before that period. The next ten years rather exhibit different ink than a different writer. From 1132 to the end, A.D. 1154, the language and orthography became gradually more Normanized, particularly in the reign of king Stephen; the account of which was not written till the close of it. The dates not being regularly affixed to the last ten years, Wanley has inadvertently described this MS. as ending A.D. 1143; whereas it is continued eleven years afterwards."

VI. The sixth and last copy is in the British Museum. [Cotton, Domitian A. viii.]

"This is a singularly curious MS., attributed generally to a monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, on account of the monastic interpolations. It is often quoted and commended by H. Wharton, in his Anglia Sacra, because it contains much ecclesiastical and local information. We consider it, however, of the least authority among the Cotton MSS., because the writer has taken greater liberties in abridging former Chronicles, and inserting translations of Latin documents in his own Normanized dialect. Frithstan, bishop of Winchester, who died A.D. 931 according to this Chronicle, is called biscop Wentanus; and Byrnstanus [Brinstan] is said to have been consecrated on his loh—in ejus locum. lieu, Fr. Its very peculiarities, nevertheless, stamp a great value on it; and its frauds are harmless, if possible, because they are easily detected. Towards the end the writer intended to say something about prince Edward, the father of Edgar and Margaret; but it is nearly obliterated, and the MS. soon after concludes, A.D. 1058. It is remarkable for being written both in Latin and Saxon; but for what purpose it is now needless to conjecture. It is said to have been given to Sir Robert Cotton by Camden. The passages printed from it by Gibson, and the variations in the margin, marked Cot., are from the collations of Junius inserted in his copy of Wheloc. There does not appear to have been any entire transcript of the MS., as we find it sometimes stated.* Gibson takes no notice of the introductory description of Britain as being in this MS., and he dates its termination in the wrong place. We have therefore had recourse to it again in the British Museum, where it is deposited."

* Vid. Wanl. Cat. p. 220.

Besides these six, no other ancient copy is known to exist; but there is a single leaf of an ancient copy in the British Museum. [Cotton, Tiberius A iii.] There are also three modern transcripts, two of which are in the Bodleian library, [Junian MSS. and Laud G. 36,] and one in the Dublin library. [E 5, 15.] The Bodleian transcripts are taken from two of the Cotton MSS., and therefore are of little critical value; but the Dublin transcript appears to be taken from an original, now lost, [Cott. Otho B. xi.] and therefore it possesses an independent authority.

"At the end of the Dublin transcript is this note, in the hand-writing of archbishop Usher: These Annales are extant in S R. Cotton's Librarye at the ende of Bede's Historye in the Saxon Tongue.' This accords with the description of the MS. in Wanley's Catalogue, p. 219; to which the reader is referred for more minute particulars. As this MS. was therefore in existence so late as 1705, when Warley published his Catalogue, there can be little doubt that it perished in the lamentable fire of 1731, which either destroyed or damaged so many of the Cotton MSS. while deposited in a house in Little Dean's Yard, Westminster."

"This transcript is become more valuable from the loss of the original. It appears from dates by Lambard himself, at the beginning and end, that it was begun by him in 1563, and finished in 1564, when he was about the age of twentyfive. In the front is this inscription in Saxon characters:

Willm lambarde, 1563; and, wulfhelm lambheord; with this addition, wæccath thine leoht-fat; which may be thus translated:

Lambard, arise; awake thy lamp.'

At the end is the following memorandum: Finis: 9 Aprilis, 1564. W. L. propria manu.' I am informed by several gentlemen of Trinity College, Dublin, to whom I am indebted for most of the particulars relating to this transcript, that it was once in the possession of archbishop Usher, and is the same mentioned in his Ecclesiastical History, p. 182, which Nicolson says 'is worth the inquiring after.'* It came into the Dublin Library with the other MSS. of the archbishop, according to his original intention, after the restoration of Charles II."

* English Historical Library, Part I. p. 117.

To these six, or if we include the Dublin MS., seven, copies of the Saxon Chronicle, must our inquiry therefore be confined; and the first point worthy of notice, is the fact, that no two of them agree in the date at which they termiThus :

nate.

No. 2. comes down no later than A.D. 977.

This diversity can hardly be accounted for on any other view of the case, than that which applies to a large number of other ancient writings, and is peculiarly forcible as applied to a series of annals like the work before us.

