Although the list of our Chroniclers may be considered as complete, without the addition of this work, yet we have thought it worthy of a place in our series for many reasons. It is not for historical accuracy that the book before us is valuable; for the great mass of scholars have come to the decided conviction that it is full of fables. But it is the romantic character which pervades the narrative, together with its acknowledged antiquity, which make it desirable that the book should not sink into oblivion. Those who desire to possess it as a venerable relic of an early age, will now have an opportunity of gratifying their wish; whilst others, who despise it as valueless, in their researches after historic truth, may, nevertheless, find some little pleasure in the tales of imagination which it contains. The value of this work is best evinced by the attention which was paid to it for many centuries; Henry of Huntingdon made an abstract of it, which he subjoined as an appendix to his history: and Alfred of Beverley, a later writer, in his abridgment of this work which still exists, has omitted Geoffrey's name, though he calls the author of the original, Britannicus. An English translation of the work was first published by Aaron Thompson, of Queen's College, Oxford, [8vo. Lond. 1718.] and lately revised and reprinted by the editor of this volume, [8vo. Lond. 1842.] A long preface is prefixed to that translation, wherein the author endeavoured to prove Geoffrey of Monmouth to be a more faithful historian than he is generally considered to be. His words are as follow:--"I am not unsensible that I expose myself to the censures of some persons, by publishing this translation of a book, which they think had better been suppressed and buried in oblivion, as being at present generally exploded for a groundless and fabulous story, such as our modern historians think not worthy relating, or at least mention with contempt. And though it is true, several men, and those of learning too, censure this book who have but little considered it, and whose studies no ways qualify them to judge of it; yet, I own this consideration has for a long time deterred me from publishing it: and I should not at last have been able to surmount this difficulty, without the importunity and encouragement of others, to whom I owe a singular regard. I had indeed before I entered upon the work perused the principal writers both for and against this history, the effect of which upon my own judgment, as to the swaying it to the one side more than the other, was but very small; and I must confess, that I find the most learned antiquaries the most modest in their opinions concerning it, and that it seems to me to be a piece of great rashness, to judge peremptorily upon a matter, whereof at this great distance of time there are no competent witnesses on either side. At least I cannot but think it a sufficient apology for