THREE OXFORDSIIIUK WUITEUs;. 285 Moreover, Geffrey dedicates his work to Robert Fitz Koy, Earl of Gloucester, who died about 1146, — another proof that Walter Map could not be the donor of the MS. From all these dates uniting in Walter de Wallingford, we are compelled to come to the conclusion that the Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, who gave Geffrey the celebrated Welsh History, was not Walter Map, but Walter de Walling- ford. If the Magister Galfridus Arturus, mentioned in the charter, was Gefl"rey of Monmouth, his being Ma()uter and a witness would show him to be at least twenty-one. In both deeds he is coupled as a witness with Robert de Monemuta. The last date of Walter de Wallingford which Le Neve <i:ives is 1151, which would make Geffrey a young man when he translated this work, supposing him to have lived also in 1197. We must now put the query, wdio was the Walter wdiose malady is so feelingly deplored by Henry of Huntingdon in his Treatise de Coutemptu Mundi, and of whom he gives this high praise : — " Waltere, quondam decus juvenum ! quondam delicise rerum !" This could not be Walter Map, for although this work was written in Henry's old age, yet, as Henry must have been born about 1090, to suppose him lamenting Walter Map, who lived in 1205, would be absurd. I conjecture, then, that the person in question was Walter de Wallingford. That Henry must have been born about 1090 is proved by his own words, in which he states that he saw Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, when he (Henry) was a little boy, a youtli, a young man. As Robert Bloet was made bishop in 1093, and cUed in 1123, his episcopate would comprise those three periods of Henry of Huntingdon's life, which he here indicates. Having thus established the probable age of Henry, I think it is clear, from this also, that the Walter, to whom he alludes in this eulogy, could not be Walter Map. The necessity, which all should feel, of correcting erroneous impressions on points of history will, I trust, plead my excuse for entering so much at length into this discussion. The proofs of the above argument are the following : —
