ms of
his native tongue!" He affects great contempt for Ethelwerd,
whose work will be considered hereafter; and he well knew how
unacceptable any praise of the "Saxon Annals" would be to the
Normans, with whom he was connected (18). He thinks it necessary
to give his reasons, on one occasion, for inserting 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
a