knowledge we have of those early times (15). Moreover, we might
ask, if our whole dependence had been centered in Bede, what
would have become of us after his death? (16) Malmsbury indeed
asserts, with some degree of vanity, that you will not easily
find a Latin historian of English affairs between Bede and
himself (17); and in the fulness of self-complacency professes
his determination, "to season with Roman salt the barbarisms 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