the wall of Antoninus to the extreme promontory of Cornwall; and the principal cities of the inland country still opposed the arms of the barbarians. Resistance became more languid, as the number and boldness of the assailants continually increased. Winning their way by slow and painful efforts, the Saxons, the Angles, and their various confederates, advanced from the north, from the east, and from the south, till their victorious banners were united in the centre of the island. Beyond the Severn, the Britons still asserted their national freedom, which survived the heptarchy, and even the monarchy of the Saxons. The bravest warriors, who preferred exile to slavery, found a secure refuge in the mountains of Wales: the reluctant submission of Cornwall was delayed for some ages;* and a band of fugitives acquired a settlement in Gaul, by their own valour, or the liberality of the Merovingan kings.† The Chronicle assigns the name and date. Camden (Britannia, vol. i, p. 128) ascertains the place; and Henry of Huntingdon (Scriptores post Bedam, p. 314) relates the circumstances of this battle. They are probable and characteristic; and the historians of the twelfth century might consult some materials that no longer exist.

* Cornwall was finally subdued by Athelstan (A.D. 927-941), who planted an English colony at Exeter, and confined the Britons beyond the river Tamar. See William of Malmsbury, lib. 2, in the Scriptores post Bedam, p. 50. The spirit of the Cornish knights was degraded by servitude; and it should seem from the romance of Sir Tristram, that their cowardice was almost proverbial.

The establishment of the Britons in Gaul is proved in the sixth century, by Procopius, Gregory of Tours, the second council of Tours, (4.D. 567) and the least suspicious of their chronicles and lives of saints. The subscription of a bishop of the Britons to the first council of Tours (A.D. 461, or rather 481), the army of Riothamus, and the loose declamation of Gildas (alii transmarinas petebant regiones, c. 25, p. 8) may countenance an emigration as early as the middle of the fifth century. Beyond that era, the Britons of Armorica can be found only in romance; and I am surprised that Mr. Whitaker (Genuine History of the Britons, p. 214221) should so faithfully transcribe the gross ignorance of Carte, whose venial errors he has so rigorously chastised. [Gibbon seems to have forgotten here, that in ch. 27, he had repeated, after archbishop Usher, the story of Armorica having been peopled in 383, by "the emigration of a considerable portion of the British nation," under Maximus; and that in ch. 36 he had represented the army of Riothamus as "destroyed or dispersed by the arms of the Visigoths." The false ideas entertained on this subject have been fully noticed on both those occasions, and again in ch. 31. Gibbon here refers to other authorities which prove nothing more than that there were Britones in Armorica. That they derived their origin, their name, and language from the island of Great

western angle of Armorica acquired the new appellations of Cornwall and the Lesser Britain; and the vacant lands of the Osismii were filled by a strange people, who, under the authority of their counts and bishops, preserved the laws and language of their ancestors. To the feeble descendants

of Clovis and Charlemagne, the Britons of Armorica refused the customary tribute, subdued the neighbouring dioceses of Vannes, Rennes, and Nantes, and formed a powerful, though vassal state, which has been united to the crown of France.*

In a century of perpetual, or at least implacable, war, much courage, and some skill, must have been exerted for the defence of Britain. Yet, if the memory of its champions is almost buried in oblivion, we need not repine; since every age, however destitute of science or virtue, sufficiently abounds with acts of blood and military renown. The tomb of Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, was erected on the margin of the sea-shore, as a landmark formidable to the Saxons, whom he had thrice vanquished in the fields of Kent. Ambrosius Britain, is supported by no substantial evidence whatever. Mr. Sharon Turner, in his History (vol. i, p. 161) after rejecting the emigration under Maximus as "unfounded," has expressed his belief in that of a later date, for which he found his authority in a chronicle of the abbey of Mont St. Michel in Bretagne. It is there said: "A.D. 513 venerunt transmarini Britanni in Armoricam, id est minorem Britanniam." Admitting all that is contained in this passage, we can only collect from it, that in that year some fugitives arrived; but that they came in large numbers to colonize the country, is not asserted, nor is it in the least degree probable. The Britons still possessed at that period nearly the whole of their island, and for fifty years afterwards put forth all their strength "with a national magnitude," as Mr. Turner expresses it (ib. 270), to maintain their independence. It is not to be supposed that they sent away those whose assistance they wanted. In the quoted passage, the phrase "Armoricam, id est minorem Britanniam," proves also, that the name existed before and was not brought over with them by the new comers. Armorica from the first had always a Celtic popula tion, among whom were the Britones; it was a secluded, nearly insulated tract, and afforded a convenient refuge for those who withdrew or fled from submission to the Franks. That they should long preserve their national and idiomatic distinctions is quite natural, and requires not to be accounted for by any strange or unusual event.---ED.]

