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, r 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

From this period almost to the Reformation, whatever knowledge we have of the affairs of England has been originally derived either from the semi-barbarous 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 civilized 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, Tyrrel, Carte, Rapin, and others, not to mention those in black letter, still require correction from the Saxon Chronicle; without which no person, however learned, can possess any thing beyond a superficial acquaintance with the elements of English history, and of the British Constitution.

"Some remarks may here be requisite on the CHRONOLOGY of the Saxon Chronicle. In the early part of it* the reader will observe a reference to the grand epoch of the creation of the world. So also in Ethelwerd, who closely follows the Saxon annals. It is allowed by all, that considerable difficulty has occurred in fixing the true epoch of Christ's nativity, † because the Christian era was not used at all till about the year 532, ‡ when it was introduced by Dionysius Exiguus; whose code of canon law, joined afterwards with the decretals of the popes, became as much the standard of authority in ecclesiastical matters as the pandects of Justinian among civilians. But it does not appear that in * "See A.D. XXXIII. the era of Christ's crucifixion. +"See Playfair's System of Chronology, p. 49.

"Playfair says 527: but I follow Bede, Florence of Worcester, and others; who affirm that the great paschal cycle of Dionysius commenced from the year of our Lord's incarnation 532-the year in which the code of Justinian was promulgated. Vid. Flor. an. 532, 1064, and 1073. Se also M. West. an. 532.

the Saxon mode of computation this system of chronology was implicitly followed. We mention this circumstance, however, not with a view of settling the point of difference, which would not be easy, but merely to account for those variations observable in different MSS. ; which arose, not only from the common mistakes or inadvertencies of transcribers, but from the liberty, which the original writers themselves sometimes assumed in this country, of computing the current year according to their own ephemeral or local custom. Some began with the incarnation or Nativity of Christ; some with the Circumcision, which accords with the solar year of the Romans as now restored; whilst others commenced with the Annunciation; a custom which became very prevalent in honour of the Virgin Mary, and was not formally abolished here till the year 1752; when the Gregorian calendar, commonly called the New Style, was substituted by Act of Parliament for the Dionysian. This diversity of computation would alone occasion some confusion; but in addition to this, the INDICTION, or cycle of fifteen years, which is mentioned in the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, was carried back three years before the vulgar era, and commenced in different places at four different periods of the year! But it is very remarkable that, whatever was the commencement of the year in the early part of the Saxon Chronicle, in the latter part the year invariably opens with Midwinter-day or the Nativity. Gervase of Canterbury, whose Latin Chronicle ends in 1199, the era of legal memory, had formed a design, as he tells us, of regulating his chronology, by the Annunciation; but from an honest fear of falsifying dates he abandoned his first intention, and acquiesced in the practice of his predecessors; who for the most part, he says, began the new year with the Nativity."

Let us now see what has been done by previous editors and translators of this valuable national document.

Gerard Langbaine was the first who entertained thoughts' of publishing this Chronicle; but he relinquished his design as appears from his papers in the Bodleian library, becausc Wheloc had anticipated him.

The first edition therefore of the original text of this "Vid. Prol. in Chron. Gervas. ap. X. Script. p. 1338."