The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle | Page 7

Oseney, who compiled a Latin chronicle of English affairs from the Conquest to the year
1304, tells us expressly, that he did this, not because he could add much to the histories of
Bede, William of Newburgh, and Matthew Paris, but "propter minores, quibus non
suppetit copia librorum." (25) Before the invention of printing, it was necessary that
numerous copies of historical works should be transcribed, for the instruction of those
who had not access to libraries. The transcribers frequently added something of their own,
and abridged or omitted what they thought less interesting. Hence the endless variety of
interpolators and deflorators of English history. William of Malmsbury, indeed, deserves
to be selected from all his competitors for the superiority of his genius; but he is
occasionally inaccurate, and negligent of dates and other minor circumstances; insomuch
that his modern translator has corrected some mistakes, and supplied the deficiencies in
his chronology, by a reference to the "Saxon Chronicle". Henry of Huntingdon, when he
is not transcribing Bede, or translating the "Saxon Annals", may be placed on the same
shelf with Geoffrey of Monmouth.
As I have now brought the reader to the period when our "Chronicle" terminates, I shall
dismiss without much ceremony the succeeding writers, who have partly borrowed from
this source; Simon of Durham, who transcribes Florence of Worcester, the two priors of
Hexham, Gervase, Hoveden, Bromton, Stubbes, the two Matthews, of Paris and
Westminster, and many others, considering that sufficient has been said to convince those

who may not have leisure or opportunity to examine the matter themselves, that however
numerous are the Latin historians of English affairs, almost everything original and
authentic, and essentially conducive to a correct knowledge of our general history, to the
period above mentioned, may be traced to the "Saxon Annals".
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
inserted, 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, abbots,
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 ground-work of his history. With greater honesty than most of his
followers, he has given us the names of those learned persons who assisted him with this
local information. The first is Alcuinus or Albinus, an abbot 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 (26). 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
Bertwald, 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