[1] _AFter that Iulius Cesar had thus made the Britains tributaries to the Romans, and was returned into Gal|lia, Cassibellane reigned 7 yeares, and was vanquished in the ninth or tenth yeare after he began first to reigne so that he reigned in the whole about 15 or as some haue 17 yeares, and then died,Fabian. leauing no issue be|hind him. There hath bin an old chronicle (as Fabian recordeth) which he saw and followeth much in his booke, wherein is conteined, that this Cassibellane was not brother to Lud, but eldest sonne to him: for otherwise as may be thought (saith he) Cesar hauing the vpper hand, would haue displaced him from the gouernement, and set vp Androgeus the right heire to the crowne, as sonne to the said Lud. But whatso|euer our chronicles or the British histories report of this matter, it should appere by that which Cesar wri|teth (as partlie ye haue heard) that Britaine in those daies was not gouerned by one sole prince,Caesar. but by diuers, and that diuers cities were estates of them|selues, so that the land was diuided into sundrie go|uernements, much after the forme and maner as Germanie and Italie are in our time, where some ci|ties are gouerned by one onelie prince, some by the nobilitie, and some by the people. And whereas diuers of the rulers in those daies here in this land were cal|led kings, those had more large seigniories than the other,Cassibellane a king. as Cassibellane, who was therefore called a king.
[1] [2] And though we doo admit this to be true, yet may it be, that in the beginning, after Brute entered the land, there was ordeined by him a monarchie, as be|fore is mentioned, which might continue in his poste|ritie manie yeares after, and yet at length before the comming of Cesar, through ciuill dissention, might happilie be broken, and diuided into parts, and so re|mained not onelie in the time of this Cassibellane, but also long after, whilest they liued as tributaries to the Romans, till finallie they were subdued by the Saxons. In which meane time, through the discord, negligence, or rather vnaduised rashnes of writers, hard it is to iudge what may be affirmed and recei|ued in their writings for a truth; namelie, concer|ning the succession of the kings that are said to haue reigned betwixt the daies of Cassibellane, and the comming of the Saxons. The Roman writers (and namelie Tacitus) report, that the Britains in times past were vnder the rule of kings,Cor. Tacit. in vit. Iu. Agr. and after being made tributaries, were drawne so by princes into sundrie factions, that to defend and kéepe off a com|mon ieopardie, scarselie would two or thrée cities a|grée togther, and take weapon in hand with one ac|cord, so that while they fought by parts, the whole was ouercome. And after this sort they say that Britaine was brought into the forme of a prouince by the Romans, from whom gouernors vnder the name of legats and procurators were sent that had the rule of it.
[1] But yet the same authors make mention of cer|teine kings (as hereafter shall appeare) who while [page 32] the Romane emperors had the most part of the earth in subiection, reigned in Britaine. The same wit|nesseth Gildas, Gildas in epist. saieng: Britaine hath kings, but they are tyrants: iudges it hath, but the same are wic|ked, oftentimes spoiling and tormenting the inno|cent people. And Cesar (as ye haue heard) speaketh of foure kings that ruled in Kent, and thereabouts. Cornelius Tacitus maketh mention of Prasutagus, and Cogidunus,Some take Prasutagus and Aruira|gus to be one man. that were kings in Britaine: and Iuuenal speaketh of Aruiragus: and all the late wri|ters, of Lucius. Hereby it appeareth, that whether one or mo, yet kings there were in Britain, bearing rule vnder the Romane emperors.
[1] On the other part, the common opinion of our chronicle-writers is,Gal. Mon. that the chiefe gouernment re|mained euer with the Britains, & that the Romane senat receiuing a yearelie tribute, sent at certeine times (Ex officio) their emperors and lieutenants into this Ile, to represse the rebellious tumults therein begun, or to beat backe the inuasion of the enimies that went about to inuade it. And thus would these writers inferre, that the Britains euer obeied their king, till at length they were put beside the gouerne|ment by the Saxons. But whereas in the common historie of England, the succession of kings ought to be kept, so oft as it chanceth in the same that there is not anie to fill the place, then one while the Romane emperors are placed in their steads, and another while their lieutenants, and are said to be created kings of the Britains, as though the emperors were inferiors vnto the kings of Britaine, and that the Romane lieutenants at their appointments, and not by prescript of the senat or emperours, admini|stred the prouince.
[1] This may suffice here to aduertise you of the con|trarietie in writers. Now we will go foorth in follo|wing our historie, as we haue doone heretofore, sa|uing that where the Romane histories write of things done here by emperors, or their lieutenants, it shall be shewed as reason requireth, sith there is a great appearance of truth oftentimes in the same, as those that be authorised and allowed in the opinion of the learned.