THE MYSTERIES OF CHRONOLOGY
 
 2 3- 
 
 THE 
 
 MYSTERIES OF CHRONOLOGY 
 
 proposal for a IRew English jra 
 
 TO BE CALLED 
 
 THE VICTORIAN 
 
 BY 
 
 F. F. ARBUTHNOT 
 
 AUTHOR, EDITOR, AND TRANSLATOR or VARIOUS WORKS 
 
 LONDON 
 WILLIAM HEINEMANN 
 
 1900 
 AND V.E. 64
 
 P R E F A C E . 
 
 THE contents of this very slipshod work are as 
 follows : 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction - 1 
 
 About the Date of the Introduction of the 
 
 Christian Bra into Europe - 18 
 
 About the Date of the Introduction of ' Anno 
 Domini,' and eventually of ' A.D.,' our 
 present system - 41 
 
 About the Date of the Introduction of Arabic 
 
 Numerals into Europe - 72 
 
 About the Dates of the Births, Accessions, 
 and Deaths of our English Kings and 
 Queens, going backwards from Queen 
 Victoria to William the Conqueror - 110 
 
 About the Early Chroniclers - 161 
 
 Some Desultory Conclusions - 214 
 
 In addition to the above there ought to have 
 been a chapter about the dates of the formulation 
 of history in various countries. As a general rule, 
 history begins with the fabulous, is followed by 
 the legendary and the traditional, all at first 
 handed down orally. A collection of these put 
 into writing lays the foundation of the building, 
 
 2094512
 
 VI 
 
 and regular history then follows, which may be 
 divided into the possible, the probable, the positive, 
 according to various circumstances. 
 
 Now, to write a really good scientific work on 
 all the subjects and contents mentioned above 
 would take about fifty years. Moreover, the 
 author must be a scholar with a good knowledge 
 of Greek, Latin, Arabic, and many other languages, 
 besides being well up in archaeology, astronomy, 
 chronology, geography, history, numismatics, and. 
 paleography. Possessing none of these qualifica- 
 tions, it may be considered most presumptuous on 
 my part even to attempt to unravel some of the 
 mysteries of the past, mysteries which have been 
 often carefully concealed, distorted, falsified, and 
 misrepresented, so that it is now impossible to get 
 at the real truth about them. One can only 
 suggest the phrase so frequently used by Arab 
 authors, ' God alone knows.' 
 
 Still, the search after truth has ever been my 
 guiding star, and what a difficult pursuit ! In the 
 present day, with all our appliances of civilization, 
 there appear to be more persons occupied in 
 leading people away from the truth than persons 
 engaged in attempting to lead them to it. More- 
 over, the question of ' What is truth ?' is some- 
 what difficult to answer. Even learned judges, 
 acute lawyers, and intelligent jurymen sometimes 
 fail in their mission.
 
 Vll 
 
 The collection of facts seemed to be the best 
 basis to work upon, and with this in view the 
 contents of this work were first got together for 
 my own information and guidance. Imperfect as 
 it is in many ways, it struck me that some of the 
 subjects touched upon might interest a few persons, 
 and so for their benefit it has been published. 
 
 It is impossible to name all the persons who 
 have kindly assisted me, but mention must be 
 made of Mr. Edwin Johnson, who made researches 
 on my account in the British Museum, and who 
 from his own knowledge supplied me with much 
 information about the three writers of the Tudor 
 period mentioned in chap. v. and elsewhere. 
 
 To the officials of the British Museum and of 
 the State Record Office in Chancery Lane I am 
 also much indebted for assistance, information, and 
 invariable courtesy. And the same thanks are 
 due to the officials of the many museums and 
 collections which I visited at various times in 
 different parts of Europe. 
 
 F. F. ARBUTHNOT. 
 
 22, ALBEMABLE STREET, 
 LONDON, W.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 BEFORE plunging into the subjects mentioned in 
 the Preface, some explanation must be given as to 
 the systems on which chronology and datings are 
 generally established. 
 
 Time, at present represented by seconds, minutes, 
 hours, days, months, and years, is the most fleeting 
 of all perceptions, and unless occurring events are 
 recorded daily with full details, it is impossible to 
 rely upon their accuracy. And even then, though 
 the date of the occurrence may be correct, the cause 
 and effect of events are always open to controversy, 
 according to the many and diverse opinions on any 
 particular subject. 
 
 The dating of the events which occurred before 
 the introduction of daily records and registers 
 must be received with caution. Chroniclers, his- 
 torians, and chronologers have done their best to 
 compare and arrange the numerous eras and epochs 
 of the earth's history. Many of these eras and 
 epochs commence with the year of the creation of 
 the world, each 'of them differing in actual figures, 
 
 1
 
 and about them it must be confessed we are totally 
 ignorant. 
 
 Astronomy perbaps will be found tbe safest 
 guide to chronology. From the earliest ages the 
 positions and movements of the planets and the 
 stars have been observed and studied at all times 
 by nearly all the nations. It was this study in 
 Europe which enabled the Greek astronomers to 
 determine the cycle of nineteen years and the lunar 
 cycle. 
 
 These two cycles have the same origin, the same 
 nature, the same revolutions, and the same effect. 
 The only difference between the cycle of the moon 
 and the cycle of nineteen years is that the former 
 commences three years after the latter. The two 
 are sometimes both mentioned in the same charters 
 or documents, but the third of the one is the sixth 
 of the other. The cycle of the moon is commonly 
 called the Golden Number, from its being marked 
 in letters of gold in ancient calendars. 
 
 THE LUNAE CYCLE 
 
 extends over a period of nineteen years. At the 
 end of that time it recommences again, and goes 
 through exactly the same phases, so that all calcu- 
 lation of the recurrence of the lunar phases is 
 unnecessary. The lunar calendar of every interval 
 of nineteen years is a reproduction of the lunar 
 calendar of the preceding period. This cycle is
 
 said to have been adopted 432 or 433 B.C., but it 
 was practically known in Greece before that time. 
 
 THE SOLAK CYCLE, 
 
 or cycle of the sun, is a revolution of twenty-eight 
 years. After every successive period of twenty- 
 eight years the days of the month return again to 
 the same days of the week ; the sun's place to the 
 same signs and degrees of the ecliptic on the same 
 month and days, and this goes on in regular rota- 
 tion so as not to differ one day in a hundred years. 
 The same order of leap - years and of dominical 
 letters returns, and therefore it is also called the 
 cycle of the Sunday letter. 
 
 THE INDICTIONS 
 
 are said to represent a term of fifteen years, be- 
 ginning with 1, going on to 15, and then recom- 
 mencing with 1. It is a period of fifteen years, 
 having no reference to any religious observance 
 or astronomical phenomena. It is apparently a 
 conventional division of time, established, it is 
 said, during the reign of Constantine, the Roman 
 Emperor, continued by his successors, and by the 
 Popes. 
 
 The real origin of the indiction period is doubt- 
 ful. Gibbon, in his ' Decline and Fall,' gives 
 one explanation, but it is not conclusive. Any- 
 how, it would appear that the indiction was finally 
 
 12
 
 settled by Pope Gregory VII. (1073-1085) to be 
 the first day of the year 313, and that year is also 
 given in ' L'Art de verifier les Dates.' The year 
 of the indiction as a recorded date is to be found 
 in many early documents, especially ecclesiastical 
 ones, as also in charters. As there are four 
 descriptions of indictions, each beginning with 
 different datings viz., 1st September, 24th Sep- 
 tember, 25th December or 1st January, and October 
 these must add considerably to the mysteries of 
 chronology, though now no longer in use. 
 
 JOSEPH JUSTUS SCALIGEE 
 
 was the first person who seems to have attempted 
 to introduce some conformity into the tangled 
 skein of datings, and laid the foundation of the 
 science of ancient chronology. His works, ' De 
 Emendatione Temporum ' (1583) and 'Thesaurus 
 Temporum' (1606) are still extant. It was on 
 a multiplication of the three above-mentioned 
 periods of 19, 28, and 15 years that Joseph 
 Scaliger (1540-1609) is said to have established 
 his Julian period. The result comes to 7,980, 
 consisting exactly of 420 metonic or lunar cycles, 
 285 solar cycles, and 532 indictions ; also, it may 
 be noted, of 15 paschal cycles of 532 years each. 
 Scaliger then sought the first year of a lunar cycle, 
 the first of a solar cycle, and the first of an in- 
 diction falling on the same date, and this he
 
 obtained by counting backwards. He took, for 
 example, the first year of the lunar cycle, and, 
 counting back from 19 to 19, made a table of the 
 first years of this cycle expressed with reference to 
 the first year of the Christian era. He then did 
 the same by the solar cycle of 28 years, and the 
 same by the indictions of 15 years. In these tables 
 he sought and found the year before Christ which 
 was the first year of a lunar cycle, the first year of 
 a solar cycle, and the first year of the indiction. 
 This was 4713 B.C., which he fixed as the com- 
 mencement of the Julian period. According to 
 this, the year of the birth of Christ was the 4713th 
 year of his period, and adding 1,900 to this gives 
 the current year as the 6613th of the Julian 
 period. 
 
 It is difficult to understand why Scaliger 
 included the indictions with the lunar and solar 
 cycles, as the former had really nothing to do 
 with the two latter in any way. As, however, the 
 year of the indiction was much used in early 
 datings, it was on that account perhaps he thought 
 that they should be calculated. It was, anyhow, 
 necessary to obtain a fixed date to start from, and 
 so work out his chronological data, which seems to 
 resemble somewhat the working into a large mosaic 
 table the extraordinary number of small items of 
 which it is composed. 
 
 To understand the various datings existing at
 
 the time that Scaliger endeavoured to put some 
 order into his chronological system, the following 
 summary, showing the correspondence of the 
 principal epochs, eras, and periods with that of 
 the Christian era, is now given : 
 
 Epochs, Eras, and Periods. 
 
 The Grecian era of the world. 
 
 The ecclesiastical era of Con- 
 stantinople. 
 
 The civil era of Constanti- 
 nople. 
 
 The Alexandrian era. 
 
 The ecclesiastical era of 
 Antioch. 
 
 The Julian period. 
 
 The Mundane era. 
 
 The Jewish Mundane era. 
 
 The era of Abraham. 
 
 The destruction of Troy. 
 
 The epoch of the building of 
 Solomon's Temple. 
 
 The era of the Olympiads. 
 
 The Eoman era, i.e., from the 
 building of the city of 
 Eome. 
 
 The era of Nabonassar. 
 
 The epoch of Daniel's seventy 
 weeks. 
 
 The Metonic cycle. 
 
 The Calippic period. 
 
 The Philippian era. 
 
 The Syro-Macedonian era. 
 
 The Tyrian era. 
 
 The Sidonian era. 
 
 The Caesarian era of Antioch. 
 
 The Julian year. 
 
 The Spanish era. 
 
 The Actian era. 
 
 Dates of their Commencement. 
 
 September 1, B.C. 5598. 
 March 21 or April 1, B.C. 
 
 5508. 
 September 1, B.C. 5508. 
 
 August 29, B.C. 5502. 
 September 1, B.C. 5492. 
 
 January 1, B.C. 4713. 
 October, B.C. 4008. 
 Vernal equinox, B.C. 3761. 
 October 1, B.C. 2015. 
 June 12 or 24, B.C. 1184. 
 May, B.C. 1015. 
 
 New moon of summer solstice, 
 
 July 1, B.C. 776. 
 April 24, B.C. 758. 
 
 February 26, B.C. 747. 
 Vernal equinox, B.C. 458. 
 
 July 15, B.C. 432. 
 
 New moon of summer solstice, 
 
 B.C. 330. 
 June, B.C. 323. 
 September 1, B.C. 312. 
 October 12, B.C. 195. 
 October, B.C. 110. 
 September 1, B.C. 48. 
 January 1, B.C. 45. 
 January 1, B.C. 38. 
 January 1, B.C. 30.
 
 Epochs, Eras, and Periods. 
 
 Dates of their Commencement, 
 
 September 1, B.C. 30. 
 February 14, B.C. 27. 
 December 25 or January 1, 
 
 B.C. 3. 
 September 1, B.C. 3. 
 
 January 1, A.D. 1. 
 September 1, A.D. 69. 
 November 24, A.D. 166. 
 September 17, A.D. 284. 
 November 12, A.D. 295. 
 February 23, A.D. 303. 
 July 7, A.D. 552. 
 July 16, A.D. 622. 
 June 16, A.D. 632. 
 
 The Actian era in Egypt. 
 The Augustan era. 
 The Pontifical indiction. 
 
 The indiction of Constanti- 
 nople. 
 
 The vulgar Christian era. 
 
 The destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 The era of the Maccabees. 
 
 The era of Dioclesian. 
 
 The era of Ascension. 
 
 The era of Martyrs. 
 
 The era of the Armenians. 
 
 The era of the Hegira. 
 
 The era of Yazdegird, or 
 Persian era. 
 
 The Galilaean era. March 14, A.D. 1079. 
 
 It must be supposed that nearly all the dates 
 fixed to the above epochs, eras, and periods are 
 founded on astronomical, chronological, and his- 
 torical researches and calculations, aided by solar 
 and lunar eclipses, coins, inscriptions, manuscripts, 
 and monuments. In the total absence of records 
 and registers these must now be accepted as the 
 basis from which springs all modern chronology, 
 which cannot now be altered in any way. 
 
 THE PASCHAL CYCLE. 
 
 As has already been explained, the cycle of the 
 sun consists of 28 and the cycle of the moon of 
 19 years. These multiplied by each other form a 
 third cycle of 532 years, which is called the 
 paschal cycle. At the end of a revolution of 532 
 years, the two cycles of the moon, the regulars,
 
 the keys of the movable feasts, the cycle of the 
 sun, the concurrents, the dominical letters, the 
 paschal term, Easter, the epacts with the new 
 moons, recommence as they were 532 years before, 
 and continue the same number of years. 
 
 The paschal cycle of 532 years is most im- 
 portant, for it probably has more to do with the 
 dating of the Christian era than the supposed date 
 of the birth of Christ. The Benedictine story 
 about Dionysius Exiguus and his reputed inven- 
 tion of the date of the Christian era will be 
 described in the first chapter of this work.* 
 
 It will be noticed that nearly all the terms 
 mentioned above are closely connected with the 
 calendar of the Roman Catholic Church, dependent 
 chiefly on phases connected with the lunar and 
 solar cycles and other astronomical matters, more 
 especially with reference to the annual recurring 
 festival of Easter, the most important festival of 
 the Christian Church, and the fixing of which 
 caused considerable trouble and anxiety to the 
 early ecclesiastical authorities. 
 
 * As previously stated, the number of 7,980 years before 
 Christ gives exactly 420 lunar cycles, 285 solar cycles, 532 
 indictions, and 15 paschal cycles. If, then, A.D. 1 started 
 with a new paschal cycle of 532 years, the year 1900 would 
 be the 304th year of the fourth paschal cycle from the date 
 of the introduction of the Christian era. Also 1900 would 
 be the 1st year of the lunar cycle of 19 years, the 5th year 
 of the solar cycle of 28 years, and indiction 13.
 
 Frequent mention is made about the true 
 calculation of Easter in Bede's ' Ecclesiastical 
 History.' It is laid down at considerable length 
 in a letter, without date, from Abbot Ceolfrid to 
 Naitan, King of the Picts. ' There are,' the 
 Abbot writes, ' three rules in the Sacred Writings 
 on account of which it is not lawful for any 
 human authority to change the time of keeping 
 Easter which has been prescribed to us ; two of 
 which are Divinely established in the Law of 
 Moses, the third is added in the Gospel by means 
 of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. 
 For the law enjoined that the Passover should be 
 kept in the first month of the year, and the third 
 week of that month that is, from the fifteenth 
 day to the twenty-first. It is added by Apostolic 
 institution in the Gospel that we are to wait for 
 our Lord's Day in that third week, and to keep 
 the beginning of the paschal time on the same. 
 Which threefold rule whosoever shall rightly 
 observe will never err in fixing the paschal 
 
 feast.' 
 
 ***** 
 
 This is followed by a long explanation of the 
 month and days on which the Jewish Passover 
 was fixed, etc., adding : ' By which our definition 
 is proved to be true, wherein we said that the 
 paschal time is to be celebrated in the first month 
 of the year and the third week of the same. For
 
 10 
 
 it is really the third week, because it begins on the 
 evening of the fourteenth day, and ends on the 
 evening of the twenty -first.' 
 
 According to the Book of Common Prayer, 
 ' Easter Day is always the first Sunday after the 
 full moon which happens upon or next after the 
 21st day of March ; and if the full moon happens 
 upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after.' 
 
 In other words, 'Find the day on or next of 
 the 21st March upon which the ecclesiastical 
 moon (i.e. t paschal moon) attains the fourteenth 
 day of its age. The Sunday which next follows 
 that day will be Easter Day.' 
 
 It may be stated that fourteen days of the new 
 moon called the paschal moon is the date of the 
 paschal term or full moon. The date of the new 
 moon is always on one of the days from the 8th 
 of March to the 5th of April, both inclusive. It 
 follows, therefore, that the first day on which the 
 paschal term or full moon can happen must be 
 the 21st of March, and the last day on the 18th of 
 April, 
 
 In other words, Easter Day (the paschal 
 Sabbath) may fall upon any of the thirty-five days 
 which are included after the 21st of March until 
 the 25th of April, but cannot be earlier than the 
 22nd of March or later than the 25th of April. 
 
 Now, speaking chronologically, if Christ was 
 born on a certain day, viz., 25th December, He
 
 11 
 
 also ought to have died on a certain day. But 
 the date of His death and resurrection is mov- 
 able and dependent on the moon between the 22nd 
 March and 25th April, which is curious. More- 
 over, all the. movable feasts of the Church appear 
 to be fixed more on lunar than on chronological 
 calculations. 
 
 THE JULIAN AND GBEGORIAN CALENDARS. 
 
 Julius Caesar ordained that the year of Rome 
 708 (i.e., A.U.C. 708) should contain 365 days, 
 and every fourth year 366 days to balance the 
 year, which at that time was computed at 365 
 days, 6 hours. But the mean solar or civil year 
 consists of 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 49'54 
 seconds only. Deducting this from 365 days, 
 6 hours, there remains a balance of 11 minutes, 
 10*46 seconds, or about the 129th part of a day. 
 In the course of time, then, the seasons would be 
 out one day, in double that time two days, and so 
 on. This was rectified during the Pontificate of 
 Gregory XIII. (1572-1585), and established under 
 the name of the New Style, ten days being 
 deducted from the year 1582. 
 
 The 5th of October, 1582, was decreed to be the 
 15th. The day of the vernal equinox thus re- 
 covered its date of the 21st March, and was kept 
 in its place in the following manner. By the 
 established rules of the Julian Calendar there
 
 12 
 
 would have been one day in excess every 129 
 years. To prevent this, it was decreed that the 
 year 1700, by the Julian Calendar a leap-year, 
 should be considered as a common year. Thus 
 the equinox would be restored to its date of 
 2 list March, and future equinoxes would be kept 
 right by making the years 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 
 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900 and so on into 
 common years of 365 days, instead of leap-years, 
 as under the Julian Calendar, leaving 2000, 2400, 
 2800 and every fourth hundred year as a bissextile 
 or leap-year of 366 days. 
 
 The Papal decree fixed the exact date of the 
 commencement of the reform (named the New 
 Style) on the 5th October, 1582, which was con- 
 verted into the 15th October. It further ordered 
 the year to be thenceforward reckoned from the 
 1st of January each year. This reform was intro- 
 duced at different times into the various countries 
 except Russia* and Greece, where the Old Style 
 still prevails. It was not adopted in England till 
 
 * In Kussia it is said that the Government are anxious 
 to introduce the New Style in the place of the Old Style 
 now used in that country. One difficulty of the change is 
 caused by the many saints in the Greek Church, to each of 
 whom a day is allotted. Their month would now have to 
 be pushed forward twelve or thirteen days. One proposal 
 was to omit leap-year every four years, so that in forty- 
 eight or fifty-two years the Old would be assimilated with 
 the New Style. It would be better perhaps to take the leap 
 at one single bound, as was done in England in 1752.
 
 13 
 
 1752, by which time an extra day had to be added, 
 so the 3rd September became the 14th September, 
 1752. 
 
 In England, it is said, in the seventh, and so late 
 as the thirteenth, century the commencement of 
 the new year was reckoned from Christmas Day. 
 But in the twelfth century the Anglican Church 
 began the year on the 25th of March, and this 
 practice was also adopted by laymen in the 
 fourteenth century. This continued until the 
 reformation of the calendar under Statute 24 
 George II., 1751, which decreed, along with other 
 matters, that the new year should begin on the 
 1st January, 1752, and continue doing so every 
 year henceforward. The date of the 3rd Sep- 
 tember, 1752, was ordered also to be converted 
 into the 14th of the same month at the same time. 
 
 To persons acquainted with the subject all the 
 above details will be looked upon as very ancient 
 history. Still, it is necessary to give them here 
 in a summarized form, so as to show the diffi- 
 culties with which historians and chronologers 
 have had to deal. The Julian and Gregorian 
 Calendars, and the Julian Period, have been 
 generally adopted, and reckoned not only forwards 
 but backwards, so as to reduce all historical events 
 to the position in respect to the order of time 
 which they would have held if the Julian system 
 had already existed.
 
 14 
 
 It must, therefore, be understood that the dates 
 of all events occurring before the Julian and Gre- 
 gorian Calendars, and Julian Period, have been 
 worked out by historians, chronologers, and others 
 in accordance with the Julian chronology. The 
 dating of events which took place at a time when 
 no records or registers were ever kept must always 
 remain open to some kind of doubt. Still, it is 
 evident that without this simplification and as- 
 similation, historical events would have been so 
 confused that they could not have been so easily 
 understood as they appear to be at the present 
 time. 
 
 It is said that Napoleon called history c a fable 
 or fiction agreed upon.' Chronology may be 
 included under the same heading, most certainly 
 the chronology of the time before the introduction 
 of some kind of record. 
 
 For ready reference a Roman calendar for the 
 month of January is here transcribed : 
 
 1. Calends of January. 
 
 2. IV. Nones, i.e., 4th day before the Nones of 
 
 January. 
 
 3. III. Nones. 
 
 4. Pridie Non. Jan., or the day before the Nones 
 
 of January. 
 
 5. Nones of January. 
 
 6. VIII. Ides, or the 8th day before the Ides 
 
 of January.
 
 15 
 
 7. VII. Ides. 
 
 8. VI. 
 
 9. V. 
 
 10. IV. 
 
 11. III. 
 
 12. Pridie Idus, or the day before the Ides of 
 
 January. 
 
 13. Ides of January. 
 
 14. XIX. Calends of February, or the 19th day 
 
 before them. 
 
 15. XVIII. Calends. 
 
 16. XVII. 
 
 17. XVI. 
 
 18. XV. 
 
 19. XIV. 
 
 20. XIII. 
 
 21. XII. 
 
 22. XL 
 
 23. X. 
 
 24. IX. 
 
 25. VIII. 
 
 26. VII. 
 
 27. VI. 
 
 28. V. 
 
 29. IV. 
 
 30. III. 
 
 31. Pridie Calends of February, or the day 
 
 before them.
 
 16 
 
 FEBRUAKY. 
 1. Calends of February. 
 
 It must be noted that the Nones are the 5th 
 day, and the Ides the 13th day, of each month, 
 except in March, May, July, and October, when 
 the Nones fall on the 7th, and the Ides on the 
 15th day, of these months, two more days of 
 Nones, and two less days of Calends, being used 
 during that period. 
 
 A good deal of the above has been taken from 
 ' The Chronology of History,' by Sir Harris 
 Nicolas. His work will be found most useful 
 as a book of reference, entering into fuller details 
 of the subject. 
 
 It would be interesting to find out when the 
 term ' century ' as applied to time first came into 
 use. Probably it is of a later date than is gener- 
 ally supposed. In early times it does not appear 
 to have been used, as the datings of that period 
 would not require it. But when chronology began 
 to be worked out by Joseph Scaliger and his 
 successors, the term ' century ' was found to be 
 absolutely necessary. 
 
 In Murray's ' New English Dictionary ' the 
 word ' century ' as relating to time is defined as 
 a period of 100 years, originally expressed in full, 
 ' a century of years.' ' Each of the successive 
 periods of 100 years reckoning from a received
 
 17 
 
 chronological epoch, especially from the assumed 
 date of the birth of Christ. Thus, the hundred 
 years from that date to the year A.D. 100 inclusive 
 was the first century of the Christian era ; those 
 from 1801 to 1900 inclusive form the nineteenth 
 century.' When, where, and how the term was 
 first introduced it is difficult to say. It is quoted 
 in the first half of the 1 7th century, A.D.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ABOUT THE DATE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 
 CHRISTIAN ERA INTO EUROPE. 
 
 THE legend handed down to us by the Benedictines 
 and other ecclesiastical authorities, and which has 
 been apparently copied into every encyclopaedia 
 and other work of reference, is briefly this : 
 ' Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk and abbot 
 of Rome, invented the Christian era about the year 
 532 A.D.' 
 
 There is no evidence to show when this legend 
 was first put into circulation. It is quoted by 
 Scaliger (1583) without any attempt at criticism. 
 Since his time this story has been repeated over 
 and over again, so that apparently it is now 
 accepted as an historical truth. 
 
 In the French ' Grande Encyclopsedia/ now in 
 course of publication, a distinguished savant, in a 
 short notice on chronology, repeats the statement 
 that the Christian era was invented by Denis le 
 Petit (as the French call him) in the sixth
 
 19 
 
 century A.D., but that it did not come into use 
 until the eleventh. 
 
 The various compilers of historical and chrono- 
 logical works do not tell the public that the legend 
 has been doubted or denied, probably because they 
 were themselves ignorant of the fact. It is, how- 
 ever, true that some 200 years ago the Jesuit 
 Father Hardouin (1646-1729), in his Latin work 
 on the chronology of the Old Testament, con- 
 temptuously rejected the statement about Dionysius 
 Exiguus. Now, Hardouin was a man who knew 
 what he was writing about, and his worth and 
 genius have been valued by a few scholars. But 
 that acute critic of the early Benedictine literature 
 and of other monkish authors was, like many 
 others, certainly not appreciated in his time, as 
 shown by an epitaph, recorded as follows : 
 
 ' In expectation of the judgment, 
 
 here lies 
 
 the most paradoxical of men, 
 by nation a Frenchman, by religion a Eoman, 
 
 the portent of the literary world, 
 the worshipper and the destroyer of venerable antiquity. 
 
 Favoured in learning, 
 he woke to publish dreams and thoughts unheard of. 
 
 He was pious in his scepticism, 
 
 a child in credulity, a youth in rashness, 
 
 an old man in madness.' 
 
 And thus was genius, doubt, and criticism in 
 that age handed down to posterity. 
 
 22
 
 20 
 
 The Benedictines are solely responsible for the 
 legend of Dionysius Exiguus ; but the legend 
 has been questioned by some of the Benedictines 
 themselves. About fifty years after Hardouin's 
 discoveries the Benedictines of St. Maur (1750) 
 began their great work on chronology, ' L'Art de 
 verifier les Dates,'* which was carried on by a 
 number of collaborators. They quote the legend 
 of Denis le Petit without comment or criticism. 
 
 But a few years later a comprehensive Latin 
 history of the literature of the Order of St. Benedict 
 was undertaken by two Fathers of German monas- 
 teries. Here we find, in reference to Dionysius 
 Exiguus, a remarkable admission. 
 
 The Benedictine Father says that there are grave 
 doubts about this alleged inventor of the Christian 
 era. Was Dionysius a Benedictine at all ? The 
 point is doubtful. He certainly was not ' Abbot of 
 Rome.' The Father was probably aware that there 
 was no such official in that early age. However, 
 he continues : ' As several distinguished scholars 
 of the Order have recognised Dionysius Exiguus, 
 
 * In 1770 Dom. Frar^ois Clement prepared an entirely 
 new edition of this work with many additions, and another 
 still better one between 1783 and 1793, the date of his 
 death. During the present century so much new matter 
 has been discovered that the work is now hardly up to date. 
 It still, however, holds its own as a book of reference, and a 
 good deal of both astronomical and chronological informa- 
 tion can be obtained from it.
 
 21 
 
 we must not pass him over.' And so the legend 
 is repeated. 
 
 It is certainly curious that after the Benedictine 
 Father O'Lezipont had expressed such grave mis- 
 givings concerning Denis le Petit in 1754, further 
 inquiries were not made on the subject. For in 
 the ably- written tracts on ' Time ' in D. Lardner's 
 ' Common Things Explained ' (first series, 1855, 
 another edition 1874) we find 'Dionysius made 
 historical researches, the result of which as- 
 signed the birth of Christ to the 25th day of 
 December in the 753rd year from the foundation 
 of Rome.' 
 
 The actual date of the birth and death of Christ 
 is not known. It may be said to be founded on 
 chronological calculations connected with the two 
 Herods and the Roman Emperors, and probably 
 made long after the event. The date is now sup- 
 posed to be some three, four, or more years out in 
 the calculation, but still it is a fact accepted, and 
 need not be disturbed in any way. 
 
 The greater probability is that the date of the 
 Christian era was fixed on astronomical calculations 
 connected with the lunar, solar, and paschal cycles. 
 The two former, of 19 -and 28 years, multiplied 
 together give 5,32, a date coinciding with the 
 alleged discovery or invention of Dionysius 
 Exiguus. 
 
 It is well known that the fixing of the date of
 
 22 
 
 Easter, the great festival of the Christian Church, 
 especially in connection with the Resurrection, was 
 a cause of great trouble and anxiety to the early 
 ecclesiastical authorities. And the paschal cycle 
 is an ever-recurring revolution of 532 years closely 
 connected with the Church Calendar. 
 
 At this distance of time it is difficult to verify 
 the details of the supposed biography of Dionysius 
 Exiguus, said to have been Abbot of Rome in the 
 sixth century. Still, such a person may have 
 existed, and on chronological or astronomical 
 studies may have discovered, introduced, or in- 
 vented the Christian era, in some places called the 
 Dionysian era. On the other hand, it has been 
 stated that this Dionysius was chiefly occupied 
 with the fixing of the dates of the Easter term. 
 By multiplying the lunar and solar cycles together 
 he found and formed the paschal cycle, and on this 
 calculated the dates of Easter for some years to 
 come. 
 
 As is well known, the Benedictines and other 
 monks were in the habit of putting forth legends, 
 lives of saints, and other works under various 
 names. Up to the date of the introduction of 
 printing in the middle of the fifteenth century the 
 whole of the learning of Europe was in the hands 
 of the priesthood, a very close corporation, which 
 looked keenly after their own interests, and 
 manipulated everything in any way they chose.
 
 23 
 
 There was no publication, no criticism, no contradic- 
 tion of any sort. 
 
 The Jesuit Father Hardouin (already alluded to) 
 has pointed this out in his Prolegomena to a 
 Censure of Old Writers. Though most of this 
 work is full of controversial matter, there are some 
 facts about books and early libraries which, if true, 
 are most interesting. 
 
 Books there were none or very few outside the 
 libraries of the monasteries down to the twelfth 
 century, says Mabillon (1632-1707) in his work on 
 1 Monastic Studies.' It might be said with greater 
 truth that in those very monastic libraries there 
 were not many before the twelfth century. 
 
 Down to the rise of printing, says Hardouin, 
 ' there was great facility for forgery and a great 
 lust for it. After the rise of printing it may have 
 been more difficult. And so the great period of 
 forgery was the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth 
 centuries, the period of printing was the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries, and the period of ex- 
 amination and detection of it the end of the seven- 
 teenth and succeeding centuries.' 
 
 Now, this business of forging old literature has 
 existed at all times and at all places. Mr. Thomas 
 Chenery, in a most valuable and interesting lecture 
 on the Arabic language, given at Oxford in 
 1869, says (and his remarks apply equally to the 
 Benedictines) : ' The notion of ancient Arabic
 
 24 
 
 literature, of which some fragments are said to 
 have come down to us, is, or ought to be, quite 
 exploded. The Arabs, for instance, have pre- 
 served what- they say is the lament of Amr, son of 
 Al Harith, son of Modad the Jorhomi, who was 
 expelled from Mecca and from the care of the 
 Ka'beh, and forced to take refuge in Yemen at 
 some remote time. Albert Schultens believed this 
 Amr to have been contemporary with Solomon, 
 and published the verses among his " Monumenta 
 Vetustiora Arabise " as " Carmen Salamonis ajtatem 
 contingens." But he probably did not know that 
 the Moslem men of letters were among the most 
 unscrupulous and shameless of forgers, and were 
 in the constant habit of placing snatches of poetry 
 in the mouths of the heroes whose deeds they 
 chronicled. The piece in question is in regular 
 metre, determined by the quantity of syllables after 
 the manner of Latin or Greek, and there is reason 
 to believe that this more elaborate form of poetry 
 was introduced at no early period. The conclusion 
 to which we are forced to come is that these verses 
 were probably composed by some versifier under 
 the Khalifs when the old legends of the people 
 were digested into a regular historical chronicle.' 
 
 Again, we find in the last chapters of A. Giry's 
 'Manuel de Diplomatique' (Paris, 1894) some 
 valuable remarks on the subject of forgeries. The 
 author is professor at L'Ecole des Chartes, and
 
 25 
 
 apparently labours under what may be called the 
 usual infirmities of the official class. He does not 
 see the force of objections to the system, or is 
 unwilling to entertain them. 
 
 He refers in passing to the attacks of the Jesuit 
 scholars (Hardouin and others) upon the Benedic- 
 tine documents, but does not enter into the merits 
 of the controversy. He gives no searching criticism 
 of Mabillon and the other Benedictines who have 
 been hitherto our authorities, and records as a 
 matter of course the legend of Dionysius and the 
 introduction of the Christian era. 
 
 And yet such is the force of evidence that this 
 official scholar devotes his last chapters to the 
 subject of forgeries, which in a manner breaks up 
 the whole of the orthodox theory advocated by him. 
 
 Here is a scholar who, after labouring in the 
 interests of credulity, tells us in the strongest 
 language how innumerable falsities have been 
 perpetrated in charters and genealogies in the 
 interest of persons, families, corporations, etc., 
 and adds that it would require a thick volume 
 to tell us all he knows about this. 
 
 Especially in reference to Bulls of Popes he 
 says there has been temptation to forgery and 
 consequent results, but that the matter is one of 
 infinite detail. From the compilations of Jaffe 
 and his successors we may form some idea of 
 documents of this nature marked ' false.'
 
 26 
 
 Again, in ' Books and their Makers during the 
 Middle Ages,' G. H. Putnam says, vol. i., p. 83 : 
 1 It was about 1440 when Laurentius Valla, at 
 that time acting as secretary for King Alphonso 
 of Naples, wrote his report upon the famous Dona- 
 tion of Constantine, the document upon which the 
 Roman Church had for nearly a thousand years 
 based its claim to be the direct representative in 
 Western Europe of the old Imperial authority. 
 Valla brought down upon his head much ecclesi- 
 astical denunciation. The evidences produced by 
 him of the fact that the document had been 
 fabricated a century or more after the death of 
 Constantine could not be got rid of, and although 
 for a number of years the Church continued to 
 maintain the sacred character of the Donation, and 
 has in fact never formally admitted that it was 
 fraudulent, it was impossible after the beginning 
 of the sixteenth century even for the ecclesiastics 
 themselves to base any further claims for the 
 authority of the Church upon this discredited 
 parchment. 
 
 ' Of almost equal importance was the discovery 
 of the fabrication of the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. 
 The Decretals had been concocted early in the 
 ninth century by certain priests in the West 
 Frankish Church, and had been eagerly accepted 
 by Pope Nicholas I. (858-867), who retained in 
 the archives of the Vatican the so-called originals.
 
 27 
 
 The conclusion that the Decretals had been fraudu- 
 lently imposed upon the Church was not finally 
 accepted until the beginning of the fourteenth 
 century. It was with the humanistic movement 
 of the Renaissance that historical criticism had its 
 birth, and a very important portion of the work of 
 such criticism consisted in the analysis of the lack 
 of foundation of a large number of fabulous legends 
 upon which many of the claims of the Church had 
 been based.' 
 
 Erasmus, the great scholar of the beginning of 
 the sixteenth century, in the first edition of his 
 New Testament, omitted altogether the testimony 
 of the ' three witnesses ' in the first Epistle of 
 John v. 7, and ' insisted that the writings of the 
 Fathers, and even the Roman versions of the 
 Scriptures themselves, must be subjected to critical 
 analysis and to textual corrections, and that not a 
 few of the dicta which had been made the basis of 
 doctrines called authoritative were either fraudulent 
 interpolations in the original texts, or were the 
 result of the glosses and blunders of incompetent 
 copyists ' (see Putnam, vol. ii., pp. 25, 206). 
 
 Though Putnam has admitted that there were 
 interpolations, omissions, additions, and even fraud 
 in many of the early documents and manuscripts, 
 he seems to have accepted without any doubt or 
 misgiving all the Benedictines' accounts of their 
 monasteries, manuscripts, and libraries.
 
 28 
 
 Now, the whole of the period from the fifth to 
 the fifteenth century was one of great darkness as 
 regards regular historical records, and it is difficult 
 to fix accurate dates with absolute certainty. 
 
 It must also be remembered that the two great 
 authorities about the literary work of the Bene- 
 dictines, viz., Mabillon and Zeigelbauer, only lived 
 during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 
 many centuries after Cassiodorus and Benedict. 
 During that long interval, and before our present 
 chronology was established, it is highly probable 
 that more was based upon legend and tradition 
 than upon reliable historical evidence. 
 
 Now, with regard to books and libraries in 1271, 
 when study began to be taken up in earnest in Paris, 
 the Archdeacon of Canterbury then bequeathed to 
 the Chancellor of Paris all his books of theology, to 
 be accommodated for the use of poor scholars and 
 students of theology in Paris. They consisted of 
 fourteen volumes of a very meagre description, 
 with none of the Fathers or of the scholastic 
 theologians who are said to have written before 
 the fourteenth century. 
 
 In the year 1304 Simon, Bishop of Paris, has no 
 other books to bequeath to his Church except 
 ' Books of the chapel for the use of the Paris 
 Church,' as we read in the martyrology of that 
 Church. 
 
 In France there was no Royal Library before the
 
 29 
 
 reign of Charles V., called the Wise (1364-1380). 
 He, partly out of books which his father, King 
 John the Good (1350-1364), left him at his death, 
 and partly out of those which he himself acquired, 
 founded a library of 900 volumes, and that was a 
 vast amount of books for those times. Afterwards 
 it was greatly augmented by Francis I. (1515-1547) 
 and by Catherine de Medicis, books having been 
 brought from Florence from the library of Lorenzo 
 de Medicis. 
 
 If, then, the above is a description of books and 
 libraries in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth 
 centuries, before the discovery of printing, it must 
 be inferred that during the previous centuries they 
 were even less numerous, and that there must have 
 been a total absence of record of any value. The 
 histories of those times subsequently written must 
 have been chiefly founded on legendary and 
 traditional information, made up later into a 
 chronological sequence. 
 
 To return again to the date of the introduction 
 of the Christian era generally into Europe. The 
 style of the dating of the Christian era which first 
 came into use was ' anno incarnationis Dominica?,' 
 or ' anno ab incarnatione,' or ' anno a Nativitate/ 
 or ' anno a Passione/ etc., which prevailed for 
 several centuries. These were followed by ' anno 
 Domini,' ' anno gratiae,' ' anno salutis humanse,' 
 and finally ' A.D.'
 
 30 
 
 In a work entitled ' Die Urkunden Karls III. ; 
 or, the Records of Charles III., Emperor of the 
 West,' by Dr. E. Muhlbacker, Vienna, 1879, it is 
 stated that the records of Lothair, Charles the 
 Bald, and Louis the German are only dated 
 according to the years of their reign and indictions. 
 In a footnote it is added that the Incarnation year 
 is only once mentioned in the records of the reign 
 of Charlemagne (768-814), and once found in those 
 of Charles the Bald (840-877). In West Francian 
 records and those of Upper Burgundy the Incarna- 
 tion dating is first mentioned in 888, while in 
 Italy it is in use during the reign of Charles III., 
 Emperor of the West, who is said to have reigned 
 from 876 to 888 in various places. 
 
 From the archives of the Vatican some informa- 
 tion was collected, and it appears that though 
 there are scattered documents, neither indexed nor 
 arranged in any way, there is no series of documents 
 in the Vatican prior to 1198, beginning with Inno- 
 cent III. (1198-1216). A little work entitled 
 ' Ad Vaticani Archivi Romanorum Pontiticum 
 Regesta Manuductio,' Rome, 1884, gives the 
 numerical list of these volumes from 1198 to 1592. 
 
 The early Papal records and registers (if ever 
 they existed) appear to have disappeared alto- 
 gether. Professor Lanciani, a great authority on 
 Roman antiquities, states positively in his ' Ancient 
 Rome ' that there were early Papal records from
 
 31 
 
 the time of Pope Damasus (368-384) down to the 
 twelfth or thirteenth centuries, and adds (p. 204) : 
 1 Not one of the volumes of the documents of the 
 Regesta belonging to the incomparable collection 
 formerly in the buildings of Damasus, then in the 
 Lateran, and lastly in the Turris Cartularia, has 
 escaped destruction ; not one has come down to us.' 
 Again, at p. 189, ' The library of Damasus has long 
 since disappeared.' 
 
 It is thus clear that no series of the records of 
 the early years remains. How, when, and where 
 they were destroyed it is impossible to say, and 
 whether done intentionally or through want of 
 knowledge of their value is also a mystery. Con- 
 sidering the rudeness, ignorance, and barbarism of 
 those times, personally I doubt if any complete 
 series ever existed at that time. 
 
 It is a curious coincidence that in England our 
 records (meagre as they are) begin about the same 
 time as the series of documents in the Vatican the 
 latter part of the twelfth century. 
 
 From various works on and about the early 
 Papal records I have, however, been able to obtain 
 some information about the time when the Incarna- 
 tion dating first began to be used in the Vatican. 
 
 The Popes in their very early documents appear 
 to have used no dates of any kind. The year of 
 the indiction is the date that first appears tran- 
 scribed thus : ' Scriptum per manus . . . notarii
 
 32 
 
 ... in mense Octobris Indictione XIII.' (supposed 
 to be October, 640). 
 
