THE HISTORY OF WALES .

Comprehending the Lives and Succession OF THE PRINCES of WALES , FROM CADWALADER the last King , to Lhewelyn the last Prince , of British Blood .

WITH A short Account of the Affairs of WALES , under the Kings of England .

Written originally in British , by Caradoc of Lhancarvan ; and formerly published in English by Dr. Powel .

Now newly augmented and improved by W. WYNNE , A. M. and Fellow of Jesus Colledg , Oxon.

LONDON : Printed by M. Clark , for the Author , and are to be sold by R. Clavell , at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls . 1697.

WHEN I had finished the following Book , I was not long to determin under whose Patronage I should make it publick ; your Lordship 's Extraordinry Knowledge in all the British Antiquities , especially that Part which relates to the Welch , justly claiming what I now make bold to offer to your Favour . For it seems to be as Natural a Design of a Dedication , to present one's Labours to the greatest Judge , as to him who is the greatest Encourager of his Writings ; and if so , my Lord , this single Reason would sufficiently justify me from any Presumption , in submitting the following Papers to your Lordship's Protection . But where the Obligation is corroborated by an equal Engagement ; and since your Lordship has been pleased to encourage and promote the Design before it came to any Growth , I hope , I may safely present now in its perfect Strength and Vigor , what you were then pleased to receive in its Infancy .

The History of our Country , my Lord , has been so much neglected , that there seems a very great Necessity of reviving , what to the generality of the Kingdom , is almost lost ; and there are too many , otherwise very Learned Persons , nay , some of our own Nation , who are so great Strangers to this Subject , that they are almost ignorant , that there is such a History in being . We have hopes indeed , that from your Lordship's Excelling Knowledge in the Welch History , and other British Antiquities , with those Curious Collections , you have with great Labour made towards that Matter , and from others now Travelling the same good Way ; we may expect , that the World shall receive such Information relating to our Country , that they who have hitherto despised our History , will be ready to Light that Candle which they now purposely extinguish , and ignorantly undervalue . In the mean time , if by the following History , I can revive the Memories of the several Princes therein contained , which in the English Histories , are either totally omitted , or but partially interwoven , and render our History more generally Known , I have my Aim ; and especially , since I gain the Opportunity of Acknowledging my self ,

Now the greatest reason that I can think of , why the British History is attributed to the invention of Geoffrey , is , that almost upon its first appearance in the World , William of Newborough and Geraldus Cambrensis exclaim against it , and seem to lay the whole Imposture to the charge of Geoffrey . The words of Newborough are these ; At contra quidem ( speaking before of Gildas ) nostris temporibus pro expiandis his Britonum maculis scriptor emersit , ridicula de iisdem figmenta contexens , eosque longè supra virtutem Macedonum & Romanorum impudenti vanitate attollens . Gaufridus hic dictus est , Agnomen habens Arturi , pro eo quod fabulas de Arturo ex priscis Britonum figmentis sumptas , & ex proprio auctas per superductum Latini sermonis Colorem , honesto historiae nomine palliavit . Qui etiam majori ausu , cujusdam Merlini divinationes fallacissimas , quibus utique de proprio plurimum adjecit , dum eas in Latinum transfunderet , tanquam Authenicas , & immobili veritate subnixas prophetias vulgavit .

