94

95

But the resources of Satan are inexhaustible. On the side of the enemy, a giant now appeared, whose name was Fenacute, and who was descended from Goliath of old.93 This Fenacute was the most formidable opponent the Christians had yet encountered. His strength was equal to that of forty men ; his face measured one cubit; his arms and legs four cubits; his total height was twenty cubits. Against him Charlemagne sent the most eminent warriors; but they were easily discomfited by the giant; of whose prodigious force some idea may be formed from the fact, that the length even of his fingers was three palms." The Christians were filled with consternation. In vain did more than twenty chosen men advance against the giant; not one returned from the field; Fenacute took them all under his arms, and carried them off into captivity." At length the celebrated Orlando came forward, and challenged him to mortal combat. An obstinate fight ensued; and the Christian, not meeting with the success he expected, engaged his adversary in a theological discussion. Here the Pagan was easily defeated; and Orlando, warmed by the controversy, pressed on his enemy, smote the giant with his sword, and dealt him a fatal wound. After this,

97

the last hope of the Mohammedans was extinct; the Christian arms had finally triumphed, and Charlemagne divided Spain among those gallant followers who had aided him in effecting its

conquest.98

On the history of Arthur, the Middle Ages possessed information equally authentic. Different accounts had been circulated respecting this celebrated king;99 but their comparative value was still unsettled, when, early in the twelfth century, the subject attracted the attention of Geoffrey, the well-known Archdeacon of Monmouth. This eminent man, in A. D. 1147, published the result of his inquiries, in a work which he called History of the Britons.100 In this book, he takes a comprehensive view of

93 66

94

95

Gigas nomine Ferracutus, qui fuit de genere Goliat." De Vita Caroli, p. 39. "Vim xl. fortium possidebat." p. 39.

"Erat enim statura ejus quasi cubitis xx., facies erat longa quasi unius cubiti, et nasus illius unius palmi mensurati, et brachia et crura ejus quatuor cubitorum erant, et digiti ejus tribus palmis." p. 40.

97 Ibid. pp. 43-47.

96 De Vita Caroli, p. 40. 98 Ibid. p. 52. On the twelve peers of Charlemagne, in connexion with Turpin, see Sismondi, Hist. des Français, vol. v. pp. 246, 537, 538, vol. vi. p. 534.

99 The Welsh, however, accused Gildas of having thrown his history "into the sea." Palgrave's Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 453. The industrious Sharon Turner (Hist. of England, vol. i. pp. 282-295) has collected a great deal of evidence respecting Arthur; of whose existence he, of course, entertains no doubt. Indeed, at p. 292, he gives us an account of the discovery, in the twelfth century, of Arthur'a body!

100 In Turner's Hist. of England, vol. vii. pp. 269, 270, it is said to have appeared in 1128; but Mr. Wright (Biog. Brit. Lit. vol ii. p. 144) seems to have proved that the real date is 1147.

the whole question; and not only relates the life of Arthur, but also traces the circumstances which prepared the way for the appearance of that great conqueror. In regard to the actions of Arthur, the historian was singularly fortunate, inasmuch as the materials necessary for that part of his subject were collected by Walter Archdeacon of Oxford, who was a friend of Geoffrey, and who, like him, took great interest in the study of history. 101 The work is, therefore, the joint composition of the two archdeacons ; and is entitled to respect, not only on this account, but also because it was one of the most popular of all the productions of the Middle Ages.

The earlier part of this great history is occupied with the result of those researches which the Archdeacon of Monmouth had made into the state of Britain before the accession of Arthur. With this we are not so much concerned; though it may be mentioned, that the archdeacon ascertained that, after the capture of Troy, Ascaniùs fled from the city, and begat a son, who became father to Brutus.102 In those days, England was peopled by giants, all of whom were slain by Brutus; who, having extirpated the entire race, built London, settled the affairs of the country, and called it, after himself, by the name of Britain.103 The archdeacon proceeds to relate the actions of a long line of kings who succeeded Brutus, most of whom were remarkable for their abilities, and some were famous for the prodigies which occurred in their time. Thus, during the government of Rivallo, it rained blood for three consecutive days ;104 and when Morvidus was on the throne, the coasts were infested by a horrid sea-monster, which, having devoured innumerable persons, at length swallowed the king himself.105

These and similar matters are related by the Archdeacon of Monmouth as the fruit of his own inquiries; but in the subse

101 Geoffrey says, "A Gualtero Oxinefordensi in multis historiis peritissimo viro audivit " (i. e. ille Geoffrey) “vili licet stylo, breviter tamen propalabit, quæ prælia inclytus ille rex post victoriam istam, in Britanniam reversus, cum nepote suo commiserit." Galfredi Monumetensis Historia Britonum, lib. xi. sec. i. p. 200. And in the dedication to the Earl of Gloucester, p. 1, he says, "Walterus Oxinefordensis archidiaconus, vir in oratoria arte atque in exoticis historiis eruditus." Compare Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum, part i. p. 248.

