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 on. y. 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 language and 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.

continued, at intervals, by the archbishops of Canterbury, cr by their direction,* at least as far as the year 1001, or even 1070; for the Benet 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;† 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 Alfred'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 Cæsar his Commentaries. From the time of Alfred and Plegmund to

"Josselyn collated two Kentish MSS. of the first authority; one of which he calls the History or Chronicle of St. Augustine's, the other that of Christ Church, Canterbury. The former was perhaps the one marked in our series C. T. A vi.; the latter the Benet or Plegmund MS.

"Wanley observes, that the Benet MS. is written in one and the same hand to this year, and in hands equally ancient to the year 924; after which it is continued in different hands to the end. Vid. Cat. p. 130.

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, Alfric, 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 Alfric 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 to ascribe these latter compilations to particular persons,* where there were evidently so many contributors; but that they were successively furnished by contemporary writers, many of whom were eye-witnesses 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 become 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 plagiarisms 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.

"Hickes supposed the Laud or Peterborough Chronicle to have been compiled by Hugo Candidus (Albus, or White), or some other monk of that house