 The Kalends, Nones, and Ides of the various 
 months, and generally the year of the indiction, 
 are used where the documents are dated at all, but 
 many are still undated. After this comes sometimes 
 the year of the reign of the Pope on the document. 
 The first of this kind gives the second year of the 
 reign of the Pope Zachary (741-752). The next is 
 the fifth year of the reign of Hadrian I. (772-795). 
 And this goes on, the documents being sometimes 
 undated, sometimes dated with Kalends, Nones, and 
 Ides, to which are sometimes added the year of the 
 indiction ; sometimes the year of the reign of the 
 Popes, sometimes the name and year of the 
 reigning Emperor is added or the year of the 
 Consulate. All the numerals used are naturally 
 Roman ones. 
 
 Before the use of the term ' anno incarnationis 
 dominicaB ' I have come across the use of the 
 simple word ' anno,' thus : ' Scriptum per manus 
 Joannis scrinarii Anno VII. domini nostri Zacharia? 
 Datum II. Nonas Novembris Imperante Con- 
 stantino, Indictione V. Anno DCCXLVIIII.' the 
 first indiction with a dated year that I have seen. 
 
 This rather bears out the theory that the dating 
 by the Incarnation is considerably posterior to the 
 dating by the Christian era, at first simply ex- 
 pressed by the word 'anno.' Our Anglo-Saxon
 
 33 
 
 Chronicle is dated throughout with ' anno ' only, 
 while Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History 'carries through- 
 out Incarnation dates. It may be that the Chronicle 
 is anterior to Bede, for to my idea the Chronicle 
 was the first attempt to formulate English history. 
 
 The first use of Incarnation dating among the 
 Vatican records that I have come across (but there 
 may be earlier) is 938, as follows : * Mense Junio, 
 Anno ab Incarnatione Domini DCCCCXXXVIII., 
 Indictione XL, Epact. XVL, Concur. VII., Anno 
 III., Ottonis regis.' 
 
 After that Incarnation datings follow, not at all 
 continuously, but at intervals, viz., 964, 968, 996, 
 1046, 1048, 1061, 1069, 1121, and so on, all of 
 course in Roman numerals. 
 
 The Abbe Duchesne. head of the Ecole de France 
 in Rome, and author of many valuable learned 
 works, told me that the Popes did not begin 
 Incarnation dates till the last half of the tenth 
 century. The first letter is dated DCCCCLXIII. 
 In other countries he said it was used earlier, and 
 quoted Bede and his Incarnation dates, but could 
 not tell me where Bede got them from. Further, 
 that Denis le Petit (i.e., Dionysius Exiguus) was 
 occupied not with the Incarnation, but with the 
 paschal dates. Instead of calculating from the 
 year of the building of Rome (A.U.C.), 753 or 
 754, he commenced from the supposed year of the 
 birth of Christ, and calculated the Easter date for 
 
 3
 
 34 
 
 ninety-five years, from 531 to 626, and Bede did 
 the same up to 1063. 
 
 From the above it may be inferred that the 
 dating from the Incarnation in France, Germany, 
 and Italy was not introduced till the ninth and 
 tenth centuries. It was not till the Pontificate of 
 John XIII. (965-972) that the Apostolic letters 
 commenced to carry the year of the Christian era, 
 then expressed i Ab anno Incarnationis Doniinicse,' 
 or ' Anno ab Incarnatione Domini.' 
 
 In the Municipal Library at Tours there are some 
 1,700 manuscripts, many collected from the old 
 Abbayes of St. Martin and Marmoutier, and the 
 Church of St. Gatien (now the cathedral) and 
 other places. In none of these manuscripts, I 
 am told, are there any Incarnation dates previous 
 to the eleventh century A.D., which shows that 
 this dating was hardly in general use prior to that 
 period. 
 
 Datings from various epochs which occurred 
 during the reigns of Kings and Emperors in those 
 early days were also much in vogue at that time. 
 From these epochs current events were computed 
 and dated, and these with the years of the reigns of 
 the Sovereigns appear to have formed the basis of 
 chronology in France, Germany, and Italy for a 
 long early period. In England for our early 
 histories we are entirely dependent on the Bene- 
 dictines, who state that Christianity and the date
 
 35 
 
 of the Christian era were introduced into this 
 country by St. Augustine, who came from Rome 
 to England with forty monks in 596, was made 
 the first Archbishop of Canterbury, and died 
 about 607. 
 
 But in the early monkish chronicles there is 
 to be found another story of the introduction of 
 Christianity into England, to the effect that it was 
 imported by Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, and 
 Mary Magdalen, who came to Glastonbury, where 
 Joseph was buried, and on his tomb was inscribed 
 the following, a translation from the original Latin, 
 ' Having buried Jesus, I came here to convert the 
 Britons/ while the thorn-tree that he planted is 
 blossoming still. 
 
 This story, however, has now disappeared, and 
 the great work ' Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis 
 Anglorum,' attributed to the Venerable Bede, but 
 probably formulated by the Benedictines under his 
 name from his literary remains, and published at a 
 later date, forms the basis of the early history of 
 England, both as regards the Church and the State. 
 
 In Spain the era known as the Spanish era was 
 introduced B.C. 38, and was used till A.D. 1180, 
 when it was abolished by a decree of the Council 
 of Tarragona and the Christian era substituted. 
 Still, the former era was continued in use in certain 
 provinces until 1398. Portugal was the last nation 
 that computed by this Spanish era, and retained it 
 
 32
 
 36 
 
 till 1415 or 1422, while the Greeks did not adopt 
 the dating by the Christian era till the fifteenth 
 century. 
 
 With the above details before us it is difficult to 
 believe the very early Incarnation datings given in 
 the Anglo-Saxon charters, wills, guilds, manu- 
 missions, and acquittances from the reign of King 
 Ethelburht (DCV.) to William the Conqueror. The 
 work has been translated by Benjamin Thorpe, 
 London, 1865. It is curious that England, always 
 a backward country as compared with Italy, France, 
 or Germany, should be far ahead of them as regards 
 Incarnation datings. 
 
 CHAETEES. 
 
 Now, in the work just mentioned there appear 
 to be as many documents without dates as with 
 them. Of 239 and odd charters many are undated, 
 others bear the date of ' Ab Incarnatione Domini,' or 
 < Anno Dominiae Incarnationis,' or ' Anno adventus 
 Domini ;' some with the year of the reign of 
 the King and some without ; some with the 
 Nones, Ides, and Calends of the Rpman Calendar 
 and some without ; some mention the names of 
 saints' days or feast days, and some the number of 
 the indiction of the year. 
 
 It is further curious to note that in this Anglo- 
 Saxon work the earlier charters of the seventh, 
 eighth, and ninth centuries are more or less dated,
 
 37 
 
 while those of the tenth and eleventh centuries are 
 hardly dated at all. But all Anglo-Saxon and 
 Anglo-Norman charters, and especially the ones 
 dated before the ninth century, ought to be most 
 carefully examined and regarded with some sus- 
 picion, as it is now generally admitted that many 
 of them are spurious. Sir Nicolas Harris says : 
 ' It is a well-known fact that an exemption from 
 episcopal jurisdiction was greatly coveted by the 
 principal monasteries, and that the monks during 
 the Anglo-Norman period (and no doubt previously) 
 committed extensive forgeries to obtain that object.' 
 Again, when the Domesday Book was under pre- 
 paration many charters were forged as titles to 
 lands claimed by various parties, especially those 
 belonging to many of the religious houses. 
 
 WILLS. 
 
 Among the sixty-seven wills, copies of which 
 are given in the work above mentioned, only three 
 are dated, and one most elaborately : ' Anno 
 Domini DCCCCVIII.,' with the indiction, epact, 
 concurrent, lunar cycle, paschal term, and Calends 
 of May. The Anno Domini is curious, for the 
 term was not in use at that early period. 
 
 Of the five guilds, eight manumissions, and ten 
 acceptances given none are dated. 
 
 Now, this work of Thorpe's had been preceded
 
 38 
 
 by another one of the same nature ' Codex Diplo- 
 maticus JEvi Saxonici,' by John Mitchell Kemble 
 (1839-1848), in six volumes, from which Thorpe 
 had borrowed much. This was followed in 1885, 
 1887, and 1893 by the ' Cartularium Saxonicum,' 
 a collection of charters relating to Anglo-Saxon 
 history by Walter de Grey Birch, of the British 
 Museum. This is a very lucid and interesting 
 work in three volumes, with more to come, giving 
 many copies of early charters, with their dates. 
 
 The first document given in the first volume is 
 curious. It purports to be a charter of St. Patrick 
 granting indulgences to the benefactors of Glaston- 
 bury, and is dated, ' In nomine nostri Jhesu Christi 
 Ego Patricius humilis servunculus Dei anno in- 
 carnationis ejusdem CCCCXXX.' Now, according 
 to the Benedictine legend, the Christian era was 
 not introduced till the year 532, so this precedes 
 it by 102 years, and makes the genuineness of the 
 date of this charter rather doubtful. 
 
 The second document purports to be a letter 
 from St. Patrick, but without any date. 
 
 The third is properly dated according to the 
 style of dating of that period, without the Incar- 
 nation year, ,viz., ' Mense Aprilis sub die IIII. Kl. 
 Maias, Indictione VII.,' being a grant by Ethel - 
 burht, King of Kent. Mr. Birch says this date 
 corresponds with 28th April, 604. 
 
 The next two documents carry the Incarnation
 
 39 
 
 date of the year DCV., being grants by the same 
 King. 
 
 The sixth document is properly dated for the 
 period, while the seventh, eighth, and ninth are 
 not dated at all. And so the work proceeds in 
 three volumes, many of the documents with the 
 dates of the Incarnation year, many without them 
 or any dates at all, and others with the proper dates 
 of the period. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that none of the Pope's 
 letters from Rome carry the Incarnation date of the 
 year, while all charters and grants to religious 
 houses and monasteries are carefully filled in with 
 this date. Until fuller and further inquiry has 
 been made throughout Europe generally, nothing 
 can be positively asserted. Still, from what has 
 already transpired, it may be inferred that all 
 documents bearing Incarnation dates prior to the 
 ninth century should be most carefully examined. 
 It may be that when prepared they were ante- 
 dated, or dates added to the originals at a later 
 period, or that original documents have been 
 copied and then dated. Diligent research may 
 eventually lead to some final conclusion as to the 
 actual year when the datings by the year of the 
 Incarnation first commenced. 
 
 Mr. A. Giry, in his valuable ' Manuel de Diplo- 
 matique,' says at p. 89, that 'the use of the Incar- 
 nation date in the West of Europe did not become
 
 40 
 
 general till after the year 1000,' and adds in a 
 note, ' The dates of the Christian era have been 
 very frequently added to the documents, in some 
 cases to the original ones, in others to old copies of 
 them. Nearly all the original charters of the Abbaye 
 of Saint Maur-des-Fosses received this addition in 
 the eleventh century, and in many cases such have 
 been published without the warning that these 
 dates were written in other handwriting than the 
 original. By relying on such interpolated and 
 other false dates, it has been alleged that the 
 datings by the Christian era are frequently found 
 in the French records from 632.' 
 
 In conclusion, then, it may be stated that all 
 charters or documents bearing the Incarnation date 
 prior to the ninth century should be regarded with 
 suspicion. Further, that from the ninth to the 
 eleventh century the use of the Incarnation date 
 was applied here and there, and from the twelfth 
 century it came into more general use, and con- 
 tinued till its supercession, more or less, by the 
 term ' Anno Domini,' and finally by our present 
 system of dating A.D., which will be dealt with in 
 the next chapter.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ABOUT THE DATE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ' ANNO 
 DOMINI,' AND EVENTUALLY OF 'A.D.,' OUR 
 PRESENT SYSTEM. 
 
 To endeavour to fix the exact date of the introduc- 
 tion of our present system of dating is difficult ; it 
 can only be determined after a careful examination 
 of old documents such as Manuscripts, Records, 
 Close, Patent, Pipe, and Charter Rolls, Letters, 
 Wills, Registers, Official Correspondence, and such 
 like. 
 
 To understand what labour this would entail, 
 a reference can be made to a very interesting work 
 entitled ' Records and Record Searching,' by 
 Walter R}^e, 2nd edition, London, 1897. The 
 book is very complete, with an excellent index, 
 but persons not acquainted with chronological 
 details might imagine that from the earliest 
 period dates were always written in Arabic 
 numerals. No mention is made of the various 
 kinds of dates used in the voluminous records
 
 42 
 
 referred to, while a verification of the correctness 
 of those different datings would add considerably 
 to the historical value of the documents. 
 
 However, the practice of reducing every date to 
 one common system has been general. Historians, 
 chronologers, antiquaries, and archaeologists, with 
 infinite trouble and research, have worked all dates 
 into years and centuries, all recorded in Arabic 
 numerals. But there is an exception to which 
 particular attention should be drawn I allude to 
 the many documents with the original datings 
 to be found in Thomas Rymer's ' Fcedera, Conven- 
 tiones. Litteras,' etc. 
 
 Dean Stanley, in his ' Memorials of Westminster 
 Abbey,' p. 397, has an interesting allusion to this 
 Thomas Rymer, who was ' a constant pilgrim to 
 the Chapter House for the compilation of his 
 valuable work on the Treaties of England. So 
 carefully closed was the Record Office itself that he 
 had to sit outside in the vestibule, and there, day 
 after day, out of the papers and parchments that 
 were doled out to him, formed the enormous folios 
 of Rymer's " Fcedera." ' 
 
 Rymer himself began the copying of the docu- 
 ments from Anno Incarnationis 1100, the year of 
 the accession of Henry I. A later edition in 1816 
 has supplied a few from 1066, when William the 
 Conqueror commenced his reign, up to 1100. The 
 original work extends from 1101 to 1654, and fills
 
 43 
 
 twenty volumes in folio. The first fourteen 
 volumes were published in Rymer's lifetime (1641- 
 1713); the fifteenth and sixteenth, prepared by him, 
 were published after his death by his assistant, 
 Robert Sanderson, afterwards Master of the Rolls, 
 who completed the seventeenth to the twentieth 
 volumes between 1717 and 1735. 
 
 The last edition of this valuable work was 
 published between 1816 and 1830 ; it begins with 
 1066, but only goes as far as 1383, 6 Richard II. 
 When this was being edited, it was found that in 
 both the original work and the editions which 
 followed it the chronological arrangements were 
 very faulty, and many of the dates wrongly 
 calculated. In the last edition of 1816 the dates 
 seem to have been all recalculated 
 
 1. By the mode now generally adopted by 
 European States. 
 
 2. By the ancient Roman method in Calends, 
 Nones, and Ides. 
 
 3. By the mode adopted in many instances by 
 the movable and immovable feasts or fasts of the 
 Church, saints' days, their eves, octaves, etc. 
 
 Dates expressed by A.D. are carried through the 
 chronological indexes and margins of the editions 
 of 1704-1735, 1737-1745, and 1816-1830, though 
 the term A.D. is not used at all in any of the 
 original documents themselves. The A.D. dates
 
 44 
 
 are therefore the productions of the various 
 editors. 
 
 In the edition of 1816, which only goes as far 
 as 6 Richard II., or 1383, no Arabic numerals are 
 used. In Rymer's original edition of 1704 the 
 first date of the year in Arabic numerals appears 
 during the first quarter of the sixteenth century, 
 and continues at very rare intervals up to 1601, 
 when it becomes a little more frequent to 1654, the 
 year of the close of the work. 
 
 In another chapter will be found allusions to the 
 very numerous Incarnation datings inserted in 
 Bede's ' Ecclesiastical History,' said to have been 
 finished the first part of the eighth century A.D. 
 Here the following summary of the datings of 
 original documents of the eleventh and twelfth 
 centuries will show how sparsely these Incarna- 
 tion datings are to be found. 
 
 1066 WILLIAM L, THE CONQUEEOE 1087. 
 
 None of the fifteen documents quoted in the 
 edition of 1816 carry Incarnation dates, but two 
 of them are dated by the year of the reign of the 
 King. 
 
 1087 WILLIAM II. 1100. 
 
 Of the four documents of this reign one only is 
 dated 'Anno ab Incarnatione MC.,' the others are 
 undated.
 
 45 
 
 Here it may be noted that the first edition of 
 1704 seems to have been very carelessly prepared 
 as regards the use of Roman and Arabic numerals. 
 Some of the latter are to be found in this work at 
 a very early date, while on referring to the edition 
 of 1816 the same are always expressed in the 
 former. 
 
 The edition of 1816 was, I believe, prepared 
 from the original documents and compared with 
 them. Up to 1383, when this edition ends, all the 
 figures are in Roman numerals only. This would 
 show that Arabic figures were not much in use at 
 that period, which will be further confirmed by the 
 dates given in the works mentioned later on in 
 this chapter. 
 
 1100 HENEY I. 1135. 
 
 The two documents of this reign are undated by 
 the year in the 1704 edition, but in the 1816 edition 
 there are several more added papers, and two of 
 them carry dates. One, ' Anno ab Incarnatione 
 Domini MCXI. vi. id. Aug./ and the other, 
 1 Vicesimo secundo die Novembris anno regni nostri 
 tricesimo tertio.' 
 
 1135 STEPHEN 1154. 
 
 With one exception, all the documents of this 
 reign are undated by the year. One carries the
 
 46 
 
 place only, ' Apud Westmonasterium'; another 
 carries the month and day after the place, while the 
 exceptional one is remarkable. It is an instrument 
 placing Christchurch by the walls of London under 
 the protection of Pope Eugenius. After date of 
 place that of time is given thus : ' Kl. Nov. Indic- 
 tione XL Incarnationis Dominion Anno MCXLVII. 
 Pontificatus vero Domini Eugenii Papse III., 
 Anno III.' 
 
 1154 HENRY II. 1189, 
 
 Under this reign 33 instruments are noted, the 
 dating of which are as follows : Undated, 13 ; 
 with place only, 2 ; place with date of month, 8 ; 
 place, date of month, year of Pontificate, 3 ; month 
 dated only, 1 ; place, date of month, year of 
 reign, 1 ; exceptional, 2 ; year of Incarnation 
 only, 1 ; year of Incarnation, month, indiction, 
 year of reign, 1 ; by place, feast of Church, year 
 from Incarnation, 1 ; or 33 in all. 
 
 In Rymer's edition of 1704 there is an instru- 
 ment purporting to come from King Alfonso of 
 Castile with the date below it, ' Mre 1214, Kal. 
 Septembris.' As it seemed rather an early date 
 for the use of Arabic numerals, I referred to the 
 original document in ' Bibl. Cotton Julius A xi./ 
 and there found that the date was really given in 
 Roman numerals thus, ' MCCXIV. viii. Kal. Sep- 
 tembris.' This is evidently the Spanish era, which
 
 47 
 
 began 1st January, B.C. 38, and 1214 would corre- 
 spond to our A.D. 1176. 
 
 1189 EICHAED I. 1199. 
 
 One of the first documents is a letter from 
 Philip, King of France, to Richard, bearing date 
 ' Ab Incarnatione Domini 1189, Mense Octob.' In 
 this case neither the original document nor a copy 
 of it is to be found, and therefore it is impossible 
 to say whether it is actually dated with Arabic or 
 with Roman numerals. But the probability is, 
 supposing the document to be genuine, that it 
 carries Roman numerals, the time being rather 
 early for the use of Arabic figures. 
 
 Other modes of dating are by the month, the 
 date of month, and year of reign, or month and 
 date of month and place, 
 
 It is curious that in two instruments placed 
 together and dated from Messana, the first has 
 simply the day of month, while the second has, 
 1 In the year of the Incarnate Word the thousandth 
 one hundred and ninetieth, in the month of March.' 
 
 In a letter we find, ' We have written in the 
 middle of September in the year from Alexander 
 Pope, the fifth.' 
 
 A letter of Emperor Henry has place and vigil 
 of St. Thomas, Apostle. 
 
 A letter of the Pope was dated ' St. Peter's, 8 Ides 
 of June, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.'
 
 48 
 
 Though there are fewer entirely undated docu- 
 ments than before, some important instruments 
 have no date whatever. 
 
 There is no uniformity of dating even in Papal 
 letters. The year of the Pontificate is sometimes 
 omitted, and the year of the era seldom used. 
 
 Queen Eleanor writes long, undated letters, but 
 apparently acquires the habit of dating in the next 
 reign. 
 
 It should be remarked that during the reigns of 
 Henry I., Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I. there 
 are not less than sixty-seven years for which no 
 kind of instrument is found in Rymer's ' Foedera ' 
 (see General Introduction of 1816 edition). 
 
 1199 JOHN 1216. 
 
 The modes of dating are the years of the reign 
 of the King, the place and day of month, and these 
 are the most common both with Richard and John. 
 Still, there are undated treaties and conventions ; 
 occasionally only the year of the reign is given in 
 John's documents, and some of them are un- 
 accountably undated altogether. 
 
 The Popes, as usual, have month, day, and year of 
 Pontificate, but no year of era. 
 
 The Incarnation dates are few, viz., ' Year of the 
 Incarnate Word,' ' Year of the Lord's Incarnation,' 
 * Year from the Incarnation,' all in Latin words, 
 not figures.
 
 49 
 
 The fullest date is that to the ' Resignation ' of 
 John to Pope Innocent III., as follows : ' At 
 St. Paul's, London, on the third day of October, 
 in the year from the Incarnation MCCXIII.,' of our 
 reign the fifteenth year, in Latin. 
 
 There is a letter from ex -Queen Berengaria, 
 dated, ' Cenom. Anno Dominicse Incarnationis 
 1215, 7 September,' but Roman figures are used 
 in the original without a doubt. Ryrner gives the 
 above, while the edition of 1816 gives ' MCCXV., 
 vii. Kalends Octobris.' 
 
 1216 HENRY III. 1272. 
 
 The prevalent way of dating is by place, month, 
 and day, the year of the reign being sometimes 
 added. 
 
 A ' Form of Peace ' is dated, ' At Lameth (sic) in 
 the year from the Incarnation of the Lord the 
 thousandth two hundred and seventeenth on the 
 eleventh day of September, in the first year of the 
 Lord Henry the King of England the third.' 
 
 The following is the first one of ' Anno Domini ' 
 to be noted. Reginald, King of Man, becomes 
 vassal of the Pope ; the date is, ' Actum London 
 in Domo Militias Templi xi. Kal. Octob. Anno 
 Domini millesimo ducentesimo decimo nono.' 
 
 There are a number of the King's letters 
 witnessed by Hubert de Burg the Justiciary, who 
 dates by month and day and place, but sometimes 
 
 4
 
 50 
 
 gives the day in figures, sometimes in words. 
 Thus on the same day we have ' xxiv. die Julii,' 
 and ' vicesimo quarto die Julii.' 
 
 The term ' Anno Domini ' now appears occasion- 
 ally. One date in this reign is ' London anno 
 Domini MCCXXIV., the morrow of St. Bartholo- 
 mew the Apostle.' Another, ' Die Mercurii ante 
 Ramos Palmarum anno Domini MCCLI.' 
 
 There is a treaty between Henry and Alfonso of 
 Castile, dated, ' pridie Kalend Aprilis ./Eras mile- 
 sirno ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo,' and the 
 next document has, ' Data apud Toledum Kal. 
 Aprilis Rege Exprimante .Eras MCCXCIJ.' (both 
 these dates belong to the Spanish era, and are 
 equivalent to our A.D. 1254). There is a further 
 letter from Toledo, dated ' Anno Domini MCCLIV/ 
 Also a State Paper relating to the kingdom of 
 Sicily, dated, ' Neapoli III. Non. Nbvemb., Indict. 
 XIII. , Incarnat. Domini anno MCCLIV., Pontificat 
 yero Domini Innocenti Papae IV., anno duo- 
 decimo.' 
 
 A few later instances of dating by the indiction 
 occur in this reign. The important fact is the 
 extremely few cases in this large mass of docu- 
 ments where the year is given. In the King's 
 letters the constant habit is to give place and date 
 of month and no more. In the Pope's letters the 
 year of the Pontificate is added generally and 
 nothing more.
 
 51 
 1272 EDWAED I 1307. 
 
 The prevalent mode of dating continues to be by 
 place, month, and day, but now more frequently 
 with year of reign added, or Anno Domini. The 
 days are given now in the old Roman fashion, now 
 in the later Latin mode. 
 
 These are the earliest dates of this reign : 
 
 (1) ' Apud Westm. xxiii. Die Xovembris Anno 
 Regni nostri primo/ 
 
 (2) ' Datas per manum Waltori Merton Cancel- 
 larii nostri apud Novum Templum London xxix. 
 Die Novembris Anno Regno nostri primo.' 
 
 (3) ' Dat. per manum W. de Merton Cancellarii 
 nostri apud Westm. vii. Die Decenibris.' 
 
 (4) 'Dat. per manum W. de Merton Cane, nostri 
 apud Westm. vii. Die Decembris.' 
 
 (5) Letter of Gaston, Viscount of Perm : ' Dat. 
 apud Orcesium xix. Kal. Februarii, Anno Domini 
 MCCLXXIII.' 
 
 This year, 1273, is sometimes denoted not in 
 Roman numerals, but in the Latin ordinal adjec- 
 tives. The day of the week, e.;/. t ' die Jo vis/ is 
 sometimes given. 
 
 There appears fresh evidence of a delight in 
 exact dating on the part of monks and clerks, 
 e.g. : ' Anno Domini MCCLXXIV., Indictione 
 secunda, tempore Domini Gregorii Papse decimo, 
 Mense Mail, die Veneris in Crestorium Ascensionis 
 Domini.' 
 
 42
 
 52 
 
 Bulls continue to be dated by place, day of 
 month, and year of Pontificate. It seems curious 
 that in contrast to the practice of other ecclesiastics, 
 the Pope should neglect the feasts of the Church 
 and the year of the Lord in the dating of his letters. 
 Absolutely undated letters are now very rare. 
 
 A French document relating to the succession 
 is thus dated : ' Done a Aumbresbyrie le Lundy 
 procheyn devaunt la Feste Seynt Alphege, le an du 
 Regne le Rey Edward avaunt dit dis e ultyme ' 
 (supposed to be 1290). 
 
 Another instrument in French has only for date, 
 ' Donee a Odymere le xii. jour de Aust ' (sup- 
 posed to be 1297). Another of the same year, 
 ' Don. a Grolinques Abbaie, pres de Cartiay en 
 Flandres, le vynt et troisieme jour du mois de 
 Novembre, 1'an de grace mil, deux cens quatre 
 vin saysze.' 
 
 What is still perplexing is the strange irregu- 
 larity in the forms of the royal dating. Here are 
 two communications to the Pope of the same day. 
 One is dated, ' Dat. Apud Arundel ix. Die Sep- 
 tembris ;' the other, * Dat. apud Arundel, nono 
 die Septernbris, anno Domini MCCCIL, Regni 
 vero nostri xxx.' 
 
 The form ' Anno Gratise ' now makes a slight 
 appearance. 
 
 Assuming the documents to be genuine, the 
 evidence goes to show that the Pontiff's scribes
 
 53 
 
 knew the day of month and year of Pontificate in 
 which they were writing, and that they thought 
 no other date of importance. So with the King's 
 scribes ; they knew the day of month, the year of 
 reign, and heeded not, as a rule, feasts of Church 
 or year of the Lord. 
 
 1307 EDWARD IL 1327. 
 
 The prevalent mode continues : place, day of 
 month, sometimes with year of reign added. The 
 same is noticed in the Pontiff's letters. 
 
 Occasionally ' anno Domini ' is introduced. 
 
 (1) ' Dat. London vi. die Novembris Anno 
 Domini MCCCVII. Regni vero nostri primo.' 
 
 (2) 'Dat. London viii. die Novembris Anno 
 Domini MCCCVII. Regni vero nostri primo/ 
 
 (3) ' Dat. apud Westm. xii. die Novembris 
 Anno Domini MCCCVII. Regni vero nostri 
 primo.' 
 
 (4) ' Dat. apud Langele xxi. die Novembris 
 Anno Domini MCCCVII. Regni vero nostri 
 primo.' 
 
 But the ' annus Domini ' is given rarely, and 
 generally omitted, while in the vast majority of 
 papers even the year of the reign is not inserted. 
 
 The mass of documents is considerably greater 
 than that of any preceding reign, but throughout 
 there is a falling off in the manner of exact dating, 
 which perhaps may be ascribed either to the 
 ignorance or carelessness of the scribes.
 
 54 
 
 1327 EDWAED III. 1377. 
 
 The prevalent mode of dating (i.e., by place and 
 date of month solely) is so fixed that the exceptions 
 are hardly worth naming. In some French docu- 
 ments we find : 
 
 (1) ' Don. a Estaunford le xii. jour de Juyl, an 
 de Grace Mil. Trois cente, Trente & Sept., & de 
 notre Regne Unzisme/ 
 
 (2) 'Don. a Estaunford le xii. jour de Juyl, 
 1'an du Grace Mill. CCC., Trente & Sept., & de 
 notre Regne Unzisme.' 
 
 In a few instances of the latter part of the reign 
 the year of the Lord is given in ordinals without 
 ciphers, e.g.: ' Don, souz notre Grant Seal a nostre 
 Palais de Westm. le xxiv. Jour de Marcz, Tan del 
 Nativite nostre Seigneur Mill. Trois Centz, Sessant 
 Un, & de nostre Regne Trent quint.' 
 
 In two documents (of viii. Jan.) ' year of grace ' 
 and * year of nativity ' are severally used, the year 
 being expressed in each case in French words, not 
 figures, and the name of such years occasionally 
 recurs. 
 
 From whatever cause, it is clear that the scribes 
 who wrote in French were more in the habit of 
 giving the year of reign, and that of grace or 
 nativity, than those who wrote in Latin.
 
 55 
 
 1377 EICHAED II. 1399. 
 
 The prevalent mode continues, i.e., place and 
 date of. month, sometimes with the addition of the 
 year of reign. 
 
 From an account of payments it would appear 
 that Roman numerals were used, and not Arabic 
 ones. 
 
 Among the instruments ascribed to this reign 
 there is nothing new to be specially noted. But 
 in turning over these folios, the fact impresses 
 itself more and more strongly upon the reader 
 that while there are now hardly any undated 
 documents, the time- dating is confined in the over- 
 whelming majority of instances to the day of the 
 month. 
 
 1399 HENKY IV. 1413. 
 
 The same mode prevails, and there is nothing 
 fresh to report. Again, French documents have 
 day of month and year of grace in ordinal words. 
 
 An English indenture bears this date : ' Wryten 
 atte London the fourtene day of Marche, the year 
 of our Lord a Thousand Foure Hundreth and 
 Seven, and of the Regne of the forsaid Kyng the 
 Aght'; equivalent to our A.D. 1407. 
 
 Perhaps the strong preference for the Roman 
 numerals, which frequently occur^ should again be 
 noted : e.g., ' Datum et actum Ruthen, die xxviii. 
 Mensis Januarii, Anno Domini Mill. CCCCXI.'
 
 56 
 
 1413 HENEY V. 1422. 
 
 The same features in reference to the dating of 
 Latin and French documents continue. The 
 ' year of grace ' is greatly characteristic of the 
 latter ; the ' year of the Lord ' is seldom given with 
 the former. 
 
 1422 HBNEY VI. 1461. 
 
 The same remarks apply as to the preceding 
 reign. 
 
 1461 EDWAED IV. 1483. 
 
 The following is the date on an English docu- 
 ment : ' Writen att London the xiii. day of Feuar, 
 the Yeir of the Birth of our Lord MCCCCLXIL, 
 and the first year of the Regne of the High and 
 Mighty Prince Kynge Edward the Fourth above 
 rehersed.' 
 
 A Pope's letter bears date, unusually, of the 
 year of Incarnation as well as of the Pontificate. 
 Curiously, French documents again have the year 
 of Incarnation, or the year of our Lord. Dating 
 by place and day of month remains the prevailing 
 mode in the Latin. 
 
 An English document has the date : ' The 
 Tenth Day of Juyn the Zer of God one thousand 
 four hundred eighty-two Zer.' Again, ' the xi. Day 
 of Juyn, the Zer of oure Lorde a M.IVC.LXXXII. 
 Zer.'
 
 57 
 
 1483 EICHAED III. 1485 HENEY VII. 1509. 
 
 The same modes as before. Latin documents : 
 place and day of month. French ones have the 
 year (' Fan ') without addition ' of grace,' or ' of the 
 Lord.' Scottish have the year of the Lord. Papal 
 documents give the year of the Incarnation. 
 
 1509 HENEY VIII. 1547. 
 
 The King remains singular, it would seem, in 
 contrast to other potentates, in his use of the same 
 method of dating by place and day of month only. 
 This in the vast majority of cases. Occasionally 
 the year of reign is added. 
 
 But about 1516 numerous examples occur of 
 dating by the year of the Lord ; yet it cannot be 
 said that the old custom has been displaced, as 
 later evidence still gives place and month date 
 only. 
 
 Foreign court scribes continue to give the year 
 (' one thousandth,' etc., generally in words), or year 
 of the Lord, or year of grace, perhaps without 
 exception, while the Papal letters continue to be 
 dated by the year of the Incarnation. 
 
 In the collection of State Papers of Henry VIII., 
 published by the Record Commission, the first 
 dated letter by the year is that of Brian Tuke to 
 Wolsey, 1528, in the Arabic numerals, but there 
 is no evidence of a new fashion setting in at that 
 time.
 
 58 
 
 As yet no case of the use of the abbreviation 
 'A.D.' or ' A.C.' in the documents has been noted. 
 
 The will of Henry in English concludes : ' In 
 witness whereof we have signed it with our Hand 
 in our Palace of Westminster the thirty day of 
 December in the Yere of our Lord God a thousand 
 fyve hundred fourty and six after the Computation 
 of the Church of England, and of our Reign the 
 eight and thirty Yere.' 
 
 But Henry's last instrument has simply, ' Teste 
 Rege apud Westmonasterium. Die Januarii, Anno 
 Regni sui tricesimo octavo. 1 
 
 1547 EDWAED VI. 1553. 
 
 The first document, ' Proclamation of Peace,' 
 concludes : ' Witness ourself at Westminster the 
 one and thirtieth day of January.' 
 
 The royal letters continue to be dated by place 
 and day of month only. 
 
 1553 MAEY 1554 PHILIP AND MABY 1558. 
 
 There is no change. The caprice of sometimes 
 giving the date verbally, and sometimes in ciphers, 
 is noticeable: e.g., 'Rege et Regina apud Grene- 
 wiche vicemo quinto die Septembris/ ' the xiii. Day 
 of Novembre,' ' xxvii. Die Novembris.' The year 
 of reign is occasionally added. 
 
 1558 ELIZABETH 1603. 
 
 The same style continues : no recognition of 
 any ' year of the Lord.'
 
 59 
 
 In a letter addressed to the Queen by the 
 ' Consoles et Senatores Kepubl. Stadensis/ there 
 is the following statement : ' Datse sub Sigillo 
 nostrse Civitatis tertio Februarii Anno 601, Stylo 
 Germanico.' This would be 1601. 
 
 The first use of the form ' Annus Salutis humanae' 
 is here noted, ' Bremae 19 Novembris, Anno Salutis 
 humanoa 1602,' a Baron's letter to the Queen. 
 Polydore Vergil, who regarded himself as a very 
 superior person, and the first historian of England 
 worthy of attention, uses this form with the 
 abbreviation ' A. S. H.' throughout his ' Historia 
 Anglica,' dedicated to Henry VIII. in MDXXXIII. 
 In his book ' On Inventions ' he uses ' Anno Salutis.' 
 
 There is a document of the King of Sweden, 
 ' Datae Stockholmae viii. Kalend Decembris Anno 
 1602.' 
 
 1603 JAMES I. 1625. 
 
 The form ' Anno Salutis Christianise ' occurs in 
 this reign in a document of Frederick, Elector 
 Palatine, 1613. 
 
 But generally the same style of dating continues 
 with some exceptions, where ' Anno Domini ' and 
 the year of reign are given. 
 
 1625 CHARLES I 1649. 
 The documents attested by the King are dated 
 
 as before : ' Witness our Self at W , the 
 
 day of ,' with an occasional year of reign.
 
 60 
 
 The Kecord of Parliamentary Proceedings runs 
 (1625) : 'Die Martis, decimo septimo Die Maii, 
 Anno Regni serenissimi Domini nostri Caroli, Dei 
 Gratia, Angliae, Scotias, Franciae, et Hibernise 
 Kegis, Fidei Defensoris, etc., primo.' 
 
 Later minutes give ' anno Domini,' or ' anno, 1 
 or 1625. 
 
 It was during this reign, so far as can be made 
 out from Rymer, that the modern way of placing 
 time-dates at the head of memoranda, etc., came 
 in: 'October 24, 1642,' 'November 4, 1642.' 
 About this time also the recognition of the new 
 style is noticed, e.g. : ( Hagh, August 30, or Sep- 
 
 tember 9, 1649;' ' 9Q de Sept., 1649;' 'Hagh, 
 
 Sept. |, 1649.' 
 
 There is a strange dearth of documents in Rymer 
 for 1646-1649, merely some ten pages, and 1649 
 is dated by him as the first year of Charles II., 
 i.e., ' anno 1 Car. 2.' 
 
 Rymer's torn. xx. ends at 1654. The last date 
 is in the heading of a newsletter : ' Intelligence 
 
 from Paris, f ar f , 1654.' The abbreviated 
 
 1st April 
 
 form of A.D. does not yet seem to have come 
 into use. 
 
 Though the above details will be found both 
 dull and wearisome, still, it was necessary to show
 
 61 
 
 what very irregular dating existed from William I. 
 to the seventeenth century. Any sort of method 
 appears to have been entirely wanting, and the 
 various styles can only be attributed to the know- 
 ledge or ignorance, fancy or caprice, of the scribes 
 or persons who dated the documents in question. 
 
 A few points may, however, be noted in con- 
 nection with the details. During William I.'s 
 reign no Incarnation date is given, one only in 
 that of William II., one in Henry I.'s, one in 
 Stephen's, three in Henry II. 's, and so on, very 
 moderately used throughout ; some expressed in 
 Roman numerals and others in words only. 
 
 The first Arabic numerals appear during 
 Richard I.'s reign, on a letter from the King of 
 France, and dated, ' Act. ab Incarnatione Domini 
 1189.' But as the original document or copy of 
 it cannot now be traced, it is impossible to say 
 whether Roman numerals were used, or in what 
 form the Arabic figures were expressed. It was 
 rather early for Arabic numerals to be used. 
 
 The first use of ' Anno Domini ' is noted during 
 the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272) in four places, 
 and then in other reigns continues at long intervals ; 
 the abbreviated term * A.D.' does not seem to be 
 introduced in any document even up to the end of 
 Rymer's work in 1654. 
 
 It is curious that in all the documents inscribed 
 by Rymer those dated by the year are compara-
 
 62 
 
 tively few. It is difficult to give a reason for 
 this, but probably the system of chronology as it 
 is now known to us had not yet been definitely 
 established. It was a product of the sixteenth 
 century, and improved upon during the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries. As it has been 
 made, so it must be accepted now for what it is 
 worth, and cannot be changed in any way. 
 
 The only improvement that can be suggested is 
 to inaugurate a new English era to be called the 
 Victorian, dating from 1st January, 1837, the year 
 of the accession of our reigning Sovereign. Future 
 generations would then have some definite and 
 reliable starting-point. As positive English history 
 can be carried backwards to A.D. 1500, we should 
 then have a period of 336 years B.V., the history of 
 which, as far as England is concerned, would be 
 much more reliable than the same number of 
 years B.C. 
 
 Some particulars respecting the State Papers 
 published in 1830 (in connection with Henry VIII. ), 
 under the authority of His Majesty's Commission, 
 are interesting, as now we are beginning to stand 
 upon more solid ground so far as dates are con- 
 cerned. 
 
 In Part I., Correspondence between the King 
 and Cardinal Wolsey and others, there are 202 
 letters. Of these only three are dated by the 
 place, month, and year, viz. : Hunsdon, 21 June, 
 1528 ; Hunsdon, 23 June, 1528 ; and Woodstock,
 
 63 
 
 29 August, 1529, all from Brian Tuke. The 
 remaining 199 have no date of year, but carry 
 sometimes place only, sometimes day of month, 
 and sometimes place and day of month. Evidently 
 dating b_y the year was not the fashion, or perhaps 
 it was unknown to many. 
 
 In Part II., Correspondence between the King 
 and his Ministers, 1530-1547, there are 266 letters. 
 The same mode of dating by place and day of 
 month prevails, with the year of reign in about 
 a dozen cases, and a few cases of the years of the 
 era. Brian Tuke in one letter, and Archbishop 
 Lee in two letters, date by day of month and year 
 simply, without Anno Domini or A.D. Minutes 
 of Council are dated by year of reign, e.g., 
 ' Anno 28,' and dates are sometimes endorsed on 
 otherwise undated documents. 
 
 In Part III., Correspondence between the 
 Governments of England and Ireland, 1515-1538, 
 there are 218 letters. As before, these are usually 
 dated by place and day of month ' Dublin, 23 July.' 
 The year of reign is very seldom added. Only 
 two instances of the use of 'Anno Domini' are 
 noted, and no ' A.D.' 
 
 In Vol. XL, Part V., there are 176 letters of 
 Foreign Correspondents, 1546-1547. The foreigners 
 appear invariably to date their letters by place, 
 day of month, and year, without any ecclesiastical 
 phrase. Not a single instance of the King's dating
 
 by the year of the era has been noticed, but the 
 use of this seems to be creeping in on the part of 
 some statesmen at the end of the reign. 
 
 There is a vast collection of published Domestic 
 and Foreign State Papers, edited by Mr. R. Lemon, 
 Mrs. Everett Green, Messrs. Bruce and Hamilton, 
 Mr. J. S. Brewer, and others, all noted at 
 pp. 176-179 of Walter Rye's 'Records and Record 
 Searching,' second edition, 1897. It is unnecessary 
 to go through these here in detail, but only to 
 state that some are undated, and the others dated 
 by day of month, or day of month and place. The 
 dating by the year is always very exceptional all 
 through the sixteenth century. 
 
 In a work edited by the Rev. Walter W. Shirley 
 (1862 and 1866), containing royal and other 
 historical letters illustrative of the reign of 
 Henry III. (1216-1272), many datings of that 
 period will be found, thus covering a great part of 
 the thirteenth century. 
 
 Of the 691 letters and documents contained in the 
 above two volumes, it will be found that there are : 
 (1) Without any date, 345 ; (2) place with date of 
 day and month, 222 ; (3) year of the reign of the 
 King or Pope, with date of day, month, and place, 
 104 ; (4) Anno Domini, with year in Latin words, 
 not figures, 23 ; (5) Anno Domini, with year in 
 Roman numerals, viz., MCCXXV, 1 ; (6) year 
 of the Incarnation, with year in French words, not
 
 65 
 
 figures, 1. There are a few cases in which fast, 
 feast, or saints' days, or the days before or after 
 them, are used instead of the date of day and 
 month. 
 