From this Passage it is apprehended , that Newborough thought that the British History was solely owing to the Contrivance and Invention of Geoffrey ; whereas nothing is more evident , than that the only thing he lays to Geoffrey's charge , is , that he augmented , and of his own head made Additions to the Copy he received . And seeing that Newborough expresly mentions Geoffrey's translating into Latin , some antient Figments of the Britains concerning King Arthur , and unwarrantably adding to the same ; it is manifestly apparent , that be never took Geoffrey to be the Contriver of the whole of what he published , otherwise it is hardly conceivable , that such an inveterate Enemy of that History , would conceal any thing that might derogate from the Truth and Authority of it . Besides , Newborough throughout his whole Preface , wherein be endeavours to invallidate , and render the British History fabulous , chiefly insists upon the Life of King Arthur , and the Prophecies of Merlyn ; not a word of Brutus and his Trojans , which , thô ●ince accounted as notorious a piece of Romance ●●s any at all ; it seems he had Faith to swallow . Indeed , the Passages in King Arthur's Life , and ●he Prophecies of Merlyn tending much to the same purpose , were too great and extravagant ●o be credited by him , ( who by his Character of ●hem , seems to have bore but very slender Affection towards the Welch ) by reason that they ●erogated much from the Fame and Valour of ●he Saxons ; so that I am afraid , that the ●dium which Newborough bore to Geoffrey ●nd his History , depended more upon National Honour and Reputation , than the Truth and Sin●erity of History . For surely he could never be 〈◊〉 warmly exasperated against a fabulous History , ●ad he but the Candor to consult his own , unless here had been some other motive to raise and fo●ent his Passion . As to the scurrilous Language ●e casts upon the British History , and his un●annerly treatment of the Translator ; he therein ●xpresses his Ignorance and Malice , rather than ●ny Love and Regard to Truth and Ingenuity , ●or who but an ignorant and an unskilful Pre●●nder , would confidently assert the Britains never ●●d any Metropolitans or Archbishops , and would ●●oduce this as an invincible Argument for the ●●lsity of the British History ; whereas it is notoriously manifest , that the Britains had their Archbishops long before the arrival of Augustine the Monk , whom Newborough pretends to have been the first who underwent that Dignity in this Island . But as his Arguments against Geoffrey's History are weak and invalid , and his whole Preface more an Invective than a Confutation , so his Credit should be rejected and undervalued , for charging another History with falshood , when his own seems wholly interwoven with ridiculous Legends and Monkish Fictions .

But be the occasion of Newborough's dislike of the British History what it will , 't is evident , that nothing can be concluded from the above quoted Passage , more than that Geoffrey made Additions to the British Copy be received of the Archdeacon of Oxford . And this is no more than what may easily and safely be granted ; for the Life of King Arthur , and the Prophecies of Merlyn , the main Subjects of Newborough's Discontent , may probably be inserted into the History by Geoffrey , at least they were augmented , and several Traditions were added by him . Bale , assures us , that he writ the Life of King Arthur in a distinct Treatise and himself owns in the Preface to his fourth Book , which comprehends the Prophecies of Merlyn , that upon the Request of Alexander Bishop of Lincoln , he had translated Merlyn's Prophecies out of British into Latin , before the British Copy came to his Hands . Now , when Geoffrey had received the Manuscript from the Archdeacon , and was engaged in translating it into Latin , 't is no strange matter to imagine , that as occasion required , he might amplify , and add to it , out of his former Tracts . F●● it is obvious to suppose , that the several things concerning Arthur and Merlyn , might be preserue● in the Island of great Britain , which were long ago obsolete among the Britains of Armorica , from whence the British Copy is said to have been brought over .

But supposing that Newborough had attributed the whole Frame of the British History to Geoffrey , which is evident he does not , his Authority cannot ballance with far more authentic Historians , such as H. Huntington , R. Hovedon , Matthew of Westminster and others , but more particularly Matthew Paris , who in express Terms , calls Geoffrey , Ad Ann. 1151. The Faithful Translator of the British History . And seeing then , that it was in those times apprehended to be an antient Manuscript , and none of Geoffrey's Contrivance , when the Cheat might he best discovered , and there wanted not good Inclinations to detect so notorious a Forgery ; how in these latter times , it could be so luckily found out , that Geoffrey was the sole Inventor and Composer of the History , I cannot possibly divine .

