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
authority, nevertheless, in an historical point of view, is very
respectable. Being one of the few writers untainted by monastic
prejudice (21), he does not travel out of his way to indulge in
legendary tales and romantic visions. Critically considered, his
work is the best commentary on the "Saxon Chronicle" to the year
977; at which period one of the MSS. which he seems to have
followed, terminates. Brevity and compression seem to have been
his aim, because the compilation was intended to be sent abroad
for the instruction of a female relative of high rank in Germany
(22), at her request. But there are, nevertheless, some
circumstances recorded which are not to be found elsewhere; so