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 we have of
the affairs of England has been originally derived either from
the semi-barbarous Latin of our own countrymen, or from the
French chronicles of Froissart and others.

The revival of good taste and of good sense, and of the good old
custom adopted by most nations of the civilised world -- that of
writing their own history in their own language -- was happily
exemplified at length in the laborious works of our English
chroniclers and historians.

Many have since followed in the same track; and the importance
of the whole body of English History has attracted and employed
the imagination of Milton, the philosophy of Hume, the simplicity
of Goldsmith, the industry of Henry, the research of Turner, and
the patience of Lingard. The pages of these writers, however,
accurate and luminous as they generally are, as well as those of
Brady, Tyrrell, Carte, Rapin, and others, not to mention those in
black letter, still require correction from the "Saxon