Yet, before I come to speak of this middle Age (if I may so call it) wherein the _Romans_ prevailed, and to compleat their victories gave first rise to civility in this Island; as, I began with times of great Antiquity, so must I now descend to those lesse ancient, and modern, wherein, as posterity hath suffered an irreparable damage, through want of writing in those first times, so hath it been almost at as great a losse, by too much writing in later times; so many Authors, so much contrariety, so little certainty is found amongst them. Who, when they could not search out the truth in deed, laboured to bring forth narrations invented by themselves, without or reason, or authority: delivering (saith _Camden_) their severall opinions, rather with a certain pleasant variety to give contentment to their _Readers_, then with any care or judgement to find out the truth of things.
[Sidenote: _Leyland. de assert. Arth. fo. 35._]
Those ancient Historians who (among other actions of the _Britans_) treat of this Antiquity, differ much in their severall reports. And, as it is usuall with _Historiographers_ of other Nations, where, they cannot give a just and rationall accompt of unwonted accidents, beyond the common course of things, to fill up their stories with fabulous, and incredible relations; so, no marvell, if we hear the like in our own Histories. _Credibile enim est calamitatem bellicam, quæ ecclesias unà cum bibliochecis exhauserat infinitis, clara vetustatis monumenta abrasisse. For evident it is, through the calamities of wars_ (saith _Leyland_) _which together with infinite Libraries ruined the Churches themselves, the certain records of our Antiquities, are utterly lost. Unde scripturienti de antiquitate_ Britannica _occultissima, pleraque omnia. Whereby the Writers of the_ British _Stories, are all of them, for the most part, very obscure and doubtfull._
Some others again, especially the most ancient and authentick _British_ Historians, who liv’d in Ages next succeeding those, wherein, _Stoneheng_ might probably be first erected, have wholly passed it over with silence. In like manner venerable _Bede_, _William Malmesbury_, _Roger Hoveden_, and others, speak nothing thereof, as happily, willing rather to decline it altogether, then deliver it upon frivolous conjectures, and in so doing cast a blemish upon their other labours. Neither is it improbable, that the most ancient Authors, considering the times wherein they wrote, upon the first springing up of _Christian Religion_ here, might through zeal unto the true God, forbear to commemorate unto posterity, places designed for idolatrous uses; endeavouring rather, to suppresse the memory thereof, and make succeeding generations sollicitous therein; then, in that infancy of Divine worship, to illustrate the magnificence of the Heathens, for building such notable structures to their false Gods. Insomuch, I find very little, or no mention at all thereof in the _British_ Stories, except by _Geffrey Monmouth_, with some who follow him, and by such Authors only, as our most judicious Writers hold in many things, either meerly fabulous, or overladen with malicious, or accidentary untruths. Such relations neverthelesse, as they make thereof, I shall endeavour to deliver in their own words, reduceable into two conjectures, _viz._ either that _Stoneheng_ was erected by _A. Ambrosius_ (in ancient times King of the _Britans_) in memory of the _British_ Nobility perfidiously slain at a treaty by _Hengist_ the _Saxon_: or else, set up by the _Britans_ themselves in honour of Him their said King.