trust still far from declining, splendour of its emanations in the nineteenth.'

On the execution of the first volume, which has appeared in furtherance of this design, we have now to pass judgment; and we at once concede, that we know of few literary undertakings of the kind which could be accounted more useful or more nation

ally attractive. A literary history of England-any tolerably correct and ample history-had long been felt as a great desideratum. We are in this respect far inferior to almost all our neighbours in civilized Europe. Nay, not to speak of nations, there is hardly a town of any considerable importance on the Continent which does not form the subject of a literary history. France has long had its Histoire Littéraire, begun by the learned Benedictines and continued by the Institute, the funds being furnished directly by the government; whilst we, who can look to government for no such aid, are far behind, because such a work surpasses the utmost bounds of individual enterprise. It is, however, rather a memorable circumstance, that in the middle ages there were several attempts to form and produce literary biographies, or bibliographies which ran into that character. The performance of John Boston, a monk of Bury, in the XV.th century, remains a marked example of the fact.

But the first author who compiled a detailed literary biography of our island, was Leland, who, profoundly versed in antiquities, fortunately had the opportunity of visiting the monastic libraries just about the time of their dissolution. He made the best use in his power of the information thus snatched as it were from the fire; nevertheless, his manuscript remained in statu quo till the last century, when it was disinterred and printed at Oxford. John Bale, the celebrated Reformer, following Leland, used apparently part of his materials, and, with more zeal than judgment, produced his work entitled The Centuries of British • Writers; which he commences, something like the Welsh pedigree, soon after the Flood. The violent enmity to the 'Papists' exhibited in almost every page, soon raised up rivals among the learned Romanists of the sixteenth century, and gave rise to the similar work of the Catholic, Pitsius. These volumes comprehended almost all that we had on their subject till Bishop Tanner composed his Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica;' in which was condensed all that had been written by Leland, Bale, Pitsius, and others, with innumerable corrections and additions. Tanner, instead of following the chronological order observed by his predecessors, reduced the whole into the form of an alphabetical dictionary. It certainly seems to many that the juxtaposition of names, remote by hundreds of years from each other, tends

much to confusion of ideas and memory in any thing which goes beyond a mere nominal catalogue. Others again think, that as such works are not read, or but rarely, in a continuous method, the alphabetical order, as best adapted to ready consultation, is preferable. Having on former occasions discussed this point, we shall not at present resume it; but shall go on to observe, that Tanner's valuable Bibliotheca,' being written in Latin, is a sealed book to the multitude, and only useful for reference to the more instructed classes. Even for the latter it abounds in errors, mostly copied from the elder bibliographers; there is little attempt at minute criticism, either in dates or facts; and we can see, through many subsequent publications, how largely their compilers have been led astray by adopting them without examining the original authorities, and comparing them with the texts they have so carelessly copied.

It gives us pleasure to remark, that Mr Wright has not followed this sordid practice. In the principal biographies, those of Gildas, Nennius, Asser,' and others, there are pregnant proofs of his careful investigation of the authenticity, both of the histories of the writers and of the works attributed to them. The discovery of the un-authenticity of Asser's Life of Alfred' is particularly important, not only in itself, but because it affects so very interesting a portion of the Anglo-Saxon literary and political annals.

It appears, in the first place, strange,' says Mr Wright, that the life of Alfred should have been written in his lifetime, when he was in the vigour of his age, (in his forty-fifth year,) and particularly by a man in the position of Asser. It is not easy to conceive for what purpose it was written, or to point out any parallel case; but it is still more difficult to imagine why (if Asser the biographer and Asser Bishop of Sherborne be the same) its author, who lived nine years after Alfred's death, did not complete it. When we examine the book itself, we see at once that it does not support its own character; it has the appearance of an unskilful compilation of history and legend. Asser's life of Alfred consists of two very distinct parts; first, a chronicle of events, strictly historical, from 851 to 887; and secondly, a few personal anecdotes of Alfred, which are engrafted upon the chronicle at the years 866 and 884, without any particular reference to those years, and at the conclusion. No person can compare the first, or strictly historical part of the work, with the Saxon Chronicle, without being convinced that it is a mere translation from the corresponding part of that document, which was most probably not in existence till long after Alfred's death. Why the writer should discontinue his chronological entries at the year 887, when he distinctly states that he was writing in 893, does not appear, unless we may suppose that the copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle he used was mutilated, and reached no lower than that year.

