given us (p. 54), on the antiquity of these catalogues of Saints, it appears that the orthography of the book from whence one of them is taken, is "ancient;" and that the second was collected by Lewis Morris "from various old MSS. in North Wales, some of which are still in existence." Here again we have no particulars stated. We do not know whether the MSS. are of the sixteenth, or of the fourteenth, or the tenth century. "Old" MSS., and "ancient" orthography, conveys no particular notion as to date, authority, &c.

We cannot conceive that the MSS. thus vaguely referred to in this and in other preceding instances, are of any great antiquity. Had they been so, the Welsh antiquarians would assuredly have endeavoured to establish their age, by sufficient evidence. They could not have failed to make use of so important a means of establishing the genuineness of these Triads and other records.

We have thus briefly examined the evidence which has been adduced in support of the authenticity of the Welsh Triads and other records, and it appears on the whole, that the external evidence is too imperfect to enable us to employ them in the establishment of historical facts. Still we would not be understood to deny that the Druidical system has been handed down in the Triads. There is much in them which appears above the faculties and learning of Bards in the later ages, and which strikes us as really ancient; but we should think that the whole has been to a considerable degree mingled with later additions; and we have no trust in the historical records, which appear to have been fabricated with a view to national pride and dignity.

But there is a far more serious difficulty than any we have yet adverted to, in reference to the historical records of the Cymry. The earliest British historian, Gildas-himself a Briton, and desirous of writing a narrative of the state of things in Britain during the dominion of the Romans, and subsequently-was unable to discover any British records to aid him in his work. He observes in his history, that his purpose is to narrate the evils which Britain, in the time of the Roman emperors, suffered and inflicted on people dwelling afar off, as far as he may, "not from national records, or remains of native writers, since none such appear to exist, or if there were any, they were either burnt by the enemy, or carried abroad." He concludes by informing us, that his history is based on "foreign authorities." Now it certainly does seem that this

3 "Illa tamen proferre conabor in medium, quæ temporibus imperatorum Romanorum et passa est et aliis intulit civibus longe positis mala; quantum tamen potuero, non tam ex Scripturis patriæ Scriptorumve monumentis, quippe quæ, vel si qua fuerint aut ignibus hostium exusta, aut civium exsilii classe longius deportata, non compareant,quam transmarina relatione, quæ, crebris irrupta intercapidinibus, non satis claret."-Gildas de excidio Britanniæ. Ed. Stephenson, pp. 13, 14.

passage in Gildas goes to subvert the authenticity of all the early historical records of the Cymry comprised in the Triads, &c. He evidently knew of no such national records or remains of native writers. If there ever were any such, he considered that they must have been burnt or lost. If he had heard of any oral traditions, he evidently did not consider them worthy of attention, or possessing any authority. We infer from this, that the Britons in the time of Gildas were unacquainted with the ancient history of their race, except in a very general way-that they knew no more of it than the broad facts which appear on the face of history-and that the historical Triads and other pieces bearing on the early history of Britain, which, as Mr. Williams himself seems to admit, bear signs of having been in part compiled as late as the seventh century, or even later, were in fact composed in that age, or some of the following ages after the time of Gildas; and, consequently, that they are of no authority whatever as regards the early British history. In point of fact, as we have seen, no evidence is before us to show that there is any documentary proof of the existence of these Triads, &c., much before the sixteenth century. No manuscript is actually produced, which can be ascribed to the twelfth or thirteenth, or even to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. No proof is given that Caradoc of Llancarvan, or Brechva, in the twelfth century, wrote books containing Triads, and that the present Triads are faithful transcripts. In short, the whole thing wears a most suspicious aspect, and we know not to what age, between the seventh and the sixteenth, to ascribe the composition of the Historical Triads, and other Welsh records bearing on history.

Still we may approximate somewhat more closely to the age of these records; for not only is the Welsh traditional history more recent than the time of Gildas, but it appears to be later even than the time of Nennius-that is, later than the ninth century. For Nennius, who certainly was a British writer, and probably of that date, gives us a number of historical details on the early history of Britain, which are entirely different from those of the Welsh Triads, &c., and prove that this British writer of the ninth century had never heard of the stories comprised in them. Nennius states that there are different accounts of the first peopling of the island after the Deluge. According to the annals of the Romans, he says, Brutus, a descendant of Æneas, being expelled from Italy, settled in Britain with his people, as its first king, and Britain was thus peopled (Nennius, § 10, Ed. Stephenson). But, according to the British records, he says, Britto, or Brutus, was of the family of Japheth, and descended from him in the seventeenth generation, and this Britto was the

son of Hissitio, son of Alanus, who with his family first came into Europe (Nennius, § 17). Now this proves very clearly, that in the time of Nennius, the Welsh Triad history had not yet been invented. It is perfectly incredible that Nennius, a Briton, should not have been acquainted with the traditions of his own nation: he actually records what the British traditions were in his time: and those traditions, as stated by him, are altogether different from those of the Triads. We therefore infer that the latter are more recent than the ninth century: indeed, as Geoffry of Monmouth, appears to reproduce in an augmented form the same fables as those of Nennius, we should be disposed to conclude, that the Triad history is much later than the twelfth century.

