be preserved to Oxford in such a collection. He regretted that he had not with him a curious brass ring in his possession,

brought originally from Bocardo. It was

inscribed with an R, and might possibly have belonged to Ridley.

After some further discussion on the subject, the meeting was adjourned.

THE WALK ROUND OXFORD.

On May 25, agreeably to arrangement, a numerous party accompanied Mr. Parker in a walk round the old city walls, following as closely as possible the line of the old city ditch. They started from Turl-street, and behind the bouses both in Broad-street and in George-lane, were able to discover many remains of the wall, and in some few instances of bastions; while, throughout, the difference of level enabled them to distinguish the line of the ditch. The ground near the Castle had been so much disturbed that it was difficult to trace the Castle boundaries; but on the other side of the city, passing along Pembroke College, and through Christ Church, round Merton College and New Col. lege, the line was distinctly traceable, and for the greater part of the distance the walls actually remaining. Remarks were made at the most interesting spots, chiefly by Mr. Parker; but several discussions took place, in which the Principal of New Inn Hall and other gentlemen joined.

After concluding the round of the old city, the party proceeded to visit the remains of the earthworks in the Parks, &c., which were thrown up for the defence of Oxford in the time of Charles I. On returning to Broad-street, and after examining the remains of "Our Lady's Chapel," the party dispersed.

ANGLO-SAXON CHARTERS.

We do not often transfer to our pages information that has appeared elsewhere, but we depart from our rule in the present instance in order that we may give such assistance as is in our power to diffuse the knowledge of a forthcoming publication, which is a great desideratum for our early history, and which it is impossible could be undertaken by more competent hands. It is hardly necessary to say that we wish it every

success.

"ANGLO-SAXON CHARTERS.-Mr. Thorpe has nearly ready for the press a volume comprising copies of all the Charters of the Anglo-Saxon period known to be extant, exclusive of the simple grants of land; that is, every charter of strictly historic interest; viz. the wills of royal and noble persons, prelates and others; miscellaneous charters; manumissions of serfs. The work will contain many charters not included in Kemble's Codex Diplomaticus; the text will be formed from a collation of the original manuscripts, and now first accompanied by a translation of the Saxon. The grants of land are intended for publication hereafter."Athenæum, June 29th.

HOOK'S LIVES OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY a. WE are well aware that at the present day Inett's Origines Anglicanæ or Soames' "Anglo-Saxon Church" find as few readers as Archbishop Parker or Bishop Godwin; and, in spite of the facilities offered by the reprints of the English Historical Society, we fear that the Venerable Bede, Simeon of Durham, William of Malmesbury, and the other chroniclers, are little more than empty names. Yet the themes that they treat of are of enduring interest and importance, and the age that will not bestow the time to master the originals, is still eager to hail the substance of their narratives, if put before it in graceful language, and with due regard to grouping and dramatic effect. Completeness and impartiality are secondary considerations to these, and though the critic may point out numerous sins both of omission and commission, the public is little inclined to agree with him; it thinks that the story, if not true, is better as its favourite tells it. Secular history has been largely dealt with after this fashion of late, and now we are sorry to see it extended to Church history also.

The name of Dr. Hook naturally gives rise to expectations which we are sorry to say this, his latest production, does by no means satisfy. It is with surprise that we find him taking David Hume for his model, and attempting to treat such a theme as the history of the English Church by "clustering facts around a central personage." This may do for secular history, as all important events may be in some way or other connected with each reigning sovereign; but we have yet to learn that the majority of the great transactions which have advanced or retarded the progress of the English Church can be fairly linked to Augustine and his successors. There have been many northern prelates, both bishops and archbishops, who have left their mark upon their times, as there have been equally illustrious southern suffragans, and any Church History which from its plan can only mention these men incidentally, appears to us constructed in direct opposition to all the canons of sound historical criticism.