The second part of the book, or the matter interpolated in the Chronicle, evidently contains legendary matter which could not have been written in Alfred's time, or by his bishop, Asser. The account he gives of Alfred's youth cannot be strictly true; it is impossible to believe that the education of the favourite child of King Ethelwulf, who was himself a scholar, should have been neglected, or that in the court where Swithun was the domestic adviser, he should want teachers. His early mission to Rome is a proof that such was not the case. Yet Asser states that Alfred complained that in his childhood, when he was desirous of learning, he could find no instructors. There are several things in the book which are not consistent: on one occasion the writer quotes_the authority of King Alfred for the story of the West-Saxon queen Eadburga, which must have been well known to Alfred's subjects; whilst in another part he goes to a legendary life of St Neot for all the information relating to Alfred's misfortunes at Athelney, which he has added to what is said in the Saxon Chronicle. In the same manner he asserts in one place that King Alfred laboured under a painful disease, which never quitted him from the time of his marriage till his fortieth year, when he was miraculously relieved from it in consequence of his praying to St Neot, after which he never suffered a relapse; and in a subsequent page he says that the king still continued to suffer from it at the time he was writing, in his forty-fifth year, and that he had never been free from it an hour together.

There can be no doubt that the writer of this life of Alfred made

use of a life of St Neot. The story of Alfred and the peasant's wife is considered to be an interpolation in the original text, because it was omitted in the older manuscript; but even in that manuscript (the one printed by Matthew Parker) the reference to Neot remained in the words- Et, ut in vita sancti patris Neoti legitur, apud quendam suum vacarium." There are also other allusions to this life of Neot. It is our firm conviction that there existed no life of Neot in the time of the real Asser. There is, on the contrary, every reason for believing that the life of St Neot began to be written after his relics were carried into Huntingdonshire, in 974. In this case, the life of Alfred attributed to Asser cannot have been written before the end of the tenth century; and it was probably the work of a monk who, with no great knowledge of history, collected some of the numerous traditions relating to King Alfred which were then current, and joined them with the legends in the life of St Neot, and the historical entries of the Saxon Chronicle, and, to give authenticity to his work, published it under the name of Asser. At the time when it was published, and when the Anglo-Saxons looked back to their great monarch with regret, it may have been intended to serve a political object. There is another work which bears Asser's name, itself a poor compilation from the Saxon Chronicle, but which is also described as a Chronicle of St Neot's, though it is asserted that it ought to be called Asseri Annales. It is not impossible that the writer of both was a monk of St Neot's, which would account for the frequent use of the life of St Neot in the life of Alfred.'

This extract affords a fair example of the author's style, rea

soning, and learning. In like manner, he shows, in his sketch of Alfred himself, that the metrical translation of Boethius, attributed to him, must have been executed by another person; and the popular name of the king attached to it, either by the author or by fond posterity. The subject being curious, we shall present our readers with another extract of some length.