The other Reason , Camb. Descript. Cap. 7. why Geoffrey is thought to be the Author of the British History , is grounded upon a Passage in Giraldus Cambrensis , who speaking of the Etymology of Wales , rejects the Denomination of it from either Duke Wallo , or Queen Wendolen , sicut fabulosa Galfredi Arturi mentitur Historia . Now this is thought an invicible Argument against Geoffrey , and a palpable detection of his insincerity , since Giraldus , his own Country-man strikes at him , and accuses him of Forgery ; whereas upon nicer examination , we may easily discover how that Giraldus quarrels only with the History which Geoffrey published , and which upon that account bore his Name . For had Giraldus though it to be only a Contrivance of Geoffrey's , had he suspected that Geoffrey falsly pretended to have received an antient British Manuscript , and by that means to have imposed upon the World ; Can it be supposed that upon so plain Conviction of falshood , he would believe and give Credit to an History , which he was satisfied was altogether a Fable ? But on the contrary , we find him assenting to the Story of Brutus , and the division of the Island betwixt his three Sons ; and in short , excepting in this one place , he expresses himself to be an absolute Votary of the British History , whence 't is evident , he apprehended Geoffrey to be no more than a faithful Translator of an antient British Copy .

I need not take notice of William of Malmsbury , because that by the best account , he is supposed to have been dead before Geoffrey published his History , and consequently he could never see it ; so that this Expression in him , Lib. I. Hic est Arthurus de quo Britonum Nuge hodicque delirant , must likely refer to the then present Traditions and Accounts of the Welch concerning King Arthur , which probably might be too great and extravagant . For 't is certain that a traditional Account of any Person or Action , the farther it recedes from the Spring and Original , the more corrupt and imperfect it still proceeds ; and like a Ball of Snow , it gathers and augments in its journey ; so that it may be reasonably supposed , that the vulgar Account which the Welch in Malmsbury's time delivered of King Arthur , was too far incredible and surprising .

But since the Reasons produced for proving Geoffrey to be the Author of the British History , seem not to be satisfactory and evincing ; let us see whether the contrary assertion can be more reasonably maintained . And first , 't is manifest that Geoffrey could not be the total Inventor of the British History , by reason that several things , and some of the most material Passages therein contained , are agreeable with the Histories of Gildas and Nennius , the Poetical Fragments of Taliessyn , not to mention the Saxon Manuscript , Notes upon Bede . quoted by Mr. Wheelock , and other Authors far more antient than Geoffrey . 'T is owned indeed Geoffrey might borrow the ground and Plat-form of his Romance from Merlyn or Taliessyn , or rather from Nennius , in whose Writings there is some slight Account of the Britains being descended from the Trojans ; but the superstructure is all his own , who living in an ignorant Age , and well knowing he could not well be disproved , took the Liberty to make what Invention he pleased , and then recommended it to the World , for a true , undoubted History . But notwithstanding all this concession , I think there is as little reason to attribute the Frame and Composition of this History to Geoffrey , as there can be , to think him Contriver of the Ground and Plot of it . For it seems to me very unaccountable , that if Geoffrey was to invent and compose this History , why in this account of the Transactions betwixt the Britains and Romans , he should so widely disagree with , and deviate from the Writings of the Roman Historians . For certainly , nothing could add more Authority to a Fable , than exactly to follow the steps of creditable Authors , in those things they both had occasion to treat of . This in all probability , would not only render that part of the History unsuspicious , but likewise Credit and Authorize the rest , of which there was no account in Roman Authors . And this disagreement betwixt the British History , and the Writings of the Roman Historians , tho' frequently produced to overthrow the Authority of it , induces me to believe , not only that Geoffrey was not the Author , but likewise that the Manuscript was antient , and much elder than the time , in which it was first made publick .

But besides , Geoffrey dedicates his Translation to Robert Earl of Glocester , Son to King Henry the First , which in all likelihood he would never have ventured to do , had the Original been of his own Contrivance , for fear least that the Cheat being discovered , he should be found , to put upon a Person of Eminent Quality , with whom the British History was then in great Esteem . For to him it is that Geoffrey owns the Receipt of this Manuscript from the Archdeacon of Oxford , which he affirms to be very antient , and by his Request was persuaded to translate it into the Latin Tongue . It was a very easie matter for the Earl of Glocester to find out Geoffrey's Integrity , by enquiring of the Archdeacon ( who by all Accounts is reckoned his co-temporary ) whether he had delivered such an antient British Copy into Geoffrey's hands , and whether the Translation justly answered the Original . These Enquiries were natural , upon the publication of any new History , which made such considerable noise and clamour in the World , and which gave such an Account of the antient Britains , as was never before thought or heard of among the English Nation . And supposing the Earl of Glocester to have omitted these Enquiries , yet it is scarce conceivable , but that in case of so open a Forgery , the Archdeacon would discover the Cheat , unless it can be thought that he was privy to , and had a hand in the Contrivance . But he was so far from detecting Geoffrey's Imposture , that he himself owns too , to have translated the British History first into Latin , and then in his latter days , to British again from the Latin , as may he still seen in the Archives of Jesus-College Library . Now if there be any heed to , or dependance upon this , if it be true , that the Archdeacon did translate , and consequently allow of this History , it appears very evident to me , that Geoffrey can be in no wise the Author or Contriver of it .