*The antiquities of Bretagne, which have been the subject even of political controversy, are illustrated by Hadrian Valesius (Notitia Galliarum, sub voce Britannia Cismarina, p. 98-100), M. D'Anville (Notice de l'Ancienne Gaul, Corisopiti, Curiosolites Osismii, Vorganium, p. 248, 258, 508, 720, and Etats de l'Europe, p. 76-80), Longuerue

Aurelian was descended from a noble family of Romans;* his modesty was equal to his valour, and his valour, till the last fatal action,t was crowned with splendid success. But every British name is effaced by the illustrious name of ARTHUR, the hereditary prince of the Silures in South Wales, and the elective king or general of the nation. According to the most rational account, he defeated, in twelve successive battles, the Angles of the north, and the Saxons of the west; but the declining age of the hero was embittered by popular ingratitude and domestic misfortunes. The events of his life are less interesting than the singular revolutions of his fame. During a period of five hundred years, the tradition of his exploits was preserved and rudely embellished by the obscure bards of Wales and Armorica, who were odious to the Saxons, and unknown to the rest of mankind. The pride and curiosity of the Norman conquerors prompted them to inquire into the ancient history of Britain: they listened with fond credulity to the tale of Arthur, and eagerly applauded the merit of a prince who had triumphed over the Saxons, their common enemies. His romance, transcribed in the Latin of Jeffrey of Monmouth, and afterwards translated into the fashionable idiom of the times, was enriched with the various, though incoherent, ornaments, which were familiar to the experience, the learning, or the fancy, of the twelfth century. The progress of a Phrygian colony, from the Tiber to the Thames, was easily engrafted on the fable of the Eneid; and the royal ancestors of Arthur derived their origin from Troy, and claimed their alliance with the Cæsars. His trophies were decorated with captive provinces and (Description de la France, tom. i, p. 84-94), and the Abbé de Verto* (Hist. Critique de l'Etablissement des Bretons dans les Gaules, 2 vols in 12mo., Paris, 1720). I may assume the merit of examining the original evidence which they have produced.

Bede, who, in his chronicle (p. 28) places Ambrosius under the reign of Zeno (A.D. 474-491), observes, that his parents had been "purpurâ induti;" which he explains in his ecclesiastical history, by

regium nomen et insigne ferentibus" (lib. 1, c. 16, p. 53). The expression of Nennius (c. 44, p. 110, edit. Gale) is still more singular, Ünus de consulibus gentis Romanicæ est pater meus."

66

+ By the unanimous, though doubtful conjecture of our antiquarians, Ambrosius is confounded with Natanleod, who (A.D. 508) lost his own life, and five thousand of his subjects, in a battle against Cerdic, the West Saxon. (Chron. Saxon. p, 17, 18.) + As I am a

imperial titles; and his Danish victories avenged the recent injuries of his country. The gallantry and superstition of the British hero, his feasts and tournaments, and the memorable institution of his knights of the Round Table, were faithfully copied from the reigning manners of chivalry, and the fabulous exploits of Uther's son appear less incredible than the adventures which were achieved by the enterprising valour of the Normans. Pilgrimage and the holy wars introduced into Europe the specious miracles of Arabian magic. Fairies and giants, flying dragons, and enchanted palaces, were blended with the more simple fictions of the west; and the fate of Britain depended on the art, or the predictions, of Merlin. Every nation embraced and adorned the popular romance of Arthur and the knights of the Round Table: their names were celebrated in Greece and Italy; and the voluminous tales of Sir Lancelot and Sir Tristram were devoutly studied by the princes and nobles, who disregarded the genuine heroes and historians of antiquity. At length the light of science and reason was rekindled; the talisman was broken; the visionary fabric melted into air; and by a natural, though unjust, reverse of the public opinion, the severity of the present age is inclined to question the existence of Arthur.*

