with a simplicity of language seldom found in monastic Latinity,
he has moulded into something like a regular form the scattered
fragments of Roman, British, Scottish, and Saxon history. His
work, indeed. is professedly ecclesiastical; but, when we
consider the prominent station which the Church had at this time
assumed in England, we need not be surprised if we find therein
the same intermixture of civil, military, and ecclesiastical
affairs, which forms so remarkable a feature in the "Saxon
Chronicle". Hence Gibson concludes, that many passages of the
latter description were derived from the work of Bede (13). He
thinks the same of the description of Britain, the notices of the
Roman emperors, and the detail of the first arrival of the
Saxons. But, it may be observed, those passages to which he
alludes are not to be found in the earlier MSS. The description
of Britain, which forms the introduction, and refers us to a
period antecedent to the invasion of Julius Caesar; appears only
in three copies of the "Chronicle"; two of which are of so late a
date as the Norman Conquest, and both derived from the same
source. Whatever relates to the succession of the Roman emperors
was so universally known, that it must be considered as common
property: and so short was the interval between the departure of
the Romans and the arrival of the Saxons, that the latter must
have preserved amongst them sufficient memorials and traditions
to connect their own history with that of their predecessors.
Like all rude nations, they were particularly attentive to
genealogies; and these, together with the succession of their
kings, their battles, and their conquests, must be derived
originally from the Saxons themselves. and not from Gildas, or
Nennius, or Bede (14). Gibson himself was so convinced of this,
that he afterwards attributes to the "Saxon Chronicle" all the