10 Galfredi Historia Britonum, pp. 3, 4.

103 "Erat tunc nomen insula Albion, quæ a nemine, exceptis paucis gigantibus, inhabitabatur. . . . . Denique Brutus de nomine suo insulam Britanniam, sociosque suos Britones appellat." Galf. Hist. Britonum, p. 20.

104"In tempore ejus tribus diebus cecidit pluvia sanguinea, et muscarum affluentia; quibus homines moriebantur." Hist. Brit. p. 36.

105 Advenerat namque ex partibus Hibernici maris inauditæ feritatis bellua, quæ incolas maritimos sine intermissione devorabat. Cumque fama aures ejus attigisset, accessit ipse ad illam, et solus cum sola congressus est. At cum omnia tela sua in illam in vanum consumpsisset, acceleravit monstrum illud, et apertis faucibus ipsum velut pisciculum devoravit." Hist. Brit. p. 51.

quent account of Arthur, he was aided by his friend the Arch deacon of Oxford. The two archdeacons inform their readers, that King Arthur owed his existence to a magical contrivance of Merlin, the celebrated wizard; the particulars of which they relate with a minuteness which, considering the sacred character of the historians, is rather remarkable.106 The subsequent actions of Arthur did not belie his supernatural origin. His might nothing was able to withstand. He slew an immense number of Saxons; he overran Norway, invaded Gaul, fixed his court at Paris, and made preparations to effect the conquest of all Europe, 107 He engaged two giants in single combat, and killed them both. One of these giants, who inhabited the Mount of St. Michael, was the terror of the whole country, and destroyed all the soldiers sent against him, except those he took prisoners, in order to eat them while they were yet alive.108 But he fell a victim to the prowess of Arthur; as also did another giant, named Ritho, who was, if possible, still more formidable. For Ritho, not content with warring on men of the meaner sort, actually clothed himself in furs which were entirely made of the beards of the kings he had killed.109

Such were the statements which, under the name of history, were laid before the world in the twelfth century; and that, too, not by obscure writers, but by high dignitaries of the church. Nor was any thing wanting by which the success of the work might be ensured. Its vouchers were the Archdeacon of Monmouth, and the Archdeacon of Oxford; it was dedicated to Robert Earl of Gloucester, the son of Henry I.; and it was considered so important a contribution to the national literature, that its principal author was raised to the bishopric of Asaph,a preferment which he is said to owe to his success in investigating the annals of English history. A book thus stamped with every possible mark of approbation, is surely no bad measure of the age in which it was admired. Indeed, the feeling was so universal, that, during several centuries, there are not

106 The particulars of the intrigue are in Galf. Hist. Brit. pp. 151, 152. For information respecting Merlin, see also Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum, part i. pp. 161, 162; and Naudé, Apologie pour les Grand Hommes, pp. 308, 309, 318, 319, edit. Amsterdam, 1712.

107 Hist. Britonum, pp. 167-170; a brilliant chapter.

108 "Sed et plures capiebat quos semivivos devorabat." Hist. Brit. p. 181. 109"Hic namque ex barbis regum quos peremerat, fecerat sibi pelles, et manda verat Arturo ut barbam suam diligenter excoriaret, atque excoriatam sibi dirigeret: ut quemadmodum ipse ceteris præerat regibus, ita quoque in honorem ejus ceteris barbis ipsam superponeret." Galf. Hist. Brit. p. 184.

110 It was partly, perhaps, the reputation of this book, which procured its author the bishopric of Asaph." Life of Geoffrey of Monmouth, in Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit. vol. ii. p. 144, 8vo, 1846. According to the Welsh writers, he was Bishop of Llandaff. See Stephens's Literature of the Kymry, 8vo, 1849, p. 323.

more than two or three instances of any critic suspecting its accuracy. A Latin abridgment of it was published by the wellknown historian, Alfred of Beverley ;112 and, in order that it might be more generally known, it was translated into English by Layamon,113 and into Anglo-Norman, first by Gaimar, and afterwards by Wace;114 zealous men, who were anxious that the important truths it contained should be diffused as widely as circumstances would allow.

