Of the remaining three MSS. the most famous is that known as the Moore MS., which was made the basis of Smith's edition, which Mr. Plummer calls "truly monumental," published in 1722 at Cambridge. It is one of about fifty volumes bought on the Continent after the Peace of Ryswick on September 20, 1697, and sold to John Moore, Bishop of Ely, whence its name. On his death in 1714 they were bought by George III. and presented to the University of Cambridge. It once belonged to a monastery or church of St. Julian, probably that at Le Mans. It is written in old Hiberno-Saxon minuscules, and very probably on the Continent, perhaps at Epternach or at some such Anglo-Saxon colony on the other side of the Channel, and probably about the year 737, as appears by the chronological entries at the end. Although the best existing MS., Plummer has shown that it is by no means immaculate, but contains numerous errors of orthography and of arbitrary spelling. It is referred to as MS. M.1

Next to MS. M, Plummer puts another eighth-century MS., namely, MS. B, which is contained in the Cotton Library and labelled "Tiberius A, xiv." It is essentially a sister MS. to M, with the same type of text, and they agree in many minute particulars, which cannot be accidental; but neither of the two MSS. is copied from the other. Hence it follows that both MSS. must be copied from a common original, and that both have an equal claim to be consulted in the settlement of the text. It is very unfortunate that MS. B suffered serious losses, both at the beginning and the end, in the great Cotton fire of 1731. M, B, and N belong to a class of MSS. closely allied and of one type. On the other hand, MS. C contains a different recension of the text from M and B, and is therefore a wholly independent witness. It also dates from the eighth century, and is in the Cotton Library and labelled "Tib. C, ii." It was also injured in the Cotton fire, but only slightly. Like MS. B, it is written in Saxon minuscules. Plummer says that it is certainly a Durham book, possibly originally brought from Lindisfarne. The type of text in C is in several points very distinct from that in M, B, and N. The most important variants (apart from verbal ones) are the omission by C and the class of MSS. which follow it, of chapter 14 of book iv. as given in the printed editions, while it also omits the mention of excerpts from Jerome on the Prophets

1

1 Op. cit. i. lxxxix-xci.

2 See Plummer, i. xciii and xciv.

mentioned by the other MSS. in the list of Bede's works in book v. chapter 24.

Plummer concludes that M and B represent a slightly older text, since M ends its chronological summary with the year 731, when its text was doubtless composed, while C adds two later annals in 733 and 734, which seem to show that C was written in the latter year, and as it does not mention the death of Archbishop Tatian, which took place on July 30, 734, it is probable that it was written before that date.1

Mr. Plummer has given an analysis of a considerable number of MSS., besides the critical texts just described. Their differentiæ, however, belong to a later time, and form no part of my present subject.

A few words must now be said on the Anglo-Saxon translation of the text, about the origin of which authorities are not quite agreed. The authoritative edition of the work is that published by Mr. Miller among the works issued by the Early English Text Society. Mr. Plummer says that the translator used a text of the C type, and it was a good and pure MS. of that type. The translation is first cited at the beginning of Ælfric's homily on St. Gregory, where we read: "istoria Anglorum pa pe Alfred cyning of Leden on Englisc awend." 2 This is a very early and positive statement in favour of its having been made by King Alfred. This translation is also mentioned by Rudborne,3 who seems to think it was made by Bede himself; thus he says: “Liber quem composuit in lingua Saxonica de Gestis Anglorum . cujus copiam habui in Prioratu Canonicorum de Suthwyk." This, says Plummer, is interesting as showing that Saxon studies were not extinct even in the fifteenth century. Again, in MS. Ca, Cambridge University Library, KK, iii. 18 and 194, we have the couplet :

...

"Historicus quondam fecit me Beda latinum
Aelfred rex Saxo translatit ille pius."

Lastly, William of Malmesbury, in quoting the various translations due to Alfred, includes the "Gesta Anglorum Bedae." The same conclusion seems to get support from the fact that

1 Op. cit. i. xciv-xcvii.

i.e., the Historia Anglorum which King Alfred turned from Latin into English, ed. Elstob, p. 4; Plummer, op. cit. i. cxxviii, note.

3 See Anglia Sacra, ii. 183.

4 G.R., ii. par. 123.

two copies of the work contain a pedigree of the West Saxon dynasty brought down to Alfred's accession.

On the other hand, Dr. Miller, in his edition of the work above cited, has subjected the language of the extant copies of the work to a careful analysis, and says very positively that the dialect of the translation is Mercian and not West Saxon. "All issues raised," he says, "lead to similar results, placing the origin of the version in Mercia.1

The evidence of the dialect favours production in Mercian soil. One characteristic of the translation specially supports this view. The translator shows some familiarity with Scottish localities and circumstances, and a certain tenderness for national susceptibilities, and he suggests that the version may have been executed by Mercian scholars under orders from the King. William of Malmesbury, it will be noted, expressly tells us that no one in Alfred's kingdom was skilled in letters (nullus in suo regno literarum erat peritus), and that he accordingly summoned Werfrith, Bishop of the Hwiccii, from Mercia, who by command of the King translated the books of the dialogues (i.e. of Gregory's Dialogues) into the Anglian speech.3

4

There are four MSS. of this version extant, the best one being that in the Bodleian Library, which was written by five scribes. Miller says of its date: "From the writing, most authorities place the MS. about the end of the tenth century. My own judgment favours a somewhat earlier date."