'We must not,' says the author, 'let ourselves be led by the greatness of his exertions to estimate Alfred's own learning at too high a rate. In "Grammar” his skill was never very profound, because he had not been instructed in it in his youth; and the work of Boethius had to undergo a singular process before the royal translator commenced his operations. Bishop Asser, one of Alfred's chosen friends, was employed to turn the original text of Boethius "into plainer words "" a necessary labour in those days," says William of Malmsbury," although at present (in the 12th century) it seems somewhat ridiculous." And in a similar manner, before he undertook the translation of the Pastorale, he had it explained to him- the task was perhaps executed sometimes by one, sometimes by another-by Archbishop Plegmund, by Bishop Asser, and by his " Mass-priests" Grimbald and John. But Alfred's mind was great and comprehensive; and we need not examine his scholarship in detail, in order to justify or to enhance his reputation. His translations are well written; and, whatever may have been the extent of his knowledge of the Latin language, they exhibit a general acquaintaince with the subject superior to that of the age in which he lived. Whenever their author added to his original, in order to explain allusions which he thought would not be understood, he exhibits a just idea of ancient history and fable, differing widely from the distorted popular notions which were prevalent then and at a subsequent period in the vernacular literaThere is one apparent exception to this observation. In translating the second metre of the fifth book of Boethius, beginning"Puro clarum lumine Phoebum

ture.

Melliflui canit oris Homerus"

Alfred has added an explanation which shows that Virgil was then much better known than Homer. "Homer," says he," the good poet, who was best among the Greeks, he was Virgil's teacher; this Virgil was best among the Latins." Alfred probably means no more than that Virgil imitated Homer; but in the metrical version of the Metres of Boethius, also attributed to Alfred, the matter is placed quite in another light, and Homer not only becomes Virgil's teacher, but his friend also.

"Omerus was

east mid Crecum
on pæm leod-scipe
leopa cræftgast,
Firgilies

freond and lareow,
pæm mæran sceope
magistra betst.

Homer was

in the east among the Greeks
in that nation

the most skilful of poets,
Virgil's

friend and teacher,

to that great bard

the best of masters."

Metres of Boeth. ed Fox, p. 137.

We will, however, willingly relieve the Anglo-Saxon monarch from all responsibility for this error, which seems to have arisen from the misconstruction of Alfred's words by some other person who was the author of the prosaic verses that have hitherto gone under his name. Several reasons combine in making us believe that these were not written by Alfred: they are little more than a transposition of the words of his own prose, with here and there a few additions and alterations in order to make alliteration; the compiler has shown his want of skill on many occasions. He has, on the one hand, turned into metre both Alfred's preface (or at least imitated it) and his introductory chapter, which certainly had no claim to that honour; whilst, on the other hand, he has overlooked entirely three of the metres, which appear to have escaped his eye as they lay buried among King Alfred's prose. The only manuscript containing this metrical version which has yet been met with, appears, from the fragments of it preserved from the fire which endangered the whole Cottonian Library, to have been written in the tenth century."

We have cited these passages, both as specimens of the author's language and manner, and because they refer to a personage who never can be viewed without interest, whether considered in his personal history, his rule, or his love of letters. But there are other biographies of the Anglo-Saxon period which elucidate matters of much importance ;-such as the lives of 'Alfric of Canterbury,' (one of three Alfrics, mingled in hitherto inextricable perplexity;) and Alfric, archbishop of York,' his disciple; and of Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester,' whose Homilies were published under the title of Lupus Episcopus. From these, in particular, we ascertain the importance of the elder AngloSaxon religious doctrines, as approaching those of the Reformed Church. The principles of the future Reformation were there: they only expanded and flourished in the after days of Wickliffe and Lollardism.

The Anglo-Saxon mind appears to have been eminently poetical. Columbanus, Tatwine, Bede, Acca, Cuthbert of Canterbury, Boniface, Alcuin, Ethelwolf, Fridegode, Bricstan, and Wolstan, who wrote in Latin; and Cædmon, Aldhelm, and Cynewulf, who composed their verses in the native tongue, are lasting expositors of this fact. Of the first-mentioned of these, Columbanus, Mr Wright speaks as follows

His poems show that he was not ignorant of ancient history and fable, and that he had read attentively a certain class of authors; and his letters on the period of observing Easter, prove that he was well acquainted with the theological works then in repute. It has been conjectured from a passage at the end of one of his letters, that he could read Greek and Hebrew; but the inference seems hardly authorized by the observation which gave rise to it.