The fact is, if Dr. Hook had not said (p. 2), "The work now presented to the reader is designed to be a History of the Church of England," we should have considered it merely as another of his "Ecclesiastical Biographies," and should have been quite ready to award its meed of praise as a readable résumé of Bede, Malmesbury, and other chroniclers who in the modern view have outlived their reputation, and whose facts and fancies must be paraphrased rather than translated to deserve acceptance at the present day. In such a book, of course we should not look for much

"Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. By Walter Farquhar Hook, D.D., Dean of Chichester. Vol. I. Anglo-Saxon Period." Svo., xx. and 530 pp. (London: Richard Bentley. 1860.)

original research, nor even for painstaking accuracy in copying, and it would be hardly worth while to take exception to a fault that infects this as well as almost all modern works, of judging men and things of the past, not by the standard of their contemporaries, but by one of our own, and fancying that neither wisdom nor virtue existed before the era of gas, steam, and electricity. But as the work before us is gravely put forth as a “History,” we must be allowed to demur to the appellation, and to say, that neither in matter nor in manner is it at all equal to what the public have a right to expect from a well-practised writer.

It is but too true that it has of late become the fashion to confound the provinces of history and biography, or rather, to endeavour to supplant the former by the latter. Dr. Hook's model, David Hume, wrote his History of England only to vindicate the Stuarts; Mr. Froude treats of the Reformation, not on account of the principles involved, but to glorify Henry VIII. and his tool and victim Cromwell; Lord Macaulay has favoured us with his "view" of the Revolution, that he may enshrine "the glorious, pious, and immortal memory" of William of Orange; still we are sorry to see Dr. Hook follow the evil example, and when he has strung together a number of odds and ends about some thirty prelates from Augustine to Stigand, call it a History of the Anglo-Saxon Church, though it is only quite incidentally that he mentions anything concerning the Church as such, and more is to be gleaned on that topic from a single page of Soames, than from his whole volume.

As we do not accept this work as history, properly so called, we shall not quarrel with its author for frequently helping out his scanty stock of materials with an abundance of suppositions and inferences, and quietly representing his archbishops as having actually done all that he supposes they might or ought to have done. Many of these inferences we hold to be quite untenable, but for the reason we have given, we let them pass. But beside these, a critic in the "Guardian "" has collected a number of instances of confusion of persons and places, of errors of date, and even of translation of documents, several of which appear to be "more ingenious than true," that reflect rather strongly on the care that has been bestowed on the preparation of the work, and shew that there is ample room for amendment and "rectification" in a second edition.

But even as a mere series of readings in biography, the book has one very grave fault to us in its unsympathetic tone. All its characters and its incidents belong of necessity to the remote past, but they are all treated from an intensely modern and practical point of view, and thus receive scant reverence and rather hard measure. We conceive that it is quite possible to be duly sensible of and thankful for our own superior advantages, without perpetually indulging a desire to make our forefathers

Of January 2, 1861.

66

either odious or ridiculous, or both. Yet, whatever may be intended, such is the unpleasant impression left on the mind from the half scornful, halfpitying tone in which men once reverenced are spoken of, which makes the profession of "charitable respect" (p. 39) read like mockery. Augustine and his colleagues are estimated at a very low rate. The chief is guilty of "a tendency to pomp and vain glory," he acts "without judgment or temper," he is "narrow-minded and sectarian," and his "general honesty" is somewhat grudgingly admitted. Laurentius is either a positive fool, who "imagined he had received the castigation he deserved," or he is guilty of "an imposture and a lie." Paulinus "avails himself of an excuse for leaving his flock" when it was dangerous to remain with them; indeed, none of the Italian missionaries were ambitious of martyrdom ;" and so inferior were they (apparently) in mental culture to the British bishops, that "they were utterly unable to perceive the real point at issue" between their respective Churches-an assertion worthy of these days of historical paradox, when Henry VIII. is a model monarch and man, and Cardinal Pole a bloodthirsty persecutor. Some of the points at issue are compendiously stated to have been "things as insignificant as the observance of a festival and an arrangement of the hair," and accordingly "when Wilfrid left the Celtic party for the Italian, the first thing he did was to submit his head to the scissors of a Roman barber." (p. 15.) We own to a strong dislike to such epigrammatic statements, as too often unfair to somebody, though a kind of triumph for the writer; the fact, it is true, is drawn from Heddius (De Vita S. Wilfridi, in Gale), but the difference in the manner of telling is not in favour of the modern. So with numberless other matters, which are represented in a way that we venture to think never occurred to the parties themselves.