 It must be noted that throughout this collection, 
 extending from 1216 to 1272, there is not a single 
 Arabic numeral used anywhere. From this it must 
 be inferred that these had not yet been introduced, 
 certainly not in any general way, into Europe 
 during the thirteenth century. The dates are 
 expressed by Calends, Nories, and Ides, or by the 
 date of day and month in Roman numerals. The 
 year when given is in Latin words, not figures, 
 with two exceptions, viz., one in Roman figures 
 and one in French words. 
 
 Again, in a volume containing royal and 
 historical letters during the reign of Henry IV. 
 (1399-1413), edited by the Rev. F. C. Hingeston 
 in 1860, but going only as far as 1404, no trace of 
 Arabic numerals are to be found, nor any use of 
 the abbreviated term A.D. 
 
 Of the 155 specimens of letters and documents 
 in this work there are : Without any date, 20 ; 
 place with date of day and month, 95 ; the 
 same without place, 3 ; year of the reign of the 
 King or Pope, with date of day, month, and 
 place, 10 ; fast, feast, or saint's day, or days- before 
 or after them, 6 ; Anno Domini, with year in 
 Latin words only, 5 ; the same, with Latin words 
 
 5
 
 66 
 
 and Roman numerals combined, 12 ; the same, 
 with Roman numerals only, 3 ; 1'an de grace mil 
 quatre cent et quatre, 1. It will be noted that 
 there are fewer letters without dates of some kind 
 than in former reigns, that the year is still sparsely 
 used, and that A.D. does not yet appear. 
 
 One of the most important works connected 
 with dates in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 
 is ' The Paston Letters/ edited by James Gairdner, 
 of the Public Record Office, 1895. Here you 
 have a mass of public and private correspondence 
 amounting to nearly 1,100 documents, including 
 letters, indentures, wills, writs, settlements, etc., 
 all probably genuine. The style and manner of 
 the dating of these is both important and interest- 
 ing, as they extend from 1422 to 1509, during the 
 reigns of Henry VI., Edwa'rd IV., Richard III., 
 and Henry VII. 
 
 The following summary will show how diverse 
 was the manner of dating in those times : Place 
 with date of day and month, 237 ; without any 
 date, 222 ; named fast, feast, saint's day, or days 
 before or after them, with place, 196 ; the same, 
 but without place, 84; year of the reign of the 
 King with date of day, and month, and place, 84 ; 
 the same, without place, 65 ; date of day and 
 month, without place, 37; place, without date, 28; 
 year of the reign of the King, with named fast, 
 feast, saint's day, or days before or after them,
 
 67 
 
 with place, 27 ; the same, without place, 21 ; day 
 of the week only, 17 ; year of the reign of the 
 King only, 13 ; year of the Lord, or of Christ, in 
 Roman numerals, 10 ; Anno Domini with full date 
 written wholly in Latin or English words, or half 
 words, half Roman figures, 8 ; years only in 
 Roman numerals, 3 ; years in Arabic numerals, 2. 
 
 It will be noted that throughout these three 
 volumes none of the dates on the original docu- 
 ments carry the abbreviated term A.D., and it must 
 therefore be supposed that this form had not yet 
 come into use at that period. Neither is it to be 
 found, as already stated in Rymer's 'Fcedera,' up 
 to 1654. 
 
 In ' The Paston Letters' there are only two original 
 letters dated by the year in Arabic numerals, one 
 simply 1459 (vol. i., p. 505), and the other (vol. iii., 
 p. 363) in full, 'the xxvii. day of January, 1489,' 
 from the Bishop of Durham to Sir John Paston. 
 This Bishop, John Sherwood by name, is described 
 in a footnote as 'a man of high character and 
 learning, and one of the earliest Greek scholars in 
 England/ 
 
 Of the papers dated by the year in Roman 
 numerals, with or without Anno Domini, the 
 most are wills, some legal documents, and three 
 are letters. 
 
 It will thus be seen that datings by the year, 
 either in Roman or Arabic numerals, from 1422 
 
 52
 
 6.8 
 
 to 1509 were rare, and that the most common 
 systems in use were : (1) Place, with date of day 
 and month ; (2) No date ; (3) The fast, feast, or 
 saint's day, or days before or after them, with 
 place ; (4) The same, without place ; (5) The 
 year of the reign of the King, with date of day, 
 and month, and place ; (6) The same, without 
 place, and so on. 
 
 A perusal of these Paston letters will show 
 clearly what trouble and labour our historians, 
 chronologists and antiquaries must have ex- 
 perienced to turn not only these Paston letters, 
 many without date, but all our chronologies into 
 the present system of dating by the day, month 
 and year, as expressed by A.D. 
 
 In the letters and papers illustrative of the 
 reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII. , edited by 
 James Gairdner, Roll Series, 1861, there will be 
 found in the two volumes some 250 letters and 
 documents showing the datings used at that 
 period. 
 
 About one hundred of these will be found to 
 have been dated by the year expressed in various 
 ways, i.e., in Roman numerals, 23 ; in Arabic 
 numerals, 8 ; in Latin, French, Spanish or Italian 
 words, not figures, 42 ; in words and Roman 
 numerals combined, 17 ; Anno Domini, with 
 Roman numerals, 2 ; Anno Domini with words, 
 not figures, 11 ; Anno Domini with Arabic
 
 69 
 
 numerals, 1 ; year of our Lord God, with Roman 
 numerals, 2; the same, with words and figures, 1. 
 
 The other datings consist only of the date of 
 the day and month, with or without place, often 
 the year of the reign of the King, and many 
 without any date at all. 
 
 It will be noted that the term A.D. does not yet 
 appear during these reigns, that the term Anno 
 Domini is seldom used, and that Roman numerals 
 are used throughout where figures are expressed, 
 except in the nine cases where the year is notified 
 by Arabic numerals, and all of these appear to be 
 used in foreign letters or documents. 
 
 It is evident, then, that from 1483 to 1509 the 
 datings were not arranged under any one chrono- 
 logical system, which was worked up and estab- 
 lished at a later period^ 
 
 Here it may be mentioned that in various 
 
 printed Papal documents the first mention of the 
 
 use of the term Anno Domini that I came across 
 
 was of the year MLYIIII., the two next of the 
 
 same year, and another Mill.LX. all these 
 
 during the Pontificate of Nicolas II. (1058-1061). 
 
 . At the same time, Incarnation datings are also 
 
 ( used during these years, instead of Anno Domini. 
 
 After 1060 Incarnation dates continue, but are 
 
 far more frequently used than before, sometimes 
 
 : expressed in Latin words, sometimes in Roman 
 
 numerals. The term Anno Domini does not
 
 70 
 
 appear again till MLXXV., MXCYIIIL, MCIX., 
 MCXXXIIIL, and the first Anno Christi, 
 MCXLVI. 
 
 In Rymer's work it will have been noticed that 
 the term Anno Domini appears for the first time 
 in 1219, during the reign of Henry TIL (1216- 
 1272). It is curious that Incarnation datings are 
 said to have been used in England during the 
 seventh century, while they were not used by the 
 Popes till the tenth century, and the term Anno 
 Domini was used by the Popes in the eleventh, 
 but not in England till the thirteenth century. 
 
 In conclusion, a short analysis of the years 
 recorded in 1137 early printed books of the last 
 part of the fifteenth century (i.e., from 1469 to 
 1500, both years inclusive) will show how year 
 dates were expressed at that period. In these 
 books the years are given in 670 works in Roman 
 numerals ; 200 in Arabic numerals ; 209 without 
 date ; 49 in Latin words only ; 7 half in words 
 and half in Roman numerals ; and 2 half Roman 
 and half Arabic numerals. 
 
 In the above catalogues there are also some 
 Aldine editions ranging from 1501 to 1542, thirty- 
 five in all. Of these, 25 carry the year in Roman, 
 and 8 in Arabic numerals, while 2 are undated. 
 
 Many of the above-mentioned years are prefixed 
 by the names of the year in the following style : 
 There are 189 of Anno Domini; 141 of Anno
 
 71 
 
 Salutis ; 60 of Anno Incarnationis ; 28 of Anno 
 Nativitate; 15 of Anno natalis Christi, or Domini ; 
 10 of Anno Christi; 5 of Anno humanaa Restaura- 
 tionis or Redemptionis ; 4 of Anno Gratia?, and 
 4 of A.D. 
 
 These last consist of three of the year 
 MCCCCLXXXL, and one of the year 
 MCCCCLXXL, the first three printed at 
 Florence, the last at Venice. It is early for 
 A.D. dates, as I have not come across any in 
 England till a later period, but still they may 
 exist somewhere. 
 
 In all the above the dates of the days of the 
 month are generally expressed by Calends, Nones, 
 and Ides, most frequently in Roman, but some- 
 times in Arabic numerals. 
 
 I can give no guarantee for the genuineness of 
 any of these works, or for the correctness of the 
 dates given in them. It might be that some of 
 them have been printed later and antedated, a 
 practice not unknown to the book trade in the 
 past. Indeed, antedating appears to have been a 
 common practice both as regards books and build- 
 ings, for one can hardly believe that many of the 
 basilicas, cathedrals, churches, or monasteries are 
 really as old as they are said to be.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ABOUT THE DATE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF ARABIC 
 NUMERALS INTO EUROPE. 
 
 THE genealogy of numerals is a very large subject, 
 requiring deep research, and certainly not coming 
 within the scope of the present chapter. 
 
 It may, however, be briefly stated that numbers 
 must have been first brought into existence by 
 counting on the fingers. In later times of 
 antiquity this was developed into a system of 
 expressing numbers below 10,000 by various parts 
 of the fingers, and the Chinese, it is said, to this 
 day have a mode of counting up to 99,999 on the 
 fingers of one hand alone. 
 
 Sir E. Clive Bailey, in his valuable articles on 
 the genealogy of modern numerals, Journal of the 
 Royal Asiatic Society, 1882, 1883, says: 'The 
 semi-savage, who counted upon his fingers, and 
 recorded the results of his calculations in rows of 
 mere scratches upon the sand, gave the first hint 
 of the abacus. So the rude numeral signs com-
 
 73 
 
 posed of groups of single lines themselves were 
 gradually superseded by other more compact and 
 convenient symbols. These, applied to the abacus, 
 with its primitive decimal s} r stem, led to the dis- 
 covery of the value of position. Out of this, again, 
 arose the Arcus Pythagoreus or " written abacus," 
 with its accumulation of various series of numbers ; 
 and from this in quick succession came the new 
 methods of decimal arithmetic ; and lastly the 
 invention of a sign to fill the " place vide " or zero ; 
 and the zero finally released the new notation and 
 arithmetic from the trammels of the abacus, and 
 rendered them perfectly applicable to all the 
 purposes of social life.' 
 
 Of the tables of the early numerals of various 
 countries the Egyptian hieroglyphic appears to be 
 the most ancient and the most simple. One to 
 nine perpendicular strokes represent the figures 
 one to nine. Ten to ninety are shown by an 
 inverted [J running from one to nine P|'S. One 
 hundred to nine hundred are represented by the 
 figure \O^J repeated for every hundred up to 
 nine. One thousand to nine thousand carry another 
 
 symbol, \L , repeated in the same way nine times ; 
 
 while ten thousand has another symbol, and so on. 
 
 Nothing could be more simple or primitive than 
 
 such a numerical table, and it is reasonable to 
 
 suppose that it must be the first, or one of the first,
 
 74 
 
 invented. It will be observed that the zero does 
 not appear ; that was a later discovery. 
 
 From the Hieroglyphic came the Hieratic and 
 the Phoenician numerals, with the various figures 
 representing them, and these show a step in 
 advance. It is still an open question whether these 
 last spread over the world, the symbols changing 
 in different countries according to various circum- 
 stances, the final result as far as we are concerned 
 being our present system of notation. It is, how- 
 ever, unnecessary here to enter further into the 
 genealogical question, as only the so-called Arabic 
 numerals have to be dealt with. (For Oriental 
 numerals consult ' Expose des Signes de Numera- 
 tion,' etc., par A. P. Pihan, Paris, 1860.) 
 
 The country or place from which the Arabs 
 derived their numerals is generally supposed to be 
 India. The Sanscritists say that they came from 
 India to Arabia some time between the eighth. and 
 eleventh centuries of our era, but did not get into 
 general use till the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. 
 Others say that they may have been brought from 
 India by Mahrnud of Ghazni, who between 1001 
 and 1024 A.D. made no less than twelve expedi- 
 tions into India. 
 
 It is generally admitted that the Hindus were 
 the inventors of the decimal system of numeration, 
 and that the Arabs borrowed it from them. Hence 
 it is concluded that when the Arabs borrowed the
 
 75 
 
 decimal system from the Hindus they received 
 along with it their numerical figures, which by the 
 Arabs themselves are called Indian. 
 
 When they were first used by the Arabs is an 
 open question still. Certainly not during the time 
 of ignorance i.e., before the advent of Muhammad, 
 or during the life of the prophet himself, or of his 
 immediate successors | Abu Bekr, Omar, Othman, 
 or Ali, or of the Omayyides, or the greater part of 
 the Abbaside dynasty. 
 
 At St. Petersburg, in the Oriental coin depart- 
 ment there, Dr. Markoff, its chief, informed me that 
 the 75th year of the Hijra, = A.D. 694-95, was the 
 date of the earliest Arabic coin in words, not 
 figures, struck by Abd-ul-Malik, the 5th Omayyide 
 Khalif (A.D. 684-705), and that figures or numerals 
 or ciphers did not appear on these coins till the 
 seventh century of the Hijra (A.D. 1204-1301). 
 
 At St. Petersburg also I ascertained from 
 Professor Smirnov, a good Turkish scholar, that 
 the first dated coin of the Turks in Arabic 
 numerals was the 792nd year of the Hijra, but in 
 the British Museum there is one of A.H. 790, corre- 
 sponding to A.D. January llth to December 30th, 
 1388. Moreover, Turkish coins never appear to 
 have carried any dates in words, but began their 
 dating with Arabic numerals. 
 
 In the British Museum the earliest dated gold 
 coin of the regular series of the Khalifs belongs to
 
 76 
 
 the 77th year of the Hijra, = A.D. 696-97, in words, 
 not figures or numerals ; while their silver dated 
 coin began two years later, also in words, not 
 figures. 
 
 Dating in figures or ciphers on Arabic coins 
 does not seem to have begun till the 614th year 
 of the Hijra, = A.D. 1217-18, and of these there 
 are specimens to be found in the Catalogue of 
 Oriental Coins of the British Museum, by Stanley 
 Lane Poole. 
 
 At Paris, in the coin department of the Biblio- 
 theque Rationale, the earliest dated Arabic coin 
 there is the 77th year of the Hijra, in words, not 
 figures or ciphers. The first Arabic coin dated in 
 figures, not words, was of the 650th year of the 
 Hijra, = A.D. 1252-53. But there are earlier ones 
 than this in Europe. 
 
 At Galatz the Consul-G-eneral there, Colonel 
 Trotter, showed me his valuable and interesting 
 collection of Arabic coins. His earliest dated one 
 is the 79th year of the Hijra, = A.D. 698-99, in 
 words, not figures, and without the name of the 
 Mint on it. 
 
 But on his coin of the 80th year of the Hijra 
 the Mint Damascus was impressed. His earliest 
 dated coins with figures or numerals, not words, 
 upon them were the 614th, 615th, and 617th years 
 of the Hijra, corresponding with A.D. 1217-1221, 
 and the names of the Mints also engraved. These
 
 77 
 
 appear to be some of the earliest Arabic coins 
 dated with figures or numerals extant in Europe. 
 
 The ordinary numerals now in use in Europe 
 are called Arabic, and are said to have come 
 from the East, but at what date is uncertain. To 
 ascertain this to the proximity of correctness many 
 coins and inscriptions, manuscripts and corre- 
 spondence would have to be examined ; and to 
 do this completely a society would have to be 
 formed with branch committees in all the States 
 of Europe. 
 
 My own researches regarding the earliest dates 
 in Arabic numerals on European coins are limited, 
 and the following is the result, the capitals of 
 Europe visited being given in alphabetical order : 
 
 BERLIN. 
 
 In the coin department of the old Museum the 
 following old pieces are to be seen, and they appear 
 to be the oldest dated ones there : 
 
 (1) A silver groschen with year MCCCLXXV. 
 engraved upon it in Roman numerals. 
 
 (2) A Rhenish gold gulden coined at Riel, 
 dated MCCCCXXXVIL, and said to have been 
 struck by Dietrich I., Bishop of Cologne. 
 
 (3) An old medallion of Johann I. of Cleve, 
 dated MCCCCXLIX. in Roman numerals ; the 
 Duke on horseback.
 
 78 
 
 (4) A German coin of Frederick III. of Austria, 
 dated 1468, Arabic numerals. 
 
 (5) An old Austrian coin of 1468, Arabic 
 numerals. 
 
 (6) A German kreuzer of 1471, Arabic numerals. 
 
 (7) A gold coin of 1491, Arabic numerals, said 
 to have been struck at Coblenz by John II., Arch- 
 bishop of Treves. 
 
 At Nuremberg there are two very old cemeteries, 
 dating, it is said, from 1217 and 1230. But no 
 dates in Arabic numerals are to be found on the 
 tombstones prior to 1512, and this is in the 
 churchyard of St. John. It may have been 
 engraved later, as this tombstone records the names 
 of three or four members of the same family up to 
 1574. 
 
 COPENHAGEN. 
 
 Here I visited the royal collection of coins and 
 medals in the Princes' Palace. The director, 
 Dr. Herbst, told me the oldest dated coin in the 
 collection was a little silver coin, dated Anno 
 Domini MCCXX ... I., of the reign of King 
 Waldemar II. (1202-1241), the only specimen ever 
 found, and this with two or three figures missing, 
 either worn out or erased. 
 
 Between this and 1496 there are no dated coins 
 in the collection, the next being three large gold 
 coins of King John of Denmark, all dated anno
 
 79 
 
 1496, in Arabic numerals, and called Ross, or Rose, 
 nobles, very fine specimens. The four on them is 
 represented by ^, supposed to represent half an 
 eight, and found in manuscripts and on coins and 
 inscriptions up to the sixteenth century. 
 
 The next dated coin was a small, thin silver one 
 with 1513 in Arabic numerals. I was also shown 
 a large gold medal of Christian I. with the year of 
 his death upon it, 1481, in Arabic numerals, but 
 when this medal was struck I could not find out. 
 
 At the Royal Library at Copenhagen I could not 
 obtain any information about their MSS. bearing 
 Incarnation dates, but the librarian kindly showed 
 me the oldest printed book they possessed, viz., 
 the * Rationale Divinorum Officiorum,' by the 
 Dominican Monk Durandus, with the date 1459 
 printed at the end in Latin words, neither Roman 
 nor Arabic numerals being used. 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 In the British Museum the first dated English 
 silver coin is of the year MDXLIX., in Roman 
 numerals on a shilling, but there is said to be a 
 piece bearing the date MDXLVII. somewhere, but 
 not in the Museum. The first English coin dated 
 with Arabic numerals in this collection is 1551, on 
 crowns and half-crowns. There is, however, also 
 there a Scotch bonnet gold piece of James V., with 
 1539 upon it in Arabic numerals, and also a still
 
 80 
 
 older Swiss silver piece called a plappart i.e., a 
 groat or half-groatdated I 5 2 52 ( = 14 24) ? 
 the oldest date in Arabic numerals on European 
 coins that I have ever come across. It will be 
 seen that the figures are not yet completely trans- 
 formed into the ones now in use. At Zurich and 
 two other places there are also coins of this date. 
 
 The first dated gold coin was struck during the 
 reign of Mary in 1553. After that the dating of 
 gold coins ceased until 1642, during the reign of 
 Charles I., when it recommenced. The general 
 dating of all English coins was from 1662. 
 
 Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London 
 both being places of some antiquity, a search was 
 made there for early dates. In the Abbey, as a 
 matter of fact, everything may be regarded as- 
 legendary, traditional, or possible up to the reign 
 of Henry III. (1216-1272). From that time the 
 probable history of the Abbey may be said to 
 begin and to continue to the reign of Henry VII. 
 (1485-1509). Its positive history dates from the 
 Tudors, while the Chapter Books begin from 1542, 
 and these continue up to the present time, with 
 two lacunse from 1554-1558 and 1642-1662. The 
 earliest burial register of the" Abbey begins in 
 1606 and lasts to 1706, while the later burial 
 register continues from 1706 to the present time. 
 
 The positive history of the Abbey may there- 
 fore be said to begin in 1542, and continues
 
 81 
 
 systematically up to our own time. It is true that 
 the archives are said to reach back to the Charters 
 of the Saxon Kings, but all these early Charters 
 must be regarded with considerable suspicion, as 
 already explained. 
 
 It is curious that neither in Dean Stanley's nor 
 in George Gilbert Scott's works about the Abbey is 
 there any reference to the earliest dates actually 
 inscribed on the tombs themselves. From a personal 
 investigation and inquiry it may be stated that 
 there are apparently no existing original dates on 
 them until the time of the Tudors. 
 
 The earliest original date that I could find was 
 on the tomb of the Lady Margaret, Countess of 
 Richmond, mother of Henry VII. , and in his 
 chapel. It is in Roman numerals, ' An. Domini 
 MDIX. III. KAL. IVLTI.,' corresponding to our 
 29th June, 1509. It is interesting and important, 
 as it shows that the old Roman Calendar was still 
 used in 1509. 
 
 The earliest date in Arabic numerals, and which 
 appears to be also original, was 1524, on the tomb 
 of Ruthall, Bishop of Durham, in the Chapel of 
 St. John the Baptist. The 4 is in the shape of 
 the upper part of an 8, and expressed thus O , this 
 
 form of 4 having been apparently in use up to the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
 It is said that the bishop really died in 1523, 
 and Anthony Wood says : ' Some years after was 
 
 6
 
 82 
 
 a fair tomb built over his grave, with his statue 
 mitred and crested, and a small inscription on it, 
 but false as to the year of his death.' Anyhow, 
 the date as it stands at present appears to be the 
 oldest original date with Arabic numerals now to 
 be found in the Abbey. 
 
 An inscription on the tombs of Sir Giles Daubigny 
 and his lady in St. Paul's Chapel may be referred 
 to. This bears the date in Arabic numerals of 
 1500 and 1507, but it is doubtful if they can be 
 accepted as original. There has been a recent 
 restoration of this tomb in 1886, and the guide- 
 book says, 'there was a Latin inscription, which 
 Camden gives and translates, but of which all trace 
 has now disappeared.' 
 
 Some earlier dates than the above have been 
 added here and there in later times, especially by 
 the Abbot Feckenham (1556-1560), and Dean 
 Stanley writes in a note at p. 137 of his work : 
 4 Four inscriptions still remain in whole or in part, 
 that of Edward I., Henry III., Henry V., and the 
 Confessor, but all of a later date than the original 
 tombs,' which apparently carry no date. 
 
 Before leaving the Abbey the brasses ought to be 
 noticed. Among those in St. Edmund's Chapel, 
 and said to be the best remaining in the Abbey, 
 there is one representing the tomb of Eleanor de 
 Bohun, Duchess of Gloucester, said to have died in 
 1399. Upon it there is an inscription complete up
 
 83 
 
 to the word ' 1'an du/ when the date appears to 
 have been broken off sharp ; when or how this 
 was done could not be ascertained. On referring, 
 however, to an old work on the Abbey inscriptions 
 of 1722, the year is there given as 'Grace 
 
 MCCCLXXXXIX: 
 
 As regards the brasses in the various large and 
 small churches of England, persons interested can 
 refer to two very exhaustive works on the subject, 
 viz., ' Monumental Brasses and Slabs,' by the 
 Rev. Charles Boutell, 1847, and 'A Manual of 
 Monumental Brasses,' by the Rev. Herbert Haines, 
 1861. 
 
 Both these authors show great industry and 
 research, and their works are most interesting, 
 but they use A.D. and Arabic numerals throughout, 
 so it is difficult to realize what figures many of 
 these brasses actually carry, if indeed many of 
 them carry any figures at all. 
 
 The earliest existing ones are said to be of 1277, 
 1289, 1302, and 1306, but these apparently are 
 not dated at all. Others follow, many without 
 dates, and some carrying Roman numerals up to 
 the seventeenth century. The earliest, or one of 
 the earliest, is thus inscribed, ' Anno dni Millmo 
 CCC. nonagesimo tertio' (i.e., 1393). 
 
 Some Arabic numerals of the years 1416, 1418, 
 1420, and 1448 are mentioned, but these are no 
 longer visible or extant, so it is impossible to say 
 
 62
 
 84 
 
 what figures were actually used on these brasses. 
 The Arabic figures to be relied upon only appear in 
 1627, 1633, 1636, 1648, and so on. 
 
 From the above it is fairly conclusive, as far as 
 Westminster Abbey is concerned, that the dating 
 of tombs and monuments with our present figures 
 may be said to date from the first quarter of the 
 sixteenth century, at which time Arabic numerals 
 were creeping into more general use. And previous 
 to this any dates that are to be found there on 
 tombs or brasses would probably be in Roman 
 figures. 
 
 The State Records used to be kept in the 
 chapter-house and other places of Westminster, 
 and thither Rymer went daily to collect the 
 material for his great work during the reign of 
 Queen Anne. These have all been now transferred 
 to the Public Record Office in Chancery Lane, 
 but the records pertaining to the Abbey are still 
 there in the muniment room. Mr. Scott, of the 
 British Museum, is now engaged in the work of 
 their examination, arrangement, and partial trans- 
 lation. 
 
 In a work entitled ' Antiquities of St. Peter's ;. 
 or, the Abbey Church at Westminster,' by B. M. 
 Crull (third edition, 1722), there is mention of 
 inscriptions with early dates in Arabic numerals, 
 viz., 1436, 1463, 1470, and 1474. All these are 
 now completely erased, and it is therefore im-
 
 85 
 
 possible to say in what form the figures were 
 originally or actually expressed. 
 
 It must be noted, however, that the 'dates in 
 Crull's work do not appear to- have been accurately 
 copied. Throughout Roman and Arabic numerals 
 are used so vaguely that it is difficult to say 
 which were actually inscribed on the tombs whose 
 inscriptions are now entirely effaced. 
 
 A few inaccuracies may be mentioned. In 
 vol. i., p. 58, the year of the inscription on the 
 brass of Eleanore de Bohun is given as 
 MCCCXCIX., while on the picture of the brass 
 itself opposite the preceding page it is actually 
 MCCCLXXXXIX. 
 
 Again, in the case of John Estney. He is put 
 down in the list of abbots (vol. i., p. 14) as of the 
 year 1498, while the inscription on his tomb at 
 p. 9 is given as Anno Domini 1436. As this last 
 is now entirely effaced, it is impossible to say 
 what the numerals were and how they were 
 written. 
 
 Again, in vol. i., p. 69, on the tomb of Nicolas, 
 Baron Carew, and his wife 1471 is written above, 
 while 1470 is given below. As this inscription is 
 now quite illegible, it is impossible to say what the 
 numerals were and how they were written. 
 
 At vol. i., p. 99, the date on the tomb of Lady 
 Margaret, Countess of Richmond, and mother of
 
 86 
 
 Henry VII., is given as 1509, in Arabic numerals, 
 while on the tomb it is clearly MDIX. 
 
 In vol. ii., p. 85, on the tablet to Martha Price 
 the year is given A.D. MDCLXXVIII. (and this 
 is worthy of note, as it appears to be the second 
 earliest inscription with the abbreviated term 
 A.D. in the Abbey, while the earliest is one dated 
 A.D. MDCLXV., in memory of John Woodward), 
 but on her tombstone the date (p. 123) is given 
 1678, and as this latter inscription is entirely 
 erased, it is impossible to say how the numerals 
 were written. On the tablet in the wall both 
 the inscription in Latin and the date are clear 
 enough. 
 
 Other examples might be quoted from Crull's 
 work to show how the Roman and Arabic numerals 
 have been mixed up together, but the date of 1524 
 on the tomb of Ruthall, Bishop of Durham, still 
 appears to be the earliest original date in Arabic 
 numerals to be found in the Abbey. 
 
 To sum up, then, it may be stated that there are 
 now no original inscriptions existing in the Abbey, 
 either in Roman or Arabic numerals, prior to the 
 sixteenth century, none with Anno Domini 
 before the end of the sixteenth century, and none 
 with A.D. earlier than the last half of the seven- 
 teenth century.
 
 87 
 
 TOWEE OF LONDON. 
 
 A cursory examination of the dates in Arabic 
 numerals scratched or inscribed on the walls of 
 some of the cells, chambers, and dungeons of the 
 Tower of London show that, with one exception,, 
 they are not earlier than the sixteenth century. 
 
 Before 1854 all the inscriptions were removed 
 from the lower and upper rooms of the Beauchamp 
 Tower to the middle room of the same, probably 
 for preservation or easy reference. Of the ninety- 
 one inscriptions, both dated and undated, there 
 are (with one exception) none earlier than 1537 
 and 1538. The exception is curious. It is in an 
 inner cell adjoining the State prison room, and 
 
 runs thus, ' Thomas Talbot, I /] \ j.' The last 
 
 figure is somewhat obscure in the original, and 
 who Thomas Talbot was is doubtful. 
 
 Here we have an early date in Arabic numerals, 
 and between it and 1537 there is no date of this 
 description to be found anywhere in the Tower, 
 while just above it stands ' James Gilmor, 1565/ 
 or 69, the last figure not being very clear. 
 
 As far as I have as yet ascertained, this date of 
 1462 in Arabic numerals is early as regards in- 
 scriptions. None so early are now to be found in 
 Westminster Abbey or other cathedrals, or in the 
 numerous documents brought together in Rymer's 
 ' Fcedera.' It may have been an error of the
 
 inscriber, intentionally or inadvertently, who can 
 say ? 
 
 There are many inscribed dates of the sixteenth 
 century after 1537 to be found in the Tower, and 
 from this it can be inferred that during that 
 century dating in Arabic numerals was gradually 
 coming into more general use. Many of the early 
 State Records used to be kept in the Tower, but 
 since 1857 they have been removed to the Public 
 Record Office in Chancery Lane. 
 
 PAEIS. 
 
 In the coin department of the Bibliotheque 
 Rationale there is a groschen of Aix-la-Chapelle 
 in silver, with the date, ' Anno Dom. milesimo 
 CCCCXIX.,' engraved upon it in Roman numerals. 
 
 I also saw a gold coin of the time of Francis I. 
 (1515-1547), dated 1532 in Arabic numerals, clear 
 cut, but never circulated, and called a ' piece 
 d'essai.' I was told tbat moneys dated with 
 Arabic numerals came into general circulation in 
 France from 1549, during the reign of Henry II. 
 (1547-1559). 
 
 PETEESBUEG. 
 
 The conservator of the coin department in the 
 Hermitage of St. Petersburg kindly supplied me 
 with the following information regarding the 
 earliest dated coins there. 
 
 The Russians apparently used the ecclesiastical
 
 89 
 
 and civil era of Constantinople, viz., 5508 B.C., as 
 their date of the creation of the world, and the 
 moneys were so dated by Peter the Great with 
 Greek letters up to the year 1700 A.D. From. 
 1700 till 1721 the Christian era expressed by 
 Greek letters was used, but some pieces also carry 
 dates with Arabic numerals during that period. 
 
 There is a coin of Novgorod marked 103 in 
 Greek letters, said to be equivalent to 7103 from 
 the creation of the world, or A.D. 1595. Another 
 marked 106 in Greek letters =7106 = A.D. 1598. 
 But in Russia the oldest dated money is said to 
 be 7162 from the creation of the world, equivalent 
 to 1654 A.D., while at the same time there were 
 some gold coins of this date with Arabic numerals 
 on them. Anyhow, the introduction of dating 
 with Arabic numerals in this country appears to 
 be later than the rest of Europe. 
 
 The earliest dated inscription in the Russian 
 language as yet discovered is called ' The Stone of 
 Tmutarakan,' whose Prince Glib caused the distance 
 between Tmutarakan and Kertch to be measured 
 over the ice and recorded on the stone. The date 
 on it in Greek letters is 6576 from the creation of 
 the world, corresponding with our A.D. 1068. 
 
 At the Bibliotheque Imperiale Publique in 
 St. Petersburg I could not ascertain anything 
 about manuscripts with the Incarnation dates on 
 them. I was shown the first book printed in
 
 90 
 
 Russia with a date ; it was a work on geometry, 
 printed at Moscow, and dated from the year of the 
 creation of the world 7216, and also Anno Domini 
 1 708, both in Arabic numerals. The print was 
 excellent, but the plates are said to have been 
 executed elsewhere. 
 
 There was also a ' History of the Church of 
 Eusebius' in manuscript, dated the year of the 
 Seleucidae era (i.e., the era of the Greeks, also called 
 the Syro-Macedonian era), in Greek letters, 773, 
 from which deducting 311 years, 462 of the 
 Christian era is represented. 
 
 Also ' The Evangile of Ostramir' in manuscript, 
 dated, from the creation of the world, 6564, in Slav 
 figures, which are the same as the Greek corre- 
 sponding with A.D. 1056. 
 
 The ' Tischendorf Sinaitic Codex ' was also 
 examined, but to this no date is attached. 
 
 EOME. 
 
 In the coin department of the Vatican Library, 
 of which the Professor Cavaliere Camillo Serafmi 
 is director, I was shown the earliest dated coin with 
 Arabic numerals in the collection. It was a double 
 giulio, a silver piece of Pope Leo X. (1513-1521), 
 dated 1515, and struck at Parma. There is said 
 to be an earlier one of 1514 somewhere, but the 
 exact place is not known. 
 
 There were also in this collection two silver
 
 91 
 
 mezzi (or half) gross! of 1522 and 1523, struck 
 at Parma during the reign of Hadrian VI. 
 (1522-1523). 
 
 But, as a rule, Arabic numerals were not in 
 common use in Rome till fifty years later i.e., 
 about 1570. Still, Paul IV. had a dated coin of 
 1557 ; there is a gold ' Sede vacante ' of 1559 ; 
 a gold Pius IV. of 1563 ; a jubilee coin of 
 Gregory XIII. of 1575, and his medal of 1582. 
 
 As regards the coins with Roman numerals, 
 there was shown to me a gold piece called ' Tre 
 Secchini' of Clement VIL, dated MDXXIX.. and 
 also a demi scudo, of the same Pope and of the 
 same date, struck at Bologna. There is said to be 
 a gold piece of the same Pope dated 1526 in 
 Arabic numerals, but not in this collection. 
 
 Here, however, there were also two medallions 
 of Nicolas V., dated MCDIIIL. (i.e., 1447), and 
 one very fine original medallion of the same Pope 
 engraved Nicolas Quintus MCCCCLIIIL, signed 
 by Andras Guacelotis, in bronze coule. Also 
 another very fine original medallion of Sixtus IV., 
 in bronze frappe, and dated MCCCCLXXXI. 
 These two last were made at that time and are 
 evidently genuine. 
 
 The following particulars were also given me by 
 my friend Colonel Chambers, Royal Engineers 
 (retired), who is an expert on the subject : 
 
 The first coin struck by the Popes is one of
 
 92 
 
 Hadrian I. (722-795). It is a grosso (five or ten 
 sous) of 772, but undated. A specimen of it is in 
 the Vatican collection. 
 
 Pius II. (1458-1464) was the first Pope who 
 mentioned the year of his reign thus, AN". IIIL, 
 but otherwise undated. The coin was struck at 
 Avignon. 
 
 Sixtus IV. (1471-1484) mentions his jubilee 
 thus, AN. JVBILEI, but shows no figures. It 
 may be, perhaps, mentioned that the jubilee of the 
 Popes, generally not individually, is every twenty- 
 five years, when medals were and are still struck 
 to celebrate the same. 
 
 Julius III.'s (1550-1555) jubilee commemorative 
 coin was struck at Rome MDL. 
 
 In the Zekka or Mint at Rome there is a 
 complete set of medallions struck by the Popes 
 from 1417-1870 i.e., from Martin V. to Pius IX. 
 in commemoration of the jubilees and other events. 
 There are 757 of these. 
 
 It is impossible to find out exactly in what years 
 these medallions were struck ; many of them are 
 evidently not contemporaneous, as will be shown 
 presently. 
 
 The earliest dated one in Roman numerals is 
 that of Pope Martin V., and engraved Anno Primo 
 MCDXVII. (i.e., 1417), but whether actually 
 struck then is doubtful. 
 
 The next are two of Paul II, dated Anno
 
 93 
 
 MCDLXIV. (i.e., 1464), and Anno Christi 
 MCCCCLXX. The next one of Innocent VIIL, 
 dated Anno Domini MCDLXXXIV. (i.e., 1484). 
 The next of Alexander VI., dated MCDXCII. 
 (i.e., 1492), and one of Julius II., dated MDVIIL, 
 and so on, some undated, some with the year of 
 the reign of the Pope, and here and there sometimes 
 Roman and very seldom Arabic numerals. 
 
 As a rule the Popes used Roman numerals on 
 their medallions and coins, as also on their docu- 
 ments. Still, among the lot mentioned above, 
 there were two early ones dated with Arabic 
 numerals, viz., the jubilee medals of Mcolas Y. and 
 Sixtus IV., dated 1450 and 1475 respectively. 
 The next dates with Arabic numerals were two of 
 Pius V., both dated 1571, and five of Gregory XIII. , 
 dated 1572, 1575, 1575, 1582, and 1585. 
 
 As the two of 1450 and 1475 appeared early for 
 Arabic numerals in the way they were engraved, 
 I purchased duplicates of them and showed these 
 to Professor Serafini and other experts. They 
 informed me that these were not contemporaneous 
 medallions, but were probably struck the latter 
 part of the sixteenth century, perhaps during the 
 reign of Pius V. (1566-1572), but certainly not in 
 the time of Nicolas V. or Sixtus IV. This would 
 then discredit the dates of 1450 and 1475 on these 
 medals, and they cannot be looked upon as genuine 
 contemporaneous ones.
 
 94 
 
 It must therefore be assumed that the double 
 silver giulio of Leo X. of 1515, and the medallion 
 of Pius V. of 1571, are both to be relied upon as 
 the earliest specimens of dates of that period in 
 Arabic numerals. There may, however, be earlier 
 ones still extant, as here the contents of the 
 Vatican collection and of the Mint at Rome are 
 only referred to. 
 
 STOCKHOLM. 
 
 In the National Museum here, a very excellently 
 arranged one, the director of the coin department, 
 Professor Oscar Montesius, showed me a small 
 silver coin minted at Stockholm, with the date of 
 ! 5 A & ( = 1478) very clear on one side, and 
 4 Sanctus Ericus Rex ' on the other. It appears 
 that he was an old King of Sweden and patron 
 saint of the country, and though long since dead, 
 the Swedes preferred placing his effigy on the 
 coins rather than that of the King of Denmark. 
 This coin was called an Urtug of Stockholm. 
 
 The next coin was dated 80 without the 14 before 
 it, but this was said to be a practice of the period, 
 the coin really being of the year 1480. 
 
 The next Arabic numeral dated coin was a silver 
 one of 1^12 (-1512), struck at Stockholm. 
 
 And between 1480 and 1512 there appear to be 
 no dated ones in this Museum, which is very rich
 
 95 
 
 in Anglo-Saxon, German, and even Irish coins, all 
 found in Gothland (a large island in the Baltic, 
 and a great centre of trade in early times), and in 
 other parts of Sweden, but without dates. 
 
 There is in this Museum also a very good 
 collection of Arabic dated coins commencing with 
 the 79th year of the Hijra, in words, not ciphers, 
 and continuing for many years. Some Oriental 
 coins were found in Gothland, a centre of the 
 early great northern trade route, extending from 
 Afghanistan through Persia to the Caspian Sea, 
 then up the Volga to Kasan, and across Russia to 
 the Baltic, where Wisby, the capital of Gothland, 
 was a great emporium. Then on to Lubeck, Ham- 
 burg, and across the North Sea to Scotland and 
 even to Ireland. The great southern trade route 
 was from Persia to the Black Sea, and from there 
 through the South of Europe. 
 
 Persons interested in Anglo-Saxon coins will 
 find a great deal of information about them in a 
 work published by Bror Emil Hildebrand, Stock- 
 holm, second edition, 1881, written in Swedish, 
 with numerous plates of the coins mentioned in 
 the book, which is called ' Anglo-Saxon Coins in 
 the Royal Swedish Cabinet of Medals at Stock- 
 holm, all found in Sweden.'
 
 96 
 
 WISBY, 
 
 the capital of the island of Gothland, mentioned 
 above, with its ruined churches and well-preserved 
 old walls, is an interesting place. It was formerly 
 a great emporium of trade both from the East and 
 West ; but taken and plundered by the Danes in 
 1361, it seems never to have recovered its early 
 splendour. 
 
 In the Cathedral of St. Maria, said to have been 
 originally built in 1225, but lately restored in a 
 modern style, the earliest date that I could find in 
 Arabic numerals was 1537, and Anno Domini on 
 two flat tombstones. Among the loose old tomb- 
 stones, very numerous in the churchyard, nearly 
 all the inscriptions were erased. There was one 
 of 27th July, 1566. In the ruined Church of 
 St. Catherine there was a date MC. on an old 
 fragment of a stone, but the rest was missing, so it 
 did not give much information. 
 
 VIENNA. 
 
 In the Museums here I obtained the following 
 information : 
 
 Before the reign of the Emperor Frederick III. 
 of Germany (1439-1493) there are no dates on any 
 of the coins either in Roman or Arabic numerals. 
 
 The earliest dated coin was a silver kreuzer of 
 the time of the above-mentioned Emperor, dated
 
 97 
 
 ^ (^.j 1456) in Arabic numerals, 
 
 in the stage of transformation, as will be presently 
 explained. Other coins of the same sort follow of 
 the years 1458, 1459, 1470, 1482, 1483, 1484, 
 1485, all with Arabic numerals. 
 
 There was also a silver thaler of Sigismund, 
 Archduke of the Tyrol, 1484, in Arabic numerals. 
 Another of 1486 with the same. Also one engraved 
 * Renatus Dei gratia Dux Lotharingi, 1488.' 
 
 There was a real thaler in silver and one also in 
 gold, both with the same year engraved upon them, 
 MCCCCLXXXVIL, but no A.D. or Dei Gratia. 
 Also thalers of Maximilian I. (1493-1519) of the 
 years 1518 and 1519, in Arabic numerals, and one 
 thaler with Maximilian's face and date 1519 on 
 one side, and his wife's face and date 1520 on the 
 other. This may have been struck later in their 
 memory. 
 
 In the Art and Historical Museum at Vienna 
 the first dated French gold coin there is 1532, and 
 the first dated French silver coin is 1549, both 
 with Arabic numerals. This corresponds with the 
 information given under Paris. 
 
