GEOFFROY of Monmouth, Bishop of St Asaph, called by our ancient biographers Gallofridus Monumentensis Leland conjectures that he was educated in a Bénédictin«
[7:10:386]

convent at Monmouth, where he was born about the beginning of the twelfth century, and that he afterwards became a monk of that order. Bale, and after him Pits, call him archdeacon of Monmouth; and it is generally believed that he was created Bishop of St Asaph in the year 1151 or 1152, under the reign of King Stephen. Some time afterwards he repaired to the court of Henry II. who received him with distinction, and fixed him near his own person by the gift of a rich abbey. The canons of St Asaph having to no purpose urged Geoffroy to return to his diocese, profited by the decision of a synod held at London to make him a last offer either to resume the administration of that part of the church committed to his care, or to consent that a successor should be appointed in his charge. In 1175, Geoffroy divested himself of his bishopric; but he had soon reason to repent this step, since he lost the benefices which had been conferred upon him by Henry II. He is believed to have died about the year 1180. His history, which was probably completed after the year 1138, contains a fabulous account of British kings, from the Trojan Brutus to the reign of Cadwallader in the year 690. But Geoffroy, whatever may be thought of his credulity, was not the inventor of the stories which he relates. His history is a translation from a manuscript written in the British language, and brought to England from Armorica by his friend Gυaiterus, or Gauthier, archdeacon of Oxford. But the achievements of King Arthur, Merlin’s prophecies, speeches, and letters, were chiefly his own addition. Geoffroy takes credit to himself for being the first who wrote the history of the times that preceded the establishment of Christianity in England; but as he admits that in every thing which concerns the kings of Saxon origin, he merely translated into Latin from the 'work which had been sent him by the archdeacon of Oxford, it does notappear that he has much cause to plume himself on this score, or that he can lay claim to the credit of originality, and at the same time escape the charge of invention. Wharton’s excuse, that fabulous histories were then the fashion, and popular traditions, a recommendation of a book, may be available to a romancer, but is ridiculous when alleged in behalf of an historian. In as far, however, as he merely translated, he is not to be held responsible for the legends which he published in a Latin version; and although his history as a whole is doubtless a tissue of counterfeit facts and fabulous anecdotes, yet there seems to be no sufficient ground for the reproaches which have been cast upon him by Twin and Wear, who have chosen to brand him as the father of lies. In an age of profound ignorance and boundless credulity, the wildest fictions were greedily swallowed, and the supernatural, the miraculous, or the impossible, easily amalgamated with the unquestioning faith of a superstition founded on the prostration of reason. Belief may be honest, though its object is falsehood. Besides, as Pits and Nicoson have observed, Geoffroy may be relied on, in the account he gives of eventa which either fell under his own observation, or in regard to which he had it in his power to procure accurate information. He was not an inventor of fables; and those which he retailed he derived from the source already indicated, namely, the Armorican manuscript brought to England by Gualterus. His works are, 1. Origo et gesta Regum et Principum Britanniae, sive Historia Britonum ab Aenea eţ Bruto, Paris, Badius, 1517, u j°k reprl, iteσ'" ti * 1 Britannicarum rerum Scriptores, Heidelberg, 1587, in foho; 2. Versio prophetiarum Am brosii Merlini, Frankfort, 1603, inłto; 3. Vita Merlin· Caledonii; 4. Commentarius in prophetias Merlina utriusque;

5. Epistolae ad Gualterum Oxoniensem archidiaconum;

6. De Exilio Ecclesiasticoum; 7. An abridgment of the History of Gildas; 8. Latin verses on different subjects. A treatise De corpore et sanguine Christi is also attributed to him; but Fabricius is of opinion that the author of this work is William, abbot of St Thierry at Reims.