for to the animosities and the ambitious projects of the rival princes of his race may be attributed, perhaps more than to any other cause, the dismemberment of his empire. "A kingdom divided against itself cannot but fall."

Towards the close of the ninth century the political horizon was darkened by the sudden appearance of a portentous cloud which hung for a time on the frontier of civilization and then burst with fury on the fairest provinces of Europe. After a long and various peregrination from the borders of China, or the wilds of Siberia and Lapland, the Turkish hordes of Hungarians approaching the limits of the western empire settled in the Roman province of Pannonia, the modern kingdom of Hungary. Its occupiers the Moravians, who under their king Zwentibold had risen to preeminence over all the Sclavonian tribes, fled before them. Germany, Italy, France were blasted by the tempest; and for half the ensuing century Europe trembled at their name. The deliverance of Christendom was achieved by the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler, who rose from a bed of sickness to battle and victory,-and Otho the Great, who finally broke the power of the Hungarians.

Such was the aspect of European affairs at the death of Alfred the Great. The dismemberment of the Carlovingian empire was complete, and anarchy universal. The royal authority was shattered, the ascendancy of the clergy quailed before the clash of arms. Power passed into the hands of the dukes and counts and lords among whom the territories were distributed; and the people found their only hope of safety in rallying round those who were able to defend the country. From this anarchy and dismemberment resulted, after a terrible crisis, the organization of the territorial aristocracy in a vast hierarchy, which, connecting all classes in a regular chain of subordination and with reciprocal rights and duties-from the king to the serf attached to the soilunder the name of the feudal system, governed Europe for many succeeding centuries.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE JOURNEY OF KING ETHELWULF AND HIS SON ALFRED TO ROME: SEE PAGE 285.

On reference to the "Harmony of the Chroniclers," pp. 17, 18, it will be seen that the Saxon Chronicle (with which Ethelwerd and Simeon of Durham corres

pond) notices only one journey of Alfred to Rome-that which is here referred to,-while Asser, Florence of Worcester, and Huntingdon represent the young prince as making a second journey to Rome, in company with Ethelwulf, two years later. A subsequent entry in the Saxon Chronicle (inserted in the "Harmony" from a later MS.) suggests the idea that Alfred remained at Rome during the interval of the two journeys, and this would so far reconcile the two statements as they represent Ethelwulf and Alfred to have been at Rome together.

But there is the additional difficulty, in accepting this last entry as authentic, that it makes the Pope (Leo) consecrate Alfred king "after that he had heard that Ethelwulf was dead," whereas Leo himself died the same summer in which the two Saxon princes were at Rome, and Ethelwulf lived two years after his return; besides which, there is no sort of evidence or probability that Alfred did not at least accompany his father home.

Suspicion is said to attach to the whole account on the ground of the improbability that the young prince was consecrated king while he had elder brothers living. But all the Chronicles agree in that particular, and it is also clear that Alfred was a favourite son; so that, in an elective monarchy, and at a time when the several kingdoms of the Heptarchy were scarcely consolidated, and partitions of territory were a common practice, it might be the policy of Ethelwulf to obtain so high a sanction to the pretensions of the best beloved of his sons to some share in the succession. It may also be considered that the object of Ethelbald's rebellion during his father's absence may have been to defeat the plans of Ethelwulf in favour of Alfred.

It is also objected that Alfred's continued sojourn at Rome cannot be reconciled with his want of early education, as related by the chroniclers. In an age when it was a rare occurrence for a layman, of whatever rank, to be able to read or write, and particularly in the state of ignorance which Alfred himself describes as existing in his own times, there is no difficulty in accepting his own account of the late period at which he acquired the knowledge of letters, unless we adopt the suggestion of his having remained at Rome for a period of some duration. In his father's court his boyish years would probably be employed in active exercises and accomplishments, and his only mental acquirement might be learning by rote the old songs and ballads of his country which he afterwards took so much pains to learn to read. But if the young prince resided for great part of three years in a most lettered and polished court, under the guardianship of so enlightened a prelate as Pius IV, the total neglect of the first rudiments of education in such a case seems wholly unaccountable. We incline therefore, on the whole, to the commonly received tradition of the repeated visit, particularly as the accounts in the Chronicles are not conflicting and all that can be said is-that in some of them the notice of the second journey is omitted. Taking that view, the very tender years of Alfred joined to the limited period of his first visit, and the distractions and unsettled state of affairs during the second, may account for a neglect which to our ideas appears almost incredible.

LEWIS LE DEBONNAIRE, emp. 814-840. = (2nd wife) JUDITH

VI. DESCRIPTION OF

KING ALFRED'S JEWEL, WITH SOME OBSERVATIONS

ON

THE ART OF WORKING IN GOLD AND SILVER

AMONG THE ANGLO-SAXONS.

The beautiful gem, of which an engraving is given in this work, was accidentally found, according to Gorham's History of St Neot's, "in 1693, at Newton Park, some distance north of the site of Athelney abbey in Somersetshire, near the junction of the Parrot and the Thone; the spot to which Alfred retired during the Danish troubles, and where he afterwards founded a monastery." It is now preserved in the Ashmolean museum at Oxford. In 1698 it was in the possession of colonel Nathaniel Palmer, of Fairfield in Somersetshire; and in 1718 it was deposited in the Ashmolean Museum, by his son Thomas Palmer, esq.

The gift of the jewel is registered among other donations as follows:

A. D. 1718. Thomas Palmer de Fairfield in agro Somerset. Arm. Vir doctrina et virtutum comitatu spectatissimus picturam senis cujusdam (sancti forsan Cuthberti) auro crystalloque munitam, inter cimelia hujusce musei reponendam transmisit. Perantiquum hoc opus magni quondam Alfredi peculium Academiæ Oxon. legavit Thomas Palmer in eodem pago Militum Tribunus.

On a slip of paper in the same Register it is said:

Perantiquum hoc opus repertum erat prope Athelney pago Somersetensi oppidum ab Ælfredo rege frequentatum.

The engraving was made to embellish a small volume, published several years ago, on the "Coronation Service, or Consecration of the Anglo-Saxon kings, as it illustrates the origin of the