But that Robert of Glocester took a fancy to Geoffrey's Translation , more upon the account that his Father had lately subdued the Welch , and therefore seemed to add to his Father's Glory , than that he did credit and believe the History , does not seem to be so true and evincing . For wherein could the publication of this History contribute to the advancement of his Father's Name ? Was it because he had Conquered a People , whose Ancestors appeared by this History , to be formerly Valiant and Warlike ? This was performed by others before him , and I can conceive no great addition to any Man's Fame , to Conquer a handful of People with a numerous Army , tho' their Fore-fathers had been Stout and Victorious . This is surely too slight a Pretence for the reception of the British History by the Earl of Glocester , and too weak an Argument to destroy the Truth and Authority of it . 'T is certain , that it took exceeding well in the World at that time , nor was it opposed till after Robert's Death , when William of Newborough more out of Malice and Discontent , than any Love he bore to Truth , began to charge both the Original and Translator with insincerity . I cannot see , upon the whole , the least Reason , why the Contrivance and Invention of this History should he attributed to Geoffrey , or that the Authority of it depends any way upon him , more than the Fidelity of his Translation . I shall therefore conclude this Subject with the Character bestowed upon Geoffrey , and the History by him published by Ponticus Virunnius , who flourished in the Year 1●90 . a Man of great Reading , and excellent Learning of his time , who did not think it lost Labour to draw an Epitome of the British History : Giraldus ( says he ) Historicus egregius & Cardinalis , magnae vir auctoritatis apud Robertum Claudiocestriae Ducem , Henrici Regis filium , ac patriae suae curiosissimus Fautor , ex summâ Philosophiâ atque Archivis , Historiam antiquissimam continuâ serie ab ipsis Trojanis collectam transtulit . Verissimas esse Britannorum Historias arguit Regum Occidentalium consuetudo ; quae erat , secum semper habere eos , qui veritate praecipua eorum gesta notarent .

2. But supposing Geoffrey to be innocent from this suspected Imposture , and that he did no more than faithfully translate a British Manuscript he received of the Archdeacon ; it may be farther objected , that seeing it abounds with so many unwarrantable matters of fact , and so extravagant Fables and Prodigies , it appears extreamly suspicious , and sensibly smells of a Monkish production . For how is it possible , you will say , that any Account , excepting what is found in the Roman Histories , could be had of the Britains , and that not only before , but even after their subjection to the Romans since there is much reason to doubt , whether the Britains , as well as other unlattered Nations , had any means to convey any Knowledge to Posterity , for want of the Art of Writing ? For if the Affairs and Transactions of the Britains were only handed down by Tradition , and they had no other way or method to preserve their Memories , then certainly all Pretences to antient Records , and consequently to this British Manuscript , supposed to have been translated by Geoffrey , must of necessity be vain and groundless .

