With him, however, are ranged persons of somewhat doubtful reputation; to wit, Dares, the Phrygian, and “Tytus,” or Dictys, the Cretan, “Guido de Columpnis,” and--significantly--“English Gaufride.” “Gaufride,” or Geoffrey, owes his modern renown much more to his contributions to Arthurian literature than to his modest additions to the tale of Troy. His detractors will have it that the Arthurian portions of his so-called _History_ are as fabulous as his account of the descent of the British race from Brutus, the son of Æneas. He had, however, the authority of Nennius, at least, for his use of the Brutus legend. He had the brief records of Nennius, also, to work upon as a foundation for the elaborate narrative which he gives of the life and deeds of King Arthur. But that narrative came upon the world as quite a new, and a startling thing. It is, perhaps, no exaggeration to term its appearance the chief literary event of the twelfth century; at any rate, it is certain that it aroused infinitely greater interest than the story of what Brutus and his immediate descendants achieved in Britain. Chaucer, however,--to judge, at least, by his _Tale of Sir Thopas_,--regarded the newer romantic matters with good-humoured contempt; and the tale of Troy, in its various ramifications, challenged his imagination much more insistently than such a new-fangled theme as the story of Arthur. Notwithstanding the fact that Geoffrey’s use of the Brutus legend is what constitutes the claim of his _History_ to rank as the first, and the greatest, of a long series of “Bruts,”--English, French and Welsh,--his real title to literary fame rests upon his achievement, and his influence, as a contributor to Arthurian story. The Arthurian legend would, undoubtedly, have attracted the attention of European poets and romancers, had Geoffrey’s _History_ never been written. It was current, as we have seen, in Wales, Brittany and Cornwall long before his time. There is even evidence that Arthur, and tales concerning him, were known in the south of Europe before he took up his pen. But it is quite certain that Arthur would never have figured as he does in chronicle literature, and so have come to be regarded as an authentic historical character, were it not for Geoffrey’s narrative. And it may be doubted whether English poets, at any rate,--to judge from the homage which they pay Geoffrey,--would have dallied so much over Arthurian fable had they not at their call what Wordsworth describes as that “British record long concealed In old Armorica, whose secret springs No Gothic conqueror ever drank.”[70]