The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle | Page 6

from these very "Annals"
what he did not find in Bede; though it is obvious, that the best part of his materials,
almost to his own times, is derived from the same source.
The object of Bishop Asser, the biographer of Alfred, who comes next in order, was to
deliver to posterity a complete memorial of that sovereign, and of the transactions of his
reign. To him alone are we indebted for the detail of many interesting circumstances in
the life and character of his royal patron (19); but most of the public transactions will be
found in the pages of the "Saxon Chronicle": some passages of which he appears to have
translated so literally, that the modern version of Gibson does not more closely represent
the original. In the editions of Parker, Camden, and Wise, the last notice of any public
event refers to the year 887. The interpolated copy of Gale, called by some
Pseudo-Asserius, and by others the Chronicle of St. Neot's, is extended to the year 914
(20). Much difference of opinion exists respecting this work; into the discussion of which
it is not our present purpose to enter. One thing is remarkable: it contains the vision of
Drihtelm, copied from Bede, and that of Charles King of the Franks, which Malmsbury
thought it worth while to repeat in his "History of the Kings of England". What Gale
observes concerning the "fidelity" with which these annals of Asser are copied by
Marianus, is easily explained. They both translated from the "Saxon Chronicle", as did
also Florence of Worcester, who interpolated Marianus; of whom we shall speak
hereafter.
But the most faithful and extraordinary follower of the "Saxon Annals" is Ethelwerd;
who seems to have disregarded almost all other sources of information. One great error,
however, he committed; for which Malmsbury does nor spare him. Despairing of the
reputation of classical learning, if he had followed the simplicity of the Saxon original, he
fell into a sort of measured and inverted prose, peculiar to himself; which, being at first
sufficiently obscure, is sometimes rendered almost unintelligible by the incorrect manner
in which it has been printed. His authority, nevertheless, in an historical point of view, is
very respectable. Being one of the few writers untainted by monastic prejudice (21), he
does not travel out of his way to indulge in legendary tales and romantic visions.
Critically considered, his work is the best commentary on the "Saxon Chronicle" to the
year 977; at which period one of the MSS. which he seems to have followed, terminates.

Brevity and compression seem to have been his aim, because the compilation was
intended to be sent abroad for the instruction of a female relative of high rank in
Germany (22), at her request. But there are, nevertheless, some circumstances recorded
which are not to be found elsewhere; so that a reference to this epitome of Saxon history
will be sometimes useful in illustrating the early part of the "Chronicle"; though Gibson, I
know not on what account, has scarcely once quoted it.
During the sanguinary conflicts of the eleventh century, which ended first in the
temporary triumph of the Danes, and afterwards in the total subjugation of the country by
the Normans, literary pursuits, as might be expected, were so much neglected, that
scarcely a Latin writer is to be found: but the "Saxon Chronicle" has preserved a regular
and minute detail of occurrences, as they passed along, of which subsequent historians
were glad to avail themselves. For nearly a century after the Conquest, the Saxon
annalists appear to have been chiefly eye-witnesses of the transactions which they relate
(23). The policy of the Conqueror led him by degrees to employ Saxons as well as
Normans: and William II. found them the most faithful of his subjects: but such an influx
of foreigners naturally corrupted the ancient language; till at length, after many foreign
and domestic wars, tranquillity being restored on the accession of Henry II., literature
revived; a taste for composition increased; and the compilation of Latin histories of
English and foreign affairs, blended and diversified with the fabled romance and
legendary tale, became the ordinary path to distinction. It is remarkable, that when the
"Saxon Chronicle" ends, Geoffrey of Monmouth begins. Almost every great monastery
about this time had its historian: but some still adhered to the ancient method. Florence of
Worcester, an interpolator of Marianus, as we before observed, closely follows Bede,
Asser, and the "Saxon Chronicle" (24). The same may be observed of the annals of
Gisburne, of Margan, of Meiros, of Waverley, etc.; some of which are anonymous
compilations, whilst others have the name of an author, or rather transcriber; for very few
aspired to the character of authors or original historians. Thomas Wikes, a canon of