【導(dǎo)讀】Chronicle"inexistence,allofwhichvary(sometimesgreatly)incontentand. ACottonianFragment(BritishMuseum,CottonMS.OthoBxi,2). absolute.ORIGINALTEXT--. Series208,Oxford,1941).OTHERTRANSLATIONS--. 1955,1968).ofDoomsday(1)andthe"SaxonChronicle"(2).Theformer,which

　　

【正文】 ho succeeded to the illustrious Theodore of Tarsus in 690, was the first English or Saxon archbishop of Canterbury. From this period, consequently, we may date that cultivation of the vernacular tongue which would lead to the position of brief chronicles (27), and other vehicles of instruction, necessary for the improvement of a rude and illiterate people. The first chronicles were, perhaps, those of Kent or Wessex。 which seem to have been regularly continued, at intervals. by the archbishops of Canterbury, or by their direction (28), at least as far as the year 1001, or by even 1070。 for the Be MS., which some call the Plegmund MS., ends in the latter year。 the rest being in Latin. From internal evidence indeed, of an indirect nature, there is great reason to presume, that Archbishop Plegmund transcribed or superintended this very copy of the Saxon Annals to the year 891 (29)。 the year in which he came to the see。 inserting, both before and after this date, to the time of his death in 923, such additional materials as he was well qualified to furnish from his high station and learning, and the confidential intercourse which he enjoyed in the court of King Alfred. The total omission of his own name, except by another hand, affords indirect evidence of some importance in support of this conjecture. Whether King Alfred himself was the author of a distinct and separate chronicle of Wessex, cannot now be determined. That he furnished additional supplies of historical matter to the older chronicles is, I conceive, sufficiently obvious to every reader who will take the trouble of examining the subject. The argument of Dr. Beeke, the present Dean of Bristol, in an obliging letter to the editor on this subject, is not without its force。 that it is extremely improbable, when we consider the number and variety of King Alfred39。s works, that he should have neglected the history, of his own country. Besides a genealogy of the kings of Wessex from Cerdic to his own time, which seems never to have been incorporated with any MS. of the Saxon Chronicle, though prefixed or annexed to several, he undoubtedly preserved many traditionary facts。 with a full and circumstantial detail of his own operations, as well as those of his father, brother, and other members of his family。 which scarcely any other person than himself could have supplied. To doubt this would be as incredulous a thing as to deny that Xenophon wrote his Anabasis, or Caesar his Commentaries. From the time of Alfred and Plegmund to a few years after the Norman Conquest, these chronicles seem to have been continued by different hands, under the auspices of such men as Archbishops Dunstan, Aelfric, and others, whose characters have been much misrepresented by ignorance and scepticism on the one hand。 as well as by mistaken zeal and devotion on the other. The indirect evidence respecting Dunstan and Aelfric is as curious as that concerning Plegmund。 but the discussion of it would lead us into a wide and barren field of investigation。 nor is this the place to refute the errors of Hickes, Cave, and Wharton, already noticed by Wanley in his preface. The chronicles of Abingdon, of Worcester, of Peterborough, and others, are continued in the same manner by different hands。 partly, though not exclusively, by monks of those monasteries, who very naturally inserted many particulars relating to their own local interests and concerns。 which, so far from invalidating the general history, render it more interesting and valuable. It would be a vain and frivolous attempt ascribe these latter pilations to particular persons (31), where there were evidently so many contributors。 but that they were successively furnished by contemporary writers, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the events and transactions which they relate, there is abundance of internal evidence to convince us. Many instances of this the editor had taken some pains to collect, in order to lay them before the reader in the preface。 but they are so numerous that the subject would necessarily bee tedious。 and therefore every reader must be left to find them for himself. They will amply repay him for his trouble, if he takes any interest in the early history of England, or in the general construction of authentic history of any kind. He will see plagarisms without end in the Latin histories, and will be in no danger of falling into the errors of Gale and others。 not to mention those of our historians who were not professed antiquaries, who mistook that for original and authentic testimony which was only translated. It is remarkable that the Saxon Chronicle gradually expires with the Saxon language, almost melted into modern English, in the year 1154. From this period almost to the Reformation, whatever knowledge we have of the affairs of England has been originally derived either from the semibarbarous Latin of our own countrymen, or from the French chronicles of Froissart and others. The revival of good taste and of good sense, and of the good old custom adopted by most nations of the civilised world that of writing their own history in their own language was happily exemplified at length in the laborious works of our English chroniclers and historians. Many have since followed in the same track。 and the importance of the whole body of English History has attracted and employed the imagination of Milton, the philosophy of Hume, the simplicity of Goldsmith, the industry of Henry, the research of Turner, and the patience of Lingard. The pages of these writers, however, accurate and luminous as they generally are, as well as those of Brady, Tyrrell, Carte, Rapin, and others, not to mention those in black letter, still require correction from the Saxon Chronicle。