 In the same Museum there are three pictures, 
 12, 27, and 7 (but the numbers are constantly 
 being changed), with early dates upon them. 
 The first, MCCCCLXXXVIIII. ; the second, 
 MCCCCLXXXXIII. ; the third, 1496 in Arabic 
 numerals. 
 
 7
 
 ZUEICH SWITZEELAND. 
 
 The Schweiz Landes, or Swiss National Museum 
 (of which Dr. Angst is the head director, and 
 H. Zeller Werdmiiller member of the council and 
 honorary director in charge of the coin depart- 
 ment), is quite a model museum, as Zurich itself 
 is quite a model town in the way of education, 
 
 The honorary director kindly showed me their 
 earliest dated coin with Arabic numerals, a silver 
 groschen, struck at the Abbey of St. Gall, and 
 
 dated I 5? 2 S2 (*'* 1424 )- This is tne earliest 
 that I have as yet come across, there being, 
 however, one other of this kind and date in 
 the British Museum, another in the library of 
 Winterthur, and another in the collection of 
 Prince Furstenburg of Donau Esshingen. 
 
 It will be noticed that the figures are in the 
 transition state, the same as the early dated coin at 
 
 Vienna of 1 * & *-f 6 (i.e., 1456), already 
 
 mentioned, and which comes next in date to the 
 one here described. 
 
 It is curious that a coin of such early date was 
 struck at the Abbey of St. Gall, while the town of 
 St. Gall only began to strike coins at the end of the 
 fifteenth century, and with no dates upon them. 
 
 In the Zurich collection, next to the coin of 
 1424 comes some gold florins of Basle, dated
 
 99 
 
 Also two gold fl rins 
 
 one of the Emperor Frederick and the other of the 
 Emperor Maximilian, both dated I X. Q j 
 Also a silver thaler of Berne, a very fine coin 
 struck there, and dated I % j J-> an ^ an ther 
 
 one of the same, I X Q 5? * ^^ e next tna ^ er f 
 Berne is the same coin of | )/) /, and a silver 
 dicken (third part of a thaler) struck at Basle, and 
 dated / Q O (i.e., 1499). 
 
 The first piece actually struck at Zurich was 
 dated J^j) Q O (i.e., 1504), a silver dicken, 
 
 while the first gold coin struck there was one 
 of the value of about ten shillings, and dated 1526. 
 The series of Zurich records begin only in 1314, 
 and have been published in two volumes. Among 
 them, however, are some earlier documents, one or 
 two of them (said to be authentic) carrying In- 
 carnation dates of the ninth century, but none 
 earlier. It is said also that in 1324 and 1326 
 Arabic numerals were used in two or three places 
 only in the side-notes on the margin of the docu- 
 ments. Whether these are original or later 
 additions it is difficult to say, and experts only 
 could form perhaps a correct opinion. But Arabic 
 
 72
 
 100 
 
 numerals were used early for marking pages 
 in manuscripts. 
 
 From the facts then collected and detailed above 
 it would appear that no European moneys were 
 dated with Arabic numerals till the fifteenth 
 century. During the first three-quarters of that 
 century they seem to have been used very, very 
 rarely ; during the last part of that century they 
 were creeping in, but still not used to any great 
 extent, and were generally established in the six- 
 teenth century. 
 
 But as regards manuscripts an earlier date must 
 be assigned to them. 
 
 To ascertain exactly in what year one, two, or 
 more of the so-called Arabic numerals appeared in 
 the early manuscripts would be a very difficult 
 task to undertake. It would entail a search 
 through all the manuscripts of Europe. And to 
 do this thoroughly a society would have to be 
 formed with local committees in the different 
 countries, which would not be probably worth 
 the expense. 
 
 In the British Museum some manuscripts of the 
 fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries have 
 been cursorily examined to ascertain how they 
 were dated during those periods. 
 
 The manuscripts of the fourteenth century carry 
 certainly more Roman than Arabic numerals both
 
 101 
 
 in words and figures, but still the latter appear 
 occasionally at the end of the date. 
 
 In 62 manuscripts of the fifteenth century there 
 are 37 with Koman and 6 with Arabic numerals, 
 11 with a mixture of both Roman and Arabic, 
 and 8 without any date. 
 
 In 11 manuscripts of the sixteenth century, 7 
 carry Roman and 3 Arabic numerals, while one is 
 a mixture of the two. 
 
 Now, the transformation of the numerals used 
 in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth 
 centuries into those used in the sixteenth century, 
 and which have continued down to the present time, 
 must have been a slow and gradual process. 
 
 To elucidate this, the following statement taken 
 from certain tables in a French work, entitled 
 ' Paleographie des Chartes et des Manuscripts du 
 xi. au xvii. siecle,' par Alph. Chassant, Paris, 
 eighth edition, 1885, may perhaps be interesting. 
 The first edition of this book was Evreux, 1846 :
 
 102 
 
 * ,>- 
 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 ? 
 
 i i <N CO 
 
 GO Ci C
 
 103 
 
 From this it will be seen that the numerals 
 used in the twelfth century were still more 
 Roman, or rather Gothic, than anything else. 
 
 There is a change in the thirteenth century, 
 during which time it will be remembered that 
 Arabic coins were being dated in figures or 
 ciphers. 
 
 The changes are still going on during the four- 
 teenth century, and in manuscripts of that period 
 will be found a mixture of Latin words, Roman 
 numerals, and Arabic figures, as, for instance, 
 milesimo CCC 68. 
 
 The figures in the fifteenth century are almost 
 our own, while those of the sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth centuries are much the same as the ones 
 used at the present time. 
 
 To ascertain exactly in what year some of the 
 so-called Arabic numerals appeared in the early 
 manuscripts w^ould be a laborious task. Still, a 
 statement might be prepared from the manuscripts 
 in the British Museum and the Bodleian Library, 
 showing all the dates used in them from the 
 thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. This 
 would show how letters, words, Roman and 
 Arabic numerals became intermixed, as it were, 
 gradually paving the way to the complete intro- 
 duction of Arabic numerals from the end of the 
 fifteenth to the middle of the sixteenth centuries. 
 
 Alph. Chassant, in his work already mentioned
 
 104 
 
 above, says : ' As for Arabic ciphers or figures, 
 they require still more attention. Although known 
 in France during the thirteenth century, they did 
 not begin to come into general use until the end of 
 the fifteenth century, and were not used in records 
 or public registers until the sixteenth century. 
 Before that time they are to be found in the manu- 
 scripts relating to mathematics, astronomy, arith- 
 metic and geometry. They were also used for the 
 chronicles, the calendars, and even for numbering 
 each leaf or sheet of manuscripts. Nevertheless, 
 the use of Roman numerals or figures still pre- 
 vailed for a long time, and were constantly main- 
 tained for marking dates in rolls, records, and 
 registers up to the seventeenth century.' 
 
 In an interesting work called ' The Alphabet : 
 an Account of the Origin and Development of 
 Letters,' by Isaac Taylor, London, 1883, a few 
 pages contain remarks on Arabic numerals. But 
 it is doubtful whether these ciphers in the four- 
 teenth century had reached in Europe such a close 
 resemblance to those used at the present time, as 
 stated by Mr. Taylor in his table at p. 266, and 
 explained at p. 268, of his second volume. 
 
 Before closing this chapter a person should be 
 mentioned who is said to have invented, or at all 
 events first used, the abacus in Europe, and to 
 have written about geometry, mathematics, and 
 arithmetic in the latter part of the tenth century.
 
 105 
 
 I allude to Pope Silvester II. (999-1003), commonly 
 known under the name of Gerbertus. 
 
 It was important to ascertain if Gerbertus made 
 any mention of Arabic numerals in his letters or 
 his works. For this purpose various manuscripts 
 and books connected with him have been cursorily 
 examined, but with no satisfactory results. Indeed, 
 it is difficult to say what figures he used, though 
 from his three years' residence in Spain, perhaps for 
 the purposes of study, he may have been acquainted 
 with the Ghobar figures, from which, and from the 
 East and West Arabic numerals, our modern figures 
 are said to be evolved (see pp. 207-209 of A. P. 
 Pihan's ' Expose des signes de numeration,' etc., 
 Paris, 1860, for specimens of these numerals). 
 
 Gerbertus himself does not appear to have been 
 acquainted with the zero, which appears in the 
 twelfth century. The Ghobar figures do not use 
 it either, for in this kind of numeration the tens 
 were expressed by one point over any one of the 
 figures up to 9, the hundreds by two points, and 
 the thousands by three points over their respective 
 figures. 
 
 This Gerbertus is rather an interesting personage, 
 and was so advanced in learning, and knew so 
 much for the age in which he lived, that it was 
 said he practised magic, and was on most intimate 
 terms with the devil. His tomb is shown in the 
 Basilica of St. John Lateran at Rome, but it was
 
 106 
 
 erected many years after his death at a later period 
 by a later Pope. 
 
 Professor Dr. H. \Yeissenborn has written about 
 him and his pupil Richer, who wrote an account of 
 the studies of his master. Concerning arithmetic, 
 he says that Gerbertus got a sign (board) maker 
 to fashion a (leather) reckoning table with twenty- 
 seven divisions and a thousand counters or markers 
 of horn. Such would be an early abacus, and this 
 method of reckoning upon it was developed and 
 simplified during the two following centuries, 
 though whether Gerbertus originally got it from 
 the Arabs, as some say, is still a doubtful question. 
 
 The only certain light that appears is that 
 Gerbertus knew, or knew of a work by, Josephus 
 Sapiens, or Josephus Hispanus, called ' Libellus de 
 multiplication e et divisione numerorum,' which, 
 judged by its title, was on the same subject as his 
 own work, ' Libellus de divisione numerorum,' in 
 which by his abacus he teaches the peculiar method 
 called complementary division, the origin of which 
 is unknown. 
 
 Now, who this Josephus Sapiens, or Josephus 
 Hispanus, really was (probably a Jew) it is almost 
 impossible to ascertain. The writer is buried in 
 oblivion, and his work is no longer extant, but 
 both are mentioned in two of Gerbertus's letters, 
 said to have been written in 984, the one Ep. xvii. 
 to the Abbot Gerald of Aurillac Monastery, in
 
 107 
 
 which he asks ' for a copy of the said work which 
 had been left with you'; the other, Ep. xxvi. 
 to Bishop Bonifilius of Gerona, containing also a 
 request for the work in question. 
 
 This seems to connect Gerbertus more with 
 Josephus Sapiens than (as some have said) with 
 Boetius, whose geometry is now supposed to be 
 rather the work of the tenth or eleventh than of 
 the fifth or sixth centuries. It is to be hoped that 
 some further information will be dug out about 
 Gerbertus and his works, because he appears to 
 have been really an early inquirer into matters 
 connected with figures, and for the age in which 
 he lived also a great scholar. 
 
 As far as I have been able to ascertain, nothing 
 in the literary remains of Gerbertus can be found 
 to show that he wrote anything about Arabic 
 numerals, or used them, or even alluded to them 
 in any way. There is evidence to prove that he 
 dealt with the subject of arithmetic and geometry, 
 and also utilized the abacus ; whether he invented 
 this last is not very clear. William of Malmesbury 
 says that he got it from the Arabs. He also wrote 
 or lectured about the astrolabe and astronomy, the 
 information about which he probably got when in 
 Spain. 
 
 As regards authorities, Chasles and Nagl seem 
 to think that Gerbertus got his arithmetic and 
 geometry from Boetius, which is now doubted.
 
 108 
 
 Havet and Weissenborn seem to favour the idea 
 that he got them from Josephus Sapiens or 
 Josephus Hispanus, whose name and whose work 
 he mentions in some of his letters. 
 
 In conclusion I must insert the following letter 
 from an expert in early manuscripts, who may be 
 looked upon as an authority in these matters : 
 
 ' Arabic numerals were introduced into Europe 
 long before they made their appearance in manu- 
 scripts. Through Spain and Sicily and Syria they 
 were no doubt familiar to mercantile and to scientific 
 men in the twelfth century, but the traces of their 
 use were perishable, and have perished. As far 
 as I am aware, their earliest appearance in extant 
 books and inscriptions is to be looked for in the 
 late part of the fourteenth century ; they are 
 frequent on the Continent in the first half and 
 middle of the fifteenth, and are found occasionally 
 in England in the second half of that century. 
 They were necessary only in accounts and arith- 
 metic, but all the accounts have been destroyed, 
 and examples of arithmetical teaching are very 
 rare before the fifteenth century. On the other 
 hand, there was no necessity for them in books 
 and in inscriptions, so that the old Roman system 
 was still maintained in these cases for a couple of 
 centuries after bankers and merchants had been 
 familiar with algorism.' 
 
 The transformation of the Ghobar ciphers and
 
 109 
 
 East and West Arabic numerals into our present 
 figures was gradual, and reached our present stage, 
 at all events in England, more in the sixteenth 
 than in the fourteenth century. The details given 
 in the preceding pages rather tend to prove this 
 theory. It must be further noted that as Incarna- 
 tion dates prior to the ninth century (i.e., 801-900) 
 must be regarded with some suspicion, so Arabic 
 numerals inscribed on coins, churches, monu- 
 ments, or anywhere prior to the fifteenth century 
 (i.e., 1401-1500), must be examined carefully as to 
 the style and shape of the figures, and inquiries 
 made as to whether they are really contempor- 
 aneous or added at a later date. A greater latitude 
 may be given to manuscripts, but in England any 
 carrying Arabic numerals before the fourteenth 
 century (i.e., 1301-1400) should also be most care- 
 fully examined in the manner described above.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ABOUT THE DATES OF THE BIRTHS, ACCESSIONS, AND 
 DEATHS OF OUR ENGLISH KINGS AND QUEENS, 
 GOING BACKWARDS FROM QUEEN VICTORIA TO 
 WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. 
 
 FOR English history from the earliest times to the 
 reign of Henry VII. the Benedictine monks are 
 responsible. Now, the date of the arrival of these 
 Benedictines in England, and the date of the com- 
 mencement of their writing these histories and 
 other works under different names, are very 
 difficult to fix with positive historical accuracy. 
 
 It is true that a complete history of the rise and 
 progress of the order has come down to us, but 
 when search is made for the records on which this 
 history is based, it appears to be the product of a 
 later period than the early dates assigned to its 
 original foundation by St. Benedict in A.D. 529. 
 
 Now, the early history of England is founded 
 upon the so-called histories of Gildas, Nennius, 
 Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, and the old 
 chroniclers generally. In the total absence of
 
 Ill 
 
 records, registers, and other documentary proofs, 
 it is evident that all these works are based simply 
 upon legend and tradition, and that the dating of 
 them has been fixed at a much later period. 
 
 It will be noticed that all these histories begin 
 early and ever flow downwards. In this chapter 
 it is proposed to reverse that system, and com- 
 mencing with the reign of our present Sovereign 
 Queen Victoria, to go backwards to the reign of 
 William the Conqueror. It is not contemplated to 
 write a history of all these Kings and Queens, 
 extending from the present time to A.D. 1066, or 
 more than eight hundred years, but only to show 
 the dates of their births, accessions, and deaths, 
 and the evidence on which these are established. 
 
 It is to be hoped that some enterprising person 
 will do the same for the long list of Popes, going 
 backwards from the present reigning Pope 
 Leo XIII. to Pius IX., Gregory XVI., Pius VIIL, 
 Leo XII., Pius VII., Pius VI., and so on, giving 
 authentic data for the dates of their births, acces- 
 sions, and deaths. 
 
 There can be no reasonable doubt that the dates 
 given from Queen Victoria up to 1509, the year of 
 the accession of Henry VIII., may be taken as 
 undisputed and correct. But it is otherwise when 
 an attempt is made to ascend beyond that epoch. 
 We enter into a period universally admitted to be 
 one of great darkness. Our sources of information
 
 112 
 
 are scant in amount and doubtful in quality, and 
 these remarks apply to the whole of the fifteenth, 
 fourteenth, and earlier centuries. There appear to 
 be no official gazettes or newspapers, no State 
 Records kept in any organized way, no registers, 
 calendars, or diaries from which alone positive 
 history can be written. 
 
 Our reigning Sovereign the Queen Alexandrina 
 Victoria was born on Monday, the 24th of May, 
 1819, at 4.15 a.m. at Kensington Palace. This 
 was notified in the London Gazette of Tuesday, 
 25th May, 1819. The Times of the same date 
 gives the names of those present, viz., the Duke 
 of Sussex and others. 
 
 The date of the Queen's accession was 20th June, 
 1837, as notified in the supplement to the London 
 Gazette of Tuesday, 20th June, 1837, giving also 
 the list of the Lords, etc., present at the Council 
 at Kensington Palace, and the Declaration of the 
 Queen. The London Gazette of 23rd June 
 published a copy of the Public Proclamation, the 
 Order, dated Court of St. James, 21st June, 1837, 
 for alteration in the Prayer- Book, and two Pro- 
 clamations by the Queen. Further details are to be 
 found in the Lords and Commons Journals, the 
 Times, Morning Post, and other newspapers. The 
 coronation took place on Tuesday, the 28th of 
 June, 1838. 
 
 Queen Victoria has now reigned over sixty
 
 113 
 
 years. To perpetuate the memory of this long and 
 glorious reign, and to establish a good fixed date 
 for future ages, and on which they could rely, it 
 would be very appropriate to establish a new 
 English era to be called the Victorian era, dating 
 from the 1st January, 1837, the year of her 
 accession to the throne. The current year of 1900 
 would be V.E, 64. 
 
 William IV. was born on Wednesday the 21st 
 of August, 1765, at the Queen's Palace, St. James's 
 Park, as notified in the London Gazette of Tuesday, 
 20th August, to Saturday, 24th August, 1765. His 
 accession to the throne was on Saturday the 26th 
 June, 1830, published in the London Gazette 
 Extraordinary of the same day, while the said 
 paper of the 27th June contains the Proclamation, 
 and a Supplement to the same paper of the 28th 
 June gives the Public Proclamation. The corona- 
 tion took place on Thursday the 8th of September, 
 1831. 
 
 His death took place at Windsor on Tuesday 
 the 20th June, 1837, at 2.12 a.m. Discrepancies 
 occur as to the exact time when the King expired, 
 such as ' within a few minutes of two o'clock,' 
 'about 3.20 a.m.,' but the bulletin signed by three 
 physicians gives the time as 2.12 a.m. The event 
 was notified in a Supplement to the London Gazette 
 dated 20th June, 1837. A second Supplement of 
 the same date gives the order for mourning (Lord 
 
 8
 
 114 
 
 Chamberlain's office). A third Supplement of the 
 21st June contains further orders for mourning 
 (the Earl Marshal, the Horse Guards, and the 
 Admiralty). The above is further verified by the 
 Journals of the Lords and Commons, the Times, 
 Morning Post, and other papers. 
 
 George IV. was born on Thursday the 12th 
 August, 1762, at 7.30 a.m., as notified in the 
 London Gazette Extraordinary of the same date. 
 His accession was on Saturday the 29th January, 
 1820, while the London Gazette Extraordinary of 
 Sunday the 30th January contains the usual 
 documents relating to a royal death and an acces- 
 sion, the same being found in the Morning Post 
 and other newspapers. The coronation is dated 
 19th July, 1821. 
 
 The King died on Saturday the 26th June, 1830, 
 at 3.15 a.m., as notified in the London Gazette 
 Extraordinary of the same date. A bulletin signed 
 by two physicians [Holford and Tierney] was 
 issued. The London Gazette Extraordinary of 
 Sunday, 27th June, contains a Proclamation of 
 the accession of Prince William Henry Duke of 
 Clarence to the throne. The newspapers of that 
 time give further details. 
 
 George III. was born at 7.30 a.m. on Wednesday 
 the 24th May, 1738 (old style, corresponding with 
 4th June new style). In 1752, by the adoption 
 of the new style, eleven days were left out of
 
 115 
 
 the calendar, the 3rd September being reckoned 
 as the 14th. The birth was notified in the 
 London Gazette, No. 7,704, of 24th May to the 
 27th, 1738. 
 
 His accession to the throne was on Saturday the 
 25th October, 1760. The London Gazette of 
 October 21st to 26th, of 26th to 28th, and of 
 November 1st to 4th, gives the usual documents 
 relating to a royal death and an accession. The 
 coronation is dated the 22nd September, 1761. 
 
 The King died on the 29th January, 1820, as 
 notified in the London Gazette Extraordinary of 
 30th January, 1820. A certificate of all the five 
 physicians in attendance, along with a letter from 
 the Duke of York, was sent to Viscount Sidmouth, 
 and the other usual documents appeared in the 
 Gazette. The Morning Post and other newspapers 
 gave biographies and eulogies of the deceased. 
 
 George II. was born at Hanover on the 30th 
 October, 1683. No notice of this has been traced 
 in the English Gazette, but ' Royal Genealogies,' 
 by James Anderson, D.D. [1732], gives the date. 
 
 The King's accession is dated Sunday, llth June, 
 1727, as notified in the London Gazette of June 
 13th to 17th. On 14th June the Lords of the 
 Privy Council at Leicester House order the Pro- 
 clamation of George II. He was publicly pro- 
 claimed next day, 15th June, at the usual places, 
 and the usual orders appear in the next two 
 
 82
 
 116 
 
 numbers of the Gazette. The coronation took 
 place on the llth October, 1727. 
 
 The King died on Saturday the 25th October, 
 1760, between 7 and 8 a.m., a sudden death, bat 
 no medical certificate. The London Gazette of 
 October 21st to 26th and following numbers, as 
 also the newspapers, give details. 
 
 George I. was born on the 28th May, 1660, 
 according to Anderson's ' Royal Genealogies,' but 
 no official Gazette. His accession is dated Sunday 
 1st August, 1714, as notified in the London Gazette, 
 No. 5,247, of 31st July to 3rd August, 1714, and 
 the usual orders. The coronation was on the 20th 
 October, 1714. He died about 1 a.m. on Sunday 
 llth June, 1727, at the house of the Duke of 
 York, at Banbury. The London Gazette of 
 Tuesday 13th June to Saturday 17th June, 1727, 
 gives a brief account of the sudden illness and 
 death of the King. No medical certificate. 
 
 Queen Anne was born on 6th February, 1663- 
 1664, Anderson's 'Royal Genealogies' being the 
 authority. Her accession is dated Sunday 8th 
 March, 1701-1702, as notified in the London 
 Gazette, No. 3,790, of 5th to 9th March, 1701- 
 1702. Here it may be stated that from 1155 up 
 to 1752 the new year commenced always on the 
 25th of March in England. The day after the 
 31st December, 1751, was called the 1st of 
 January, 1752, and the year in future commences
 
 117 
 
 always on the 1st of January. In Scotland the 
 25th March was used as the beginning of the year 
 till 1599, when the day after the 31st December, 
 1599, was called the 1st January, 1600. 
 
 According to the above systems and change of 
 dates, a Scotch historian would record the date of 
 the execution of Charles I. as having occurred on 
 the 30th January, 1649, while English historians 
 of that period would notify it as the 30th January, 
 1648. 
 
 Queen Anne's coronation took place on the 
 23rd April, 1702, and she died at 7.30 a.m. on 
 Sunday, the 1st August, 1714. A brief announce- 
 ment of her death, after convulsion fits (but no 
 medical certificate), is given in the London Gazette, 
 No. 5,247, of 31st July to 3rd August, 1714. 
 
 William III. and Mary II. were born respec- 
 tively on 4th November, 1650, and 30th April, 
 1662, both dates being given in Anderson's ' Royal 
 Genealogies.' They ascended the English throne 
 on the 13th February, 1688-1689, a Wednesday, 
 as stated in the London Gazette, No. 2,427, of 
 llth to 14th February, 1688. Their coronation 
 was on the llth April, 1689. 
 
 The Queen died at Kensington about 1 a.m. of 
 28th December, 1694, notified in the London 
 Gazette, No. 3,040, of 27th to 31st December, 
 1694 ; while William died on 8th March, 1701-1702, 
 a Sunday, at 8 a.m., and recorded in the London
 
 118 
 
 Gazette, No. 3,790, of the 5th to 9th March, 1701. 
 The memory of William ought to be enshrined in 
 the hearts of all Englishmen, for he and Oliver 
 Cromwell were the real founders of the liberties of 
 England. 
 
 James II. was born on the 14th October, 1633, 
 according to Anderson's ' Royal Genealogies,' the 
 London Gazette not being then in existence. He 
 ascended the throne on Friday, the 6th February, 
 1684-1685, as notified in the London Gazette from 
 5th to 9th February, 1684. The usual formal 
 documents are given, and the speech of the new 
 King to the Privy Council is interesting. 
 
 He was crowned on the 23rd April, 1686, 
 abdicated on the llth December, 1688, and died 
 in France on the 16th September, 1701. The 
 authorities for his death are the London Gazette, 
 No. 3,739, from the 15th to 18th September, 1701 ; 
 also a Paris letter dated 17th September ; also the 
 London Gazette, No. 3,742 ; also a letter from 
 Loo, dated 27th September, 1701, referring to King- 
 Louis having declared the Prince of Wales King of 
 England. 
 
 Charles II. was born on the 29th May, 1630, 
 according to Anderson's ' Royal Genealogies,' but 
 there appears to be no official record. And here it 
 will be interesting to state what existed at that 
 time, or, rather, what has come down to us in the 
 shape of newspapers.
 
 119 
 
 The first date in the British Museum Catalogue 
 of Newspapers (Burney collection) is 1603. But 
 this has no reference to news, the entry being, 
 ' His Majesty's [i.e., James I.] Conference with the 
 Lords and Bishops of January 14th, 1603-1 604. ' 
 Then His Majesty's speech of March 19th, 1603- 
 1604, and other papers of that description follow. 
 
 The first notice of news is in 1619, and in this 
 volume for 1619 are also found scraps of news for 
 1620, 1621 and 1622, all apparently pertaining to 
 foreign countries, and no domestic intelligence. 
 In 1622 the Weekly News for May 23rd to 30th 
 and June 18th are given, but the weekly numbers 
 are incomplete. 
 
 In 1623 begins a series of weekly papers, such 
 as the Nevves of this Present Week, also called the 
 Last Nevves ; More Newes of the Affairs of the 
 World, and such like headings. Numbers are 
 wanting here and there, but still only foreign 
 affairs are dealt with. 
 
 From 1625 the Weekly Newes disappears from the 
 catalogue until 1630, and between that and 1641 
 the existing papers are few and meagre. But in 
 1641 there is a marked increase of foreign and 
 domestic intelligence, and this goes on increasing 
 with the appearance of several papers called 
 Mercurius Aulicus, Mercurius Anglicus, etc. 
 
 Of the Mercurius Aulicus there are four volumes 
 in 1643 and two in 1644. After 1643 many other
 
 120 
 
 ' Mercuriuses,' with names attached to them, such 
 as Britannicus, Civicus, Rusticus, Medicus, Belticus, 
 etc., appear and disappear at intervals, but in 
 reality none of these papers could be called a 
 newspaper in the sense of a paper of the present 
 day. 
 
 In addition to the many ' Mercuriuses ' with 
 names attached to them, there appear also the 
 Kingdoms Weekly Intelligencer, the Intelligencer and 
 Moderate Intelligencer, etc. In November, 1665, 
 there is the first mention of the Oxford Gazette, 
 which continues till the 1st February, 1666, from 
 which date the London Gazette comes on the scene, 
 and is to be found in the so-called King's Library 
 in the British Museum complete with a few excep- 
 tions from 1666 to the present time. This Gazette 
 only contained official news such as the Govern- 
 ment wished to communicate to the people. Con- 
 sequently there is not much in the shape of news to 
 be extracted from it except regular dates, which, 
 of course, are most important. But the de- 
 ficiencies of the Gazette were to a certain extent 
 supplied in London by the coffee-houses, and in 
 the country by the newsletters. 
 
 On the 3rd May, 1695, the law w r hich had sub- 
 jected the press to a censorship expired, and from 
 that date may be said to begin the rise of the 
 British press. What progress it has made up to 
 the present time is known to all.
 
 121 
 
 The many ' Mercuriuses ' seem then to have dis- 
 appeared, and were succeeded by Intelligence, 
 Domestic and Foreign, the English C our ant, followed 
 by the Daily C our ant ; and many 'Posts/ such as 
 the Postman, the Postboy, the London Post, the 
 Flying Post, etc. In fact the name of ' Post ' 
 seems to have supplanted the name of ' Mercury.' 
 
 For dating purposes, then, the years 1619 to 
 1641 may be taken as the dawning commencement 
 of the newspaper ; and a most important episode 
 it was, for, as Macaulay has truly said, the only 
 history of a country is to be found in its daily 
 newspapers. Perhaps it was on this account that 
 he commenced his ' History of England ' with the 
 reign of James II. 
 
 To return to Charles II. His accession to the 
 throne appears to be dated the 8th May, 1660, as 
 notified in the Mercurius Publicus, by order of the 
 Council of State, 3rd to 10th May, 1660; and in 
 ' The Parliamentary Intelligencer, comprising the 
 sum of foreign intelligence, with the affairs now in 
 agitation in England, Scotland and Ireland. For 
 information of the people. Published by order of 
 the Council of State. From Monday, 7th, to 
 Monday, 14th May, 1660.' It describes the Pro- 
 clamation. 
 
 But the actual Restoration appears to be dated 
 29th May, 1660, notified in the Mercurius Publicus 
 of 24th to 31st May, and in the Parliamentary
 
 122 
 
 Intelligencer of 28th May to 4th June, 1660. The 
 coronation did not take place till the 23rd April, 
 1661. 
 
 The King died on Friday the 6th February, 
 1684-1685, and this was notified in the London 
 Gazette and other papers. 
 
 Richard Cromwell was proclaimed Protector on 
 Saturday the 4th September, 1658, 10 to 11 a.m., 
 as notified in the Mercurius Politicus, No. 432, of 
 2nd to 9th September. He resigned on the 25th 
 May, 1659. 
 
 Oliver Cromwell was proclaimed Protector on 
 Friday the 16th December, 1653 (see the Pro- 
 ceedings of State Affairs, No. 221, dated 15th to 
 22nd December, 1653). He was installed at West- 
 minster Hall on the 26th June, 1657, and died 
 about 3 p.m. on the 3rd September, 1658, as stated 
 in the Mercurius Politicus, No. 432, of 2nd to 9th 
 September, 1658. It is not said that these papers 
 are published by authority. 
 
 Charles I. was born at Dunfermline on the 19th 
 November, 1600, as given in Anderson's ' Royal 
 Genealogies,' but no official Gazette. He ascended 
 the throne on the 27th March, 1625, as the follow- 
 ing State Papers testify : Collection of Proclama- 
 tions Carolus I., No. 1, and MS. copy ; also 
 Proceedings, Nos. 2 and 3 of 28th March, 1625, 
 and Minutes of Proceedings of Privy Council, 
 supposed to be of 28th March, and Letters Patent
 
 123 
 
 authorizing use of existing official seals till further 
 orders. 
 
 The newspapers or letters of this period are 
 very scanty, only about ten for 1625, being bound 
 in the volume for 1624 of the Burney Collection. 
 The King was crowned on the Feast of the 
 Purification, 26th February, 1626-1627. 
 
 He was executed at Whitehall on Tuesday the 
 30th January, 1648-1649, between the hours of 
 12 and 1 p.m., or 1 and 2 p.m. His death-warrant 
 is preserved in the Library of the House of Lords, 
 while the Commons Journal and the State Trials 
 give further official corroboration. It will be 
 interesting to quote here some newspapers and 
 other works alluding to the subject. 
 
 ' A Perfect .Diurnal of some passages in Parlia- 
 ment, etc., 29th January to 5th February, 1648, 
 No. 288,' gives a brief account of the execution, 
 mainly reporting the King's speech on the scaffold. 
 
 The Moderate Intelligencer, etc., of the 25th 
 January to 1st February, 1648, No. 202, in the 
 account gives the day as 30th January, 1648, 
 which is correct according to the old style. 
 
 The same paper, No. 203, 1st to 8th February, 
 1648, states that there were omissions from the 
 King's speech in the previous number, and that 
 additions have been made by the auditors, from 
 whom alone the journalist derived his report. 
 
 Baker's 'Chronicle,' first edition 1641, followed
 
 124 
 
 by continuation of the same to 1684. He names 
 as the last of modern writers, and from whom he 
 has collected the Chronicle, a Mr. Duchesne, who 
 wrote a History of England from the beginning 
 to the year 1641. 
 
 Clarendon's ' History of the Rebellion,' vol. i., 
 published in 1702. Stated in anonymous preface 
 to have been begun in 1641 by the Earl of 
 Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor, and Chancellor 
 of the University of Oxford. There are allusions 
 to the Journals of the two Houses, but dates are 
 sparsely given. Unsatisfactory account of the 
 death and burial of the King, and Carlyle is 
 severe on the official inveracity of the book. 
 
 James I. was born on the 19th June, 1566, 
 according to Anderson's ' Royal Genealogies,' but 
 there is no official record. He ascended the 
 English throne on the 24th March, 1602-1603, for 
 which there is the authority of State Papers, arid 
 a Proclamation. The coronation was on the 25th 
 February, 1603-1604, and he died at noon on the 
 27th March, 1625, according to the State Papers 
 and Calendars of the reign of Charles I., edited by 
 John Bruce, 1858. 
 
 Queen Elizabeth was born on the 7th September, 
 1533, between 3 and 4 p.m., as given in Anderson's 
 ' Royal Genealogies/ but no official documents. 
 She ascended the throne on the 17th November, 
 1558, as recorded in State Papers and Calendars for
 
 125 
 
 1547-1580, edited by R. Lemon, 1856, and also in 
 the Commons Journal and Camden's 'Annales.' 
 There is a discrepancy between Lingard and 
 Froude as to the places of proclamation. She was 
 crowned in 1559. 
 
 The Queen died on the 24th March, 1602-160,3, 
 corroborated by State Papers, Holland Correspond- 
 ence, and Calendar for this Reign, edited by Mrs. 
 Green, 1870. 
 
 Queen Mary was born on 8th February, 1515, 
 according to Anderson's * Royal Genealogies,' but 
 no official documents. She ascended the throne 
 on 16th July, 1553, after deposing Lady Jane 
 Grey, who reigned only ten days (see State Papers 
 and the Calendar for 1547 and following years). 
 The coronation took place in the same year, 1553, 
 and she died on the 17th November, 1558. men- 
 tioned in the calendar as above. 
 
 Edward VI. was born on 12th October, 1537 
 (Anderson's ' Royal Genealogies '). He ascended 
 the throne on the 28th January, 1546-1547, 
 according to the State Papers for January and 
 February, relating to the coronation, which was 
 fixed for 20th February, but Hall's 'Chronicle' 
 gives 19th February as the date. He died on the 
 6th July, 1553, for which there are several 
 authorities, such as the Lords' Journal, Rymer, 
 Council Book, and Harleian MS. 
 
 From this reign the custom became uniform for
 
 126 
 
 each Sovereign to date his or her accession to the 
 crown from the day of the demise of his or her 
 predecessor. They were crowned after their acces- 
 sion, some earlier, some later. The dates will be 
 found in Dean Stanley's ' Historical Memoirs of 
 Westminster Abbey.' 
 
 Henry VIII. was born on the 28th June, 1491 
 (Anderson's 'Royal Genealogies'), but no official 
 documents. He ascended the throne on the 22nd 
 April, 1509, and was crowned the same year. To 
 show how few official papers were existing at this 
 time, it may be stated that the Journals of the 
 House of Lords only begin on the 21st January, 
 1508-1509, and the Journals of the House of 
 Commons on the 8th November, 1547. There 
 were no written records of proceedings of the 
 Privy Council till the 8th August, 1540, and no 
 State Paper Office till 1578. An interesting 
 statement about the earlier records and State 
 Papers will be found in Walter Rye's ' Records 
 and Record Searching/ second edition, pp. 27-29, 
 66-76. 
 
 The King died on the 28th January, 1546-1547, 
 and in State Papers, vol. i., 1830, will be found 
 directions for the publication of Henry's will. 
 
 The time is now arriving when English history 
 begins to lapse into a dark period, which gets 
 darker as it ascends to the time of the Norman 
 Conquest, and darker still before that period.
 
 127 
 
 Much reliance cannot be placed on the earliest 
 manuscript chronicles of England, prepared in the 
 Benedictine monasteries, and their date is uncertain. 
 Some original documents may have been used, but 
 many of them have not come down to us. 
 
 The subject is both large and interesting, and 
 will be dealt with in the next chapter. An attempt 
 will be made to discuss these early chroniclers and 
 their works, and to show on what basis the Tudor 
 historians were able to work, and from what 
 sources they drew their facts and inferences. 
 
 It is probable that early English history was 
 first formulated on legend, tradition, speculation, 
 and invention. Bacon regards the time of 
 Henry VII. as ' ancient,' and the figure of the 
 King as dim and uncertain. He was made the 
 wise King, and his life was written up to that 
 ideal, but party spirit and partisanship then, as 
 now, entered largely into the biographies of 
 distinguished personages. 
 
 Henry, Earl of Richmond, the son of Edmund, 
 Earl of Richmond, is said to have been born in 
 1455 or 1457. but the month or year cannot be 
 traced to a certainty. His accession to the throne 
 is said by some to be 1485, by others 1486. He 
 was proclaimed King on the battlefield of Mirivell, 
 eight miles from Leicester, near the Abbey of Miri- 
 vell, otherwise known as the Battle of Bosworth 
 Field, fought on the 21st or 22nd of August, 1485
 
 128 
 
 or 1486, between Henry and his followers, and 
 Richard Duke of Gloucester, and his adherents. 
 This Richard (generally known in our histories as 
 Richard III.) was killed in the battle, and the 
 crown on his head is said to have been transferred 
 to that of Henry. 
 
 Henry VII. died of consumption at his favourite 
 palace of Richmond, after a reign of twenty- 
 three years and eight months, on the 22nd April, 
 1509, in the fifty-second year of his age; so says 
 Sir W. Dugdale, King-of-Arms in the time of 
 Charles II. If this be true, Henry would have 
 been born in 1457, ascended the throne on the 
 22nd August, 1485, and died on the 21st April, 
 1509. But there are variant statements as to 
 each of these dates, which it seems impossible to 
 reconcile, but 1485 is now generally recognised as 
 the date of his accession. 
 
 Before leaving the reign of Henry VII., it will 
 be interesting to notice two Latin-writing foreign 
 ecclesiastics who lived and wrote during that 
 period, the one Bernard Andre of Toulouse, Friar 
 of the Order of St. Augustine, the other Polydore 
 Vergil of Urbino. 
 
 Mr. James Gairdner, in his preface (1858) to 
 Bernard Andre's ' History of Henry VII. / says : 
 ' At the commencement of the Tudor period the 
 only writers of note were one or two foreigners 
 who wrote in Latin, and it is from their works, not
 
 129 
 
 from the works of Englishmen, that we derive our 
 principal knowledge of those times.' 
 
 Moreover, Gairdner regarded Bernard Andre's 
 work as the only strictly contemporary record of 
 the days of Henry VII. But even this is doubtful, 
 and the details that have been furnished about Andre 
 himself, that he was blind, Poet Laureate, tutor 
 to Prince Arthur, Royal Historiographer, Royal 
 Orator, Prefect of the Royal Library, also of the 
 Printing Office, must all be accepted with con- 
 siderable caution. 
 
 He is said to have been in England from about 
 1486 to 1521, in which year he died in London at 
 the Religious House of Austin Friars, and was 
 buried in their cemetery. 
 
 The other Latin writer of that time was Poly- 
 dore Vergil, of Urbino, a secular priest, Archdeacon 
 of Wells, and the last legate from the Pope to 
 collect Peter's pence in England, being sent here 
 for that purpose during the reign of Henry VII. 
 He appears to have been a favourite with 
 Henry VIII. , who gave him preferment, and to 
 that King Polydore dedicated his 'Anglia His- 
 torica,' in MDXXXIII. 
 
 Though a Tudor panegyrist, this writer is of the 
 first importance. He is vague and rhetorical, but 
 states that he came hither about 1496. He further 
 states that literary culture was introduced into 
 England about the times of Henry Tudor, especially 
 
 9
 
 130 
 
 under the auspices of the Lady Margaret (his 
 mother) ; and he distinctly conveys the impression 
 that there was hardly an educated Englishman 
 competent to teach a grammar school before John 
 Colet, founder of St. Paul's School. 
 
 Polydore Vergil, in the dedication of his 'English 
 History' to Henry VIII. (1533), also distinctly 
 states that there is a general ignorance about 
 Britain now called England the origin of the 
 people, the manners of the Kings, etc., because 
 no English history worth speaking of is extant. 
 Leaving his remarks about the alleged authors of 
 early times, such as Gildas, Bede and others, to be 
 dealt with in the next chapter, here the question 
 is confined to this point : What did this Italian- 
 English ecclesiastic know of the rise of the Tudor 
 house, of which it is alleged, without contradic- 
 tion, that he was a protege ? 
 
 Every line that he has written on the question 
 should be examined with the closest scrutiny. 
 There seems to be in the man that peculiar mixture 
 of credulity and scepticism which we observe in 
 accomplished Catholic priests of the present day. 
 He laughs at his friend Gavin Douglas, Bishop of 
 Dunkeld, because that prelate brought him a silly 
 attempt at Scottish story. He scoffs at the few 
 bald monkish chronicles about England that have 
 come into his hands, yet presents us with this 
 smooth, varnished tale of English Kings from im-
 
 131 
 
 possible times to Henry VIII. as if it were all 
 gospel. 
 
 And, what is still more curious, another most 
 important Latin-writing historian of the time, 
 John L eland ('De Britannicis Scriptoribus'), alleged 
 to have been the first Royal Antiquary, recognises 
 Polydore, attacks him. on account of his Italian 
 arrogance and hauteur, and denounces his Anglican 
 history in the most violent language. 
 
 These Latin writers have been neglected by our 
 modern critics. But the key to the true know- 
 ledge of the nature of English history is to be 
 found above all in them. Moreover, it is interest- 
 ing to compare Shakespeare's historical plays with 
 Polydore Vergil's history. Little incidents men- 
 tioned in the latter are to be found in the former ; 
 and from these it must be concluded that Shake- 
 speare and his mysterious collaborators used this 
 , history, or had translations or summaries prepared 
 from it, to enable them to write those historical 
 plays for which they are so justly famous. 
 
 To return now to Henry VII.'s supposed pre- 
 decessor, Richard III., the date of whose birth is 
 unknown. The date of his accession to the throne 
 is uncertain, some writers giving 1483, others 1484, 
 while the date of his death depends on that of the 
 Battle of Bosworth Field, in 1485 or 1486. It is, 
 however, now generally admitted that the dates of 
 
 92
 
 132 
 
 1483 for the accession and 1485 for the battle are 
 supposed to be the correct ones. 
 
