Kymry as early as A.D. 796, that being the earliest date assigned to his history. His words, as translated by Dr. Giles, are,—“ I have presumed to deliver these things in the Latin tongue, not trusting to my own learning, which is little or none at all, but partly from writings and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of Britain."

1 Athenæum, No. 425, page 939.