Resistance, if it cannot avert, must increase, the miseries of conquest; and conquest has never appeared more dreadful and destructive than in the hands of the Saxons; who hated the valour of their enemies, disdained the faith of treaties, and violated, without remorse, the most sacred objects of the Christian worship. The fields of battle might be traced, almost in every district, by monuments of bones; the fragments of falling towers were stained with blood; the last of the Britons, without distinction of age or sex, were massacred+ stranger to the Welsh bards, Myrdhin, Llomarch, and Taliessin, my faith in the existence and exploits of Arthur principally rests on the simple and circumstantial testimony of Nennius. (Hist. Brit. c. 62, 63, p. 114.) Mr. Whitaker (Hist. of Manchester. vol. ii, p. 31-71) has framed an interesting, and even probable, narrative of the wars of Arthur; though it is impossible to allow the reality of the Round Table. * The progress of romance, and the state of learning in the middle ages, are illustrated by Mr. Thomas Wharton, with the taste of a poet, and the minute diligence of an antiquarian. I have derived much instruction from the two learned dissertations prefixed to the first volume of his History of English Poetry.

Hoc anno (490) Ella et Cissa obsederunt Andredes-Ceaster; et

in the ruins of Anderida; and the repetition of such calamities was frequent and familiar under the Saxon heptarchy. The arts and religion, the laws and language, which the Romans had so carefully planted in Britain, were extirpated by their barbarous successors. After the destruction of the principal churches, the bishops, who had declined the crown of martyrdom, retired with the holy relics into Wales and Armorica; the remains of their flocks were left destitute of any spiritual food; the practice, and even the remembrance, of Christianity were abolished; and the British clergy might obtain some comfort from the damnation of the idolatrous strangers. The kings of France maintained the privileges of their Roman subjects; but the ferocious Saxons trampled on the laws of Rome and of the emperors. The proceedings of civil and criminal jurisdiction, the titles of honour, the forms of office, the ranks of interfecerunt omnes qui id incoluerunt; adeo ut ne unus Brito ibi superstes fuerit (Chron. Saxon. p. 15); an expression more dreadful in its simplicity than all the vague and tedious lamentations of the British Jeremiah. [Such meagre and partial records as we have of these atrocities, are not sufficient authorities for believing them. The AngloSaxons had none to give a faithful version of their proceedings. All that has been transmitted to us is the work of after times, when monkish chroniclers would not be unwilling to repeat any calumny against Pagans, even though they were their progenitors. Britain does not appear to have advanced, under Roman dominion, much beyond a state of improved tillage and cattle rearing. Some luxuries and refinements may have been introduced into the colonies and the most important military stations. But of general wealth or individual magnificence there are no signs. Disappointed of richer spoils, the Saxon conquerors may perhaps sometimes have exercised great cruelties, when they hoped by such means to discover hidden treasures. The land appears also to have been far from fully peopled. We seldom hear of villages, and the present names of almost all our rural parishes indicate their Anglo-Saxon origin. The cattle-owners probably drove their herds away as the strangers advanced, and the cultivators, abandoning their farms, congregated with the defeated warriors in new settlements among mountains, hitherto thinly tenanted. Some of the ancient inhabitants undoubtedly remained in their homes, and that they were not all condemned to servitude may be deduced from our Waltons, (towns of the Gauls or Welsh, of which Adams's Index Villaris, p. 370, enumerates forty-seven) Walshams, (homes of the same) and other places, the names of which evidently denote that Celts were their occupants or owners in the Anglo-Saxon times. The successful invaders took possession of the vacated abodes, sent for their families to join them, employed themselves in raising the produce of their acquired territories, multiplied, and by degrees overspread the land. ED.]

* Andredes-Ceaster. or Anderida, is placed by Camden (Britannia,