And thus it is supposed , that the Britains had no Writing among them , neither before nor after the Roman Conquest ; whence it follows , that there is no true nor certain account of any matter translated among them , but what is recorded in Roman Histories . But tho' this be frequently insinuated , yet I think , the contrary can with greater ease and perspicuity , be made to appear . As to the Britains having no Writing among them , during their subjection to the Roman Empire , the contrary is so evident and notorious , that I conceive it lost time to go about to disprove it . 'T is sufficient to lay down the Words of Tacitus , an Author of unshaken Reputation ; Vita Agric . Jam verò Principum filios liberalibus Artibus erudire , & ingenia Britannorum studiis Gallorum ante●erre , & qui modò linguam Romanorum abnuebant , eloquentiam concupiscerent . Inde etiam habitus nostri honor , & frequens tog● ; paulatimque discessum ad deliniamenta Vitiorum , porticus & balnca , & conviviorum elegantiam . Now , can any one suppose , that when the British Youths were instructed in all the Arts and Sciences of the Romans , when they began to ape and imitate them in their Habits , Buildings , and other necessary fooleries , they should neglect so necessary a Qualification , as that of Writing ? And can we imagine , that among so many Able and Learned Persons , as the Britains must in reason be , when educated in the Roman way , and owned to be very tractable in their Education , not one should prove so affectionate to his Country , as to note down the State and Transaction● of it ? Certainly , if they learne all the Civilities and Sciences of the Romans , History was not so slight and trivial a subject of their Industry , as to be undervalued ; and I know not where they could better employ their Skill , than in Writing the History of their Native Country . It was natural for them being once civilized , to enquire into the Origine and Antiquity of their Nation , the State and Condition of their Country before the Roman Conquest , and having made the best search they could , whether by ●ral or written Tradition into these Enquiries , they ●ould in all reason , according to the Custom and manner of the Romans , commit all to Writing .

But allowing the Britains to haue learnt the Art of Writing from the Romans , after their subjection to the Empire , yet 't is certain they had no such thing among them , before the discovery of this Island by Julius Caesar , and consequently , that all the former Part of the British History which precides that Epoch , must be false and fictitious . And that this is no precarious Objection , a Passage 〈◊〉 of Caesar's Commentaries is produced to strengthen it , which in my Opinion , evidently proves the contrary . The Words of Caesar are these : De Bell. Gall. Lib. VI. Magnum ibi numerum ( speaking of the Druids ) versuum ediscere dicuntur , itaque annoe nonnulli viceno● in disciplina permanent ; neque fas esse existimant ca literis mandare , c●m in reliquis ferè rebus , publicis-privatisque rationibus , Graecis literis utuntur . Why any one from hence should conclude , that the Superstition of those antient Philosophers the Druids , forbad the Britains to commit to Writing the Transactions of their Country , much more that they had no Writing at all among them , does I confess , very far exceed my comprehension . Caesar , truly does intimate , that the Doctrine and Mysteries of their Religion , the Druids did not think fit to commit to Writing but in all Matters besides , whether private or publick ( among which History , may be reasonably accounted ) they used the Greek Characters for so I understand those words , Graecis literis u●●●tur . For it may not be supposed that all publick and private Affairs of the Britains were ●●●nslated in Greek , when they had a different Language of their own , and which in all reason must be th● common Tongue of the Country ; but only that when the Britains had occasion to put any thing in Writing they used the Grecian Character , which probably was the only Letter , they then were acquainted with . But to confirm this matter the more , Caesar makes mention of the like Custom among the Gauls ; In castris Helvetiorum tabulae repertee sunt literis Graecis confectae . Now if he concluded from hence , Lib. I. that the Gauls ( for the Helvetians were a Gaulish People ) made use of the Greek Language , rather than the Grecian Characters ; I would fain be informed , why Caesar should write in Greek to Quintus Cicero , Ne interceptâ Epistolâ suâ , Lib. V. à Gallis consilia noscerentur ; lest that his Letter being intercepted , all his measures and martial Intrigues , be discovered by the Gauls . Certainly , if he had known ( as well he might , in case the Helvetians understood , and writ in Greek ) that the Gauls were not ignorant of the Greek Language , he would not make use of so mean a stratagem to conceal his Counsels . But suppose it be acknowledged that the Gauls and Britains used , not only the Greek Characters , but the Language too ( one of which must be allowed ) 't is evident that they had the Art and use of Writing , before Caesar made any Invasion to either Country , and consequently the Britains might have some written memorials of their Country , which might be afterwards easily handed down to Posterity . For it seems to me very strange , that Men of such reputed Learning and Knowledge , and so well versed in the Mysteries of Philosophy , as the Druids are acknowledged to have been , should be ignorant of so necessary and useful a Qualification , as Writing . And since 't is affirmed , that their Religions Superstitions were interdicted to be committed to Writing , we may rationally conclude , by the Rule of contrariety , that all other things besides their Religion , were allowed to be written , and consequently , that they had the Art and Vse of Writing among them .