Almost every monastery had its own historiographer or historian, whose business or at least whose general practice it was to copy the history of preceding times from those who were already known to have written of them with success, and to continue the narrative, during his own times, in his own words, to the best of his ability. Now in the case of the Saxon Chronicle we may reasonably suppose that its original groundwork consisted of little more than a meagre string of events, arranged chronologically with a few genealogies and notices of the deaths and births of the kings and other distinguished personages. In the limited dimensions within which learning was confined during the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, and in consequence also of the paucity of scholars, it is more likely that such a record would become generally used than that new ones would be written, and most of the monasteries would probably possess a copy of the early part of these annals, which afterwards they would bring down to their own times. Consistent with this theory is the evident fact that the existing MSS. coming from different religious houses, all differ in the year at which they terminate, as if the last transcriber of the shortest had not been aware that the copy which he followed was less complete than those which existed elsewhere.*

A case exactly in point to illustrate this suggestion occurs in the letters of Arnulf bishop of Lisieux under Henry II. Seven MSS. only exist:

But there is another peculiarity in the MSS. of the Saxon Chronicle which almost proves for certain the account above given. Some of these MSS. are more diffuse than the others about the affairs of the particular monastery in which they are believed to have been written. Thus one of them, especially, is most minute concerning the affairs of Peterborough, a fact, which, almost without other evidence, would prove it to have been transcribed within the walls of that monastery.

However this theory, which lies upon the surface of the inquiry concerning the mode in which the Saxon Chronicle was compiled, may be thought worthy or not of the reader's attention, I am not disposed to waive it in favour of any other; for numerous writers have already tried to go more deeply into the subject, and have failed in eliciting more than vague and remote probabilities. The following remarks are taken from the Preface of Dr. Ingram, and I do not scruple to insert them, although the quotation is rather long, because they show the train of thought which arose in the mind of one who as yet stands foremost among the translators and illustrators of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

"It is now time to examine, who were probably the writers of these annals. I say probably, because we have very little more than rational conjecture to guide us.

"The period antecedent to the times of Bede, except where passages were afterwards asserted, was perhaps little else, originally, than a kind of chronological table of events, with a few genealogies, and notices of the death and succession of kings and other distinguished personages. But it is evident from the preface of Bede and from many passages in his work, that he received considerable assistance from Saxon bishops, abbats and others; who not only communicated certain traditionary facts viva voce, but also transmitted to him many written documents. These, therefore, must have been the early chronicles of Wessex, of Kent, and of the other provinces of the Heptarchy; which formed together the groundwork of his history. With greater honesty than most of his followers, he has given us the names of those

six of which contain about seventy letters only. On coming to examine the seventh in St. John's College Library, I was at once enabled to augment the number to 130.

learned persons who assisted him with this local information. The first is Alcuinus or Albinus, an abbat of Canterbury, at whose instigation he undertook the work; who sent by Nothelm, afterwards archbishop of that province, a full account of all ecclesiastical transactions in Kent, and in the contiguous districts, from the first conversion of the Saxons. From the same source he partly derived his information respecting the provinces of Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, and Northumbria. Bishop Daniel communicated to him by letter many particulars concerning Wessex, Sussex, and the Isle of Wight. He acknowledges assistance more than once 'ex scriptis priorum;' and there is every reason to believe that some of these preceding records were the Anglo-Saxon annals; for we have already seen that such records were in existence before the age of Nennius. In proof of this we may observe, that even the phraseology sometimes partakes more of the Saxon idiom than the Latin. If, therefore, it be admitted, as there is every reason to conclude from the foregoing remarks, that certain succinct and chronological arrangements of historical facts had taken place in several provinces of the Heptarchy before the time of Bede, let us inquire by whom they were likely to have been made.

"In the province of Kent, the first person on record, who is celebrated for his learning, is Tobias, the ninth bishop of Rochester, who succeeded to that see in 693. He is noticed by Bede as not only furnished with an ample store of Greek and Latin literature, but skilled also in the Saxon languageand erudition. It is probable, therefore, that he left some proofs of this attention to his native language; and, as he died within a few years of Bede, the latter would naturally avail himself of his labours. It is worthy also of remark, that Berthwald, who 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 composition of brief chronicles, 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

*

"The materials, however, though not regularly arranged, must be traced to a much higher source.