With respect to the materials this chronicle has afforded to other writers, I will here give an instance or two.
Tyrrel, in his history of England, acknowledges that his first book is an epitome of Geoffrey’s pretended history; but at the same time says that if it had not been more for the diversion of the younger sort of readers, and that the work would have been thought to be imperfect without it, he should have been much better satisfied in wholly omitting it.
In the preface to Stow’s chronicle, (folio, 1631) the editor observes that Neubrigensis had written several invectives against Geoffrey, but more out of spleen than judgment. He charges that writer with maliciously endeavouring to destroy the credit of Geoffrey, because he himself having been a supplicant for the bishoprick of St. Asaph, had been rejected by the Prince of Wales, and had thus become the opponent of the Welsh history. His observations, Stow says, have been confuted by Sir John Price, Dr. Powel, and also by Lambard, in his perambulations of Kent. Stow then mentions John of Whethamsted, Polydore Virgil, and others, who have written against Geoffrey, and afterwards enumerates a long list of writers, as having uniformly supported him, or in other words, who have copied his history into their own chronicles.—Hume occasionally refers to Geoffrey, as an authority for some matters respecting the Saxon period of his history.
The History of Geoffrey was printed at Paris, in quarto, in 1508, and again in the same size, by Ascensius, in 1517. It was also printed with five other British historians, in folio, at Leyden, in 1587. Ponticus Virunnius, an Italian author, made an abridgment of it, in six books, which was printed at London, by Powel, in 1585, and also in the edition just mentioned.
A translation of Geoffrey’s chronicle was made by Aaron Thompson, and published at London in 1718, to which was prefixed a long preface, relating to the authority of the history. Thompson’s vindication of his author is elaborately written, and he defends him with great skill and learning; but after refuting the charge of forgery, he has failed in his attempt to establish Geoffrey’s work as an historical performance, for he himself invalidates its authority, by acknowledging that it was only such an irregular account, as the Britons were able to preserve in those times of destruction and confusion, with the addition of some romantic tales, which indeed might be traditions among the Welsh, and such as Geoffrey might think entertaining stories for the credulity of the times.
Thompson, in his preface, says that in making his translation, he used two editions of Geoffrey. The first was the Paris edition of Ascensius, 1517, which abounds with abbreviations of words, sometimes rendering their reading ambiguous. The other was the edition of Commeline, printed in the year 1587, which is much the most correct. These two were printed from different manuscripts, and there is a considerable variation between them, especially in the orthography of persons and places. This observation extends to the several ancient abridgments of Geoffrey, by Alfred of Beverley, Ralph Diceto, Matthew of Westminster, Ralph Higden, and Ponticus Virunnius.
LIFTING UP THE HAND IN SWEARING.
We find this significant ceremony of lifting up the hand in swearing, practised by the Greeks and Trojans. Thus Agamemnon swears in Homer, (Iliad, 7, 412)
“To all the gods his sceptre he uplifts.”
And Dolon requiring an oath of Hector, (Iliad, 10, 321)