But supposing the Britains to have recorded the Transactions of their Country , both before and after be Roman Conquest , yet when the Saxons prevailed in the Island , all the Monuments and Writings of the antient Britains were utterly lo●● so that this pretended History of the Britains , must be modern and fabulous , built upon vulgar and uncertain Traditions . For how was it possible that any one could write a true and a faithful Account of the antient Britains , and be so particular in the Transactions of those times , whenas there was not the least Light to guide him to the Knowledge of those obscure Ages . This is expresly acknowledged by Gildas , who lived long before Geoffrey , and openly declares , that all the Records and Monuments of his Country were lost in his time ; and that in writing those small Fragments of the History of Britain , he was forced to abstract his Materials out of the Writings of Foreigners . Excid . Brit. Illa tantum proferre conabor in Medium , quae temporibus Romanorum Imperatorum & passa est , & aliis intulit Civibus , & longè positis male : quantum tamen potuero , non tam ex scriptis Patriae , Scriptorum monimentis ; quippe quae ●el si sucrint , aut ignibus Hostium exusta , aut Civium exulum classe longius deportata non compateant ; quam transmarina relatione , quae crebris interrupta intercapedinibus non satis claret .

I shall here by the by , observe the levity of Aylet Sames's Objection against the History of Brute ; Britan. p. 158. namely , because Gildas makes no mention of Brute and his Trojans , he concludes that the British History must be a real Fiction ; whereas Gildos in this place manifestly declares his design only of writing the History of the Britains , during their subjection to the Roman Empire . But as to this passage in Gildas , if in his time , there were no remains of his Ancestors left in writing ; I would fain learn upon what Ground and Authority , he could so positively assert that the Britains from their first Plantation in this Island , were proud and irreligious , and their Kings cruel and tyrannical . For a little before the above quoted passage , he says of Britain , Haec erecta Cervice & mente ex quo inhabitata est , nunc Deo , interdum Civibus , nonnunquam etiam transmarinis Regibus ingrata consurgit . And a little after , Tacens vetustos immanium Tyrannorum annos , qui in aliis pofitis regionibus vulgati sunt . Here he passes his Judgment very liberally upon the State and Condition of Britain from all Antiquity ; and yet by and by , be confesses , that he had no guide to direct him to the Knowledge of those times he so freely censures ; so that if he had not the Spirit of Divination , he may falter in his conjectures , or else he was guided by some British Light , of which he was not willing to own the perusal .

But allowing that Gildas , in composing that small Fragment of the British History , received no Light from any British Record , but was constrained to borrow out of the Writings of Foreigners ; it concludes no farther , than that he had not the good Fortune to meet with British Manuscripts , not that there were none really remaining in Britain . And farther , supposing that in Gildas his time , there were no remains of the antient Britains left in this Island , but were all utterly lost ; yet according to Gildas his own acknowledgment , and upon the Saxons prevailing in the Country , they might be carried over by the exuled Britains to Armories , from whence the Archdeacon of Oxford is said to have brought over the British Copy be delivered to Geoffrey . But if there was no written Account of the former State of Britain , in the Age of Gildas , how comes it to pass , that any such thing should be discovered and brought to light in succeeding Ages . And not to insist upon the Authority of the British Manuscript translated by Geoffrey , we have good reason to presume , that the antient Britains before Gildas had hath Ecclesiastical and Civil Histories of their Country .