 The total absence of official documents compel 
 us to fall back on writers and chroniclers who all 
 belonged to the Lancastrian or Tudor party. All 
 these make out Richard to be a monster in human 
 form, with every vice and no virtue. His life, 
 ascribed to Sir Thomas More, has been generally 
 accepted by historians from the later sixteenth 
 century, but the treatises of George Buck, or Buc, 
 or De Buc, and of Horace Walpole, should also 
 receive the most careful consideration. 
 
 Edward Prince of Wales, known as our 
 Edward V., never came to the throne. The date 
 of his birth is unknown, but being a child at his 
 father's death in 1483, the Duke of Gloucester, 
 his uncle (afterwards Richard III.), was chosen 
 Protector, and he is said to have had the Prince 
 and his younger brother, the Duke of York, 
 murdered in the Tower in 1483 or 1484. Polydore 
 Vergil does not recognise any Edward V., only 
 Prince Edward of Wales, put to death with his 
 brother in the Tower. 
 
 Edward IV., son of Richard Duke of York, was 
 born about the year 1433, but the exact date is 
 not known. As regards his accession, a Council 
 was called by old custom at West monastery (West- 
 minster) on the iii. Calends July (29th June), 
 in the year of human salvation ('Anno Salutis
 
 133 
 
 Humanae ') 1401. This is stated by Polydore 
 Vergil, but Sir Harris Nicolas, in his ' Chronology 
 of History,' gives 4th March, 1460-1461. as the 
 date of Edward IV.'s accession to the throne. The 
 restoration of Henry VI. , it is said, took place in 
 October, 1470, but he died in 1471. 
 
 King Edward IV. is supposed to have died in 
 1483, at the age of fifty, but there are no official 
 documents, and the chroniclers have to be consulted. 
 David Hume, in his ' History of England,' quotes 
 Cotton, Statutes at large, William of Wyrcester, or 
 Worcester, Fabyan, Grafton, Monstrelet, Comines, 
 but their writings have still to be most carefully 
 examined and tested, and especially their system 
 of dating, if any dates are supplied by them. 
 
 It was during the reign of Edward IV. that the 
 first book was printed in England by William 
 Caxton in 1477. It is said that he first began to 
 print books in Bruges in co-operation with Colard 
 Mansion, the first printer of Bruges, in 1474. Very 
 full details about them and other printers will be 
 found in G. H. Putnam's most interesting work, in 
 two volumes, entitled ' Books and their Makers 
 during the Middle Ages,' 1897. 
 
 The completion of the invention of printing is 
 generally attributed to Gutenberg, in Mayence, and 
 dated 1450. But Laurens Koster, of Haarlem, is 
 said to be the first inventor and printer of books 
 from block type, in 1430, or about twenty years
 
 134 
 
 earlier than Gutenberg, who, however, first in- 
 vented the movable type, though the same is also 
 claimed for Koster by his supporters. 
 
 The long controversies on this subject have not 
 yet been finally settled, but honour can equally be 
 allowed to both the Hollander and the German for 
 a discovery which has in very truth enlightened 
 the inhabitants of this planet to a most extra- 
 ordinary degree, and facilitated the civilization of 
 mankind. In 1898 a copy of the first Bible 
 printed by Gutenberg at Mayence, but without 
 date, was sold by auction in London for the large 
 sum of 2,950. 
 
 This Bible is supposed to have been printed in 
 1455 or 1456, but carries no date. The first 
 printed and dated Bible is that of 1462, expressed 
 in Roman numerals. But there is a Psalter with 
 a date of 1457, and Mr. Bernard Quaritch, of 15, 
 Piccadilly, has another of 1459, both dates being 
 in Roman numerals, and these are two of the 
 earliest dated and printed books in existence. 
 
 Henry VI. was born in December, 1421. 
 J. Rous, or Ross, of Warwick says that he was 
 born on the Feast of St. Nicolas, and was not a 
 year old when his father died, in August, 1422. 
 This John Ross was a priest, and wrote ' Hist. 
 Regum AngliaB,' which is meagre, but instructive 
 as an early sketch of royal romance. The boy 
 Henry was proclaimed King the last day of August,
 
 135 
 
 1422. Some say that he was eight, others that he 
 was nine months old at the time. 
 
 He was deposed in March, 1460-1461, but 
 restored for a very brief period in 1470, and after 
 various adventures died in 1471. Some say he 
 was murdered, others that he died a natural death 
 from grief. The Croyland Chronicle says that 
 he died some time near Ascension day, but the 
 year is not distinctly given. It will be noted that 
 in these times the dating was very vague, the fast 
 days or feast days of the Church being the usual 
 landmarks, or perhaps some well-known event 
 which was generally referred to as so many years 
 before it, or so many years after it. Dates as we 
 now understand them were in a confused state at 
 that period. 
 
 There appear to have been no official documents 
 or authorities in any scientific sense of the word. 
 The monkish chroniclers are the only sources of 
 information, and so Polydore Vergil's history must 
 perhaps be looked upon as the most reliable. 
 
 Henry V. is said to have been born in 1388, 
 but there is no evidence concerning it. He 
 ascended the throne on the 5th Ides of April 
 (i.e., 9th April), 1413. Sir Harris Nicolas gives 
 the 21st March, 1412-1413, while J. Ross of 
 Warwick has no date. Thomas Walsingham, a 
 Benedictine monk of St. Albans, is quoted as an 
 authority and writer during the fifteenth century,
 
 136 
 
 but he appears to be unknown to John Boston, the 
 Benedictine of Bury St. Edmunds, and to Polydore 
 Vergil. 
 
 Henry V., it is said, died the end of August, 
 1422, but the details of his reign as given by 
 Polydore Vergil are very meagre, and the year of 
 his death not expressly given. The contemporary 
 writers of this period are not much to be relied upon. 
 
 Henry IV. is said to have been born in 1366, 
 but the day or the month cannot be correctly 
 ascertained. He was created King at a Council 
 held on the 3rd of the Ides of October (i.e., 13th), 
 1399, according to Polydore Vergil. Walsingham 
 gives the day of translation of St. Edward (i.e., 
 13th October), 1399, as that of his accession; while 
 the Rev. F. C. Hingeston, in the Rolls Series, 
 1860, says the 30th September, 1399, Sir Harris 
 Nicolas giving the same date. 
 
 In the Royal and Historical Letters (Rolls 
 Series, 1860, same as above) the first alleged 
 letter of Henry is dated 3rd October. The 
 preface to these Letters is worth reading, 
 beginning with a quotation from Sir H. Ellis 
 on History and Romance. 
 
 The date of the death of Henry IV. is given by 
 some as 1413, without any month, by others as 
 the 20th March, 1413. Our ignorance of the 
 times of Henrys IV., V., VI. , and the Wars of the 
 Roses, is great, and they are shrouded in mystery.
 
 137 
 
 Richard II. The date of his birth is unknown, 
 but the date of his accession is given as 1377. 
 According to Polydore Vergil, the Princes of the 
 Kingdom held a Council at West monastery 
 (Westminster) and declared Richard to be King, 
 in the orders of Kings of that name the Second, 
 son of Prince Edward, and eleven years old. 
 This was on the xvii. Calends of August (i.e., 
 16ch of July), year of human salvation (A.S.H.), 
 1377. No official records of any sort, and 
 Polydore cites no authorities. 
 
 The King died A.S.H. 1399. His body was 
 buried at Langley, or King's Langley, twenty 
 miles from London, by the Dominicans. David 
 Hume, in his ' History of England,' quotes as 
 authorities for this reign certain chroniclers, 
 viz., Thomas Walsingham, Froissart, Henry of 
 Knighton, Thomas Otterbourne, and others. All 
 these require to be thoroughly examined, and most 
 especially with regard to the forms of dating, if 
 any, used by them. Their record of events cannot 
 be regarded in any way as official documents, 
 though Hume never appears to have had any 
 doubts about their veracity or their dates, or, if 
 he had, does not allow his suspicions to appear. 
 
 The exact date of the birth of Edward III. is 
 unknown, but he is said to have ascended the 
 throne on the 20th January, 1326-1327. Polydore 
 Vergil says that the Black Prince died on Gth Ides
 
 138 
 
 July (i.e., 10th), 1376, aged 46, and that King 
 Edward died in the tenth month afterwards, which 
 would be May, 1377, but, as usual, gives no 
 sources or authorities regarding his statements. 
 Sir Harris Nicolas gives the 21st June, 1377, as 
 the date of the death of this King. 
 
 Edward II. Date of birth officially unknown, 
 but said to have been crowned on 10th Calends of 
 March (i.e., 20th February), 1307-1308. He died 
 in 1327, in the 43rd year of his age and 19th of 
 his reign, having been, according to rumour, 
 murdered. The body was carried to the monastery 
 of St. Peter's, Gloucester, where lived monks of 
 the Order of St. Benedict. So much from Poly- 
 dore Vergil, but Sir Harris Nicolas gives the 8th 
 July, 1307, as the date of his accession, and 20th 
 January, 1326-1327, as the date of death. 
 
 Edward I. Date of birth officially unknown. 
 He is said to have been proclaimed in 1272, and 
 crowned on 19th August, 1274, according to 
 Hume. But Polydore Vergil states that Edward 
 (after first William the Norman) the First was 
 made King in his 35th year, which was the year 
 of human salvation (A.S.H.) 1274; no date of day 
 or month given. Polydore further adds that he 
 died in the 69th year of his age and after the 34th 
 year of his reign, on the Nones of July, no year ; 
 but the accession of Edward II. is given as 1308. 
 The dates of accession and death specified by
 
 139 
 
 Sir Harris Nicolas are 20th November, 1272, and 
 7th July, 1307. 
 
 No sources or authorities are given by Polydore, 
 but Hume gives Walsingham, Trivet, Hemings- 
 ford, Matthew of Westminster, Roger Hoveden, 
 or Roger of Hoveden, and Matthew Paris, all 
 chroniclers, some of whom will be alluded to in 
 my next chapter. The question of interest arises 
 as to the date of the beginning of Benedictine 
 literary effort in England, and this has not yet 
 been properly solved. 
 
 Henry III. Date of birth officially unknown. 
 Consecrated by the Pope's Legate, or, as some 
 have it, by the Bishops of Winton and Bath, on 
 the 5th Calends December (i.e., 27th November), 
 1217, but crowned in 1220. He died 16th Calends 
 December (i.e., 16th November), 1273. This from 
 Polydore's history, but no sources or authorities 
 are given. The dates are sparsely given for this 
 long reign, sometimes using the phrase, 'year from 
 the birth of Christ,' instead of the ' year of human 
 salvation.' The dates of accession and death given 
 by Sir Harris Nicolas are 28th October, 1216, and 
 16th November, 1272. 
 
 John. Date of birth officially unknown. Poly- 
 dore says that he ascended the throne A.S.H. 1201, 
 but Hume gives the year 1199, and Sir Harris 
 Nicolas 27th May, 1199. The date of death is 
 given by Polydore as 14th Calends November (i.e.,
 
 140 
 
 ] 9th October), or, according to another tradition, 
 the day before the Ides of November (i.e., 12th 
 November) in the 17th year of his reign plus six 
 months and twenty-seven days, but the year not 
 stated, which Hume gives as 1216, and Sir Harris 
 Nicolas as 19th October, 1216. Under 1215 there 
 is no mention of Magna Charta, but Polydore 
 Vergil simply says that the King met the 
 Lords (principes) three miles from Windsor Castle, 
 and conceded their demands. No mention of 
 Runnymede. It is said that the quarrel arose out 
 of the non-restitution of the laws of Edward the 
 Confessor, and the abrogation of others which were 
 not to the popular advantage. 
 
 Baker's 'Chronicle' (edition 1641), under date 
 1214-1216, refers to the demands of the Lords of 
 the Realm, and to the production by them of a 
 Charter of Henry I. They met John at Running 
 Mead, but nothing is said of the signing or putting 
 a seal to any Great Charter. It is a question of 
 the liberties of the Lords only, for the people did 
 not get many rights till the Great Civil War and 
 the reign of William III. 
 
 Before leaving King John it may be stated that 
 the earliest records, in the shape of Charter, Patent 
 and Close Rolls, date from the 1st, 3rd and 6th 
 years of his reign. The attention of any persons 
 interested in these matters is drawn to the works of 
 Mr. Thomas Duffus Hardy, dated 1833, 1835 and
 
 141 
 
 1837, from which much information can be 
 obtained. 
 
 The Pipe Rolls date from the reign of Henry L, 
 and Mr. Walter Rye, in his ' Records and Record 
 Searching,' says that ' Next in date and import- 
 ance to Domesday come the Pipe Rolls, which are 
 perhaps, all things considered, the most interesting 
 series of records.' The Pipe Roll Society has 
 printed a series of these Rolls, and still continue 
 their work. 
 
 All the above Rolls are to be found now in the 
 Public Record Office, Chancery Lane, a full de- 
 scription of which will be found in Walter Rye's 
 work. 
 
 Richard I. Date of birth officially unknown. 
 Ascended the throne A.S.H. 1189, and died 8th 
 Ides of April (i.e., 6th April), A.S.H. 1200, in 
 the 43rd year of his age. No sources or 
 authorities given by Polydore Vergil, and his only 
 other dates are 1190, 1193, 1199. Sir Harris 
 Nicolas's dates of accession and death are 3rd 
 September, 1189, and 6th April, 1199. 
 
 Henry II. Date of birth officially unknown. 
 Said to have ascended the throne on xiiii. Calends 
 of January (i.e., 19th December), 1154, and died 
 the day before Nones of July (i.e., 6th July), 
 A.S.H. 1189, in the 61st year of his age, and 
 34th year and 7 months of his reign. These 
 dates tally with those of Sir Harris Nicolas. King
 
 142 
 
 Henry is said to have been buried by the Bene- 
 dictines of Chinon, where he died. 
 
 Stephen. Date of birth officially unknown. He 
 ascended the throne on viii. Calends of January 
 (i.e.) 25th December), A.S.H. 1136, and died on 
 viii. Calends of October (i.e., 24th September), year 
 from Christ's birth 1154, and was buried at the 
 monastery near Faversham built by himself. All 
 this from Polydore Vergil, who gives no named 
 sources, only ' something written,' and alleges that 
 the events of A.S.H. 1153 were all entered in certain 
 Acts for the benefit of posterity. These Acts do 
 not appear to be now forthcoming. 
 
 The dates of accession and death of Stephen are 
 given by Sir Harris Nicolas as 26th December, 
 1135, and 25th October, 1154. 
 
 Henry I. Date of birth officially unknown. 
 He ascended the throne, it is said, on the Nones of 
 August (i.e., 5th August), in the year from birth of 
 Christ 1101, and from advent of the Normans 35. 
 Saluted King and consecrated by Maurice Bishop 
 of London, at West monastery (Westminster), 
 A.S.H. 1101. He died Calends of December, or, 
 as some say, 3rd Nones of the same month 
 (i.e., 3rd December), 1136, in the 67th year of his 
 age, and 35th year plus 3 months and 11 days 
 of his reign, and was buried by the monks of 
 the Order of St. Benedict at Reading. This
 
 143 
 
 from Polydore Vergil, who gives no sources or 
 authorities. 
 
 During this reign there is said to have been an 
 Anglo-Saxon antiquarian revival, which is im- 
 portant if true, or if, indeed, there was anything 
 to revive. It is more probable that the writing of 
 historical manuscripts and chronicles began about 
 this period, for only two historical works, said to 
 be of an earlier date, viz., ' The Anglo-Saxon 
 Chronicle' and Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' have 
 come down to us. Details about these will be 
 supplied in the next chapter. 
 
 The dates of the accession and death of Henry I. 
 are given by Sir Harris Nicolas as the 5th August, 
 
 1100, and 1st December, 1135. 
 
 William Rufus, or Rouse, or the Red. Date of 
 birth officially unknown. Made King and con- 
 secrated by Lanfranc on the 5th Calends October 
 (i.e., 27th September), in the year of our salvation 
 1088, and the 22nd of the advent of the Normans. 
 He died 3rd Nones August (i.e.) 3rd August), 
 
 1101, having lived 43 years and reigned nearly 
 13 years. No sources or authorities given by 
 Polydore. 
 
 The dates of accession and death are given by 
 Sir Harris Nicolas as the 26th September, 1087, 
 and the 2nd August, 1100. 
 
 William the Conqueror was declared King and 
 crowned 8th Calends January (i.e., 25th December),
 
 144 
 
 1066. He died on the 8th Ides of September 
 (i.e., 6th September), 1087, in the 74th year of his 
 age and 21st of his reign. These bare facts are 
 supported by no authorities, and Sir Harris Nicolas 
 gives the 9th instead of the 6th September as the 
 day of his death. 
 
 In this chapter of about thirteen pages Polydore 
 refers to divers matters, but not to much connected 
 with the life and reign of William. If the reader 
 chooses to compare the few pages of Polydore on 
 this reign with the stout volumes of Thierry, and, 
 again, with the larger works of the late E. A. Free- 
 man on 'The Norman Conquest,' he will under- 
 stand how the tale has gradually developed in the 
 succeeding centuries. If reliable evidence and 
 records did not exist at the time of William the 
 Conqueror and his successors, it must be admitted 
 that much has been collected at a later period. 
 
 Before finishing with this reign something must 
 be said about the celebrated Bayeux tapestry said 
 to have been worked by his Queen Matilda and 
 her ladies in commemoration of the invasion and 
 conquest of England by the Normans. If this 
 needlework is the very same that is said to have 
 been made after the Battle of Hastings, it should 
 be looked upon as one of the wonders of the 
 world. AVhile all the old cathedrals and castles in 
 Normandy have had to be repaired from the very 
 foundations, or in many cases rebuilt, this linen-
 
 145 
 
 work still holds the field as an original production 
 of those times. 
 
 It is said to be first mentioned in an inventory 
 of the treasures of the Bajeux Cathedral in 1476 
 (that is 400 years after its supposed manufacture), 
 as hung round the nave of the church on the day 
 of the exposition of the relics, viz., the 1st of July 
 each year. Apparently it was then lost sight of 
 till the first quarter of the eighteenth century. 
 
 In 1588 De Bourgeville wrote much about the 
 Cathedral of Bayeux, and everything connected 
 with it, but did not allude to the tapestry. 
 
 In 1631 Du Moulin, and in 1646 D'Anneville, 
 both Normans, chronicled the conquest of England 
 in their histories of Normandy without alluding to 
 this tapestry. 
 
 L'Abbe de la Rue, Chanoine Honorable de 
 Bayeux in 1821, assures us that the tapestry is 
 first mentioned in an inventory of the treasures of 
 the church in 1369, but that the item contains no 
 allusion to Queen Matilda, and an extract from this 
 inventory does not appear to be now in existence. 
 The Abbe de la Rue further declared that he 
 had read over the immense collections about the 
 ecclesiastical and literary antiquities of Normandy, 
 gathered together by Du Moustier, who died in 
 1662, without discovering any allusion to the 
 tapestry in question. 
 
 In 1705 Hermant, Cure de Maltot, at the com- 
 
 10
 
 146 
 
 mand of the Bishop of Bayeux, published a portion 
 of the history of that diocese. He pointed out 
 that we were indebted to Maistre, or Master Wace 
 for some remarkable particulars relative to the 
 expedition of William, and furnished a very ample 
 account of Odon, or Odo, the first of that name, 
 and the thirty-first Bishop of Bayeux. He noticed 
 also the day of the exposition of the relics, which 
 always took place on the 1st July, and even cited 
 various precious articles from the inventory, but 
 did not mention the tapestry. At page 352 of his 
 work he gives important facts : ' Dans le repertoire 
 qui fut fait le 16 Mai de Fan 1475 des biens du 
 Tresor de 1'Eglise de Bayeux il y est fait mention 
 de plusieur reliques, d'ornamens precieux, d'une 
 Contre table au chceur, et d'une image de Notre 
 Dame/ etc., but no mention whatever of the 
 tapestry. 
 
 In 1721, on the death of Mr. Foucault, a 
 drawing of about thirty feet of the tapestry was 
 found in his collection. It became the property 
 of Mr. de Beze, or Bezier, who made it over to 
 Mr. Lancelot, who, when he composed an academi- 
 cal memoir on the drawing in 1724, had not ascer- 
 tained whether it represented a basso-relievo, or a 
 fresco, or stained glass, or tapestry. 
 
 Father Montfauqon, about the year 1728, 
 obtained from Bayeux the information he wanted, 
 and despatched Mr. Antoine Benoit to make a
 
 drawing of the entire tapestry. Mr. Lancelot also 
 secured a qualified correspondent at Bayeux, and 
 both the antiquaries completed their learned illus- 
 trations in 1730. 
 
 On the 9th May, 1730, a full description of the 
 tapestry was given to the French Academy, and 
 since then the attention of the learned world has 
 been called to it, and copies made of it for England 
 and elsewhere at various times. 
 
 In 1792 it was taken out of the sacristy of the 
 Chapter House and placed as a covering on some 
 waggons of baggage, but was saved by a Mr. Le 
 Forrestier, who gave the people some coarse canvas 
 in its place. Later on the Commission of Arts 
 of the district of Bayeux prevented its being cut 
 up into pieces to adorn a civic car. 
 
 In 1803 it was taken to Paris for exhibition at 
 the Louvre, and was further shown in some of the 
 towns of France by the orders of Napoleon, who 
 was anxious to stir up the feelings of the people 
 in favour of another invasion of England. 
 
 It was eventually returned to the Bayeux 
 Municipality, who placed it in the College 
 Library, but exhibited it every year for fifteen 
 days in the parish church. In 1816 it was 
 reclaimed by the clergy, but their request was 
 refused by the Municipal Council, and it was 
 removed from the College to the Hotel de Ville, 
 where it was rolled on a cylinder, and unrolled 
 
 102
 
 148 
 
 when shown to foreigners or visitors. In 1842 it 
 was removed to the Public Library, repaired, 
 stretched out, and placed under glass. 
 
 It is 227 feet in length, by about 20 inches in 
 breadth, and divided into seventy-two compart- 
 ments, with inscriptions in Latin at the top naming 
 some of the people, and explaining what they are 
 doing. On the margin of cloth both above and below 
 the historical scenes are worked grotesque figures of 
 all sorts, both human and animal, hunting, tillage, 
 scenes from ancient fables, etc. The colours of 
 the workings are blue (dark and light), yellow, 
 brown or buff, green (dark and light) and red. 
 In the whole there are 49 trees, 41 boats or ships, 
 37 houses, 202 horses and mules, 55 dogs, 505 
 animals of different kinds, 623 persons, or a grand 
 total of 1,512 in all. 
 
 In 1871 the Kensington Museum authorities 
 were all-owed to take a copy of the whole. It was 
 done by photography and then coloured, and these 
 are now to be seen in the South Kensington 
 
 o 
 
 Museum. 
 
 Tradition says that this tapestry was made by 
 Queen Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror, 
 and her ladies after the Battle of Hastings, said to 
 
 O ' 
 
 have taken place in 1066. It is difficult to believe 
 that linen originally worked upon about that date 
 could last, under all the vicissitudes gone through, 
 up to the present time, only having been repaired
 
 149 
 
 in 1842. If, however, this theory is correct, the 
 only solution can be that replicas of the same have 
 been made, and this would account for the excellent 
 condition of the work now to be seen daily at 
 Bayeux. 
 
 The probability is that the Bayeux Tapestry 
 was made at some much later date to represent the 
 scenes described in the work of ' Le Roman de Rou 
 (Rollo) et des Dues de Normanclie,' written, it is 
 snid, about 1160 by Maistre, or Master Wace, a 
 jSTorman poet. The date cannot be positively 
 relied upon, but a full text of this poem was pub- 
 lished by Frederick Pluquet, Rouen, 1827, while 
 translations of parts of it, relating to the Norman 
 Conquest, were made in prose by Edgar Taylor in 
 1837, and in verse by Sir Alexander Mallet in 
 1860. In the preface to the last-named work 
 there is a doubt expressed as to whether the poem 
 was written from the tapestry, or the tapestry 
 made from the description contained in the 
 poem. 
 
 It is said that Wace was born in the island of 
 Jersey at the beginning of the twelfth century, 
 was made a Canon of Bayeux, and died in England 
 about 1184. He makes no mention of the tapestry 
 in his work, but his account of the whole of the 
 expedition of William, both before and after the 
 Battle of Hastings, could have been well worked 
 up afterwards, any time between the thirteenth
 
 150 
 
 and beginning of the eighteenth century, and 
 represented in what is now called the tapestry of 
 Bayeux. Many works of early authors have been 
 illustrated during the present century ; indeed, such 
 has been quite a common practice from all time, 
 and has apparently been followed in the present 
 case. 
 
 The date of the work is impossible to fix, but 
 the probability is that it is much later than 
 generally imagined or believed. As already 
 stated, it is said to be mentioned for the first 
 time in 1476, in the inventory of the treasures of 
 the Bayeux Cathedral as follows : ' Une tente tres 
 longue et etroite de telle (toile) a broderie de 
 ymages et escripteaux faisans representations du 
 conquest d'Angleterre lequelle est tendu environ 
 le nef de 1'Eglise le jour et par les octaves des 
 reliques.' This may have been a later interpola- 
 tion inscribed in the inventory, and it is curious 
 that it is not mentioned in the inventory of 1475, 
 alluded to by Hermant, Cure de Maltot, in his 
 work of 1705. 
 
 Between 1476 and 1724 no trace or mention of 
 the tapestry can be found anywhere. All the 
 authors who wrote about Bayeux, its history and 
 antiquities, in 1588, 1631, 1646, 1650 and 1705 
 do not even allude to it in any way. The first 
 reliable record we have of the existence of this 
 tapestry is in 1730, when the subject was taken
 
 151 
 
 up and reported on by the antiquaries, and after 
 that there is a full and reliable record. 
 
 In 1836 Bolton Corney wrote a very clear and 
 interesting pamphlet entitled * Eesearches and 
 Conjectures on the Bayeux Tapestry,' in which he 
 set forth his views to the effect that 1205 is the 
 period for which he contends as that of the most 
 remote antiquity of the tapestry, but supplies no 
 positive or reliable evidence on the subject. About 
 Wace he says : ' Maistre Wace, a canon of Bayeux, 
 who wrote an account of the conquest about the 
 year 1160, gives it as a report that Harold swore 
 on the relics at Bayeux. In the tapestry it is 
 stated positively. If it had been in existence 
 could Wace have doubted its authority ? This 
 circumstance alone forcibly argues a date posterior 
 to Wace.' 
 
 Again : ' The Cathedral of Bayeux was burned 
 in 1160, and Philippe de Harcourt, who then held 
 the bishopric, expended immense sums in its 
 restoration. If the tapestry had been acquired in 
 his time, would not the circumstances have been 
 stated in the inventory about to be submitted to 
 his descendant ?' 
 
 Other works in English on this tapestry may be 
 noted. 'The Bayeux Tapestry/ represented by 
 autotype plates, with historic notes, by Frank 
 Rede Fowkes, published by the Arundel Society, 
 1875, is the most complete and interesting ; ' The
 
 152 
 
 Bayeux Tapestry,' elucidated by the Rev. John 
 Collingwood Bruce, London, 1856, is also interest- 
 ing, but rather too full of the imaginations and 
 conjectures of the author. 
 
 But enough of the Bayeux tapestry. I have 
 alluded to it at some length so as to show how a 
 tradition is handed down, and copied into every 
 history, cyclopaedia, and work of reference so that 
 at last it is believed to be almost a positive fact. 
 My own personal opinion is that its date is nearer 
 1720 than 1070 or 1205; but, as has been already 
 stated, the date cannot be positively fixed. 
 
 Some mention must also be made of the great 
 Domesday Book, the preparation of which during 
 the reign of William the Conqueror was one of the 
 most important ^events of the time, as it supplies 
 a great amount of useful information concerning 
 that period. Indeed, it may be said to contain the 
 best early documentary evidence on the subject of 
 the lands and the people of England that has as 
 yet come down to us. 
 
 Those persons who have studied the so-called 
 Domesday Book for years maintain that there is 
 still a mine of information to be derived from it. 
 Sir H. Ellis, in his Preface to a General Introduc- 
 tion to Domesday Book in 1883, says : ' Illustra- 
 tions of the most important kind, upon our ancient 
 institutions, services and tenures of land, are still 
 to be drawn from it.'.
 
 153 
 
 As regards the date, it may be said that the 
 work was ordered to be undertaken at a time sub- 
 sequent to the total reduction of the island by 
 William the Conqueror. It is probable that surveys 
 and lists were first made for the different counties 
 separately ; these were forwarded to Winchester, 
 and subsequently embodied into two volumes, 
 forming now what is called the Domesday Book. 
 
 The first volume, a large folio, begins with Kent 
 and ends with Lincolnshire. It is written on 
 382 double pages of vellum (each page having a 
 double column), and contains thirty-one counties. 
 
 The second volume is in quarto on 450 double 
 pages of vellum, but in a single column, containing 
 three counties, viz., Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. 
 
 When the survey was first made it was called 
 'Rotulus Wintoniae,' or 'Scripturae Thesauri Regis,' 
 or ' Liber de WintoniaB,' or ' Liber Judiciarus,' or 
 ' Liber Regis,' but the name it is generally known 
 by is that of ' Domesday ' and ' Liber Censualis 
 Anglise.' 
 
 The order generally observed in writing the 
 survey is to set down at the head of every county 
 the King's name, ' Rex Wilhielmus,' and then a 
 list of the bishops, religious houses, churches, and 
 great men according to their rank that held of 
 the King in capite in that county, likewise of his 
 thanes, ministers and servants, etc. 
 
 There is a list pf tenants in capite (chief),
 
 154 
 
 who held their lands immediately from the 
 King. 
 
 Also a list of persons, monasteries, etc., entered 
 in Domesday as holding lands in the time of King 
 Edward the Confessor, and through later years 
 anterior to the survey. 
 
 Also an abstract of the population of the dif- 
 ferent counties of England at the close of the reign 
 of William the Conqueror as far as the same is 
 actually recorded in the Domesday Survey, but 
 this is evidently very imperfect. This abstract, as 
 regards the actual number of people in the counties 
 surveyed, is not much to be depended upon, but it 
 is very interesting, as it gives the names of all the 
 different classes of people existing at that time. 
 An alphabetical list and definition of each class 
 will be found in Sir H. Ellis's Introduction, men- 
 tioned above, as also in Walter de Gray Birch's 
 book upon Domesday, published by the Society 
 for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1887. 
 
 It is said that many Saxon Charters were forged 
 at the time of the Domesday Survey to make good 
 titles for the monks to their properties when the 
 Norman Commissioners came among them ; and 
 this is highly probable. 
 
 Now, all this work must naturally have taken 
 some considerable time. It is difficult to fix an 
 exact date for the commencement and completion 
 of this most valuable survey. The date, given in
 
 155 
 
 Latin words at the end of the second volume, runs 
 thus : ' In the one thousandth and eighty-sixth 
 year from our Lord's Incarnation, but the twentieth 
 year of the reign of King William, this description 
 was made not only throughout the three counties, 
 but also throughout the others.' This, however, 
 may have been a later addition. 
 
 Besides the Domesday proper, or Great Domes- 
 day Book, as described above, there are others, 
 viz., the Exon Domesday, the Inquisitio Eliensis, 
 the Winton Domesday, the Bolden Book, and 
 other Domesday Books mentioned by Walter Rye 
 in his ' Records and Record Searching,' but more 
 fully described by C. P. Cooper in his very interest- 
 ing and valuable work, ' An Account of the most 
 Important Records of Great Britain,' etc., London, 
 1832. 
 
 A reference to these will give much information 
 to persons who may be interested in such matters, 
 so that it is unnecessary to enter into fuller details 
 about them here. Cooper further gives a full 
 account of the Cottonian, Harleian and Lans- 
 downe MSS., all of which might be again 
 thoroughly examined and tested from a paleo- 
 graphical and chronological point of view, especially 
 in connection with the various kinds of datings 
 explained in this work and attempted to be clas- 
 sified. 
 
 In the preceding pages the dates of the births,
 
 156 
 
 accessions and deaths of our English Kings and 
 Queens have been given wholly or partially. It will 
 be observed that there is full and reliable official 
 evidence for the dates of the birth and accession of 
 our reigning Sovereign Queen Victoria, and for 
 the births, accessions and deaths of William IV., 
 George IV. and George III. ; then the official 
 evidence for the days of the week and the hours of 
 the births of the preceding Kings disappear. The 
 dates of the accessions and deaths of George II., 
 George I., Queen Anne, William and Mary, 
 James II., Charles II., and Oliver Cromwell, are 
 officially notified in gazettes and newspapers. 
 State Papers furnish authority for the dates of the 
 accessions and deaths of Charles L, James L, 
 Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, Edward VI. and 
 Henry VIII. 
 
 From Henry VII. upwards to William the 
 Conqueror there appear to be no official gazettes, 
 no newspapers, no State records, registers or 
 calendars, and darkness is beginning to set in. 
 As a guide into these dark ages, Polydore Vergil's 
 4 English History ' has been taken. 
 
 But Polydore Vergil gives no sources or 
 authorities for his information, which goes back 
 to the earliest times, to what may really be called 
 prehistoric. It must be supposed that the Bene- 
 dictines supplied him with their data, and with 
 much of the material which appeared in their own
 
 157 
 
 writings, but when they themsel\ 7 es first began to 
 write their chronicles is still a mystery. 
 
 It is true that Mr. George H. Putnam, in his 
 most interesting work, ' Books and their Makers 
 during the Middle Ages,' vol. i., London and New 
 York, 1896, has given us an uninterrupted series 
 of dates from A.D. 410, ascribing the foundation 
 by Benedict of the monastery of Monte Cassino to 
 A.D. 529, and of that of Vivaria, or Viviers, in 
 Calabria, to Cassiodorus in A.D. 531, but whether 
 these dates can be really substantiated by docu- 
 mentary or any reliable evidence is doubtful. 
 They were probably dates calculated by the Bene- 
 dictines themselves at a later period, and so handed 
 down to us. 
 
 Putnam describes three stages or periods, the 
 first beginning with the foundation of the 
 monasteries above mentioned, and continuing their 
 manuscript work until the last decade of the 
 twelfth century, when the earliest record of an 
 organized manuscript-book business in the Uni- 
 versities of Bologna and Paris can be traced. He 
 then says : ' The beginning of literary work in the 
 Universities to which I refer as indicating a second 
 stage did not, however, bring to an end, and in 
 fact for a time hardly lessened, the production of 
 manuscript books in the monasteries ;' and con- 
 tinues : ' The third stage of manuscript-book 
 productions in Europe is said to begin with the
 
 158 
 
 first years of the fifteenth century, and to have 
 continued till about twenty-five years after the 
 invention of the printing-press in 1450.' 
 
 From the above it is clear that the whole of the 
 preparation of the manuscripts circulated in Europe 
 was for many hundred years in the hands of the 
 ecclesiastics. There was no publication, contra- 
 diction or criticism, and undoubtedly they wrote 
 with a prejudice in favour of their own order, a 
 very close Corporation. It is on these works that 
 most of our early histories have been founded, 
 copied and transmitted down to our own times. 
 
 Putnam admits that there was no organized 
 manuscript-book business until the last decade of 
 the twelfth century, and even then it seems to have 
 been very limited. The beginning of the fifteenth 
 century is a landmark for a great increase of 
 literary activity, and the revival of letters may be 
 said to date from that period. But the beginning 
 of the sixteenth century is still more important; 
 printing had come into general use, the dark ages 
 were disappearing and fresh lights pouring in on 
 every side. 
 
 For ready reference a table showing the his- 
 torical years of the reigns of English Kings and 
 Queens, going backwards from our reigning 
 Sovereign Victoria to William I., is appended :
 
 159 
 
 Victoria, 1837- 
 
 William IV., .1830-1837. 
 
 George IV., 1820-1830. 
 
 George III., 1760-1820. 
 
 George II., 1727-1760. 
 
 George I., 1714-1727. 
 
 Anne, 1702-1714. 
 
 William III. and Mary, 1689-1702. 
 
 James IL, 1685-1688. 
 
 Charles IL, 1660-1685. 
 
 The Commonwealth, 1649-1660. 
 
 Charles L, 1625-1649. 
 
 James L, 1603-1625. 
 
 Elizabeth, 1558-1603. 
 
 Mary, 1553-1558. 
 
 Edward VI., 1547-1553. 
 
 Henry VIIL, 1509-1547. 
 
 Henry VIL, 1485-1509. 
 
 Richard III., 1483-1485. 
 
 Edward V., 1483-1483. 
 
 Edward IV., 1461-1483. 
 
 Henry VI., 1422-1461. 
 
 Henry V., 1413-1422. 
 
 Henry IV., 1399-1413. 
 
 Richard IL, 1377-1399. 
 
 Edward III., 1327-1377. 
 
 Edward IL, 1307-1327. 
 
 Edward L, 1272-1307. 
 
 Henry III., 1216-1272.
 
 160 
 
 John, 1199-1216. 
 Richard L, 1189-1199. 
 Henry II., 1154-1189. 
 Stephen, 1135-1154. 
 Henry L, 1100-1135. 
 William -IL, 1087-1100. 
 William L, 1066-1087.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ABOUT THE EARLY CHRONICLERS. 
 
 DURING the reigns of Henry VII. and Henry VIIL 
 there lived three men who are well known as having 
 been well acquainted with the literature existing 
 at that time, and whose works have come down to 
 us. Their names are John Boston, a Benedictine 
 of Bury St. Edmunds ; Polydore Vergil of Urbino; 
 and John Leland, the first person who received the 
 title of Royal Antiquary and Librarian to the King 
 Henry VIIL 
 
 (1) JOHN BOSTON, 
 
 said to be the Benedictine bibliographer of Bury 
 St. Edmunds, is of uncertain date. It was stated 
 by the discredited Bale that Boston was our first 
 bibliographer, and lived before Leland, but there 
 is no proof of this statement. The Benedictines 
 assign him to the fifteenth century, but cannot 
 date him accurately. Leland, who visited Bury, 
 and found few books there, does not even name 
 him. 
 
 11
 
 162 
 
 Yet here was a monk who is said to have made 
 the tour of 187 religious houses for the purpose of 
 making a list of their books, which has been 
 printed by Bishop Tanner in ' Biblioth. Brit. 
 Hibern.,' 1748. The manuscript is lost, or at all 
 events at present cannot be traced. As, however, 
 the catalogue reflects nearly the same state of 
 literature with that in Leland, it may be assumed 
 that he belonged to the greater part of the reign 
 of Henry VII. and the earlier part of that of 
 Henry VIII. 
 
 (2) POLYDOEE VEKGIL, 
 
 an Italian secular priest, collector of Peter's pence 
 in England, and Archdeacon of Wells, has been 
 already mentioned in the preceding chapter. The 
 date of his arrival here, departure, and death are 
 not known for a certainty. We can only assume 
 that he was an early Tudor writer. 
 
 His two works, ' Anglica Historia ' and ' De 
 rerum Inventoribus ' (On Inventions), are part of 
 one system, and cross-references are made in 
 the two. The history is dedicated to King 
 Henry VIII. , and the preface is dated London, 
 August, MDXXXIII. In the text, however, the 
 last dates are A.S.H. (year of human salvation), 
 1530, 1535, 1538. The first edition was printed 
 at Basle in 1534, in twenty- six books, while the
 
 163 
 
 twenty- seventh book was added to the third edition 
 of 1555. 
 
 Here it may be noted that in the printed editions 
 of his work Roman numerals are alone used in the 
 text, with Arabic numerals in the margin, which 
 last are perhaps a later addition. In the original 
 manuscript, which has not come to light, Roman 
 numerals were probably only used, but this is only 
 a conjecture. 
 
 It may be asked, Why has this writer been so 
 much neglected, or thrown in among other sources, 
 as, for instance, by David Hume ? It can be ex- 
 plained in many ways, but let one or two reasons 
 suffice for the moment. He was an Italian ; he 
 wrote with an air of condescending superiority 
 towards Englishmen with few exceptions ; and if 
 his statements are at all near the truth, it must be 
 admitted that our ancestors were less literate than 
 Italians, French, or Germans about 400 years ago. 
 
 Now, this Italian humanist and secular priest 
 from Urbino made statements and has put forward 
 pretensions which, though angrily received and 
 jealously denied in some quarters, have never been, 
 and never can be, refuted. 
 
 It cannot be said that he was, or could be, a 
 very exact man according to our present standard : 
 but in a time when there was no literary man 
 strictly independent of the Roman Church, he 
 appears to have come as near that ideal as possible.
 
 A man of taste, he shows frequently contempt for 
 superstition, 'old wives' fables,' 'monkish miracles/ 
 etc. He writes, in short, with an easy conscious- 
 ness of superiority over his contemporaries in 
 reference to the matter of history, and this remark 
 applies to both of his Latin works referred to 
 above. 
 
 A complete translation of the two would be 
 useful and interesting, but as yet only a small 
 part of the history has been translated and pub- 
 lished by the Camden Society. 
 
 (3) JOHN LELAND, 
 
 a secular priest, said to be the first w r ho enjoyed 
 the title of Royal Antiquary. Here again dates 
 are wanting, but he is supposed to have been born 
 about 1509. He studied at St. Paul's School, at 
 Cambridge, Oxon, and also at Paris. On the eve 
 of the dissolution of the monasteries, he made a 
 six years' literary tour of England during the 
 period of 1533 to 1539. 
 
 In a letter addressed to King Henry he says, in 
 the most absolute manner, heaping up his words 
 for emphasis, that he has visited every city, burgh, 
 castle, villa, village, college, convent, abbey, 
 monastery, church, manor, farm or other place 
 worthy of note, and annotated all that was to be 
 observed. 
 
 He is supposed to have been digesting his notes
 
 165 
 
 about 1546, and to have died in 1552 of madness. 
 His writings came into the hands of Sir John 
 Cheke, and on his death the greater part came 
 to William Baron Paget and Cecil Baron de 
 Burghley, husband of Cheke' s sister. The ' Col- 
 lectanea ' were left by Cheke to the Rev. H. Purefay, 
 and to his relative Wm. Burton of Lindley in the 
 year 1612. 
 
 The work ' De Scriptoribus Britannicis,' about 
 British writers, was published by Antony Hall, 
 Oxford, 1709. He, a clergyman and antiquary, 
 tells us in his preface that after Leland's death 
 the work came into the hands of John Bale, the 
 bibliographer, who foully blotted and interpolated 
 it, and then transferred it to his 'Centuriae.' Then 
 Pits, the bibliographer, a most audacious plagiarist, 
 followed him, and though he had never seen 
 Leland's book, often extravagantly praises him. 
 So far there was none to recover the genuine 
 Leland. The excellent Thos. Gale had thought 
 of publishing him, and of illustrating him by the 
 aid of Boston of Bury. Thomas Tanner took up 
 the same business, but became otherwise engaged. 
 Finally, Hall copied the autograph, and had it 
 carefully printed with indices in 1709, 2 vols., 
 8vo. 
 
