History, which has been called "anticipated experience," and which may give an account either of the transactions of ages long past, or of events which have occurred in our own times, has been always deemed one of the most interesting pursuits of intelligent men. It may be treated of in various ways, and there is no subject which affords more scope for laborious research and for ingenious disquisition. When we peruse the history of any country or of any period, we not only have a right, but it is our duty-to enquire what authority the writer had for the facts which he relates; and if we do so, we shall sometimes find that the narrative of the professed historian rests upon as slight grounds as the tale of the poet or of the writer of romance; and that we can place no more dependance on its truth. Some times the compiler, and the greater number of historical writings extant are compilations, endeavours to make his work interesting by the embellishments of his fancy; sometimes he is misled by the prejudices or interested misrepresentations of the original writers, which cannot be disproved, though they may be suspected from the loss of the records of the other party, or from their inability to tell their story-as suggested in the well known fable of the man and the lion; and when variety of evidence can be produced, and an impartial judge endeavours to ascertain the truth, so contradictory is this evidence often found, like that occasionally produced in a court of justice, that after a long and patient investigation he is unable to make a decision satisfactory to himself or to others. Sometimes a favourite theory evidently biasses the judgment of the writer; and sometimes, in the dearth of matter, he indulges in specious reasoning, instead of honestly confessing his ignorance. Yet far are we from intending to censure the labours of the historical compiler, or to represent them as useless. On the contrary, we do not know a more interesting employment, (we speak of employments of a mere literary kind, and except, of

course the study of the Divine Word,) than endeavouring to separate truth from error in historical narrative, wherever materials are attainable; and we most readily bear testimony to the great improvements made by modern compilers; though I think the field is yet open for future investigators in the history of almost every period. Nay, we can read with pleasure avowed fictions in which antiquarian research has enabled the author to give a lively and probable representation of the manners of any age or country, to delineate the character of well known personages, and to render a tale interesting, without introducing circumstances inconsistent with well-authenticated transactions. Such tales serve to render us familiar with men and circumstances, and often draw us on to examine the periods of which they treat with more attention. But to proceed to our immediate object, we purpose to offer some remarks on the early part of English history and the writers of it; remarks which may properly be called desultory, because we shall not consider ourselves bound to proceed according to any fixed plan, or to notice every circumstance of importance; but selecting whatever strikes us, we shall endeavour to show the nature of the evidence, and the differences subsisting amongst the principal modern compilers. We shall hope thus to supply materials for discussion, and to elicit from correspondents some remarks which may serve to clear the mist in which that part of our history is now involved.

The early history of Britain-i. e. of the time previous to the invasion of Julius Cæsar, is generally omitted by the modern compiler. Brutus the Trojan, (the contemporary of Eli, the judge of Israel) and Lear, with his three daughters, rendered familiar to us by the drama of Shakspeare, with the many other princes who filled up the long period from Brutus to Cassibela, are now consigned, so far as history is concerned, to deserved oblivion. That Matthew Paris, Matthew of Westmin-, ster, and other old compilers of some

note inserted this romance in their histories; and that even the master mind of Milton did not reject it, is not deemed sufficient to give it countenance, for traced to its origin it rests on the unsupported testimony of Rennius, a British monk of Bangor, in the seventh or ninth century, enlarged upon by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who lived in the twelfth century, and whose "fertile imagination," to use an expression of Dr. Henry's respecting him, is well-known to have led to many fictions. Having rejected the tale of Brutus and his followers, and having few facts to record, some modern writers have filled their pages with speculations on the origin of the Britons. The reasoning of Sheran Turner on this subject is ingenious if not conclusive, and it is in part, at least, supported by the researches of the late Dr. Murray. Neither does Lingard differ materially from it, though he mentions only the Celts or Kelts, generally, whilst Turner traces the Kimmerians and Keltoi from the earliest settlements and distinguishes between them as different branches of the same horde or family, descended from Gomer, son of Japhet. The Belgæ seem also to have belonged to the same stock. The identity of the Kimmerii, Kimbri and Cymri is, we think, if not satisfactorily established, at least rendered highly probable by Turner. Yet, Dr. Wood, in his " Inquiry into the primitive inhabitants of Ireland," says that the Celts and Germans are absurdly called Cimbri, from a small Gothic tribe which took its name from Cimber, signifying in the Gothic language, a robber, thus reversing the process of Turner, who derives the signification robber, from the depredators of the Kimbri. In another passage, after mentioning that the Kimbri are spoken of by Cæsar, as Germans, Dr. Wood argues that the Britons could not have been descended from them or their language would have been Gothic; but Turner supposes that Germany was successively peopled by the Kimmerians, the Scythians or Goths, and the Sarmatians; and the Kimbri would seem to have been driven from Germany by the Gothic tribes, which led to their invasion of Gaul and Italy. But," says Dr. Wood, alluding probably to Turner as well as to Pinkerton, accordingly some late authors venture

66

to affirm that the first inhabitants of Britain were Kimmerians, when they denominate Kimbri and confound with the Celta. It is, however, doubtful that the Kimmerians were either Kimbri or descendants of them, and certain that the Kimbri were not Celts; a nation solely and properly Gauls. The assertion relative to the origin of the Britons is not even a plausible conjecture." Such is the manner in which the extensive and ingenious researches of Turner are treated by a contemporary writer, who, though a respectable man, is far his inferior in learning and research, and who repeats soon after, "that the Cimbri, not only were a Gothic people but used the Gothic dialect." Pinkerton's opinion is nearly the same as Turner's, and Dr. Murray in his history of the European languages, considers the Celta and Cymri of the same family, though he does not seem to consider them as the same with the Cimmerians. We may now leave the subject sub judice, observing that such speculations may serve to exercise ingenuity, but cannot be considered as capable of certainty, and should therefore never be made the subject of dogmatical assertion.

