【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 on were derived from the work of Bede (13). He thinks the same of the description of Britain, the notices of the Roman emperors, and the detail of the first arrival of the Saxons. But, it may be observed, those passages to which he alludes are not to be found in the earlier MSS. The description of Britain, which forms the introduction, and refers us to a period antecedent to the invasion of Julius Caesar。 appears only in three copies of the Chronicle。 two of which are of so late a date as the Norman Conquest, and both derived from the same source. Whatever relates to the succession of the Roman emperors was so universally known, that it must be considered as mon property: and so short was the interval between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Saxons, that the latter must have preserved amongst them sufficient memorials and traditions to connect their own history with that of their predecessors. Like all rude nations, they were particularly attentive to genealogies。 and these, together with the succession of their kings, their battles, and their conquests, must be derived originally from the Saxons themselves. and not from Gildas, or Nennius, or Bede (14). Gibson himself was so convinced of this, that he afterwards attributes to the Saxon Chronicle all the knowledge we have of those early times (15). Moreover, we might ask, if our whole dependence had been centered in Bede, what would have bee of us after his death? (16) Malmsbury indeed asserts, with some degree of vanity, that you will not easily find a Latin historian of English affairs between Bede and himself (17)。 and in the fulness of selfplacency professes his determination, to season with Roman salt the barbarisms of his native tongue! He affects great contempt for Ethelwerd, whose work will be considered hereafter。 and he well knew how unacceptable any praise of the Saxon Annals would be to the Normans, with whom he was connected (18). He thinks it necessary to give his reasons, on one occasion, for inserting from these very Annals what he did not find in Bede。 though it is obvious, that the best part of his materials, almost to his own times, is derived from the same source. The object of Bishop Asser, the biographer of Alfred, who es next in order, was to deliver to posterity a plete memorial of that sovereign, and of the transactions of his reign. To him alone are we indebted for the detail of many interesting circumstances in the life and character of his royal patron (19)。 but most of the public transactions will be found in the pages of the Saxon Chronicle: some passages of which he appears to have translated so literally, that the modern version of Gibson does not more closely represent the original. In the editions of Parker, Camden, and Wise, the last notice of any public event refers to the year 887. The interpolated copy of Gale, called by some PseudoAsserius, and by others the Chronicle of St. Neot39。s, is extended to the year 914 (20). Much difference of opinion exists respecting this work。 into the discussion of which it is not our present purpose to enter. One thing is remarkable: it contains the vision of Drihtelm, copied from Bede, and that of Charles King of the Franks, which Malmsbury thought it worth while to repeat in his History of the Kings of England. What Gale observes concerning the fidelity with which these annals of Asser are copied by Marianus, is easily explained. They both translated from the Saxon Chronicle, as did also Florence of Worcester, who interpolated Marianus。 of whom we shall speak hereafter. But the most faithful and extraordinary follower of the Saxon Annals is Ethelwerd。 who seems to have disregarded almost all other sources of information. One great error, however, he mitted。 for which Malmsbury does nor spare him. Despairing of the reputation of classical learning, if he had followed the simplicity of the Saxon original, he fell into a sort of measured and inverted prose, peculiar to himself。 which, being at first sufficiently obscure, is sometimes rendered almost unintelligible by the incorrect manner in which it has been printed. His authority, nevertheless, in an historical point of view, is very respectable. Being one of the few writers untainted by monastic prejudice (21), he does not travel out of his way to indulge in legendary tales and romantic visions. Critically considered, his work is the best mentary on the Saxon Chronicle to the year 977。 at which period one of the MSS. which he seems to have followed, terminates. Brevity and pression seem to have been his aim, because the pilation was intended to be sent abroad for the instruction of a female relative of high rank in Germany (22), at her request. But there are, nevertheless, some circumstances recorded which are not to be found elsewhere。 so that a reference to this epitome of Saxon history will be sometimes useful in illustrating the early part of the Chronicle。 though Gibson, I know not on what account, has scarcely once quoted it. During the sanguinary conflicts of the eleventh century, which ended first in the temporary triumph of the Danes, and afterwards in the total subjugation of the country by the Normans, literary pursuits, as might be expected, were so much neglected, that scarcely a Latin writer is to be found: but the Saxon Chronicle has preserved a regular and minute detail of occurrences, as they passed along, of which subsequent historians were glad to avail themselves. For nearly a century after the Conquest, the Saxon annalists appear to have been chiefly eyewitnesses of the transactions which they relate (23). The policy of the Conqueror led him by degrees to employ Saxons as well as Normans: and William II. found them the most faithful of hi