It will hardly be necessary that I should adduce further evidence of the way in which history was written during the Middle Ages; for the preceding specimens have not been taken at random, but have been selected from the ablest and most celebrated authors; and as such, present a very favourable type of the knowledge and judgment of Europe in those days. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there appeared, for the first time, faint signs of an approaching change; but this improvement was not very marked until late in the sixteenth century, or even early in the seventeenth. The principal steps of this interesting movement will be traced in another part of the Introduction, when I shall show, that although in the seventeenth century the progress was unmistakable, there was no attempt to take a com

Mr. Wright (Biog. Brit. Lit. vol. ii. p. 146) says: "Within a century after its first publication, it was generally adopted by writers on English history; and dur ing several centuries, only one or two rare instances occur of persons who ventured to speak against its veracity." And Sir Henry Ellis says of Polydore Vergil, who wrote early in the sixteenth century, “For the repudiation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, Polydore Vergil was considered almost as a man deprived of reason. Such were the prejudices of the time." Polydore Vergil's English Hist. vol. i. p. x. edit. Ellis, 1846, 4to. See also, on its popularity, Lappenberg's Hist. of the Anglo-Saxon Kings, vol. i. p. 102. In the seventeenth century, which was the first sceptical centu ry in Europe, men began to open their eyes on these matters; and Boyle, for example, classes together the fabulous labours of Hercules, and exploits of Arthur of Britain." Boyle's Works, vol. iv. p. 425.

112 Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit. vol. ii. p. 156; Turner's Hist. of England, vol. vii. p. 282.

113 According to Mr. Wright (Biog. Brit. vol. ii. p. 439), it was translated through the medium of Wace. But it would be more correct to say, that Layamon made the absurdities of Geoffrey the basis of his work, rather than translated them; for he amplifies 15,000 lines of Wace's Brut into 32,000 of his own jargon. See Sir F. Madden's Preface to Layamon's Brut, 8vo, 1847, vol. i. p. xiii. I cannot refrain from bearing testimony to the great philological value of this work of Layamon's, by the publication of which its accomplished editor has made an important contribution towards the study of the history of the English language. So far, however, as Layamon is concerned, we can only contemplate with wonder an age of which he was considered an ornament.

114 Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit. vol. ii. p. 151, 207; Hallam's Literature of Europe, vol. i. p. 35.

115 Of which Froissart is the earliest instance; since he is the first who took a secular view of affairs, all the preceding historians being essentially theological. In Spain, too, we find, late in the fourteenth century, a political spirit beginning to ap pear among historians. See the remarks on Ayala, in Ticknor's Hist. of Spanish Lit. vol. i. pp. 165, 166; where, however, Mr. Ticknor represents Froissart as more unworldly than he really was.

prehensive view of history until nearly the middle of the eighteenth century; when the subject was studied, first by the great French thinkers, then by one or two of the Scotch, and some years later, by the Germans. This reformation of history was connected, as I shall point out, with other intellectual changes, which corresponded to it, and which affected the social relations of all the principal countries of Europe. But, without anticipating what will be found in another part of this volume, it is sufficient to say, that not only was no history written before the end of the sixteenth century, but that the state of society was such as to make it impossible for one to be written. The knowledge of Europe was not yet ripe enough to enable it to be successfully applied to the study of past events. For we are not to suppose that the deficiencies of the early historians were caused by a lack of natural abilities. The average intellect of men is probably always the same; but the pressure exercised on them by society is constantly varying. It was, therefore, the general condition of society, which, in former days, compelled even the ablest writers to believe the most childish absurdities. Until that condition was altered, the existence of history was impossible, because it was impossible to find any one who knew what was most important to relate, what to reject, and what to believe.

The consequence was, that even when history was studied by men of such eminent abilities as Macchiavelli and Bodin, they could turn it to no better account than to use it as a vehicle for political speculations; and in none of their works do we find the least attempt to rise to generalizations large enough to include all the social phenomena. The same remark applies to Comines, who, though inferior to Macchiavelli and Bodin, was an observer of no ordinary acuteness, and certainly displays a rare sagacity in his estimation of particular characters. But this was due to his own intellect; while the age in which he lived made him superstitious, and, for the larger purposes of history, miserably shortsighted. His shortsightedness is strikingly shown in his utter ignorance of that great intellectual movement, which, in his own time, was rapidly overthrowing the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; but to which he never once alludes, reserving his attention for those trivial political intrigues in the relation of which he believed history to consist. As to his superstition, it

116 On this, Arnold says, truly enough, "Comines's Memoirs are striking from their perfect unconsciousness: the knell of the Middle Ages had been already sounded, yet Comines has no other notions than such as they had tended to foster; he describes their events, their characters, their relations, as if they were to continue for centuries." Arnold's Lectures on Modern History, p. 118. To this I may add, that whenever Comines has occasion to mention the lower classes, which is very