 As Leland is a bitter rival of Polydore, the 
 comparison between the two is instructive as 
 showing the ideas of each on various authors and
 
 166 
 
 subjects. Polydore speaks with contempt of native 
 writers, with the exception of Gildas and Bede and 
 one or two others ; puts himself forward as the first 
 respectable writer on the subject, and frequently 
 boasts of his candour and love of truth. 
 
 Leland retorts : 'Polydore relates English affairs 
 on almost every page with the greatest ill-faith. 
 The fellow, most modest forsooth, and of an 
 extreme contempt for all glory, scarce mentions 
 one or two of our many writers, who have been 
 foully and miserably spoiled, if you except a 
 perhaps fictitious Gildas and Bede, and this in 
 contempt. I would say more of the arrogance 
 of Polydore if I did not fear his wrath,' etc. 
 
 ' Let not the Italian take upon himself too 
 much in our affairs under the title of eloquence.' 
 ' What shall I answer to the vainest varieties of 
 Polydore Vergil ? Let him weave again the 
 knotty, rough, confused and misshapen web of 
 his history. Otherwise how can he put an honest 
 face on a work begun under such ill auspices. 
 I know not : however, he may rear his Italian 
 crest !' 
 
 How suggestive is the fact that there could be 
 so violent a disagreement about particulars of 
 history between the contemporary writers of 
 Henry VIII. , nearly 400 years ago! It rather 
 tends to confirm the idea that history was not yet 
 agreed upon or accepted as it appears to be at the
 
 167 
 
 present time. In fact, English history had not yet 
 been actually established. 
 
 Now, in 1895 there was printed, by order of 
 the trustees of the British Museum, a Guide 
 to the Manuscripts, Autographs, Charters, Seals, 
 Illuminations and Bindings exhibited in the De- 
 partment of Manuscripts and in the Granville 
 Library. From pages 84 to 108 will be found 
 in this pamphlet a small typical selection of 
 chronicles and other manuscripts intended to 
 illustrate the manner in which the history of this 
 country was recorded and handed down before 
 the invention of printing. 
 
 It is evident that this brochure is written from 
 the present orthodox point of view. Not a doubt 
 of any sort is expressed as to the genuineness or 
 veracity of the chronicles in question. Moreover, 
 it is filled up, not with the dates as such existed 
 (if there were any) in the originals, but with a con- 
 tinuous flow of dates written in Arabic numerals ; 
 and as these last were not introduced till long after 
 some of these manuscripts were alleged to be 
 written, the pamphlet does not therefore give a 
 really accurate description of these various docu- 
 ments. An ignorant outsider would naturally 
 suppose that all these dates in Arabic numerals 
 actually existed in the manuscripts themselves, 
 which of course was impossible, and this might 
 have been explained.
 
 168 
 
 GILDAS 
 
 must first be introduced. About him the editor 
 of the Guide says : ' The earliest history of 
 Britain was written by Gildas about the year 560, 
 containing an account of the Roman conquest and 
 occupation, the departure of the Romans (in 410) 
 and the invasion and conquest of the island by the 
 Saxons. Of this history there is no manuscript in 
 the British Museum except a badly-burnt fragment 
 of the tenth century.' 
 
 It will be interesting to note here what John 
 Boston, Polydore Vergil and John Leland tell us 
 about Gildas. The first furnishes very slight 
 evidence ; the second had found only two copies 
 in the country, and says : ' There is another Book 
 (let me timely warn the reader of a wicked fraud) 
 most falsely entitled " Commentary of Gildas," 
 doubtless composed by some wretched forger for 
 the purpose of corroborating the story of some 
 upstart. This most shameless of rogues that ever 
 existed had made up a tale from some new author, 
 talking often about Brut, or Brutus, things that 
 Gildas never dreamed. The more craftily to deceive 
 his readers, he added some things of his own, so 
 that you might believe there were two Gildases, or 
 that this work was an epitome of a former work 
 of Gildas. Even a person of middling education 
 may detect the trick and the fraud in either case.
 
 169 
 
 I have taken care to have the work of Gildas him- 
 self published, that there may be no mistake for 
 the future'; and in 1525 Polydore published the 
 * Historiole of Gildas.' 
 
 John Leland, writing about Gildas, says : ' His 
 life is shrouded in crassest darkness which I 
 cannot penetrate,' and guesses that he was taught 
 by the monks of Bangor with other vague conjec- 
 tures. Furthermore, has seen a spurious Gildas 
 at Merton College, Oxford, and doubts the 
 genuineness of Polydore's Gildas, but fears a 
 rap on the knuckles from that scholar. He also 
 went on a hunt for more information about Gildas 
 at Glastonbury, and in Wales, but vainly. 
 
 As there appears to be no literary remains of 
 Gildas now extant, and no evidence as to when 
 and where he lived, he can hardly now be looked 
 upon as a reliable historian, for we really know 
 nothing about him. 
 
 NENNIUS, 
 
 the supposed author of the ' Historia Britonum.' 
 About him the editor of the Guide says : ' The 
 next history to it ' (i.e., to Gildas) ' in date is that 
 of which a copy is here exhibited. It is attributed 
 to Nennius on the authority of a prologue contained 
 in one manuscript, which states that it was com- 
 posed in the year 858 ; but there are some grounds 
 for believing that it is really considerably older.
 
 170 
 
 In any case, nothing is known of the author's life. 
 It contains the history of Britain in Latin from 
 the Eoman Conquest to the year 687, but is so 
 full of legendary matter that its authority can be 
 but little depended on.' 
 
 Nennius appears to be unknown both to John 
 Boston and Polydore Vergil, but John Leland 
 alludes to him in an amusing and very important 
 chapter (xlvii.). In his usual grandiose style the 
 antiquary refers to the formerly illustrious glory 
 of the writer, which has become so obscured that 
 he is at a loss how to restore it ! Perhaps he may 
 be able to let in light, if not through a window, at 
 least through a chink ! 
 
 He proceeds to tell us how lately (1533-1539) 
 he visited Emavale Abbey in Yorkshire, and found 
 it ' well filled with books.' He found an old copy 
 inscribed ' Nennius on the Origin of Britain,' and 
 greedily read it through, and came to the con- 
 clusion that some sciolist of a monk had produced 
 the book 'in favour of Nennius,' even as another 
 had written a spurious Gildas. The whole work 
 was crammed with ' splendid lies, old wives' fables, 
 and prodigies in a barbarous manner.' A fictitious 
 and hired trifler had taken the place of the true 
 Nennius. ' Many of the oldest authors have 
 utterly perished at the hands of these too busy 
 deflowerers.' 
 
 Anxiously he searched in many places for
 
 171 
 
 Nenmus's book. At last, after much toil, he dis- 
 covered two copies which appeared to be very old, 
 wherein he found a corrupt history of the author. 
 He had much about the Britons, Arthur, and the 
 Saxon tyranny. He studied in Ireland. It is 
 clear from comparison that Henry of Huntingdon 
 copied Nennius, but without knowing his name. 
 
 One thing Leland noted in the preface, that 
 Nennius was said to be the disciple of one Elbod, 
 of whom Leland has found slight and jejune 
 mention in some writers ; also of Samuel the 
 Briton, another disciple of Elbod. 
 
 It is curious that Polydore Vergil should find 
 two Gildases and Leland two Nenniuses. The 
 obviously fabulous work, which will not impose 
 upon the most credulous, is made to enhance the 
 value of the better-written book. 
 
 BEDE, 
 
 the reputed author of the ' Historia Ecclesiastica 
 Gentis Anglorum.' According to the editor of the 
 Guide, ' The Venerable Bede is the first great 
 historian of England, and most of our knowledge 
 of the history of our country down to his time is 
 derived from his work. He was born in 674, 
 lived all his life as a monk at Jarrow, in North- 
 umberland, and died in the act of translating the 
 Scriptures into English in 735. His " Ecclesi- 
 astical History of the English," written in Latin,
 
 172 
 
 deals primarily with the English Church ; but 
 owing to the intimate connection of Church and 
 State in those days, it is also to a very great 
 extent a general history of the country. It begins 
 with a summary (taken from Gildas and other 
 authors) of events from the invasion of CaBsar, 
 in B.C. 55, to the preaching of Christianity by 
 Augustine in 597. From 597 to 731 the history 
 is given in full detail, being based upon contem- 
 porary records collected by Bede and his own 
 personal knowledge. It is the chief authority for 
 the history of the introduction of Christianity into 
 England, both in the south by Augustine from 
 Eome, and in the north by Aidan from lona.' 
 
 ' More than 130 manuscripts of Bede are 
 known. The copy here shown (Cotton MS., Tiber., 
 A. xiv.) is one of the earliest, having been written 
 at the end of the eighth century or early in the 
 ninth, and consequently not long after the lifetime 
 of Bede himself. It belonged to Sir R. Cotton, 
 and was considerably damaged in the fire among 
 his books at Ashburnham House in 1731. A 
 still older copy is exhibited in Case B., No. 33.' 
 
 Let us now see what the writers in the reign 
 of Henry VIII. say about Bede. 
 
 The Benedictine of Bury, John Boston, in 
 Bishop Tanner's ' Biblioth.' of 1748, gives the 
 date of Bede's death as 734, in the fifty-ninth year 
 of his age, and says that he flourished A.D. 70G.
 
 173 
 
 The first word of the dedication, and the last 
 word of the book, ' Amen,' are given. The list of 
 his works given at the end is the usual early list, 
 but additions are made. 
 
 In 195 monasteries of England it appears that 
 at the time of the first draughting of the list 
 there were only seven copies of the ' Ecclesiastical 
 History ' to be found, viz., at Bury St. Edmunds, 
 Forde, Merton, London St. Paul's, Saresbury, 
 Waltham, St. Albans. 
 
 A later hand (it is impossible to say of what 
 date) has added the following list of houses where 
 it was to be found, viz. : Quarr, Waverley, Tyne- 
 mouth, New Monastery, Durham, Helmedesham, 
 or Hedesham, Gisbourne, De S. Cruce (Holy 
 Cross), De S. Andres (St. Andrews), Chichester, 
 St. Fredeswile, Croyland. 
 
 Polydore Vergil gathered from the dedication 
 and particulars at the end of the book that it had 
 been written under Ceowulph, Northumbrian King. 
 He infers that Bede died about the end of Ceo- 
 wulph's reign, but can give no date except that 
 'he nourished about 700.' He further adds that 
 Bede ' touched upon events from the advent of 
 C. J. Cassar to his own time in a very brief little 
 work.' 
 
 But Leland is much more profuse, and in 
 chap. Ixxxvii. praises Bede extravagantly, and 
 calls him ' a miracle in a barbarous age.' He
 
 174 
 
 gives no date of year, but only names three 
 Northumbrian kings under whom he flourished. 
 Leland further adds that in all the printed copies 
 he has seen, the last chapter of Book V., containing 
 the autobiography, is missing. He is, therefore, 
 obliged to resort to the autobiography as given by 
 the Benedictines of Malmesbury, and to subjoin 
 from the same source what he considers a short- 
 ened list of Bede's volumes, but adds that 'many 
 books have been falsely ascribed to Bede,' and 
 mentions some tracts on Natural Science, etc. 
 
 Leland then resumes his eulogy of this author 
 as an immortal man of letters ; wonders how his 
 works, composed at J arrow, can have survived the 
 violence of the Danes and of William the Norman ; 
 tells of his oratory to be seen at Jarrow, etc. He 
 then makes a violent attack on Hector Boethius, 
 ' the idlest fool that ever wrote history,' who has 
 written like an old woman about Bede so as to 
 raise Leland's laughter and bile. Hector almost 
 makes an Italian of Bede, who never was in Italy ; 
 associates him with Melrose ; makes him die at 
 Durham, where there was no monastery till the 
 time of the Conqueror. And then Leland hurls 
 the last chapter of Bede's ' History' (which he has 
 already said is not to be found in the printed 
 editions), and other Benedictine writers, at Hector, 
 adding a reference from Melancthon, and ending 
 with a hexameter
 
 175 
 
 ' England celebrates thee : the whole world resounds thy 
 name.' 
 
 That a monk who lived all his life in a corner 
 of Northumberland, apparently without records or 
 works of reference, should have written a complete 
 ecclesiastical and general history of England ex- 
 tending over several hundred years, and using a 
 regular system of Incarnation datings before they 
 were established in France, Germany, or Italy, is 
 somewhat extraordinary. It really appears to be 
 almost as great a miracle as the many miracles 
 recorded in the work itself. 
 
 It must also be noted that no original manu- 
 script of this history, or, indeed, of any of his 
 other reputed works, have come down to us in his 
 own handwriting. It is, farther, impossible to say 
 how his literary remains were dealt with, how 
 copied, and when, or what dates were really used 
 in them. 
 
 The Rev. Charles Plummer, M.A., in his ex- 
 cellent Latin edition of Bede's historical work 
 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1896), appears to have 
 based his text on a complete collection of four of 
 the oldest-known manuscripts, viz., four of the 
 alleged eighth century. He further alludes to 
 forty-two other manuscripts of the work, extend- 
 ing from the tenth to the fifteen and sixteenth 
 centuries, thus showing that the work must have 
 been copied and recopied many times.
 
 176 
 
 As Bede's original work is not now in existence, 
 his own actual dating cannot be given. But if the 
 datings given by Plummer in his edition are the 
 same as those given in the alleged eighth- century 
 manuscripts (and of this I have no doubt), we 
 are face to face with one of the mysteries of 
 chronology. 
 
 It has been already stated in a previous chapter 
 that the Incarnation datings did not begin in Italy, 
 France, or Germany, or Europe until the beginning 
 of the ninth century. Mr. A. Gery says that ' the 
 use of the Incarnation date in the West of Europe 
 did not become general till after the year 1000.' 
 It is difficult, therefore, to understand how a perfect 
 system of dating by the Incarnation year existed 
 in England (always a backward country to intro- 
 duce novelties) so early as the beginning of the 
 eighth century. It stands to reason, therefore, that 
 these manuscripts must be of a later date than 
 they are supposed to be, or must have been 
 interpolated. 
 
 It will also be noticed in Plummer' s valuable 
 text that while the Incarnation datings are 
 regularly inserted and methodically followed 
 throughout the work, none of the letters, inscrip- 
 tions, or epitaphs quoted and transcribed carry 
 Incarnation dates. The dates used are from the 
 building of the city of Rome ; the Ides, Nones 
 and Calends, Indictions, and the years of the reign
 
 177 
 
 of the Emperors, all legitimate datings as used at 
 that period. 
 
 There is only one exception, at p. 122, vol. i., 
 in a letter from the Pope Honorius to the Bishop 
 Honorius, where at the end of the regular 
 dating comes ' Id est anno dominicas incarnationis 
 DCXXXIIII,' and this looks very like a later 
 addition. Many of the letters are not dated at all. 
 
 The dates on the manuscripts of Bede's history, 
 copied between the eighth and the end of the 
 fifteenth centuries, must be regarded with some 
 suspicion. The printing of the work began at the 
 beginning of the sixteenth century, and various 
 editions followed each other in various places, such 
 as Strasburg, Paris, Antwerp, Bale, Louvain, 
 Heidelberg, Cologne, London. Translations of the 
 work have also been made in English by different 
 people. 
 
 Some twelve hundred years ago there may have 
 lived in a monastery in the North of England a 
 pious, and for the time in which he lived a learned, 
 monk of the name of Bede. What he wrote has 
 not come down to us in his own handwriting, so it 
 is impossible to say what he did write, or what he 
 did not write, or what dates he used. He may, 
 however, have left literary remains, and these may 
 have been utilized by the Benedictines after his 
 death, and at the time they were beginning to 
 formulate early English history. When that date 
 
 12
 
 178 
 
 really occurred it is difficult to fix now for a 
 certainty, but Bede has ever been a great ideal of 
 these black monks. 
 
 Historians, chronologers, antiquaries and others 
 have fixed the date of Bede from the latter part of 
 the seventh century to the first part of the eighth 
 century. The exact date of the year of his birth 
 and of the year of his death is not positively known, 
 and various dates are given. John Boston says he 
 died in 734, at the age of fifty-nine ; if so, he 
 would have been born in 675. Dom Mabillon, 
 the famous Benedictine of St. Maur, in his 
 voluminous work on the writers of his Order, 
 says 673, while other authors give 672, 677, 678. 
 The British Museum Guide Book says he was 
 born in 674 and died in 735. 
 
 The manuscripts prepared by the Benedictines, 
 and of which copies have come down to us, were 
 written under the name of Bede. It may be that 
 portions of them were prepared from Bede's 
 literary remains, or that, being known in those 
 times as a man of learning, his name was affixed 
 to the history so as to give it weight and authority, 
 as also to other works said to have been written 
 by him. 
 
 'THE ANGLO-SAXON CHEONICLE,' 
 
 says the British Museum Guide, 'is the earliest 
 history of this country in English. The first part
 
 179 
 
 of it, from the invasion of Caesar (B.C. 55) to the 
 reign of Alfred (A.D. 871-901), is believed to have 
 been compiled by order of King Alfred ; and 
 from that time it was carried on by successive 
 chroniclers, whose names are not known, in 
 various monasteries down to the year 1154, form- 
 ing a sort of Annual Register of the most im- 
 portant events in each year. It is thus not only 
 one of the most valuable authorities for the history 
 of England, especially from the time of Alfred to 
 the Norman Conquest, but an unique record of the 
 development of the language from the early 
 Anglo-Saxon form until it approaches the char- 
 acter of English as we now know it. 
 
 ' The copy here shown (Cotton MS., Tiber, 
 B. iv. ) was written towards the end of the 
 eleventh century ; the Chronicle is brought down 
 to the year 1016 in one hand, and continued in 
 several others to 1079. It belonged to Sir H. 
 Cotton, and suffered damage in the fire at Ashburn- 
 ham House in 1731.' 
 
 Neither John Boston, nor Polydore Vergil, nor 
 John Leland appear to make any mention of the 
 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This is curious; but 
 still, if it was in existence in their time, perhaps 
 they did not come across it, or perhaps they were 
 only occupied with works in Latin. 
 
 A careful examination of the Anglo - Saxon 
 Chronicle, written by the Benedictines without 
 
 122
 
 180 
 
 names, and of the 'Ecclesiastical History of 
 England/ also written by the Benedictines under 
 the name of Bede, should be made. There appears 
 to be a striking link of connection between these 
 two works. The former looks like a first attempt 
 to formulate English history on some kind of 
 historical and chronological basis ; the latter seems 
 to be an extension of this work with fewer dates 
 but more details. When they were both written it 
 is difficult to say. 
 
 The existing manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon 
 Chronicle do not contain any Incarnation dates, 
 only the terms ' Anno,' ' An,' or ' A ' being used, 
 and the figures in Roman numerals. Bede, on the 
 other hand, contains a series of Incarnation dates, 
 which were not in use in Europe at the time that 
 Bede is alleged to have written his history. The 
 years are given in Roman numerals. 
 
 It would appear that up to the date of the intro- 
 duction of the Christian era, the Christians in 
 various countries used the dates (if ever they 
 used any) in use in the countries in which they 
 lived. 
 
 This was followed by the use at first of the 
 word 'Anno,' to denote the Christian year, followed 
 later by the use of the term 'Anno Incarnationis 
 Dominicaa,' or ' Domini,' which continued for a 
 long period, followed by the use of other terms, 
 such as ' Anno Nativitatis,' ' Anno Trabeationis/
 
 181 
 
 'Anno Domini,' 'Anno Christ!,' 'Anno Gratise,' 
 4 Anno Salutis,' and, finally, 'A.D.' 
 
 It will be noticed that ' Anno ' is the term used 
 throughout the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and it may 
 be that this work is the first work now extant in 
 which an attempt is made to formulate English 
 history. It is possible that the Anglo-Saxon 
 Chronicle is really older than Bede's ' Ecclesiastical 
 History,' but in what year they were commenced it 
 is impossible to say. 
 
 KING ALFEED 
 
 is said by some to have been an author, historian, 
 and translator from the Latin into Anglo-Saxon. 
 The British Museum Guide only refers to him as 
 follows : 'The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the earliest 
 history of this country in English. The first part 
 of it, from the invasion of Caasar (B.C. 55) to the 
 reign of Alfred (A.D. 871-901), is believed to have 
 been compiled by order of King Alfred.' 
 
 About him John Boston, the Benedictine of 
 Bury St. Edmunds, writes : 'This is all he -has to 
 say no copy of any work is indicated in the 200 
 and more religious houses.' 
 
 Polydore Vergil ('Angl. Hist.,' p. 105) says: 
 ' Alured [i.e., Alfred] at twenty years of age 
 began to study, and soon became so learned that 
 he turned into his native tongue the Dialogues of 
 St. Gregory, the work of Boetius on the consola-
 
 182 
 
 tion of philosophy, and the Psalms of David out 
 of the Latin, that all might easily understand 
 them. But some say that Verefied, Bishop of 
 Worcester, translated the Dialogues and Boetius 
 at Alfred's request. Death prevented him from 
 translating all the Psalms.' 
 
 John Leland ('De Brit. Script./ chap, cxv.) 
 gives an unwilling testimony of his ignorance. 
 He says that Alfred, or Alured, or Ealfrid, was 
 anointed King at Rome by the Pontiff, Leo IV., 
 according to William of Malmesbury, but Leland 
 will not have it so. Alfred never was anointed by 
 Leo of Rome. He argues the point, showing the 
 self-contradiction of the tales in his hands. He 
 sketches the story of Alfred's struggles with the 
 Dacians (Danes). Then he gropes after a history 
 of the Academy of Isidis Vadum, or Oxford, 
 formerly Beau Site (Bellositum), quoting John 
 Ross of Warwick, who, he says, died in 
 1491. The story about Alfred's connection 
 with Oxford is now admitted to be an impossi- 
 bility. 
 
 Following Asser and William of Malmesbury, 
 the following works are set down to Alfred 
 (1) Enchiridion, (2) translation of the Psalter, 
 unfinished. 
 
 On the authority of Ealred of Rievaulx, a 
 Benedictine, he learns that Alfred wrote a pleasing 
 and edifying book of Parables. Alfred also put
 
 183 
 forth a book on Laws in the Saxon tongue, of 
 
 a ' 
 
 which Leland saw a copy a few years ago at Christ 
 Church or Farnhamburne. There are those who 
 declare that Alfred translated Orosius, Boetius, 
 and the English history of Bede into the Saxon 
 tongue. 
 
 In addition to Asser and William of Malmes- 
 bury, the testimony of Roger Hoveden is cited in 
 reference to the literary exertions of Alfred. All 
 three writers form a chorus to sing the praises of 
 the great Alfred, the tale about his monastic 
 foundations following from the same sources. 
 
 Leland then gives an extract from Henry of 
 Huntingdon, some Latin verses in praise of Alfred, 
 and an extract from an epitome of Asser's Annals, 
 giving the date of the King's death as 26th October, 
 A.D. 900, in the 29|>th year of his reign and 
 51st of his age. 
 
 It is the Winchester Benedictines who claim 
 their monasteries of Peter, of Hyde, and the New 
 Monastery as receptacles of the corpse of Alfred. 
 
 All that can be said on the above is that no 
 work of Alfred's appears to be extant at the 
 present time, and whether he ever wrote any is 
 excessively doubtful. The Benedictines wanted 
 to make out that in Alfred's time there was con- 
 siderable literary culture, and used his name freely 
 as an author and translator.
 
 184 
 
 ASSER 
 
 appears to be unknown both to John Boston and 
 Polydore Vergil. But Leland says (chap, cxix.) 
 that he has dug out ' a few particulars about Asser 
 from the thickest shades of antiquity into the 
 light.' He traces this monk to Mere via Deme- 
 terum (St. David's, Pembrokeshire), formerly the 
 metropolis of all Wales, repeats the legend how 
 King Ealfrid (Alfred) heard of him, patronized 
 him, and entrusted to him three monasteries of old 
 name, Congersbury, Banival, and Grancestre. 
 
 Leland then cites a short life of Grimvald or 
 Grimbald, anonymous, showing a connection 
 between the Norman monastery of St. Bertin and 
 the concocters of the Alfred myth in England. 
 He further says that Asser became Bishop of 
 Sherborne, wrote a commentary on Boetius's 
 work, and also annals to glorify Alfred. 
 
 At the present time the whole story may be 
 regarded more as legendary or traditional than 
 historical. It must be remembered that about this 
 time earlier or later, the exact date cannot be 
 fixed the Benedictines were engaged in laying the 
 foundation of a history of England. Bede was 
 the first great man, then Alfred, and around them 
 there is much legend and tradition, but really no 
 positive history. 
 
 Before leaving Alfred and Asser, attention may
 
 185 
 
 be drawn to certain letters and communications 
 which appeared in the Times of March 17th, 18th, 
 19th, 26th, and June 21st, 1898, in connection 
 with the commemoration of the 1,000th anniversary 
 of King Alfred's death, which is said to have 
 occurred in October, 900 or 901. The com- 
 munication under the heading of ' The Real 
 Alfred,' in the Times of the 17th March, should be 
 specially read, for it is evidently written by a 
 person who knows what he is writing about. 
 
 WAGE'S ' EOMAN DE ECU.' 
 
 About Wace the editor of the British Museum 
 Guide writes : ' Wace was a Norman, born in 
 Jersey, and lived from about 1100 to 1170. He 
 wrote a poetical history of the Norman Conquest 
 
 in French, which contains bv far the fullest 
 
 i 
 
 description of the Battle of Hastings. Wace 
 had known many men who had fought in the 
 battle, and his account is full of minute details of 
 the fighting. 
 
 ' The copy here exhibited [Royal MS. 4, C. xi.] 
 was written in the thirteenth century. The passage 
 selected is part of the account of the Battle of 
 Hastings. The following is Sir A. Malet's trans- 
 lation of the lines which describe the palisade 
 formed by the English, and the arrangement of 
 the English forces.' 
 
 This work is not mentioned by the Triumvirate
 
 186 
 
 of the early Tudor period, the reason, perhaps, 
 being that it was not written in Latin. When it 
 was actually written it is difficult to say. Tt 
 ought to be carefully studied in connection with 
 the celebrated Bayeux tapestry, already noticed in 
 the previous chapter under the reign of William 
 the Conqueror. It is an open question whether 
 the book preceded the tapestry, or the tapestry the 
 book. Personally, I am rather inclined to think 
 that the tapestry was intended to illustrate the book, 
 and was worked after it, but that is only an opinion. 
 If Wace was really writing about 1130 or 1140, 
 the many men he knew who had fought in the 
 Battle of Hastings in 1066 must have been rather 
 aged. 
 
 SIMEON OF DUEHAM, 
 
 the reputed author of ' Historia Dunelmensis 
 Ecclesiae.' The British Museum Guide says : ' For 
 several centuries after the Norman Conquest the 
 writing of history was carried on almost exclusively 
 by monks. The greater monasteries trained a 
 succession of writers, some of whom merely re- 
 corded in their chronicles such events as concerned 
 the monasteries themselves, with a sprinkling of 
 notices of outside occurrences of general interest ; 
 while others devoted themselves to the production 
 of regular histories of the country from the earliest 
 times down to their own day. One such flourish-
 
 187 
 
 ing school of histories is found in the North of 
 England, carrying on the traditions of Bede. 
 Simeon, a monk first of Jarrow and afterwards 
 of Durham, was directed by his superiors about 
 the years 1104-1108 to write a history of the 
 Church of Durham, which he brings from the 
 establishment of Christianity in Northumbria by 
 Aidan, in 635, down to the year 1096. Like nearly 
 all literary works down to the fifteenth century, it 
 is written in Latin. It is principally occupied 
 with religious matters, and is a valuable link in 
 the history of the Church of England. He also 
 wrote a general history based largely upon Bede 
 and on Florence of Worcester, whose chronicle 
 comes down to 1116.' 
 
 Neither John Boston nor Polydore Vergil make 
 any mention of Simeon of Durham and his works ; 
 but Leland (chap, clx.) praises Simeon highly, and 
 says : ' He wrote the history of the Northumbrian 
 nation from the time of Bede of Jarrow to the 
 reign of Stephen the Tyrant.' He adds that ' one 
 Roger of Howden deduced by the same series a 
 history from Bede to the reign of King John,' and 
 censures Roger because he ' pillaged the flowery 
 pastures of Simeon absolutely without mentioning 
 his name.' 
 
 It would be interesting to know from what 
 sources Simeon of Durham drew his historical 
 facts from 635 to 1096. There appear to have
 
 188 
 
 been no records of that period, and no manuscripts 
 except those in the monasteries, where it is evident 
 they were now busily formulating English history, 
 and were agreed upon their system of deductions 
 and continuations, destined to be placed under 
 authors and dates. 
 
 WILLIAM OF MALMESBUEY, 
 
 the reputed author of ' Gesta Regum Anglorum/ 
 The Guide says : ' This writer was born about 
 1095, and died about 1143. Nearly the whole of 
 his life appears to have been spent in the monastery 
 of Malmesbury, of which he ultimately declined 
 the abbacy, preferring to retain the librarianship. 
 He was an active historian, writing " The Acts of 
 the Kings of England," in which he summarizes 
 the early history from 449 to 731, where Bede had 
 already covered the ground, and then continues it 
 in greater detail down to 1125 ; " The Acts of the 
 Bishops of England," an ecclesiastical history from 
 597 to 1125 ; and the "New History," a continua- 
 tion of his earlier work, from 1126 to 1142. He 
 is the most important historian since the time of 
 Bede, to whom he deliberately set himself to be 
 a successor, and he had a high idea of an historian's 
 duty, trying to trace causes and describe characters, 
 as well as to record events.' 
 
 John Boston gives no date for this author, but 
 says that he wrote on the ' Deeds of the Kings of
 
 189 
 
 England,' five books, but no copy of it is indicated 
 in any of the 200 and more religious houses. 
 
 Polydore Vergil, in his < Angl. Hist.,' makes no 
 allusion whatever to this voluminous writer and 
 able Latinist, who wrote probably in as good a 
 style as Polydore himself. 
 
 John Leland, in * De Brit. Script.,' chap, clxvi., 
 says that William was famous in the reigns of 
 Henry I., son of William the Great ; of Stephen 
 the Tyrant ; and of Henry, son of Matilda 
 Augusta (Empress) ; that he died (no date), and 
 was buried at Meildem (Malmesbury). 
 
 Leland further says that he often has his books 
 in hand, and always finds great pleasure in them 
 William is so diligent, so elegant in style, and so 
 judicious. He then proceeds to cite what seems 
 on the surface to be the self-advertisement of 
 William in the preface to his second book on 
 ' English Kings,' but which is in reality one of 
 the Benedictine advertisements of an able writer. 
 William is supposed to profess a knowledge of 
 logic, of physics, of ethics, and especially of 
 history, which is the true teacher of morality. 
 Having read foreign historians, he thought he 
 would do something for the history of our nation. 
 
 Leland continues : William of Malmesbury was 
 called Bibliothecary or Librarian, as he has learned 
 from the titles of old books ; but he knows not 
 whether he was so called from the books he was
 
 190 
 
 to write, or because he was Prefect of the Malmes- 
 bury Library. He thinks the latter more probable. 
 He was also Precentor of Malmesbury Church, an 
 office highly valued in old times among the monks. 
 He would have been Abbot of Malmesbury (he 
 tells you so in the preface to his ' Itinerary '), but 
 he preferred, ' such was his modesty and contempt 
 of glory/ to give way to John. 
 
 ' It only remains for me/ says Leland, ' to in- 
 dicate the titles of the books which he wrote '; and 
 here is the list translated from the Latin: 
 
 ' On the Series of the Evangelists,' in some sort 
 of verse, fifteen books. 
 
 ' Life of St. Patrick/ two books. 
 
 1 Life of St. Benignus.' 
 
 ' Life of Indrach, Lord or Petty King of 
 Ireland.' 
 
 ' Life of St. Dunstan.' 
 
 'On the Antiquity of Glassoburgh' (Glaston- 
 bury Monastery). 
 
 'Life of St. Aldhelm/ an elegant and rotund 
 book. 
 
 ' Itinerary/ 
 
 ' Commentaries on the Lamentations of Hieremia ' 
 (Jeremiah), four books. 
 
 'On the Kings of the English/ dedicated to 
 Robert Count Claudian, Earl of Gloucester, bastard 
 son of Henry L, five books. 
 
 ' Novels of History/ i.e., Henrican, three books.
 
 191 
 
 'On the Deeds of the English Pontiffs/ four 
 books. 
 
 ' On the Miracles of Mary Virgin,' four books. 
 ' Epitome of the History of Haimon of Fleury ' 
 (Floraicensis), monk from Justinian to Charles the 
 Great. 
 
 It will be noted that John Boston attributes 
 only one book to William of Malmesbury, but 
 could not find a copy of it in any of the 200 
 religious houses. Polydore Vergil makes no 
 mention of this voluminous writer, while Leland 
 almost crushes us with the list of William's works, 
 but adds at the end of his chapter : ' When I was 
 lately at Meildem (Malmesbury), (1533-1539), I 
 inquired for his tomb ; the monks were so in the 
 dark that only one or two had ever heard of 
 him/ 
 
 It is difficult to believe that all these works 
 quoted by Leland were written by William of 
 Malmesbury during his lifetime, as it is said that 
 he died aged about forty-eight. That they were all 
 the work of Benedictines is evident, and apparently 
 placed under the name of William ; but when they 
 were all written it is impossible to say, some 
 earlier perhaps, some later. It rather looks as if 
 the long list was the work of the Benedictines of 
 this monastery extending over a period of years, 
 and William's name was attached to all these 
 manuscripts, he having a great reputation for
 
 192 
 
 learning and literary talent. Like Bede, he was 
 considered a mighty scholar, and the same pro- 
 cedure appears to have been adopted in both cases, 
 but there is no evidence to prove it. 
 
 HENKY OF HUNTINGDON, 
 
 the reputed author of ' Historia Anglorum.' The 
 Guide says : ' This work forms an exception to 
 the rule that medieval history was the work of 
 monks. Its author was probably a native of 
 Huntingdon, born about 1080 and brought up in 
 the palace of Bishop Blouet of Lincoln ; and 
 between 1110 and 1120 he was made Archdeacon 
 of Huntingdon. The history begins with Caesar's 
 invasion, and in its first edition ended in 1129; 
 subsequent editions brought it down to the death 
 of Stephen in 1154. The greater part of it 
 is derived from Bede and the Anglo - Saxon 
 Chronicle. As an historian, Henry of Huntingdon 
 is intelligent, but easy-going, and prefers moraliza- 
 tion to research.' 
 
 Of him and his ' Historia Anglorum ' John 
 Boston, the Benedictine of Bury, gives the date 
 A.C. MCXXXV., and names also other works, 
 'On Kings of the Whole World,' 'Series of British 
 Kings,' and Saints of England.' He indicates 
 four copies of his English history : one at Bury 
 St. Edmunds ; one at Gypewic Petri (Ipswich ?) ; 
 one at Novus Locus (Newstead) ; and one at St.
 
 193 
 
 Paul's, London. Further, it would appear that 
 there were about twenty copies in all of various 
 works ascribed to him in 195 religious houses in 
 England, but the list of his writings does not 
 correspond with that of Leland. 
 
 Polydore Vergil mentions this alleged writer on 
 an early page of his ' Anglican History ' as an 
 excellent historian, but this was in reference to 
 King Brut and his posterity, and never alludes to 
 him again. 
 
 John Leland is more profuse, and says Henry 
 of Huntingdon lived during the reign of Stephen 
 the Tyrant and Henry II., but gives no year. He 
 further states that Henry wrote pleasing verses in 
 praise of ^Elfleda, daughter of Alfred the Great, and 
 that in mature years he took to writing history, 
 and showed himself superior to others. The 
 following is a list of his works : 
 
 Eight books of Epigrams. 
 
 Eight books on Love. 
 
 Eight books on Herbs, Aromas, Gems. 
 
 o * 
 
 A little treatise on Weights and Measures 
 Last of all a felicitous history of English 
 affairs is set down to him, in ten books. 
 
 ' EOGEB OF HOVEDEN, OE HOWDEN, 
 
 in Yorkshire,' says the Guide, ' had a very different 
 training from that of most medieval historians. 
 He was not a monk, but a secular cleric, and 
 
 13
 
 194 
 
 having obtained a post in the household of 
 Henry II., was employed on the King's service 
 in embassies and negotiations, and finally as an 
 itinerant justice. He is consequently a representa- 
 tive of the Civil Service of his day. After 1189 
 he retired, and died probably soon after 1201. His 
 chronicle provides an interesting example of the 
 methods of the early historians, who incorporated 
 their predecessors' works into their own with the 
 utmost freedom. It begins where Bede ends, in 731, 
 and finishes in 1201. For the part from 731 to 114& 
 he simply copied an earlier chronicle, written at 
 Durham, called " The History of the English since 
 the Death of Bede," which was itself compounded 
 from the histories of Simeon of Durham and Henry 
 of Huntingdon ; while, to go still further back, 
 Simeon's history was largely derived from Florence 
 of Worcester, and an early Northumbrian chronicle 
 coming down to 802. From 1148 to 1169 
 Hoveden's narrative appears to be original, though 
 partly based on the chronicle of the Abbey of 
 Melrose and the lives and letters of Becket. From 
 1170 to 1192 his work is merely a revision of the 
 chronicle ascribed to Benedict of Peterborough. 
 Finally, from 1192 to 1201 he is an original and 
 independent witness. Hoveden is the last of the 
 line of northern historians, and, as just shown, he 
 incorporates much of his predecessors' work. In 
 style he is moderate and impartial.'
 
 195 
 
 John Boston does not mention either this his- 
 torian or his work, but Polydore Vergil has one 
 brief reference to ' R, Howden, writer of Annals 
 after Bede,' for the name of Carliolan (Carlisle), 
 and Roger says it is in British ' Carleil,' in Latin 
 ' Lucabalia.' 
 
 Leland, in his chapter ccvi., about British 
 writers, conjectures that Roger was a student of 
 Roman and Ecclesiastical Law, but omits to give 
 his reasons. 
 
 He, however, quotes the annals of Walter of 
 Coventry, another of the Benedictine writers, for the 
 statement that Hoveden was one of the domestics 
 of Henry II., who appointed him to visit the 
 monasteries of Norwich and other places. He then 
 undertook to write history. If he had possessed 
 in addition to good faith a more elegant Roman 
 style, he would have been pre-eminent. 
 
 Leland further says that Roger began his 
 annals where Bede left off, and brought them 
 down to the third year of John, in whose reign 
 he died, having, it is alleged, been famous under 
 Henry II. He was deeply versed in the legends 
 of the Cuthbertine monks of Durham. 
 
 All the above about Roger of Hoveden is 
 interesting, for, unconsciously as it were, it gives 
 us some details as to how our early English 
 history was manufactured. All the chroniclers 
 seem to have followed each other in regular order, 
 
 132
 
 196 
 
 copying what had come down to them without 
 verifying in any way the truth or probability of 
 their statements, and accepting everything with 
 blind faith. This may be said to have continued 
 from the time that English history first began to 
 be formulated down to the time of the Tudors. 
 Whether all the names of the authors and their 
 dates are correct, is a matter upon which people 
 must form their own opinions. 
 
 WILLIAM OF NEWBUEGH, 
 
 the reputed author of ' Historia Anglicana.' The 
 Guide says : ' William, surnamed Petit or the 
 Small, was born in 1136, and entered the Abbey 
 of Newburgh, in Yorkshire. He became famous 
 in the neighbourhood as a student of history, and 
 undertook his principal work, the " English 
 History," at the special request of the Abbot and 
 Convent of Rievaulx. It begins with a short 
 summary from the Conquest to 1135, but from the 
 accession of Stephen to 1198, where it ends, it is 
 a detailed and contemporary history, written with 
 judgment and impartiality, but generally in a rather 
 dry style/ 
 
 John Boston says that William of Newburgh, or 
 Newbridge, flourished A.C. MCLX., and wrote a 
 history of the deeds of the English, five books in 
 Latin, and was a Canon apparently at Rievaulx. 
 Only one copy of the work is indicated, to be found
 
 197 
 
 in the house of the Friar Preachers (Dominicans) 
 of Thetfbrd. 
 
 Polydore Yergil cites William of Xewburgh as an 
 Englishman who flourished about A.S.H. MCXCV., 
 in the reign of Richard I., King of the English. 
 His preface gives credit to Gildas in his account 
 of Brito and the British. The denunciation of 
 Geoffrey Arthur's ' ridiculous figments ' imme- 
 diately follows, arid Polydore does not again name 
 William of Newburgh. 
 
 John Leland has an amusing chapter (clxxiii.) 
 on William the Little, who, he says, was of Brid- 
 lington, Canon of ISTewburgh Monastery, near the 
 Circuline ( ?) forest, and celebrated about the time 
 of Richard the Leonine. William wrote a history 
 of the English, which he (Leland) recently found 
 in Wells Library. William attacks Geoffrey 
 Arthur of Monmouth so savagely that you might 
 think he was hired to do so. 
 
 It would appear that only two copies of the 
 work are indicated by Leland, the one at Wells 
 being the one probably used by the Italian Arch- 
 deacon, who is again rated soundly by Leland for 
 following the opinion of William the Little. 
 Leland goes on to say that whatever Geoffrey was, 
 Polydore had to follow him in six hundred places, 
 or hold his peace. But both Geoffrey and William 
 had no exact knowledge of British times. 
 
 The difference of thirty-five years between John
 
 198 
 
 Boston and Polydore Vergil will be noted ; also 
 the disputes about the accuracy of the early 
 historians, which clearly show that English history, 
 such as it was in those times, had not been finally 
 established. 
 