But besides this, there is another most serious objection to the credibility of these British or Welsh remains; they represent a state of things in ancient Britain which is totally inconsistent with the facts of history. They suppose Britain, Siluria at least, to have been continually ruled by its own sovereigns; while we know that the whole of South Britain, including Siluria, was for centuries divided into provinces, forming a part of the Roman empire, the inhabitants of which were kept in order by a mere handful of troops. From the time of Agricola (A.D. 80), till the invasion of the Saxons, the Britons appear to have submitted very quietly to the Roman dominion; and we read of no British kings (with one exception) under the Romans. Above all, it is perfectly clear that in Siluria, more particularly, there was no such thing as an independent British sovereign, or any British sovereign at all. We fully admit that it was not unfrequently the policy of the Romans to permit sovereigns to retain their titles and a portion of their authority as tributaries, or allies, much in the same way in which England now permits several native principalities in India under her sway, and does not deem it necessary to reduce every part of the country under the direct jurisdiction of her own officials. The Romans frequently acted on this policy where they were not opposed by force of arms, but where sovereigns or states submitted without any opposition to their dominion. In Britain they did so in one instance. Cogidunus, king of the Regni, became a favourite with Claudius, in consequence of his early and willing submission to the Roman arms, and was permitted to retain the government of certain towns of his tribe. But Britain, as a whole, constituted one or more Roman provinces from the moment of its final conquest by Agricola, A.D. 80. After that period there is no mention of any British kings whatever.

With reference to Siluria in particular, there is historical proof that the Silures were finally conquered by Julius Frontinus, after

a long and obstinate resistance, about A.D. 75. The contemporary testimony of Tacitus on this point is indisputable. It was probably in consequence of the warlike and turbulent character of this people that one of the three legions, which constituted the Roman force in Britain, was permanently stationed in the country of the Silures, at Caerleon, or Isca Šilurum. The other two legions were employed in guarding the northern barrier against the Caledonians. It is therefore clear that the country of the Silures was, of all parts of Britain, precisely that in which no native sovereign could have been permitted. It would have been contrary to all sound policy, and especially to the practice of the Romans, to permit a nation, which it was found desirable to keep in order by a garrison, to have the power of organizing itself under a sovereign of its own.

But the Welsh Triads, on the other hand, suppose that Siluria was always the seat of the British monarchy, and give us the names of a series of Christian princes of Britain! beginning with Bran, the father of Caractacus, and acting quite independently as sovereigns in their dominions. It supposes that Bran and Caradoc or Caractacus, were, successively, kings of Britain; that St. Cyllin succeeded to the throne (p. 63); that Owain was Cyllin's successor in his "dominions;" that Owain erected a royal palace, and endowed a choir; that Lleirwg then "ascended the throne," and established the "Archbishopric of Llandaf," &c. Mr. Williams maintains that the alleged letter of Eleutherius to King Lucius, which supposes him to be sovereign over the whole of Britain, and does not even allude to any other government whatever as having dominion in the land, is perfectly in accordance with the views which the Welsh records give of the state of things in the first and second centuries (p. 68). And yet it is perfectly clear, from undoubted history, that the whole of Britain was, during that period, in complete subjection to the dominion of the Roman emperors. The country, from one end to the other, was intersected with Roman roads, covered with Roman towns, cities, and colonies, garrisoned by Roman troops, and was furnishing its regular levies of recruits to the Roman armies, in the shape of the "British Cohorts," who were attached to so many of the legions in foreign parts. The whole machinery of Roman government was in full operation: taxes were rigidly enforced; and the natives were deprived of the use of arms.

One special point of discrepancy between these Welsh documents and the facts of ancient history cannot be passed over. The Triads represent Caractacus, not merely as King of Siluria,

♦ Ample details on these points will be found in Henry's History of Britain, vol. i.

but as a native of that country. Mr. Williams, stating the history as given in the Welsh records, says:

"Caradog, though elective sovereign of the whole island, and 'ruling many nations,' was emphatically and peculiarly Prince of Siluria, and, therefore, his patrimonial residence must have been situated in that region. A Triad justifies this natural conclusion,

'The three tribe herdsmen of the isle of Britain;"

Bennren, herdsman in Corwennydd (a place in Glamorganshire), who kept the herd of Caradog, the son of Bran, and his tribe; and in that herd were twenty-one thousand milch cows, &c."—p. 56.

Thus we see that Caractacus was, according to these Welsh records, the Prince of the Silures by hereditary descent. And moreover his father's name was Bran, according to the same records. They state that Bran, the father of Caractacus, was carried a prisoner to Rome, along with his son Caractacus, and was imprisoned there for seven years, and having become a convert to Christianity there, returned to his kingdom of Britain.

Now all this is perfectly inconsistent with the facts of the case, as stated in the Roman historians. According to Tacitus and Dio Cassius, Caractacus, with his brother Togodumnus, were sons of Cunobelinus, who was king by descent, not of the Silures, but of the Cattivelauni-a nation inhabiting a tract to the north of London, and by conquest, sovereign of the greater part of England from Yorkshire southwards. Caractacus and his brother, who had each inherited a share of the dominions of Cunobelinus, contended with great courage against the Roman invasion in the time of the Emperor Claudius; but after a long contest, Caractacus, being deprived of his paternal dominions, was received by the Silures, a warlike people of South Wales, as their leader; and at their head he engaged in a fresh contest with the Romans, which issued in his defeat, and his subsequent betrayal to the Romans by his stepmother, Cartismandua, Queen of the Brigantes. His father Cunobelinus, therefore, had been dead many years before Caractacus was captured by the Romans; and this is wholly inconsistent with the Welsh Triads, which make Bran, instead of Cunobelinus, the father of Caractacus; and suppose him to have been alive when the latter was taken. In fact, if Dio Cassius, an historian of good credit, who lived in the third century, is to be believed, there never was such a person as Bran. Tacitus also, who mentions (Annal. 1. xii. c. 35, 36) the capture of the wife and daughter of Caractacus, the surrender of his brothers, and his subsequent betrayal, is perfectly silent as to the capture or betrayal of his father.