We might extend these remarks to greater length, but we have already said enough to shew that we are greatly disappointed with this work, as one that by no means fulfils its assumed office of a history of the AngloSaxon Church. Still there are many passages which if we had space we should like to quote, as giving information which being drawn from neglected sources possesses a certain charm of novelty. A specimen or two, however, is all that we can find room for.

Let us first take a condensed picture of an Anglo-Saxon "double monastery:"_

"Augustine entered Canterbury surrounded by monks as well as by clergy, and when he laid the foundation of that monastery, which was afterwards called by his own name, it was designed for a missionary college: a purpose to which modern piety has once more consecrated its site. Under the successors of Augustine, and in those parts of the country already occupied by the Celtic Church, the monasteries had very much of the character and appearance of Moravian establishments, or rather of those stations established in Africa by the Bishop of Cape Town. The institution was a lay institution connected with the Church, resembling in this respect the colleges of our Universities, and although some of the monks had already been ordained, they formed

the exception rather than the rule. The resemblance to our modern colleges became the greater, when the country being converted and the Church established, Archbishop Theodorus converted the monasteries into seats of learning. . . . .

"The thane or nobleman desirous of enjoying the comforts of a rural retreat, where he might devote himself to prayer and study, was obliged to surround himself for the mere purpose of self-preservation, with retainers and attendants. But if those attendants had been taken indiscriminately from his former followers and comrades, his place of residence would have been changed but not his mode of life. He consequently surrounded himself with persons of congenial spirit and temper; he drew up the rules which he thought necessary for the government of his household, subjecting them probably to the inspection of the bishop, and constituted himself the president or abbot. He does not appear to have considered constant residence at his monastery necessary: he still engaged in the affairs of the world, and resorted to his monastery as an occasional retreat. But the king's privileges and immunities were granted to these institutions, which eventually led to their corruption.

"Ladies of rank pursued a similar course. . . . . . .. A church was accordingly erected; and to serve the church, as well as to instruct the people, clergy and monks were required: they lived together, they became Coenobites; and so a monastery was formed; the convents both for the men and for the women being under the direction and government of the lady of the manor, who constituted herself the abbess. We have authority for saying that some of these establishments answered the purposes for which they were instituted, and were for a time the abodes of virtue and religion; but it is easy to foresee how liable they were to abuse and corruption in a rude age, as soon as the first fervours of enthusiastic piety subsided; and although the corruptions of these lay monasteries were, in all probability, exaggerated by zealous reformers, who were intent upon converting all monasteries into ecclesiastical institutions, there can be no doubt that the corruptions were at one period very great.

"It is from the accusers of these establishments that we gain some information as to the conduct of their inmates. The monastic dress was not generally adopted. In some monasteries the abbot might be seen in the same attire as other men of his own station in society, with his mantle of blue cloth, faced with crimson silk, and ornamented with stripes or vermicular figures. We find them addicted to war, to hunting, to hawking, to games of chance, to the company of minstrels and jesters. In some of the nunneries also the lady abbess would appear in a scarlet tunic, with full skirts and wide sleeves and hood, over an under-vest of fine linen of a violet colour. Her face was painted with stibium, her hair was curled with irons over the forehead and temples; ornaments of gold encircled the neck, bracelets were seen on her arms, and rings with precious stones on her fingers, the nails of which were paired to a point, to resemble the talons of a falcon. The shoes were of red leather. In the stricter convents, a more sober dress was adopted; but this was the dress of the ladies of fashion, the 'flamineæ puellæ,' as they were called by Lullus; and such we are informed some of the abbesses remained. These vanities, on the part of both men and women, imply the existence of much social intercourse, and Alcuin complains of 'secret junketings and furtive compotations;' while the nuns were forbidden to write or send amatory verses,

"The celebrated monastery at Whitby was a double monastery, over which St. Hilda presided. Lingard informs us that the system of the double monasteries was introduced from France, (Antiq. of Anglo-Saxon Church, i. 196); and besides Whitby, he mentions Barking, Coldingham, Ely, Wenlock, Repandun and Wimborne. "Ep. S. Bonif. cv.: ed. Serar, p. 149.

"Aldhelin, De Laud. Virg. 307, 364.

"Lullus, Ep. inter Bonifacianas, xlv. p. 63; quoted by Lingard, Hist. Ang.-Sax. Church, i. 210: ed. 1858."