As to the former , B●de , whose Authority I presume , will not be questioned , expresly affirmed it . For in his Preface to his Ecclesiastical History , he says , A principio itaque Voluminis hujus , usque ad tempus quo Gens Anglorum fidem Christi percepit , ex priorum maxime scriptis hinc inde collectis , ea quae promemoramus , didiscimus . Here Bede plainly declares , that in Writing a Church History of Britain , he extracted all his matter , before the conversion of the Saxons to Christianity , out of antient Authors . But who can these former Writers be ? Surely they were not Saxons , for we read of no Saxon Writer before Bede ; besides , that several things contained in this History , were translated before the Landing of the Saxons , and as to the Ecclesiastical part , betwixt the arrival and the conuersion of the Saxons to Christianity that cannot be extracted out of their Writings . For in the first place they were no Christians , and it is very unreasonable to suppose , that they would 〈◊〉 the History of a Church , of which they were at that time very fatal and implacable . Euen●●●s ; not to question , whether the Saxons before their Conuersion had any Writing or Learning at all among them . For though it be pretended , that the Irish , who use the same manner of Writing , borrowed their Characters from the Saxons ; yet 't is extremely suspitious , that these received them from the Irish , if not rather from the Britains . As to the former , it is well known , that during the Disturbances betwixt the Britains and Saxons here in Britain , the Incursions of the Goths , Vandals , and other Northern Nations into other Countries ; all the Learning of these Western Parts of the World , fled into Ireland , which for a considerable time remained to be the Nursery of Learning and learned Men.

And that the Saxons , long after their Conversion to Christianity , retired to Ireland for this purpose , we have the Testimony of their antient and most authentick Historian ; so that , I think , Bed . Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. chap. 27. 't is no Presumption to suspect , that as the Saxons borrowed their Learning from the Irish , they might for the same reason , receive their Characters and form of writing from them . But 't is again to be doubted , whether both the Saxons and the Irish did not primarily derive their Characters from the Britains : For though the British Language ●he now writ in a different Character from the Irish and Saxon , yet upon antient British Monuments and Inscriptions , most of the Saxon Letters , different from the present Roman Alphabet , are plainly to be seen . Nor was this Character originally British , the same being used in the first Age of the Roman Empire , De Re Diplo . p. 345. if we can lay any stress on Julius Cesar's Will and Testament , represented by Mabillon . But farther yet ; if the Irish Character be originally Saxon , the Saxons must either bring it along with them from Germany , or else they must have invented it after their arrival and settlement in Britain : If the first , it may seem wonderful , how it came to be quite lost and forgotten in all parts of Germany ; unlese we can suppose , that it was limited only to the Saxons , and that they to a Man came and settled in this Island : For no body can be ignorant , that not only the Germans , but the Swedes and Danes too , use the Latine Character ; which , if we suppose them to have but lately borrowed , yet in all probability , their former Letter was Gothick or Runick , to which the Saxon bears no great resemblance . But if ●t be said , that the Saxons invented this Character after their coming to Britain ; I cannot well conceive , why they should put themselves to such unnecessary trouble , when with far greater ease and facility they might copy and borrow from the Britains ; unless the odium betwixt both Nations made them scorn to ape and imitate an Enemy . But be it so , that the Saxons invented this Character in Britain ; it will follow , that they had no Letters nor Learning before they came over ; and consequently , that these Authors which Bede mentions to have transcribed out of , could not be Saxons .

As to the civil part of the British History , that the Transactions of State were recorded , and that Copies thereof came to the hands of Posterity , we have the express Testimony of Nennius , who flourished about Three Hundred Years after Gildas For in his Preface to his History of the Britains , he openly declares , that he compos'd his History , Partim majorum Traditionibus , partim Scriptis , partim etiam Monumentis veterum Britanniae Incolarum . Here Nennius says , that he partly extracted his History out of the Writings of the Antient Britains . And what could these Writings be ? Certainly , they were not the Works of Gildas , the only British Author we read of before Nennius ; upon the account that the History of Nennius is much larger , and far more complete than that of Gildas ; this latter , besides the Names of a few British Kings , having left nothing Historical to Posteritty ; the main , it seems of his design being to rail , and to inveigh against his Countrey , to which he had taken some Displeasure . From whence then else could Nennius extract the Materials of his History ? Why , 't is reasonable to suppose , that from some British Records , which possibly might be recovered since the time of Gildas ; And if then , why might not more be discovered since Nennius , and that delivered to Geoffrey by the Arch-Deacon of Oxon , be one ?