The names of the British tribes, as well as the community of religion, sufficiently prove that they were of Celtic origin. The accounts given of the Druids do not materially differ, but some attribute their origin to the Gauls, others to the Britons, whilst others state that they existed amongst the Celtæ in the east, and were, therefore, antecedent to both. It is, however, in opposition to this last, that we do not find any distinct mention of them in other tribes of Celtic origin, as in Spain or Italy. Cæsar represents the Britons as more skilled in the discipline of the Druids, and as instructors of the Gauls; but this does not necessarily imply that they were the authors of it. Our most satisfactory accounts of them are drawn from Cæsar and Tacitus: some few circumstances, however, have been incidentally mentioned by other ancient writers, and Dr. Henry has, probably, collected every thing that deserves notice; perhaps much more than can be substantiated. It is rather an extraordinary circumstance that many of the Monkish historians have passed over the Druids without any notice whatsoever.

To Cæsar we look for the earliest authentic information, and he first visited Britain in the year B. c. 55. As he was an eye witness of the events he records, and was even the principal actor, his narrative has peculiar claims to attention; but it must be admitted on the other hand, that there are circumstances which render his veracity questionable. Our experience teaches us, that great generals in modern times are apt to colour their narratives, even when they know that there will be a counter-statement. Exaggeration of advantages and palliation of losses are to be expected; nay, are scarcely to be avoided. Now, Cæsar was interested in representing the events in the manner most favourable to his own character, and whilst the final advantage gained, appears even from his own account to have been trifling; the rejoicings at Rome were, we may almost say, extravagant. Succeeding writers have spoken of his success in very different ways, some representing it as a conquest, and others as little better than defeat, whilst Pollio, one of his contemporaries, has not hesitated to charge his narrative with inaccuracy. The stratagems he made use of, are said to have been carefully concealed, for the supposed purpose of exalting his courage and power, whilst the same motive would induce him to magnify the strength of his opponents, and to describe them as more formidable than they really were. Polycenus, who wrote a work on Military Stratagems," dedicated to the emperors M. Antoninus and L. Verus, towards the close of the second century, records several stratagems that had been used by Cæsar, which are supposed to have been extracted from his " ephemerides" or daily memorandums, a work now lost. From this work, Servius the commentator on Virgil, at the latter end of the fourth century, is supposed to have learned a remarkable circumstance mentioned by him in a note on the 11th Eneid, that Cæsar was once carried off by a Gaul of great strength, and was set free, in consequence of another Gaul crying out Cæsar, Cæsar, which was intended as exultation over him, but was understood by the captor as an order to set him at liberty. This circumstance, if it took place, is omitted in the commentaries.

cr

The use of an elephant to alarm the Britons, when collected by Cassibelanus to oppose Cæsar's passage of the Thames, on his second expedition, is mentioned by Polycenus, who says, as quoted by Lingard, "that at the approach of this unknown animal, of enormous magnitude, covered with scales of polished steel, and carrying on his back a turret filled with armed men, the Britons abandoned their defences, and sought for safety in a precipitate flight." Now, if Cæsar used elephants, or a single elephant in his wars against either Gauls or Britons, he has studiously concealed it in his commentaries; and it has also escaped the researches of Plutarch; and yet it may be said, what could induce Polycenus to invent such a tale? We refer to it merely as one instance in which Cæsar is supposed to have withheld a fact, but do not intend to argue for its truth. A statement, however, in all respects different, has been made by some of the early historical writers in England. Matthew, a monk of Westminster, who lived in the reign of Edward I., and who was a great collector from the writings of preceding authors, but does not give his autho rities, states, that Cassibelanus became sovereign of Britain, after the death of his brother Lud, and that Cæsar sent to him, demanding tribute, which was indignantly refused; that Cassibelanus with his confederates (for there were a number of petty states combined under one head, called the Pendragon, according to Whittaker,) met Cæsar on his landing, when a long and bloody battle was fought; that Cæsar had a personal engagement with Nennius, brother of the British chief; that he lost his sword in the engagement, and that the Romans fled to their ships and returned to Gaul, in confirmation of which, the historian quotes the reproach which Lucan puts into the mouth of Pompey.

"Territa quæsitis ostendit terga Britannis."

attempt two years after, he was again That on Cæsar making a second obliged to depart; but, that after this, on a quarrel between Cassibelanus and his nephew Androgeus, Duke or King of the Trinobantes, the latter applied to Cæsar for aid, and on the landing of the Roman army, joined it with his forces; that Cassibelanus was defeated