A second MS. was much injured in the Cotton fire at the British Museum. It was labelled "Otho D, xi." It belongs to the end of the tenth century, or rather the very beginning of the eleventh. Wanley, who described it before the fire, says it formerly belonged to the Church of St. Mary at Suwika (probably the priory of Southwyke, in Hampshire, and doubtless the very MS. referred to by Rudborne). "Lists of bishops," says Miller, "show that the MS. originated or lay for a long time in the south."

A third MS., at C.C., Cambridge, is there numbered 41. An inscription in it says the volume was a gift from Bishop Leofric to St. Peter's Church at Exeter. It was written about the time of the Conquest.

Another MS., O, in the same library is numbered 279. Its date is twelfth or thirteenth century. It contains numerous

erasures, with corrections. "The important point to notice," says Miller, "is that later West Saxon forms replace Anglian, not early West Saxon vowels." 1 Again, the evidence of the erasures, taken in conjunction with the forms left untouched, show us Southern scribes at work with an Anglian original before them." 2 Having considered the form, now for the matter of Bede's great work.

He tells us it was completed in 731. It is preceded by a letter acknowledging some gift from Abbot Albinus, together with the transcripts of documents procured for him by the Priest Nothelm. Then follows a tabulated list of the capitula or chapter-headings of the work, about which a few words may be said. These capitula agree with the chapter headings in all the rescensions of the Latin text, except in some cases, in books iii. and iv., where a divergence occurs.

In MS. M, chapters 14 and 15 of that book do not occur in the text with separate headings, but run on continuously with chapter 13. In B these two chapters form a single one, which is separate from chapter 13. In N the two chapters in question occur separately and distinct from chapter 13. In C, chapter 14, which refers to the miracle at Selsey, does not occur at all; and chapter 15 forms a part of chapter 13. The reason for the omission is not very obvious.

When we turn to the capitula we find that the headings of chapters 14 and 15 are absent from all the MSS. It has thus come about that the enumeration of the chapters has got into confusion in some of the printed texts. In the capitula to two chapters of book iv., namely, 14 and 15, those numbers are repeated, there being two chapters numbered 14 and two

1 Op. cit. xviii.

2 Ib. xix. The Anglian version has omitted a good deal contained in the Latin text, chiefly paragraphs which had probably ceased to be interesting. Thus, most of the papal letters are omitted, also the references to the affairs of the Picts and of the Scots. It is notable that chapters 25 and 26 of the third book in the Latin version, giving an account of the triumph of the orthodox under Wilfrid, with the defeat and retirement of Colman, are omitted; so is the defeat of the latter at the beginning of book iv. On the other hand, the deprecatory words about Aidan, in book iii. 3, from the words "zelum Dei" to the end of the paragraph, are omitted. The translator also omits book v. chapter 15, which speaks of the perversity of Iona on the subject of Easter. See Miller, op. cit. Introduction, p. lviii. All this points to the author having close ties and sympathies with the Celtic rather than the Roman side in the Church controversies of this period.

numbered 15. Consequently, it has become necessary, in order to make the position clear, to duplicate all the rest of the chapter numbers to the end of that book, thus, 14 (16), 15 (17), etc. etc.

MS. C has a similar divergence in book iii., where chapters I and 2 run on without a break.

The earliest part of the work, consisting of a general geographical description of the land, is taken almost entirely from Pliny, Orosius, and Solinus (perhaps also from Gildas), with occasional extracts from Eutropius, Prosper, the Liber Pontificalis, and Fortunatus. Then Gildas becomes the chief authority down to the time of the Emperor Maurice. The life of St. Germanus of Auxerre, by Constantine, supplies the materials for chapters 17-21, the first book. With chapter 23 of the same book begins Bede's account of the Christianising of Britain, which is dependent largely on native traditions and reports, as mentioned by Bede himself in the dedication of the work to King Ceolwulf. In regard to local sources he seems to have been indefatigable in searching out the most authoritative persons, and chiefly relied on old men and others who were contemporaries of the events he describes. He specially refers to some of them in his preface, which I abstracted in my life of Augustine the Missionary.1 In this he confesses special obligations for information about the important kingdom of Kent and the metropolitan see of Britain, to Albinus the Abbot of St. Augustine's, and to Nothelm, Archbishop of Canterbury, who had special access to every available

source.

8

From them, as Plummer points out, he derived his valuable account of the Archbishops of Canterbury, both before and after their ordination; 2 the place and date of consecration,3 even though it took place abroad; the days on which they severally took possession of that see ;5 the duration of their episcopate ; their deaths; burial-places; and the intervals which elapsed before the election of their successors. "It is evident that the minuteness and accuracy of this information could have been preserved only by means of contemporary written memoranda. From a story told by Bede 10 it is clear that the Abbey of Selsey preserved a volume in which were entered the obits of dis2 v. 8.

1 Vide pp. lxviii, lxix.

3 ii. 18; iii. 20; and v. 8.

5 iv. 2 and v. 8.

7 ii. 7, 18; iii. 20; iv. I; and v. 8.

9 iii. 20.