 MATTHEW PARIS, 
 
 the supposed author of ' Historia Anglorum.' The 
 Guide says : ' The greatest of all the monastic schools 
 of history was that of St. Albans, and the greatest 
 of the St. Albans' historians was Matthew Paris. 
 The Scriptorium, or literary department, of this 
 abbey was established between 1077 and 1093 ; 
 and the office of historiographer, or writer of 
 history, was created between 1166 and 1183. The 
 first St. Albans chronicle was probably the work 
 of John de Cella, Abbot of St. Albans from 
 1195-1215. This extends from the Creation to 
 1188, and is a compilation from the Bible and 
 earlier historians and romancers of an entirely 
 uncritical character. Roger of Wendover, historio- 
 grapher of the abbey early in the thirteenth 
 century, continued this compilation from 1189 to 
 1201, and carried on the history from 1201 to 
 1235, as an original historian. The whole work 
 down to 1235 frequently passed under Wendover's 
 name, and with the title of Flores Historiarum. 
 In 1236, on Wendover's death, Matthew Paris, who 
 had entered the monastery in 1217, succeeded him
 
 199 
 
 as historiographer. He then transcribed Wen- 
 dover's work with additions and corrections of his 
 own, and continued it as far as 1259. This entire 
 work constitutes the Greater Chronicles which 
 pass under Paris's name, being partly his own 
 and partly a re-editing of his predecessor's work. 
 But he also wrote an independent History of the 
 English, or Lesser History, extending from 1067 
 to 1253, rehandling his materials according to his 
 own judgment instead of simply adopting the 
 records of his predecessors. As a contemporary 
 historian Matthew Paris is invaluable. He had 
 ample means of collecting information and material ; 
 he was acquainted with the leading men of the 
 day, including Henry III., who even invited him 
 to be present on an important occasion that he 
 might be able to record it accurately. He is a 
 lively and vigorous writer, criticising freely and 
 with much independence, and supporting the 
 popular cause against the King's misgovernment, 
 and especially against the aggressions and extor- 
 tions of the Pope's legates. He died in 1259.' 
 
 About Matthew Paris, John Boston says that 
 he flourished about A.C., with no date, and that he 
 wrote a history or book of chronicles, but no 
 copy indicated in any of the religious houses. 
 
 Polydore Vergil makes no mention of him. 
 
 Leland (chap, ccxlix.) thinks he was an English- 
 man, because the name Pariis or Parish was, and
 
 200 
 
 is, common in England, ' unless it is thought that 
 he was called Parisian from having studied in 
 iParis.' The matter is uncertain. Leland then 
 repeats the Benedictine legend to the effect that 
 Canute the Great founded two monasteries : one 
 in the Fen Country, about eight miles from 
 Norwich (the chief city of England next to 
 London), and commonly called St. Benedict's, or 
 St. Benet's Holme, over which Reps, the learned 
 Bishop of Norwich, a friend of Leland, presides ; 
 the other in Norway, also called Holme. At the 
 request of Pope Innocent the house of St. Albans 
 sent Matthew to restore the declining religion of 
 the Norwegian monastery to its pristine purity, 
 which work he completed, and returned with great 
 applause to St. Albans. 
 
 He devoted himself to study, and seeing the 
 great need of history, he began with the last year 
 of King Henry II., and wrote the history of our 
 nation to the 37th year of Henry III. with the 
 greatest diligence and good faith. He added an 
 appendix, entitled ' Additionments '; he wrote 
 also ' Memoirs of Twenty-two Abbots of St. Albans,' 
 from which Leland had learned a good part of 
 the antiquity of Verulam ; he also wrote a ' Life 
 of Edward Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury,' on 
 the instruction supplied by Richard Vicanius and 
 Roger Bacon. Leland finishes, < I would say more 
 of Matthew Paris, but have not the material.'
 
 201 
 
 From the above it would seem that more is 
 known about Matthew Paris in the nineteenth 
 century than was known about him in the sixteenth 
 century. John Boston could not find any copy of 
 his work ; Polydore Vergil does not even mention 
 him; and Leland somewhat limits his historical 
 productions. Now, the editor of Matthew Paris, 
 in the Master of the Rolls Series, was astounded at 
 the ignorance of Leland, but this would rather 
 show that Leland only stated what was known 
 in his time, or what he himself knew about 
 him. 
 
 In Baker's Chronicle, first edition, 1(>41, Matthew 
 Paris is named as an authority, but there is no 
 mention of an ' Historia Major, 1 and he is said to 
 have brought his work down to the year 1259, 
 while Leland gives 1253. 
 
 ADAM MUEIMUTH, 
 
 the supposed author of the Continuatio Chroni- 
 corum, was, according to the Guide, ' born in 
 1275, was Doctor of Civil Law at Oxford, and 
 acted for his University and for the Chapter of 
 Canterbury in legal matters. He was also fre- 
 quently employed on diplomatic service by King 
 Edward II., and was Canon successively of Here- 
 ford and St. Paul's. His Continuation of the 
 Chronicles (which he began to write after 1325) 
 starts from the year 1303, but until 1337 it is
 
 202 
 
 very meagre in its information. In 1337 Muri- 
 inuth retired to the rectory of Wraysbury, and 
 from this point his history becomes full and 
 interesting. He continued it year by year down 
 to his death in 1347. It is of particular value for 
 the campaigns of Edward III. in France.' 
 
 Neither John Boston nor Polydore Yergil 
 mention this author. But John Leland highly 
 praises ' A. of Murinath, Canon of St. Paul's 
 Church,' and says, ' he wrote the history of sixty 
 years, i.e., from A.D. 1320 to 1380, and lived under 
 Edward the Third and Richard the Second.' 
 
 It will be noticed that there is some considerable 
 difference between the datings of the Guide and of 
 Leland. If Adam Murimuth died in 1347, ac- 
 cording to the former, he could not have written 
 history up to 1380, according to the latter. But 
 probably it is not the same person, as there were 
 two Murimuths. The chronicle of St. Albans, 
 alluded to at p. 103 of the Guide, is not mentioned 
 by John Boston or Polydore Vergil. John Leland 
 alludes to them once only, and as the names of the 
 writers of the chronicle and their dates seem to be 
 uncertain, further notice of it would not be satis- 
 factory. They may have been later productions 
 than generally supposed.
 
 203 
 
 RALPH OE RANULPH HIGDEN, 
 
 the reputed author of the Polychronicon. The 
 Guide says : ' This work was the most popular 
 history extant in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen- 
 turies, and even later. The author was a monk 
 of the abbey of St. Werburgh in Chester, and died 
 in 1363. His chronicle is a universal history of 
 the world in Latin, from the Creation to the time 
 of Edward III., and it is preceded by a geo- 
 graphical description of the world, especially of 
 Great Britain. In its first form the history closed 
 at 1326, but the author subsequently brought it 
 down to 1342, and continuations of it beyond this 
 date were frequently made by other writers. As 
 an independent authority it is not of much value ; 
 but it was the standard history of its day, and 
 shows the condition of historical and geographical 
 knowledge at that time. Its popularity is proved 
 by the fact that besides circulating largely in Latin, 
 it was translated into English. The translator 
 was John de Trevisa, chaplain to Lord Berkeley, 
 who completed his work in 1387. On the in- 
 vention of printing, Trevisa's translation was 
 printed by Caxton in a slighty modernized form 
 in the year 1482.' 
 
 . John Boston makes no mention either of the 
 book or of Ralph Higden. 
 
 Polydore Vergil mentions the book, but has not
 
 204 
 
 apparently discovered the name of the author. 
 No date is given. 
 
 John Leland (chap, cccliv.) calls Ralph Higden 
 monk of the Chester monastery, and makes him 
 out ' twice as good ' as Polydore, but in language 
 so vague that we cannot form an opinion as to 
 whether he had read the book or not. 
 
 In this work there are signs of the working of a 
 literary confederation of the Benedictines, which 
 culminated in a general sort of history from the 
 Creation, and is brought down to the time of 
 Edward III. But the dating is very vague, and it 
 is difficult to say exactly when it was all written. 
 Another work of the same description, only written 
 in French, is 
 
 ' THE CHEONICLE OF THE BEUT.' 
 
 The Guide says : ' This was one of the most 
 popular histories of England in the fifteenth and 
 sixteenth centuries. It was first written in French 
 by an unknown author in the reign of Edward III., 
 and took its name from the fact that it begins with 
 the legendary colonization of England by the 
 Trojans under Brut or Brutus. In its earliest 
 form it ends in 1332. A revised edition, in which 
 the accounts of the reigns of Edward II. and 
 Edward III. were enlarged, appeared shortly after- 
 wards ; and in 1435 this was translated into 
 English by John Maundeville, rector of Burnham
 
 205 
 
 Thorpe in Norfolk. The history was then brought 
 down to the year 1418, and in this shape" it 
 became very popular and was largely circulated. 
 A further continuation was added to it, bringing 
 the narrative down to 1436 ; and finally, onthe 
 invention of printing, Caxton continued it to the 
 year 1460, and printed it in 1480. This edition, 
 with additions and alterations, was frequently 
 reprinted in the course of the next fifty years, but 
 since then the chronicle has never been reprinted. 
 The early part of the history is based upon the 
 romance of Geoffrey of Monmouth (the source of 
 most of the legends concerning early English 
 history), and has no historical value. From the 
 reign of Edward I. it has some original matter, 
 but its chief interest is as the first popular history 
 of England which circulated in the English 
 language.' The chronicle is not mentioned by 
 any of the Triumvirate. 
 
 This ends the British Museum Guide to the 
 manuscript chronicles of England, and it may be 
 presumed that the ones mentioned are considered 
 the most trustworthy or the most interesting. 
 There are, however, many other manuscripts said 
 to have been written by Geoffrey Arthur of 
 Monmouth, Saxo Grammaticus, Marian the Scot, 
 Florence of Worcester, Walter of Coventry, Ralph 
 de Diceto, Gervase of Canterbury, all Benedictines ; 
 also by Nicolas Trivet, a Dominican or Black
 
 206 
 
 Friar, Roger Bacon, and many others. Details 
 about them all are hardly necessary, but Geoffrey 
 of Monmouth and Roger Bacon will be specially 
 noticed, as it is interesting to know what was said 
 about them in the sixteenth century. 
 
 GEOFFEEY AETHUE OF MONMOUTH, 
 
 a Benedictine, is said to have written a history of 
 the Britons, and was esteemed in the reign of 
 Henry L, but no alleged date is given. John 
 Boston says that no copy of the work is indicated 
 in any of the 200 religious houses. 
 
 Polydore Vergil in his 'Anglican History' scoffs 
 at this writer, who is called ' G. Arthur,' because he 
 wrote so much about King Arthur, derived from 
 ancient fragments of the Britons, and he also put 
 forward the prophecies of Merlin, etc. 
 
 John Leland (chap, clxi.) describes him as of 
 Monmouth, which takes its name from two streams, 
 the Mona and the Vaga (Wye). He thinks that 
 Geoffrey must have been a monk, for there was 
 lately a Benedictine convent at Mona, of the 
 antiquity of which he (Leland) knows nothing. 
 ' In these times the monks were the only learned 
 men. Neither Oxford nor Cambridge flourished. 
 The monks did not pamper their bellies, but 
 fed their minds. Geoffrey was good at poetry 
 and prose j not even the Italians, who did not
 
 207 
 
 always write so purely and exactly, would deny 
 this ' a hit at Polydore, who is alluded to as 
 Codrus. 
 
 ' Whatever the merit or otherwise of Geoffrey's 
 style, he is to be praised for having rescued a great 
 part of British antiquity from oblivion. Hang the 
 Codri who think and write otherwise ! It must 
 be admitted, however, that Geoffrey sometimes 
 erred and dealt in uncertain and idle tales. And 
 what historian, prithee, has not stuck in the same 
 mud ? Geoffrey is pardonable he confesses that 
 he merely translated from the British into the 
 Latin tongue.' 
 
 Then follows a long discussion with Codrus 
 (Polydore) on the question of King Arthur, but 
 Antony Hall tells us that it has been marked with 
 crosses in the manuscript as cancelled, because 
 Leland wrote a separate Latin treatise, ' Defence of 
 Arthur,' in reply to Polydore. 
 
 Leland then proceeds to tell how Walter, 
 Archdeacon of Oxford, being a friend of Geoffrey's, 
 and a great book-hunter, while travelling in 
 Armorica (Brittany) lighted upon a history of 
 Britain in the British tongue. With joy he 
 returned to England with his treasure, and handed 
 it over to Geoffrey, as one skilled in the British 
 tongue, to be translated. And Ralph of Chester, 
 another Benedictine, tells us that Walter him- 
 self wrote a private history from the British.
 
 208 
 
 (This was Walter Mapes, on whom there is a 
 separate chapter, but Leland had never seen this 
 book.) 
 
 Geoffrey's work in eight books was dedicated to 
 Robert Duke of Gloucester ; he also translated 
 into Latin the prophecies of Merlin Ambrose. In 
 many copies it forms an additional book of the 
 British history, so says Leland, but Geoffrey is, I 
 believe, now admitted not to be the author of the 
 Merlin book. 
 
 Leland had also read in the annals of John 
 Abbot of Burgh ( ?) that Geoffrey was designated 
 Bishop of Eloium, called in British ' Llan Elior ' 
 i.e., church or place on the river Ely, and recently 
 called St. Asaph. 
 
 Since Leland's time Geoffrey's work has been 
 discredited as a history, and is now looked upon 
 as a romance full of legendary matter ; but 
 miracles and marvels always formed a great part 
 of early Benedictine literature. These acute people 
 knew human nature well, and understood the 
 extreme credulity of the human race. ' In Shake- 
 speare's time it is said that Geoffrey's legends were 
 still implicitly believed by the great mass of the 
 people, and were appealed to as historical docu- 
 ments by so great a lawyer as Sir Edward Coke. 
 They had also figured largely in the disputes 
 between the Edwards and Scotland. William 
 Camden was the first to prove satisfactorily that
 
 209 
 
 the "Historia" was a romance' ('Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica,' under Geoffrey of Monmouth). 
 
 The fact is that both the classes and the masses 
 generally prefer fiction and fancy to truth and 
 actuality. Even in the nineteenth century this is 
 shown in an extract of a letter addressed by 
 Colonel Olcott, President of the Theosophical 
 Society in America, to the Pundit Dayananda 
 Sarasvati, then the Chief of the Arya Samaj in 
 India, in June, 1878, preparatory to his starting 
 for that country accompanied by the late Madame 
 Blavatsky : ' I clearly infer from your letter that 
 part where you speak of the phenomena of giving 
 life to a dead man, healing lepers, moving a 
 mountain, and touching the moon "as betraying 
 an irreligious spirit," and sure to give rise to many 
 misfortunes that you disapprove of miracle- 
 working. You esteem it as much inferior to the 
 
 o 
 
 study of philosophy, and one's innate spiritual 
 powers. This is wisdom, and we recognise it as 
 such. But the masses here, like the masses every- 
 where, are averse to philosophy and hunger after 
 marvels. Their understandings seem attainable 
 only through their imagination and senses. The 
 mediums show their marvels, and we vainly offer 
 them the discussion of philosophy. Perhaps we 
 have not used the best methods. A conviction 
 that this may be so brings us to your feet for 
 instruction and guidance.' 
 
 14
 
 210 
 
 Again, Muhammad the Apostle never claimed the 
 power of working miracles or possessing any 
 supernatural powers, as is shown in many passages 
 of the Koran (chaps, vi., vers. 37, 57, 109 ; xvii., 
 vers. 61, 93-96 ; xxix., ver. 49). But the Moham- 
 medan masses, like the masses everywhere, prefer 
 miracles to historical facts. And so it comes 
 about that the later the life of Muhammad the 
 greater the number of his miracles, and the more 
 of them the better for the popularity of the work. 
 Indeed, the same remarks may be applied to many 
 of the literary productions of the Benedictines. 
 The Dialogues of Pope Gregory I. show to what 
 an extent even a Pope added miraculous stories 
 to the literature of the day (see Gregorovius' 
 ' History of the City of Rome in the Middle 
 Ages '). 
 
 EOGEE BACON, 
 
 a Franciscan Friar, is said to have flourished during 
 the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272), but the date 
 of his birth and death cannot be accurately fixed. 
 He is not mentioned by John Boston or Polydore 
 Vergil. 
 
 John Leland (chap, ccxxxvi.), after a eulogy of 
 this famed friar, in his usual inflated style says 
 that 'he wrote a vast number of books, which 
 were formerly in a multitude of copies diffused 
 through the libraries of all Britain, but which
 
 211 
 
 now shame to say! (about 1546) have been cut 
 out of their cases, have been furtively removed, or 
 have been mutilated so that they are rarely found. 
 You might more easily collect the leaves of the 
 Sybil than the names of the books he wrote.' 
 
 There follows then a list of thirty tractates 
 which are extant under his name, partly theolo- 
 gical, partly philosophical, in a crude sense. The 
 only historical work in the list is the last, 'On 
 the Life of Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury.' 
 Leland does not say that he had read any one of 
 them. 
 
 If the reader cares to examine the books of 
 biography, the many encyclopaedias and other 
 works of reference, he will find under the name of 
 Roofer Bacon a voluminous account of this wonder 
 
 o 
 
 of the age, this author of many works, great 
 natural philosopher and also theologian. It is 
 curious therefore that Leland could not find much 
 that he had written. Of course it may be urged 
 that many of the books were ordered to be 
 destroyed by the ecclesiastics as being too far in 
 advance of the time. Still, if all these works 
 were really destroyed in the thirteenth or four- 
 teenth centuries, and neither John Boston, Poly- 
 dore Vergil, nor John Leland could name them in 
 the sixteenth century, how has all the information 
 been obtained about this great genius in the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries ? 
 
 142
 
 212 
 
 Leland only mentions about thirty of Bacon's 
 works. A few years later, 1549-1557, Bale, in 
 his 'English Writers,' gives no less than eighty 
 works under the name of the prolific friar ; while 
 Pits (time of Elizabeth and Jarnes) expresses 
 amazement at the mass of alleged ' Bacon ' writings 
 under his name. The writer of an article in the 
 ' Biographica Britannica,' 1747, is also astonished 
 at the mass of Baconic literature, and does not 
 'know what to think/ He would have known 
 what to think had he or his colleagues understood 
 the system of monastic literature. 
 
 It is evident, then, that from some early time 
 (the exact date of which it is difficult to fix) up to 
 the sixteenth century the Benedictines produced a 
 mass of literature at different places, written under 
 various names, and probably all having some con- 
 nection with each other. There seems to have 
 been a constant flow, but who the writers were, 
 when they actually wrote, and what was published 
 under their own names or in the names of other 
 people, is still an open question. 
 
 The dates of many of these manuscripts appear 
 to have been settled (not by the dates in them, for 
 very often there were none) by the art or science 
 of paleography. Now, the study of paleography 
 is most interesting, but it cannot be considered 
 infallible. It has affixed a seventh, eighth, ninth, 
 tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth,
 
 213 
 
 fifteenth and sixteenth century to a mass of manu- 
 scripts, but still it sometimes makes mistakes. 
 One of the tests connected with it is chronology, 
 which in the case of many of these old chronicles 
 has been somewhat neglected. We can form now 
 a pretty accurate idea when Incarnation datings 
 came into use. The same can be said of Arabic 
 numerals, and the terms ' Anno Domini ' and 
 ' A.D.' A careful comparison of these manuscripts 
 with regard to the style, form and nature of these 
 datings, and to the century given to them by 
 the paleographists, would be most interesting. 
 Whether it would be worth all the time, trouble 
 and expense is another matter.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SOME DESULTORY CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 IT is related of a certain gentleman that when 
 asked his opinion about money investments, he 
 invariably replied that he believed Consols were 
 safe. In the same way, if anybody was to ask me 
 for a safe date for the commencement of English 
 history, I should reply that the accession of 
 Henry VIII. to the throne in 1509, or the 
 beginning of the sixteenth century, was a safe 
 date to begin with. 
 
 Backwards from 1900 to 1666, the year of the 
 publication of the London Gazette, there is a 
 complete system of regular datings which can be 
 generally accepted. From 1666 to the beginning 
 of the sixteenth century the evidence in the shape 
 of Calendars, State Records and Letters, Journals 
 of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and other 
 documents, is good and trustworthy. Positive 
 English history may be said therefore to commence 
 from that period, viz., A.D. 1501, to the present 
 time.
 
 215 
 
 From the first years of the reign of Henry VII. 
 backwards to that of Henry II. there is a much 
 darker period. Accounts of the various docu- 
 ments of those times will be found in the excellent 
 works of C. P. Cooper, S. K. Scargill Bird and 
 Walter Rye, who have all written on the subject 
 of the Public Records. 
 
 For ready reference, a list of some of these 
 records is here given, viz. : 
 
 The .Domesday Books. 
 
 The Statutes of the Realm, beginning with 
 Henry III., but very imperfect till the reigns of 
 Henry VII. and Henry VIII. 
 
 The Rolls of Parliament, nothing earlier than 
 the 18th of Edward L, i.e., 1289-1290. 
 
 The Parliamentary Writs, Petitions, etc., from 
 the time of Edward L, but very imperfect. 
 
 Rolls of the Curia Regis from Richard I. to 
 Henry III. 
 
 Pleas of the Crown from Henry III. 
 
 The Roll Records and Books of the Exchequer 
 from Henry III. 
 
 The Hundred Rolls from Edward I. 
 
 The Placita de Quo Warranto from Edward I. 
 
 The Nona3 Rolls from Edward III. 
 
 The Charter Rolls from King John. 
 
 The Patent Rolls from King John. 
 
 The Close Rolls from King John. 
 
 The Fine Rolls from King John.
 
 216 
 
 The Pipe Eolls from Henry II. 
 
 The Chancery series of ' Inquisitiones post- 
 mortem ' from Henry III. 
 
 The Exchequer series of the same from 
 Edward I. 
 
 The Originalia from Henry III. 
 
 Calendars of Chancery Proceedings from 
 Richard II. 
 
 Early Wills. Two series : one of the City of 
 London from 1258, the other at Doctors' Com- 
 mons from about 1350. 
 
 There may be some other minor records, but 
 apparently, excepting the Domesday Book proper, 
 nothing of importance before Henry II. As a 
 matter of fact all our early records are very im- 
 perfect, and many missing. So far as I have been 
 able to ascertain, the datings are as a general rule 
 according to the year of the reign of the King, 
 while datings by the era are very exceptional. 
 
 In the absence of regular calendars, registers, 
 gazettes, or newspapers, the information to be 
 obtained from these records is of course most 
 useful and interesting. At the same time, it 
 cannot be regarded as of a very first-class char- 
 acter, and under these circumstances it will be 
 sufficient to consider the period from Henry VII. 
 to Henry II., or say even to the reign of William 
 the Conqueror, as coining under the head of Pro- 
 bable English History.
 
 217 
 
 Previous to the reign of William the Conqueror, 
 we come into a still darker age. Reliable facts are 
 scanty, while records do not seem to exist, and we 
 have to fall back upon legend and tradition aided 
 by early Charters, many of which are of a very 
 doubtful character, both as regards their dates and 
 their originality. 
 
 It is difficult to fix the period when English 
 history first began to be formulated and placed on 
 parchment or vellum, paper being a later discovery. 
 So little remains of the works said to have been 
 written by Gildas and Nennius that we can hardly 
 form a proper opinion about them. 
 
 I may be wrong, but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 
 seems to be the first attempt to classify and to 
 date events, but when this was commenced it is 
 impossible to say ; perhaps it was followed by the 
 ' Ecclesiastical History of England,' transcribed 
 under the name of Bede. 
 
 It is curious to note that between these two 
 works and their reputed datings, and the com- 
 mencement of the chroniclers in the twelfth 
 century, there is a lapse of some three or four 
 hundred years. Is it possible that the dates of the 
 two earlier works have been miscalculated, and 
 that they are really the product of a later time ? 
 Anyhow, as they stand at present, they form the 
 basis of our English history, which can be classed 
 only as Possible English History from the time of
 
 218 
 
 the Norman Conquest up to the fabulous or 
 mythical period. 
 
 Professor James E. Thorold Rogers, in his 
 'History of Agriculture and Prices in England 
 from 1259 to 1703,' gives us the benefit of his 
 long researches into original and contempora- 
 neous records extending over a period of some 
 450 years. 
 
 He says that, except the Pipe Rolls, very few 
 documents other than charters and records of 
 legal proceedings exist before the last twenty years 
 of the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272). He 
 further mentions that dating by the Christian era 
 was a most exceptional practice during the period 
 from 1259 to 1400. His words are, ' Occasionally, 
 but very rarely, the year of the common era is 
 given.' The year of the reign of the King was 
 commonly used. 
 
 While the Professor gives us the usual system 
 of dating from 1259 to 1400, the Paston Letters 
 furnish their evidence from 1422 to 1509. It is 
 safe, therefore, to conclude that dating by the 
 Christian era in England did not come into 
 common use till the sixteenth century, and not 
 into general use till a later period. 
 
 As regards the first datings by the ' Anno 
 Incarnationis Dorninicse,' it seems impossible to 
 fix them exactly. Some details on the subject 
 have been given in the first chapter of this work,
 
 219 
 
 but further research might throw more light on 
 what is now somewhat lost by the lapse of ages. 
 
 It may be generally admitted that Incarnation 
 dating was not ueed till the ninth century, and 
 not commonly used till the tenth or eleventh 
 centuries. If this be really the case, then all 
 documents carrying this form of dating prior to 
 the year 801 must be regarded with 'some sus- 
 picion, and a searching inquiry made into the 
 accuracy or genuineness of this early date. 
 
 One curious fact is that there are more Incarna- 
 tion datings in England during those doubtful 
 years than, in any other country in Europe. It is 
 further stated that St. Augustine brought Chris- 
 tianity and Incarnation datings to England from 
 Rome in 596, while at that period it does not 
 seem to have been in use in Rome, Italy, France. 
 Germany, or anywhere else. 
 
 The term * Anno Domini ' came after that of 
 the Incarnation. The first mention of it that I 
 have come across in Papal documents is of the 
 year MLVIIII. and MLX., but seldom used till 
 some years later. 
 
 In Rymer's work the first mention of the term 
 is as follows : ' Actum London in Domo Militia? 
 Templi XI Kal Octob Anno Domini millesimo 
 ducentesimo decimo nono ' (i.e., 1219). Other 
 instances also occur during this reign of Henry III. 
 (1216-1272), viz., Anno Domini MCCXXIV.,
 
 220 
 
 again, Anno Domini MCCLL, but still used very 
 rarely. 
 
 The tirst use of the term ' A. D.' that I have 
 as yet met with will be found in the analysis of 
 the catalogues of early printed books at the end 
 of Chapter II. of this work, viz., one of A. D. 
 MCCCCLXXL, and three of A. D. MCCCCLXXXI. 
 In Westminster Abbey the earliest use of this 
 term appears to be A. D. MDCLXV. Moreover, 
 the term does not appear at all in Rymer's works, 
 which end in 1654, or in any of the letters of 
 the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. 
 
 As regards the dates in Arabic numerals on 
 European coins, it has been shown (chap, iii.) 
 that the Arabs themselves did not use them upon 
 their own moneys in figures (not words) till the 
 beginning of the seventh century of the Hijra, 
 i.e., A. D. 1204-1301. 
 
 The earliest dates in Arabic numerals on coins 
 now existing in some of the museums of Europe 
 are as follows : 
 
 Zurich, I X 2 52 ' *-*> U ' 24 ' 
 
 Vienna, I * & *-f 6, i.e., 1456. 
 
 Berlin, 1468. 
 
 Stockholm, \ /\ g, i.e., 1478. 
 
 Copenhagen, 1496. 
 
 Rome, 1515. 
 
 Paris, 1532.
 
 221 
 
 London, a Scotch gold bonnet-piece, 1539. 
 
 English crown and half-crown, 1551. 
 
 English gold coin, 1553. 
 
 In the Britisli Museum there is, however, a 
 Swiss piece of | ^ 2 52 (1424), the same date 
 as the Zurich one, while the earliest English dated 
 coin with Roman numerals is one of MDXLIX. 
 
 St. Petersburg, the beginning of the eighteenth 
 century. 
 
 Without a very prolonged search and inquiry, it 
 is difficult to say what dates expressed in Arabic 
 numerals could be found on any tombs, monu- 
 ments, or inscriptions of the fifteenth century. 
 As yet, I have not come across any except the 
 
 date f | ^ Q ^2. in the Tower of London, but 
 
 there are doubtless others, though probably rarely 
 to be found anywhere. 
 
 My conclusions, then, are that all dates in 
 Arabic numerals on coins, monuments, inscrip- 
 tions, etc., prior to the fifteenth century, i.e., 
 before 1401, must be regarded with suspicion. 
 The style or form of figure in which they are 
 engraved must be carefully noted, and as much 
 information as possible should be obtained as to 
 how and when these numerals were inscribed, so 
 as to ascertain if they are really contemporaneous. 
 
 As regards Arabic numerals in manuscripts, an 
 earlier margin must be allowed, but even in
 
 222 
 
 these the use of such figures before the fourteenth 
 century, i.e.\ before 1301, must be received with 
 caution. They should be examined both as regards 
 their form, shape, and style, and it should be par- 
 ticularly noted if they are used marginally only, or 
 interpolated, or likely to be a later addition. 
 
 Next to printing, the exchange of the use of the 
 heavy Roman for the lighter Arabic numeral was of 
 the greatest comfort and benefit to the civilization 
 and commerce of our small planet. Like every- 
 thing else connected with man, the process of its 
 introduction seems to have been a remarkably slow 
 one.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ABACUS, the, 72, 73, 104, 106, 107 
 
 Abbaside dynasty, 75 
 
 Abbaye of St. Maur-des-Fosses, 40 
 
 Abbayes of St. Martin and Mar- 
 moutier at Tours, 34 
 
 Abbey of Emavale, in Yorkshire, 170 
 
 Abbey of Mirivell, 127 
 
 Abbey of Newburgh, in Yorkshire, 
 196 
 
 Abbey of St. Gall, 98 
 
 Abbey of St. Werburgh, in Chester, 
 203 
 
 Abbot Gerald, of Aurillac Monas- 
 tery, 106 
 
 Abbot of Rome, 18, 20, 22 
 
 Abd-ul-Malik, the fifth Omayyide 
 Khalif, 75 
 
 Abu Bekr, the first Khalifah or suc- 
 cessor of Muhammad, 75 
 
 Acts of the Bishops of England, 188 
 
 Acts of the Kings of England, 188 
 
 A. D., an abbreviated term for 
 Anno Domini, 7, 17-19, 29, 34, 
 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 50, 58, 60, 61, 
 63, 65-69, 71, 75, 83, 86, 89, 97, 
 111, 181, 213, 220 
 
 Advent of the Normans, 142, 143 
 
 Afghanistan, 95 
 
 A. H., or year of the Hijra, 75, 76, 
 220 
 
 Aidan, supposed to have introduced 
 Christianity into the North of 
 England from lona, 172, 187 
 
 Aix-la-Chapelle, a silver groschen 
 of, with early date, 88 
 
 Albans, St., monastery, 198, 200; 
 the Chronicle of, 198, 202 
 
 Aldine editions of books, ranging 
 from 1501 to 1542, 70 
 
 Alexander III., a Pope of Rome, 47 
 
 Alexander VI., a Pope of Rome, 93 
 
 Alfonso, King of Castile, 46, 50 
 
 Alfred, King of England, 179, 181, 
 182 ; his supposed works, 181- 
 183; date of his death, 183; 
 place of burial, 183, 184, 185; 
 his daughter, 193 ; letters about 
 him and Asser in the Times of 
 March and June, 1898, 185 
 
 Algorism, 108 
 
 Ah, the fourth Khalifah after Mu- 
 hammad, 75 
 
 Alured, 181, 182. Sec Alfred 
 
 America, 209 
 
 Amr, son of Al Harith, son of 
 Modad the Jorhomi, his lament 
 when expelled from Mecca and 
 the Ka'beh, 24 
 
 Anderson, James, author of ' Royal 
 Genealogies,' 115 118, 122, 124- 
 126 
 
 Andre, Bernard, of Toulouse, Friar 
 of the Order of St. Augustine, his 
 history of Henry VII., 128, 129 
 
 Anglican Church, 13 
 
 Anglo-Norman Charters, 37 
 
 Anglo-Saxon Charters, 36-38, 154 ; 
 coins, 95 ; language, 179, 181 ; 
 antiquarian revival, 143 
 
 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 32, 33, 100, 
 143, 178-181, 192, 217 
 
 Angst, Dr., head director of the 
 Swiss National Museum at Zu- 
 rich, 98 
 
 Anne, Queen of England, 84, 116, 
 117, 159, 186 
 
 Anno, An, or A., 32, 33, 180, 181 
 
 Anno a Passione, 29
 
 224 
 
 Anno ab Incarnatione, 29, 33, 34, 
 
 44, 45, 47. 50. 61 
 Anno adventus Domini. 36 
 Anno Christi, 70. 71, 93, 181 
 Anno Domini, 29, 37, 40. 41, 49-53. 
 
 55-61, 63-65, 67-71, 81, 83. 85. 86. 
 
 88. 90, 93, 96, 181, 213, 219, 220 
 Anno Gratia?, or year of grace, 29. 
 
 52, 54, 56, 57, 66, 71. 181 
 Anno human* Restaurationis or Re- 
 
 deinptiouis, 71 
 Anno Incarnationis Dominic*. 29, 
 
 32, 34. 36, 42, 46, 49, 71, 155, 177, 
 
 180, 218 
 Anno Xativitates, or a Nativitate, 
 
 29, 71, 180 
 
 Anno Salutis Christianise, 59 
 Anno Salutis humane, or A. S. H., 
 
 29, 59, 137-139, 141, 142, 162, 197 
 Anno Salutis, or year of our salva- 
 tion, 59, 70, 143, 181 
 Anno Trabeatiouis. 180 
 Antiquarians, or antiquaries, 42, 68, 
 
 151, 170. 178 
 Antwerp, 177 
 Arab authors, vi 
 Arabia, 74 
 
 Arabic coins, 75-77, 103 
 Arabic language, vi, 23 
 Arabic numerals, 41-47, 55, 57, 61, 
 
 65, 67-72, 74. 75, 77-91, 93, 94, 
 
 96-101, 103-105, 108, 109, 163, 
 
 167, 213, 220 222 
 
 Arabs, the, 24, 74, 75, 106, 107, 220 
 Archaeologists. 42 
 Archeology, vi 
 Archdeacon of Canterbury in 1271 
 
 bequeathed his books of theology 
 
 to the Chancellor of Paris, 28 
 Arithmetic, 73. 104, 106, 108 
 Arithmetical. 108 
 Armorica [Brittany], 207 
 Arthur, i.e. King Arthur of legendary 
 
 fame, 171, 206, 207 
 Arundel, 52 
 Arundel Society, 151 
 Ashburnham House, the fire there, 
 
 172, 179 
 Asser, the reputed author of the 
 
 life of Alfred the Great, 182; his 
 
 annals, 183, 184 ; not mentioned 
 
 by Boston or Vergil, but par- 
 
 ticulars about him by Leland. 
 184 ; said to have been Bishop of 
 Sherburne, 184 ; some letters 
 about him and King Alfred in 
 the Times of March and June. 
 1898.185 
 
 Astrolabe, the, 107 
 
 Astronomers, 2 
 
 , Astronomical, 3, 7, 8 20, note, 21, 
 22 
 
 Astronomy, vi. 2, 104, 107 
 
 A. U. C., i.e., from the building of 
 the city of Rome, ii 
 
 Augustine, St., said to be the first 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, 35 ; 
 introduced Christianity into the 
 South of England. 35/172, 219 
 i Austin Friars, religious house of, 
 129 
 
 Avignon, 92 
 
 Bacon, Francis, Lord Verulam, or 
 St. Albans, 127 
 
 Bacon, Roger, a Franciscan friar, 
 natural philosopher, mathema- 
 tician, and wonderful genius for 
 the age in which he lived, 200. 
 206, 210 ; not mentioned by Boston 
 or Vergil, but by Leland, 210 ; his 
 works, 211, 212* and writings, 212 
 
 Bailey. Sir E. Clive, his articles on 
 the genealogy of numerals in the 
 Journal of the Royal Asiatic 
 Society, 72 
 
 Baker's Chronicle, 123, 140, 201 
 
 Bale, John, the bibliographer, 161, 
 165 ; his ' Centurise,' 165 : his 
 4 English Writers,' 212 
 
 Bangor, monks of, 169 
 
 Bartholomew, St.. the Apostle. 50 
 
 Basle, 98. 99, 162, 177 
 
 Bayeux, 145-147, 149, 150 
 
 Bayeux Cathedral, 145, 146, 150, 
 151 
 
 Bayeux tapestry, 144, 145 ; early 
 writers who do not mention it, 
 145, 146 ; those who mention it. 
 145, 147 ; saved by Mr. le For- 
 restier, 147 ; exhibited in Paris 
 and elsewhere in France, 147 ; its 
 description, 148 ; when made, 
 149 ; approximate date, 150 ; not
 
 225 
 
 alluded to by early writers, 150 
 works about it by Bolton Corner 
 Frank Rede Fowkes, and Ke'v' 
 John Bruce, 151, 152, 186 
 B.C., i.e., before Christ. 3, 5, 6 7 
 
 47, 62, 89 
 Beauchamp Tower in the Tower of 
 
 London, an early date there, 87 
 Becket, Thomas a, Archbishop of 
 
 Canterbury, 194 
 
 Bede's ' Ecclesiastical History of the 
 English,' 9, 33, 35, 44, 110, 143 
 171, 173-177, 180, 181, 183, 217 ' 
 Bede, the Venerable, 33-35, 130, 166, 
 171-173; books falsely ascribed to 
 him, 174, 175-178, 180, 184, 187 
 188, 192, 194, 195, 217 
 Benedict of Peterborough, a sup- 
 posed early chronicler, 194 
 Benedict, or Benet's Holme monas- 
 teries, one near Norwich, one in 
 Norway, 200 
 Benedict, St., 28, 110, 157 ; monks 
 
 of the Order of, 138, 142 
 Benedictine, 8, 19, 20, 21, 25, 38 
 127, 135, 139. 174, 189, 206, 208 ' 
 Benedictines, 18, 20, 22, 23 25 27 
 28, 34, 35, 110, 156, 157, 161, 177- 
 180, 183, 184, 191, 204, 210, 
 212 
 
 Benedictines of Chinon, 142 
 Benedictines of Malmesbury, 174 
 Berengeria, ex-Queen, a letter from, 
 
 how dated, 49 
 Berlin, old coins in the museum 
 
 there, 77, 78, 220 
 Berne, 99 
 ' Bibl. Cotton Julius A. xi.' hi the 
 
 British Museum, 46 
 Bible, the, first printed by Guten- 
 berg, 134 ; first dated, 134 ; com- 
 pilation from, 198 
 Bibliotheque Irnperiale Publique of 
 
 St. Petersburg. 89 
 Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, 76, 
 
 88 
 'Biographica Britannica' of 1747, 
 
 212 
 
 Birch, Walter de Grey, of the 
 British Museum, his ' Cartularium 
 Saxonicum,' 38 ; his book upon 
 Domesday, 154 
 
 Blavatsky, Madame, the theo- 
 
 Bophist, 209 
 
 Blouot, Bishop of Lincoln, 192 
 iSodleian Library, 103 
 Boethius, Hector, a writer of his- 
 
 tory, attacked by John Leland 
 
 174 
 Boetius, an early writer in the fifth 
 
 184 81Xth Centurv A - D -> 107 ' 1H1- 
 Bologna, 91, 157 
 Bonifilius, Bishop of Gerona, 107 
 Book of Common Prayer, 10 
 Books, 23, 28, 29 
 , Books, early printed, catalogue of, 
 
 ' ' ', * > "' J 
 
 j Boston, John, the Benedictine, of 
 Bury St. Edmunds, 136, 161 
 (visits 187 religious houses to 
 make a list of their books, 162), 
 165, 168, 170, 172, 178, 179, 181, 
 184, 187, 188, 191, 192, 195, 196, 
 198, 199, 201-203, 206, 210, 211 
 Bosworth Field, Battle of, 127, 131 
 Boutell, Rev. Charles, his work on 
 ' Monumental Brasses and Slabs,' 
 83 
 Brasses in Westminster Abbey, and 
 
 other places in England, 82-84 
 Britain, 130, 168, 170, 203, 207, 210 
 British, 195, 197, 207, 208 
 British Museum, the (officials of, 
 vii), 38 ; early - dated coins 
 there, 75, 76, 79, 80, 220, 221 ; 
 catalogue of newspapers there, 
 119; King's library there, 120; 
 trustees of, 167 ; 168 
 British Press, rise of the, 119-121 
 Britons, the, 35, 171, 206 
 Bruce, John, editor of State Papers 
 and Calendars of the reign of 
 Charles I., 124 
 
 Bruges, early printing there, 133 
 'Brut, Chronicle of the,' 204; its con - 
 tents, 204, 205 ; not mentioned 
 by the Triumvirate, i.e., Boston, 
 Vergil, or Leland, 205 
 Brut, or Brutus, the supposed 
 earliest King of Britain, 168, 193, 
 204 
 
 Buck, or Buc, or De Buc, George, 
 his treatises, 132 
 
 15
 
 226 
 
 Bulls of the Popes, 25, 52 
 
 Burg, Hubert de, the judiciary 
 
 witness to a number of King 
 
 Henry III.'s letters, 49 
 Burney collection of newspapers, 
 
 119, 123 
 Bury St. Edmunds monastery, 161 
 
 Caesar, Julius, his Calendar, 11, 
 
 14 ; his invasion of Britain, 172, 
 
 173, 179, 181-192 
 Calendar, 2, 8, 12-14 
 Calendars, 2, 11, 13, 14, 104, 112, 
 
 124, 125, 156, 214, 216 
 Calends, 14-16, 32, 36, 37, 43, 65, 
 
 71, 176 
 
 Cambridge, 206 
 Camden, William, the antiquary, 
 
 82, 125, 208 
 Camden Society, 164 
 Canterbury, 28, 35, 200, 201, 205, 
 
 211 
 
 Canute the Great, 200 
 Carlisle, 195 
 
 Carlyle, Thomas, essayist and his- 
 torian, 124 
 Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, 
 
 Chancellor of King Theodoric of 
 
 the Goths, and finally Abbot of 
 
 Vivaria, 28, 157 
 Caxton, William, the first English 
 
 printer, 133, 203, 205 
 Cella, John de, Abbot of St. 
 
