supplied. To
doubt this would be as incredulous a thing as to deny that
Xenophon wrote his "Anabasis", or Caesar his "Commentaries".
From the time of Alfred and Plegmund to 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, Aelfric, 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 Aelfric 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 ascribe these latter compilations to particular persons
(31), 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 plagarisms 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. From this
period almost to the Reformation, whatever knowledge