Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu/189

Rh Cirencester, may be acceptable to our readers. They are communicated by Mr. Macray, of Oxford. In 1747, Charles Julius Bertram, an Englishman who held the office of Professor in the Naval School at Copenhagen, pretended to have discovered an old manuscript which, he said, came into his possession "with many other curiosities, in an extraordinary manner." He sent an extract from it, together with a facsimile of three lines, to Dr. Stukeley, who, deceived by its apparent antiquity, subsequently published an analysis of the work, founded on a series of letters from Bertram. The treatise first appeared in a complete form at Copenhagen in 1758; a translation of it was published in London in 1809. From the date of its publication up to the present time it has been referred to by the best writers on English History. Whitaker, the historian of Manchester, dated from the discovery of Richard's work a new era for the elucidation of the earliest period of British history; Lingard, Lappenberg, and others have appealed to its authority. Nevertheless there has long been a suspicion of its authenticity; and in 1838 the council of the English Historical Society issued a paper stating the doubtful character of Richard's work, and explaining the reasons which led them to reject it from among the received materials of English history. M. Charles Wex, a German critic of distinction, has recently published an essay to prove that this treatise was fabricated by Bertram. The points on which M. Wex relies are these: I. In the passages quoted from Tacitus readings are often found taken from later editions, readings arising either from accidental errors of the press in those editions, or from the conjectures of scholars. II. Where did the English monk of the fourteenth century get the fifteen Greek and Latin writers whom he quotes? Where did he obtain Tacitus, and above all, where did he find his Agricola? Whatever treasures the ancient monastic libraries in England of the seventh and eighth centuries may have possessed we know were destroyed by the Danish invaders. But even in the most flourishing period of the earlier ages, there was no Tacitus in England. Alcuin, who in his poem 'de Pontificibus' celebrates the riches of the English libraries, knew of no copy of this author. Of Roman historians he names only (v. 1549.)

The British historians of that period, Gildas, Nennius, Asserius, Beda, do not betray the slightest knowledge of the events of their native land as narrated by Tacitus. The advocates of Richard would seem to have in some degree anticipated this objection, as Stukeley remarks that Widmore had communicated to him a certificate from which it appeared that Richard received a license from his abbey, in 1391, to make a journey to Rome; but M. Wex observes that it is questionable whether in the 14th centurv a manuscript of Agricola was to be found even in Rome. Bertram would