Great Britain -- History -- Anglo-Saxon period, 449-1066; Middle Ages -- Sources
my publishing this book, to consider only, that though it seems to
suffer under a general prejudice at present, yet it has not long done
so; but that upon its first appearing in the world, it met with a
universal approbation, and that too, from those who had better
opportunities of examining the truth of it, as there were then more
monuments extant, and the traditions more fresh and uncorrupted
concerning the ancient British affairs, than any critics of the present
age can pretend to; that it had no adversary before William of Newburgh
about the end of the reign of Richard the First, whose virulent
invective against it, we are told, proceeded from a revenge he thought
he owed the Welsh for an affront they had given him; that his opposition
was far from shaking the credit of it with our succeeding historians,
who have, most of them, till the beginning of the last century,
confirmed it with their testimonies, and copied after it, as often as
they had occasion to treat of the same affairs: that its authority was
alleged by king Edward the First and all the nobility of the kingdom, in
a controversy of the greatest importance, before Boniface the Eighth;
that even in this learned age, that is so industrious to detect any
impostures, which through the credulity of former times had passed upon
the world, the arguments against this history are not thought so
convincing, but that several men of equal reputation for learning and
judgment with its adversaries, have written in favour of it; that very
few have at last spoken decisively against it, or absolutely condemned
it; and that it is still most frequently quoted by our most learned
historians and antiquaries. All these considerations, I say, if they do
not amount to an apology for the history itself, show at least that it
deserves to be better known than at present it is; which is sufficient
to justify my undertaking the publishing of it."
It is unnecessary in the present day to prove that king Brute is a
shadowy personage, who never existed but in the regions of romance: but
as the reader may justly expect to find in this place some account of
the controversy which has existed respecting this work, the following
remarks will not be deemed inappropriate. There seems no good reason for
supposing that Geoffrey of Monmouth intended to deceive the world
respecting the history of which he professed to be the translator; and
it may be readily conceived that he did no more than fulfil the task
which he had undertaken, of rendering the book into Latin out of the
original language. But those who, even as late as the beginning of the
last century, supported the authenticity of the history, have grounded
their opinions on such arguments as the following:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account