 Albans, 198 
 Century, a term for a period of 
 
 years, 16, 17 
 Century, first, A.D., 17 
 Century, fifth, 28, 107 
 Century, sixth, 107 
 Century, seventh, 36, 70, 178, 212 
 Century, eighth, 36, 44, 74, 172, 
 
 175, 176, 178, 212 
 Century, ninth, 34, 36, 37, 40, 99, 
 
 109, 172, 176, 212, 219 
 Century, tenth, 34, 37, 70, 104, 107, 
 
 168, 175, 212, 219 
 Century, eleventh, 34, 37, 40, 44, 
 
 70, 74, 107, 179, 212, 214 
 Century, twelfth, 23, 31, 40, 44, 74, 
 
 101, 103, 105, 108, 149, 157, 158, 
 
 212, 217 
 Century, thirteenth, 29, 31, 64, 65, 
 
 70, 74, 101, 103, 104, 149, 185, 
 
 198, 211, 212 
 Century, fourteenth, 23, 28, 29, 100, 
 
 101, 103, 104, 108, 109, 112, 203, 
 
 211, 212. 220, 221, 222 
 Century, fifteenth, 23, 28, 29, 36, 
 
 66, 70, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 
 
 108, 109, 112, 135, 158, 161, 175, 
 
 177, 187, 203, 204, 213, 220, 221 
 Century, sixteenth, 23, 26, 44, 62, 
 
 64, 66, 79, 84, 86-88, 93, 100, 101, 
 
 103, 104, 109, 132, 158, 175, 177, 
 
 201, 204, 206, 211-214, 218 
 Century, seventeenth, 23, 28, 61, 62, 
 
 83, 86, 103, 104, 211 
 Century, eighteenth, 28, 62, 145, 
 
 150, 211, 221 
 
 Century, nineteenth, 17, 201, 209 
 Ceolfrid the Abbot, 9 
 Ceowulph, a Northumbrian King, 
 
 173 
 Chambers, Colonel O. W. S., R.E. 
 
 retired, 91 
 
 Chancellor of Paris, 28 
 Charlemagne, 30 
 Charles I., King of England, 59, 80, 
 
 117, 122-124, 156, 159 
 
 Charles II., King of England, 60, 
 
 118, 121, 156, 159 
 
 Charles III., Emperor of the West, 
 
 30 
 
 Charles V., King of France, 29 
 Charles the Bald, 30 
 Charter, 38 ; Magna, or Great 
 
 Charter, 140 
 
 Charter Rolls, 41, 140, 215 
 Charters, 2, 4, 36-40, 81, 217, 218 
 Chasles, Michel, a French writer 
 
 about arithmetic, mathematics, 
 
 and Gerbertus, 107 
 Chassant, Alph., his work on the 
 
 ' Paleographie des Chartes et des 
 
 Manuscripts,' etc., 101-103 
 Chenery, Thomas, a good Oriental 
 
 scholar and a late editor of the 
 
 Times newspaper, 23 
 Chester, 203, 204 
 Chinese, the, their way of counting 
 
 on their fingers, 72 
 Christ, 5 and note, 8, 10, 17 (actual 
 
 date of His birth and death not 
 
 known, 21), 33
 
 227 
 
 Christ Church by the walls of 
 
 London placed under the pro- 
 tection of Pope Eugenius, 111 ; 
 
 MCXLVIL, 46 
 Christian, 180 
 Christian Church, 8, 22 
 Christian era, 5, 6, 8 and note, 17, 
 
 18, 20-22, 25, 29, 32, 34-36, 38, 
 
 40, 180, 218 
 Christianity (its introduction into 
 
 England, 34, 35, 172), 87, 219 
 Christians, 180 
 Christmas Day, 13 
 Chronicle, 24, 179, 187, 194, 198, 
 
 202, 203, 205 
 Chroniclers, 1, 110, 127, 133, 135 
 
 137 (about our early chroniclers, 
 
 161-213), 179, 195, 217 
 Chronicles, 35, 104, 130, 143, 157, 
 
 167, 186, 205, 213 
 Chronologers, 1, 13, 14, 42, 68, 178 
 Chronologies, 68 
 Chronology, vi, 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 16, 
 
 18-20, 28, 34, 62 (mysteries of, 4, 
 
 176), 213 
 
 Church of St. Gatien at Tours, 34 
 Clarendon's (Earl of) 'History of 
 
 the Rebellion,' 124 
 Clement VII., a Pope of Eome, 
 
 91 
 
 Close Rolls, 41, 140, 215 
 Coins, 7, 77, 221 
 Coins and medallions at Rome, 
 
 90-94, 220 
 
 Coins at Berlin, 77, 78, 220 
 Coins at Copenhagen, 78, 79, 220 
 Coins at Paris, 88, 220 
 Coins at Stockholm, 94, 95, 220 
 Coins at St. Petersburg, 75, 88, 89, 
 
 221 
 
 Coins at Vienna, 96, 97, 220 
 Coins at Zurich, 98, 99, 220 
 Coins in the British Museum, 15, 
 
 76, 79, 80, 220, 221 
 Coke, Sir Edward, the great 
 
 lawyer, 208 
 Colet, John, founder of St. Paul's 
 
 School, 130 
 Cologne, 177 
 
 Concurrents, the, 8, 33, 37 
 Constantine the Great, the Roman 
 
 Emperor, 3, 26 
 
 Constantinople, the ecclesiastical 
 and civil era of, 6, 88, 89 
 
 Cooper, C. P., his ' Account of the 
 Most Important Records of Great 
 Britain,' London, 1832, 155, 215 
 
 Coronation dates of some of our 
 English Kings and Queens, 112- 
 118, 122-126 
 
 Correspondence between Henry 
 VIII. and Cardinal Wolsey and 
 Ministers, 62, 63; public and 
 private correspondence in the 
 ' Paston Letters,' 66 
 
 Cotton, Sir Robert Bruce, a dis- 
 tinguished antiquary and collec- 
 tor of manuscripts, 172, 179 
 
 Cottonian Manuscripts in the 
 British Museum, 46, 155, 172, 
 179 
 
 Creation of the world, 1, 89, 203, 
 204 
 
 Criticism, 19, 23, 25, 27 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, the Protector, 
 118, 122,156 
 
 Cromwell, Richard, the son of the 
 above, 122 
 
 Croyland Chronicle, the, 135 
 
 Crull, B. M., his work on the 
 antiquities of St. Peter's, or the 
 Abbey Church at Westminster, 
 84-86. 
 
 Cuthbertine monks of Durham, 195 
 
 Cycle of nineteen years, 2, 7 
 
 Cycle of the moon, or lunar cycle, 
 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 
 
 Cycle of the sun, or solar cycle, 3, 
 4, 5, 7, 8 
 
 Cycles, 2, 4 5, 7, 8 and note 
 
 Damascus, 76 
 
 Damasus, a Pope of Rome, 31 
 
 Danes, the, 174, 182 
 
 Dates, 'L'Art de Verifier les,' 
 
 name of a standard French work 
 
 on the subject, 4, 20 
 Daubigny, Sir Giles, his tomb in 
 
 Westminster Abbey, 82 
 David, Psalms of, 182 
 Dayananda Sarasvati, chief of the 
 
 Arya Samaj in India, 209 
 Decretals, the pseudo-Isidorian, 26, 
 
 27 
 
 152
 
 228 
 
 Denis le Petit, or the Small, 18, 20, 
 
 21, 33. See Dionysius Exiguus 
 Denmark, 94 
 Dialogues of Pope Gregory I., 181, 
 
 182, 210 
 Diceto, Ralph de, a Benedictine, 
 
 and supposed early chronicler, 205 
 Dionysius Exiguus, or Denis le 
 
 Petit, 8, 18-22, 25, 33 
 Dom, Francois Clement, editor of 
 
 a new edition of ' L'Art de Veri- 
 fier les Dates,' 20 
 Domesday Book, or Domesday 
 
 proper, 37, 141, 152 (its date, 
 
 153-155); its contents, 153, 154 
 
 (its names, 153) ; 216 
 Domesday Books (their names, 
 
 155), 215 
 
 Domesday Survey, 154 
 Dominical letters, 8 
 Dominicans or Friar-preachers of 
 
 Thetford, 197 
 Dominicans, the, 137 
 Donation of Constantine the Great, 
 
 26 
 Douglas, Gavin, Bishop of Dun- 
 
 keld, 130 
 Dublin, 63 
 Duchesne, the Abbe, head of the 
 
 Ecole de France in Borne, 33 
 Duchesne, who wrote a ' History of 
 
 England ' up to 1641, 124 
 Dugdale, Sir W., King-of-Arms in 
 
 the time of Charles II., 128 
 Dunfermline, 122 
 
 Durham, Church of, its history, 187 
 Durham Monastery, 174, 187, 194 
 
 Ealfrid, 182, 184. See Alfred the 
 Great 
 
 Ealred of Bievaulx, a Benedictine, 
 182 
 
 East Arabic numerals, 105, 109 
 
 Easter, 8, 9, 22, 33 
 
 Easter Day, 10 
 
 Ecole de France in Borne, 33 
 
 Edmund, Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, his life, by Boger Bacon, 
 211 
 
 Edward the Confessor, 82, 140, 154 
 
 Edward I., King of England, 51, 82, 
 138, 159, 205 
 
 Edward II., King of England, 53, 
 138, 159, 201, 204 
 
 Edward III., King of England, 54, 
 137, 138, 159, 202-204 
 
 Edward IV., King of England, 56, 
 66, 132, 133, 159 
 
 Edward Prince of Wales, or Ed- 
 ward V., 132, 159 
 
 Edward VI., King of England, 58, 
 125, 156, 159 
 
 Egyptian hieroglyphic numerals, 73, 
 74 
 
 Elbod, a very early learned monk, 
 171 
 
 Eleanor de Bohun, Duchess of 
 Gloucester, her brass in West- 
 minster Abbey and its date, '82, 
 83,85 
 
 Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen and 
 wife of Henry II., King of Eng- 
 land, 48 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen of England, 58, 
 59, 124, 156, 159, 212 
 
 Ellis, Sir Henry, quoted, 136; his 
 preface to Introduction to Domes- 
 day Book, 152, 154 
 
 Eloium, now supposed to be St. 
 Asaph, 208 
 
 Encyclopaedia, 18, 152 ; Britannica, 
 209 
 
 England, 12, 13, 34-36 (treaties of, 
 42), 59, 62, 63, 67, 70, 71, 83, 
 108-110, 118, 121, 127, 129, 
 130, 133, 139 (invasion and con- 
 quest of, 144), 147, 149 (lands and 
 people of, 152 ; first great his- 
 torian of, 171), 172, 175-177, 184, 
 187-189, 200, 204, 205, 207, 218, 
 219 
 
 English, 67, 80, 166, 171, 177-179, 
 181, 185, 196, 203-205, 221 
 
 English Church, or Church of Eng- 
 land, 172, 187 
 
 English History, or a History of 
 England, 33-35, 62, 110, 117, 126, 
 127, 130, 131, 156, 166, 167, 175, 
 177, 179-181, 184, 188, 195, 196, 
 198, 199, 205, 214, 216, 217 
 
 English indenture of the year 1407, 
 written in words, not figures, 55 ; 
 English documents of 1462 and 
 1482 in Roman numerals, and
 
 229 
 
 one of the same year 1482 in 
 words only, 56 
 
 English Kings and Queens, dates of 
 their births, accessions, and 
 deaths, 110-118, 121-128, 131-144, 
 155, 156 ; dates of their reigns 
 backwards from Victoria to Wil- 
 liam I., 110, 111, 158-160 
 
 Englishman, 130, 197, 199 
 
 Englishmen, 118, 129, 163 
 
 English records, 31, 215, 216 
 
 Epact, 33, 37 
 
 Epacts, the, 8 
 
 Epitaph on Father Hardouin, 19 
 
 Epitaphs in Bede's work, 176 
 
 Epoch, 17 
 
 Epochs, 1, 6, 7, 34 
 
 Era, 35, 216 
 
 Eras, 1, 6, 7 
 
 Erasmus, the great scholar of the 
 beginning of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, his ideas on critical analysis, 
 etc., 27 
 
 Estney, John, an Abbot of West- 
 minster, 85 
 
 Ethelburht, a Saxon King of Kent, 
 36, 38, 39 
 
 Eugenius III., a Pope of Rome, 
 46 
 
 Europe, vii. 2, 18, 22, 29, 39, 65, 
 72, 76, 77, 89, 95, 100, 104, 108, 
 157, 158, 176, 180, 220 
 
 European, 100 
 
 European coins, 77, 80, 220 
 
 European States, 43 
 
 Fabulous or mythical, v, 218 
 
 Fasts, feasts, or saints' days of the 
 Church, 43, 46, 65, 66, 68, 135 
 
 Faversham monastery, 142 
 
 Feckenhain, an Abbot of Westmin- 
 ster, 82 
 
 Florence, 29, 71 
 
 Florence of Worcester, a Benedic- 
 tine and supposed early chron- 
 icler, 187, 194. 205 
 
 Forgeries, 25, 37 
 
 Forgers, 24 
 
 Forgery, 23, 25 
 
 France, 28, 34, 36, 88, 104, 118, 147, 
 175, 176, 202, 219 
 
 Francis I., King of France, 29, 88 
 
 Frederick III. of Austria, Emperor 
 
 of Germany, 78, 96, 99 
 Freeman, E. A., author of ' History 
 
 of the Norman Conquest,' 144 
 French, 18, 54, 64, 65, 68, 97, 101, 
 
 163, 185, 204 
 French Academy, 147 
 French documents and their datings, 
 
 52, 54, 55-57 
 Frenchman, 19 
 French records, 40 
 Froude the historian, 125 
 Furstenburg of Donau Esshingen, 
 
 98 
 
 Gairdner, James, editor of the ' Pas- 
 ton Letters,' 66 ; his Roll Series 
 of 1861, 68 ; his preface to Andre's 
 ' History of Henry VII.,' 128, 129 
 
 Galatz, 76 
 
 Gale, Thomas, a learned English 
 divine, 165 
 
 Gaston, Viscount of Perm, 51 
 
 Gazettes, official, 156, 216. See 
 London Gazette 
 
 Geoffrey Arthur of Monmouth, a 
 Benedictine and early chron- 
 icler, 197, 205, 206 (his works, 
 206, 208), 207-209 
 
 Geography, vi 
 
 Geometry, 104, 107 
 
 George I., King of England, 116, 
 156, 159 
 
 George II., King of England, 13, 
 115, 116, 156, 159 
 
 George III., King of England, 114, 
 115, 156, 159 
 
 George IV., King of England, 114, 
 156, 159 
 
 Gerbertus, or Pope Silvester II., a 
 very learned man for the age in 
 which he lived, 105-107 
 
 German, 20, 95, 134 
 
 Germans, 163 
 
 Germany, 34, 36, 175, 176, 219 
 
 Gervase of Canterbury, a Benedic- 
 tine and reputed early chronicler, 
 205 
 
 Ghobar figures or numerals, 105, 
 
 108 
 
 Gibbon the historian, 8 
 Gildas, an early historian of Eng-
 
 230 
 
 land, 110, 130, 166, 168 (com- 
 mentary of, 168 ; historiale of, 
 169), 169-172, 197, 217 
 
 Gilmor, James, a name on a wall 
 in a cell of the Beauchamp 
 Tower of London, with date at- 
 tached to it, 87 
 
 Giry, A., Professor at L'Ecole des 
 Chartes, Paris, and author of 
 ' Manuel de Diplomatique,' 24, 
 39, 176 
 
 Glastonbury, 35, 169 
 
 Gloucester, St. Peter's monastery 
 there, 138 
 
 Golden Number, the, 2 
 
 Gospel, the, 9 
 
 Gothic numerals, 103 
 
 Gothland, an island in the Baltic, 95 
 
 Greece, 3, 12 
 
 Greek, vi, 2, 24, 67 
 
 Greek letters, 89, 90 
 
 Greeks, 36, 90 
 
 Green, Mrs., editor of various State 
 papers and calendars, 125 
 
 Gregorian Calendar, 11, 13, 14 
 
 Gregorovius, Ferdinand, author of 
 the ' History of the City of Borne 
 in the Middle Ages,' 210 
 
 Gregory I., or St. Gregory, his 
 Dialogues, 181, 182, 210 
 
 Gregory VII., a Pope of Rome, 4 
 
 Gregory X., a Pope of Rome, 51 
 
 Gregory XIII., a Pope of Rome, 11, 
 91 
 
 Gregory XVI., a Pope of Rome, 111 
 
 Grey, Lady Jane, 125 
 
 Guacelotis, Andras, a coin and 
 medallion engraver in the fifteenth 
 century, 91 
 
 Guide to certain manuscripts, auto- 
 graphs, charters, seals, etc., in 
 the British Museum, published 
 in 1895, 167-169, 171, 178, 181, 
 185, 186, 188, 192, 193, 196, 198, 
 201-205 
 
 Guilds, 36, 37 
 
 Gutenberg, John, of Mayence, 
 inventor of the first movable type 
 for printing-presses, 133, 134 
 
 Haarlem, 133 
 
 Hadrian I., a Pope of Rome, 32, 92 
 
 Hadrian VI., a Pope of Rome, 91 
 Haines, Rev. Herbert, his ' Manual 
 
 of Monumental Brasses,' 83 
 Hall, Antony, antiquary and editor 
 
 of Leland's works, ' De Scriptori- 
 
 bus Britannicis,' in two volumes, 
 
 1709, 165, 207 , 
 Hall's Chronicle, 125 
 Hamburg, 95 
 Hanover, 115 
 Hardouin, the Jesuit Father, 19, 
 
 20, 23, 25 
 Hardy, Sir Thomas Duffus, 
 
 Deputy-Keeper of Public Records, 
 
 author and editor of many works, 
 
 140, 141 
 Harleian Manuscripts in the British 
 
 Museum, 125, 155 
 Hastings, Battle of, 144, 148, 149, 
 
 185, 186 
 Havet, Professor Louis, a French 
 
 writer about Gerbertus, 108 
 Heidelberg, 177 
 Henry I., King of England, 42, 45, 
 
 48, 61, 141-143, 160, 189 
 Henry II., King of England, 46, 48, 
 
 61, 141, 142, 160, 189, 193-195, 
 
 200, 215, 216 
 Henry III., King of England, 49, 
 
 50, 61, 64, 70, 80, 82, 139, 159, 
 
 199, 200, 218, 219 
 Henry IV., King of England, 55, 
 
 65, 136, 159 
 
 Henry V., King of England, 56, 82, 
 
 135, 136, 159 
 Henry VI., King of England, 56, 
 
 66, 133-136, 159 
 
 Henry VII., King of England. 57, 
 66, 68, 80, 81, 86, 110, 127-129, 
 131, 156, 159, 161, 162, 214, 
 216 
 
 Henry VIII., King of England, 57- 
 59,' 62, 63, 111, 126, 129-131, 
 156, 159, 161, 162, 166, 172, 214 
 
 Henry II., King of France, 88 
 
 Henry of Huntingdon, the reputed 
 author of 'Historia Anglorum.' 
 an early chronicler, 171, 183, 
 192 ; his works named by John 
 Boston, 192, 193 (also named by 
 Leland, 193), 194 
 
 Herbat, Dr., Director of the collec-
 
 231 
 
 tion of coins and medals at 
 
 Copenhagen, 78 
 Hereford, 201 
 Hermitage, the, at St. Petersburg, 
 
 coin department there, 88 
 Herods, the two, 21 
 Hieratic numerals, 74 
 Higden, Kalph, or Ranulph, a 
 
 Benedictine, and reputed author 
 
 of the ' Polvchronicon,' 203 (his 
 
 works, 203, 204), 207 
 Hijra, or Hegira, i.e., year of the 
 
 Mohammedan era, 7, 75, 76, 95 
 Hildebrand, Bror Emil, author of a 
 
 work on Anglo-Saxon coins, 95 
 Hindus, the, inventors of the 
 
 decimal system of numeration, 
 
 74, 75 
 Hingeston, Eev. F. C., his royal 
 
 and historical letters of the reign 
 
 of Henry IV., 65, 136 
 Historian, 169, 171, 181, 188, 193, 
 
 195 
 Historians, 1, 13, 14, 42, 68, 132, 
 
 178, 193, 194, 198 
 Historical, 7, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, 
 
 28, 143, 158, 180, 184, 203, 205 
 Historiographer, 198, 199 
 History, v, vi, 1, 14, 20, 110, 168, 
 
 169, 172, 174, 178, 181, 186, 187, 
 
 189, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 200, 
 
 202-205, 207, 208 
 Hollander, 134 
 
 Honorius, a Bishop in England, 177 
 Honorius, a Pope of Rome, 177 
 Hume, David, the historian (the 
 
 chroniclers quoted by him, 133, 
 
 137, 139), 138, 140, 163 
 Hunsdon, a place dated from in 
 
 1528, 62 
 Huntingdon, 171, 183, 192 
 
 Ides, 14-16, 32, 36, 43, 65, 71, 176 
 Incarnation dates, or dating, 30-34, 
 
 36, 39, 40, 44. 48, 49, 61, 69, 70, 
 
 79, 89, 99, 109, 175, 176, 180, 
 
 213, 219 
 Incarnation year, 30, 38, 39, 176, 
 
 219 
 
 India, 74, 209 
 Indian, 75 
 Indiction, 3-5, 8, 31-33, 36, 37, 46, 50 
 
 Indictions, 3-5, 8, 30, 176 
 Innocent III., a Pope of Rome, 30, 
 
 49 
 Innocent IV., a Pope of Rome, 50, 
 
 200 
 
 Innocent VIII., a Pope of Rome, 93 
 Inscription, 82, 85, 86, 89 
 Inscriptions, 7, 82-85, 87, 108, 176, 
 
 221 
 
 lona, 172 
 
 Ireland, 63, 95, 121, 171 
 Irish coins, 95 
 Italian, 68, 163, 166, 174 
 Italians, 163, 206 
 Italy, 30, 35, 36, 174-176, 219 
 
 Jaffe, Philip, Editor of the ' Re- 
 gesta Pontificum Romanorum,' 25 
 
 James I., King of England, 59, 119, 
 124, 156, 159, 212 
 
 James II., King of England, 118, 
 121, 156, 159 
 
 Jarrow in Northumberland, 171, 
 174, 187 
 
 Jersey, 185 
 
 Jesus, 35 
 
 Jewish Passover, 9 
 
 John XIII., a Pope of Rome, 34 
 
 John, King of England, 48, 49, 139, 
 140, 160, 187, 195 
 
 Johnson, Edwin, M.A., author of 
 ' Antiqua Mater,' ' The Rise of 
 Christendom,' and other works, 
 vii 
 
 John the Good, King of France, 29 
 
 Joseph of Arimathea, 35 
 
 Josephus Sapiens, or Josephus His- 
 panus, his work on the multiplica- 
 tion and division of numbers, 
 106-108 
 
 Journals of the Lords and Commons, 
 commenced in 1509 and 1547, 126 
 
 Jubilee of the Popes, 92 
 
 Julian Calendar, 11-14 
 
 Julian Period, 4, 5, 13, 14 
 
 Julius II., a Pope of Rome, 93 
 
 Julius III., a Pope of Rome, 92 
 
 Kasan, a town in Russia, 95 
 Kemble, John Mitchell, his ' Codex 
 
 Diplomaticus Mvi Saxonici,' 38 
 Kensington Museum, 148
 
 232 
 
 Kensington Palace, 112, 117 
 
 Keys of the movable feasts, 8 
 
 Khalifs, the, 24, 75 
 
 Koran, the, 210 
 
 Koster, Laurens, of Haarlem, said 
 to be the first inventor and printer 
 of books from block type, 138, 134 
 
 Lanciani, Professor at Borne, a 
 great authority on Eoman anti- 
 quities, and author of ' Ancient 
 Borne ' and other works, 30 
 
 Langley, or King's Langley, where 
 Bichard II. was buried by the 
 Dominicans, 137 
 
 Lansdowne MSS. in the British 
 Museum, 155 
 
 Lardner, D., author of ' Common 
 Things Explained,' 21 
 
 Lateran, the, at Borne, 31, 105 
 
 Latin, vi, 19, 20, 24, 35, 48, 51, 54, 
 65, 67-70, 82, 86, 103, 128, 129, 
 148, 155, 164, 170, 171, 181-183, 
 186, 187, 190, 195, 196, 203, 207 
 
 Latin documents and their datings, 
 49, 51, 56-59 
 
 Latin writers, 131 
 
 Latin-writing foreign ecclesiastics 
 in Henry VII. 's reign, 128 
 
 Laurentius Valla, Secretary to King 
 Alphonso of Naples ; his report on 
 the famous donation of Constan- 
 tine proving it to be a forgery, 26 
 
 Lazarus, 35 
 
 Leap Year, 12 
 
 Lee, the Archbishop, dating of his 
 letters, 63 
 
 Legend, 18-21, 25, 28, 38, 111, 127, 
 184, 217 
 
 Legendary, v, 29, 80, 170, 204, 208 
 
 Legends, 22, 24, 27, 205, 208 
 
 Leicester, 127 
 
 Leland, John (his ' De Scriptoribus 
 Britannicis,' 131, 165), 161, 162 
 (where he studied, 164 ; his literary 
 tour in England, 164 ; his report 
 to King Henry VIII., 164; his 
 death, 165 ; to whom his writings 
 went, 165 ; his literary remains, 
 how dealt with, 165 ; published 
 by Antony Hall, 165), 166, 168- 
 171, 173, 174, 179, 183, 184, 187, 
 
 189-191, 193, 195, 197, 199 (re- 
 peats the Benedictine legend about 
 the two monasteries founded by 
 Canute the Great, 200) ; about 
 Matthew Paris and his works, 
 200-202, 204 (about Geoffrey 
 Arthur of Monmouth, 206-208); 
 about Boger Bacon, 210-212 
 
 Lemon, Bobert, editor of State 
 Papers and Calendars for 1547- 
 1580, 125 
 
 Leo IV., a Pope of Borne, 182 
 
 Leo X., a Pope of Borne, 90, 94 
 
 Leo XII., a Pope of Borne, 111 
 
 Leo XIII., the reigning Pope at 
 Borne, 111 
 
 Libraries, 23, 27-29 
 
 Library, 28, 29, 31 
 
 Library of the House of Lords, 123 
 
 Lingard the historian, 125 
 
 Literature, 20, 23, 24 
 
 London, 36, 41, 50, 53, 55, 79, 120, 
 129, 134, 137, 157, 162, 177, 200, 
 216, 220 
 
 London Gazette, 112-118, 120, 122, 
 214 
 
 Loo, in Holland, 118 
 
 Lords and Commons' Journals, 112, 
 114, 123-126, 214 
 
 Lothair, Emperor of the West, 30 
 
 Louis XIV., King of France, 118 
 
 Louis the German, 30 
 
 Louvain, 177 
 
 Lubeck, 95 
 
 Lunar, 2, 11 
 
 Lunar cycle, 2, 4, 5, 8, 37 
 
 Lunar cycles, 4, 5, 8, 21, 22 
 
 Lunar eclipses, 7 
 
 Mabillon, the famous Benedictine 
 of St. Maur (his works on 
 Monastic Studies, etc., 23), 25, 28, 
 178 
 
 Macaulay's ' History of England,' 
 121 
 
 Magna Charta, or the Great Charter 
 of King John, 140 
 
 Mahmud of Ghazni, 74 
 
 Malet, Sir Alexander, his trans- 
 lation of Master Wace's poem of 
 'Le Boman de Bou,' 149, 185 
 
 Malmesbury, 107 (Benedictines of,
 
 233 
 
 174; Monastery of, 188), 189; 
 
 (Library, 190; Church, 190; 
 
 Abbot of, 190), 191 
 Mansion, Colard, the first printer 
 
 of Bruges in 1474, 133 
 Manumissions, 36, 37 
 Manuscript chronicles of England, 
 
 127 
 Manuscripts, 7, 27, 34, 46, 89, 90, 
 
 100, 101, 103-105, 108, 109, 143, 
 
 157, 158, 167-169, 172, 175-178, 
 
 180, 188, 191, 212, 213, 221 
 Margaret, The Lady, Countess of 
 
 Richmond, mother of Henry VII., 
 
 81, 85, 130 
 Marian the Scot, a Benedictine and 
 
 reputed early chronicler, 205 
 Markoff, Dr., Chief of the Oriental 
 
 coin department at St. Peters- 
 burg, 75 
 
 Martin V., a Pope of Rome, 92 
 Mary Magdalen, 35 
 Mary I., Queen of England, 58, 80, 
 
 125, 156, 159 
 Mary II., Queen of England, 117, 
 
 156, 159 
 
 Master of the Rolls Series, 201 
 Mathematics, 104 
 Matilda, Queen and wife of William 
 
 the Conqueror, 144, 145, 148 
 Maundeville, John, Rector of Burn- 
 ham Thorpe, in Norfolk, and 
 
 translator of the ' Chronicle of the 
 
 Brut,' 204, 205 
 Maximilian I., Emperor of Austria 
 
 and Germany, 97, 99 
 Mayence, 133, 134 
 Medicis, Catherine de, 29 
 Medicis, Lorenzo de, 29 
 Melancthon, 174 
 Melrose, 174 ; Abbey of, 194 
 Merlin, Prophecies of, 206, 208 
 Merton College, Oxford, 169 
 Merton, Walter de, the writer of 
 
 several dated letters during the 
 
 reign of Edward I., 51 
 Messana, 47 
 Mint or mints where coins have 
 
 been struck, 76, 90-92, 94 
 Mint or Zekka at Rome, 92, 94 
 Monasteries, 20, 23, 27, 37, 39 
 Monasteries in England in which 
 
 copies of Bede's History were 
 
 found by John Boston, 173 
 Monasteries of Congersbury, Bani- 
 
 val, Grancestre, and St. Bertin, 184 
 Monasteries of Peter, of Hyde, and 
 
 of the New Monastery which lay 
 
 claim to the corpse of Alfred the 
 
 Great, 183 
 
 Monkish miracles, 164 
 Monmouth, 206 
 Monte Cassino, the Benedictine 
 
 monastery, 157 
 Montesius, Professor Oscar, Director 
 
 of the coin department in the 
 
 Stockholm Museum, 94 
 Monuments, 7, 221 
 Moon, the, 10 
 More, Sir Thomas, his life of 
 
 Richard III., 132 
 Morning Post newspaper, 112, 114, 
 
 115 
 Moscow, first book in Russia with 
 
 a date printed there, 90 
 Moses, Law of, 9 
 Moslem men of letters, 24 
 Muhammad, the prophet and 
 
 apostle, 75, 210 
 Muhlbacker, Dr. E., his ' Records 
 
 of Charles III., Emperor of the 
 
 West,' 30 
 Murimuth, Adam, his occupations 
 
 and works, 201, 202 ; praised by 
 
 Leland, 202 ; apparently two 
 
 Murimuths, 202 
 Murray's ' New English Dictionary,' 
 
 16, 17 
 
 Museum at Zurich, 98 
 Museums at Vienna, 96, 97 
 Museums of Europe, vii, 220 
 Mysteries of the past, vi ; of 
 
 chronology, 4, 176 
 
 Nagl, Johann Willibad, Professor 
 
 and writer about Gerbertus, etc., 
 
 107 
 
 Naitan, King of the Picts, 9 
 Names of newspapers, 119-123 
 Names of the years and the terms 
 
 applied to them, 70, 71 
 Napoleon the Great, 14, 147 
 Natural Science Tracts falsely 
 
 ascribed to Bede, 174
 
 234 
 
 Nennius, an early English historian, 
 
 110, 169; his works, 169-171 
 
 (said to be the disciple of one 
 
 Elbod, 171), 217 
 Newburgh Monastery, 197 
 New English era to be called the 
 
 Victorian era, 62, 113 
 Newspapers, 112, 114-116, 118-121, 
 
 123, 156, 216 
 New Style, introduced at Borne, 11, 
 
 12 ; proposed in Eussia, 12, note 
 
 (introduced into England, 12, 13), 
 
 60, 114, 115 
 
 New Testament, the, 27 
 New York, 157 
 
 Nicolas I., a Pope of Rome, 26 
 Nicolas II., a Pope of Borne, 69 
 Nicolas V., a Pope of Borne, 91, 93 
 Nicolas, Baron Carew, his tomb in 
 
 Westminster Abbey, 85 
 Nicolas, Sir Harris, his ' Chrono- 
 logy of History,' 16, 37, 133, 135, 
 
 136, 138-144 
 
 Nones, 14, 16, 32, 36, 43, 65, 71, 176 
 Norfolk, 205 
 Norman Conquest, the, 126, 144, 
 
 145, 179, 185, 186, 196, 218 
 Normandy, 144, 145 
 Northumberland, or Northumbria, 
 
 175, 187 
 Northumbrian Chronicle, 194 ; 
 
 Kings, 174; nation, 187 
 Norway, 200 
 Norwegian, 200 
 Norwich Monastery, 195 ; town of, 
 
 200 ; Bishop of, 200 
 Novgorod, in Bussia, an earl}' com 
 
 of, 89 
 Numerals. See Arabic numerals, 
 
 Boman numerals, East and West 
 
 Arabic numerals, and Ghobnr 
 
 figures or numerals 
 Numismatics, vi 
 Nuremberg, two old cemeteries at, 
 
 78 
 
 Odon, or Odo, the thirty-first Bishop 
 
 of Bayeux, 146 
 Official correspondence, 41 
 Olcott, Colonel, President of the 
 
 Theosophical Society in America, 
 
 209 
 
 Old Style, 12 and note, 114 
 Old Testament, the, 19 
 Old wives' fables, 164, 170 
 O'Lezipont, a Benedictine Father, 
 
 21 
 Omar, the second Khalifah after 
 
 Muhammad, 75 
 Omayyide dynasty, the, 75 
 Order of St. Benedict, 20 
 Oriental numerals, 74 
 Orosius, a Spanish presbyter and 
 
 historian of the fifth century, 183 
 Othman, the third Khalifah after 
 
 Muhammad, 75 
 
 Oxford, 23, 169, 175, 182, 201, 206 
 Oxford Gazette, 120 
 
 Paleographists, 213 
 
 Paleography, vi, 101, 212 
 
 Papal documents, 219 
 
 Papal records, registers and letters, 
 30, 81, 34, 48, 57, 69 
 
 Paris, 28, 60, 74, 76, 88, 97, 101, 
 105, 118, 147, 157, 177, 200, 220 
 
 Paris, Matthew, an early chronicler, 
 139 ; the reputed author of the 
 ' Histories Anglorum,' 198; his 
 works, 198-200 ; none found by 
 John Boston, not mentioned by 
 Polydore Vergil, 199, 201; but 
 Leland writes about him, 199- 
 201 ; named as an authority in 
 Baker's Chronicle, 201 
 
 Parma, 90, 91 
 
 Paschal cycle, 7, 8, 22 
 
 Paschal cycles, 4, 8, 21 
 
 Paschal dates, 33 
 
 Paschal moon, 10 
 
 Paschal term, 8-10, 37 
 
 Passover, the, 9 
 
 ' Paston Letters, The,' extending 
 from 1422 to 1509, 66-68, 218 
 
 Paston, Sir John, 67 
 
 Patent Bolls, 41, 140, 215 
 
 Patrick, St., his charter and letter, 
 38 
 
 Paul II., a Pope of Borne, 92 
 
 Paul IV., a Pope of Borne, 91 
 
 Paul's, St., London, 49, 193, 201, 
 202 
 
 Periods, 6, 7 
 
 Persia, 95
 
 235 
 
 Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, 89 
 Petersburg, St., 75, 88, 221 
 Phoenician numerals, 74 
 Philip, King of France, 47 
 Philip of Spain, husband of our 
 
 Queen Mary I., 58 
 Pihan, A. P., his ' Expose des 
 Signes de Numeration,' etc., 74, 
 105 
 
 Pipe Rolls, 41, 141, 216, 218 
 Pipe Roll Society, 141 
 Pits, the bibliographer, 165, 212 
 Pius II., a Pope of Rome, 92 
 Pius IV., a Pope of Rome, 91 
 Pius V., a Pope of Rome, 93, 94 
 Pius VII., a Pope of Rome, 111 
 Pius VIII., a Pope of Rome, 111 
 Pius IX., a Pope of Rome, 92, 111 
 Plummer, Rev. Charles, his Latin 
 edition of Bede's History, 175, 176 
 Poetry, 24 
 
 Poole, Stanley Lane, his Catalogue 
 of Oriental Coins in the British 
 Museum, 76, 
 Popes of Rome : 
 
 Alexander III., 47 
 
 Alexander VI., 93 
 
 Clement VII., 91 
 
 Damasus, 31 
 
 Eugenius III., 46 
 
 Gregory I., 181, 210 
 
 Gregory VII., 4 
 
 Gregory X., 51 
 
 Gregory XIII., 11, 91, 93 
 
 Gregory XVI., Ill 
 
 Hadrian I., 32, 92 
 
 Hadrian VI., 91 
 
 Honorius, 177 
 
 Innocent III., 30, 49 
 
 Innocent IV., 50, 200 
 
 Innocent VIII., 93 
 
 John XIII., 34 
 
 Julius II., 93 
 
 Julius III., 92 
 
 Leo IV., 182 
 
 Leo X., 90, 94 
 
 Leo XII., Ill 
 
 Leo XIII., Ill 
 
 Martin V., 92 
 
 Nicolas I., 26 
 
 Nicolas II., 69 
 
 Nicolas V., 91, 93 
 
 Popes of Rome continued 
 Paul II., 92 
 Paul IV., 91 
 Pius II., 92 
 Pius IV., 91 
 Pius V., 93, 94 
 Pius VI., Ill 
 Pius VII., Ill 
 Pius VIII., Ill 
 Pius IX., 92, 111 
 Silvester II., 105 
 Sixtus IV., 91-93 
 Zachary, 32 
 Popes, the, 3, 31, 33, 39, 48, 91-93, 
 
 111 
 
 Portugal, 35 
 
 Positive history, vi, 80, 164, 214 
 Possible history, vi, 80, 217 
 Preface and contents of this work, v 
 Price, Martha, her tomb and tablet 
 
 in Westminster Abbey, 86 
 Printing, 22, 23, 29 
 Printing, invention of, 133, 158, 
 
 159, 167, 205, 222 
 
 Privy Council, records of proceed- 
 ings begin in 1540, 126 
 Probable history, vi, 80, 216 
 Psalter, early dated, 134 
 Public and State Record Office in 
 Chancery Lane, vii, 66, 84, 88, 141 
 Public Records, list of the early, 
 
 with their names, 215, 216 
 Putnam, George H., author of 
 ' Books and their Makers during 
 the Middle Ages,' 26, 27, 133, 157 ; 
 describes three stages or periods 
 of literary work, 157, 158 
 
 Quaritch, Bernard, 134 
 
 Reading, 142 
 
 Record, 14, 129 
 
 Record Commission, 57, 62 
 
 Record Office of Westminster 
 Abbey, 42 
 
 Record of Parliamentary Proceed- 
 ings, 60 
 
 Records, 1, 7, 14, 28, 30, 31, 41, 104, 
 110, 111, 188; earliest records in 
 the shape of Charter, Patent, Pipe 
 and Close Rolls, and other docu- 
 ments, 215-218
 
 236 
 
 Records of Charles III., Emperor 
 
 of the West, 30 
 Kegesta, or Records of the Popes, 
 
 30,31 
 Registers, 1, 7, 14,41, 104, 111, 112, 
 
 156, 216 
 Regulars, the, 7 
 Reigns of Kings, Emperors, and 
 
 Sovereigns, and datings from 
 
 various epochs which occurred 
 
 during those reigns, 34 
 Renaissance, the, 27 
 Reps, the learned Bishop of 
 
 Norwich, 200 
 
 Resurrection of our Lord, 9, 22 
 Rich (Edward), Archbishop of 
 
 Canterbury, 200 
 Richard I., King of England, 47, 
 
 48, 61, 141, 160, 197 
 Richard II., King of England, 43, 
 
 44, 55, 137, 159, 202 
 Richard III., Duke of Gloucester, 
 
 afterwards King of England, 57, 
 
 66, 68, 128, 131, 132, 159 
 Richer, pupil of Gerbertus (he 
 
 wrote an account of the studies 
 
 of his master), 106 
 Richmond, Palace of, 128 
 Rievaulx, Abbot and Convent of, 
 
 196 
 Roger of Hoveden, or Howden, an 
 
 early chronicler, 183, 187, 193, 
 
 194 ; not mentioned by Boston, 
 
 but by Vergil and Leland, 195 
 Roger of Wendover, the reputed 
 
 author of ' Flores Historiarum,' 
 
 198, 199 
 Rolls, 104. See Charter, Close, 
 
 Patent, and Pipe Rolls 
 Rolls Series, 136 
 Roman, 19, 27, 43, 51, 65, 67, 108, 
 
 168, 195 
 
 Roman Calendar, 14-16, 36, 81 
 Roman Catholic Church, 8, 26, 
 
 27 
 ' Roman de Rou (Rollo) et des 
 
 Dues de Normandie,' written by 
 
 Master Wace, 149 ; edited by 
 
 Frederick Pluquet, Rouen, 1827 ; 
 
 translations of it by Taylor and 
 
 Malet, 149 
 Roman Emperors, the, 21 
 
 Roman invasion and conquest of 
 
 Britain, 168, 170 
 Roman numerals, 32, 33, 45-47, 49, 
 
 51, 55, 61, 64-71, 79, 81, 83-86, 
 
 88, 91-93, 96, 100, 101, 103, 104, 
 
 134, 163, 180, 221, 222 
 Romans, the, their conquest, occu- 
 pation, and departure from 
 
 Britain, 168 
 Rome, 11, 18, 21, 30, 33, 35, 39, 
 
 90-92, 105, 172, 176, 182, 210, 
 
 219, 220 
 Rous, or Ross, John, of Warwick, 
 
 a priest and author of ' Hist. 
 
 Regum Angliae,' which is meagre, 
 
 but instructive as an early sketch 
 
 of royal romance, 134, 135 ; 
 
 quoted by Leland, 182 
 Royal and Historical Letters (Rolls 
 
 Series), 136 
 Royal letters and their datings, 52, 
 
 58 
 Royal genealogies, 115-118, 122, 
 
 124-126 
 
 Runnymede, or Running Mead, 140 
 Russia, 12 note, 89, 90, 95 
 Russian, 89 
 Russians, 88 
 Ruthall, Bishop of Durham, his 
 
 tomb in Westminster Abbey, the 
 
 earliest one there dated with 
 
 Arabic numerals, 81, 86 
 Rye, Walter, his ' Records and 
 
 Record-Searching,' 41, 64, 126, 
 
 141, 155, 215 
 Rymer, Thomas, his ' Fcedera, 
 
 Conventiones, Litterse,' etc., 42- 
 
 44, 46, 48, 60, 61, 67, 70, 84, 87, 
 
 125, 219, 220 
 
 St. Maur, the Benedictines of, 20, 178 
 Samuel the Briton, a disciple of 
 
 Elbod, 171 
 Sanctus Ericus Rex, an old King of 
 
 Sweden, 94 
 Sanderson, Robert, Master of the 
 
 Rolls, 43 
 
 Sanscritists, the, 74 
 Saxo Grammaticus, a Benedictine 
 
 and early chronicler, 205 
 Saxon invasion and conquest of 
 
 Britain, 168 ; Saxon tyranny, 171
 
 237 
 
 Saxon Kings, Charters of the, 81 
 
 Scaliger, Joseph Justus (his works, 
 4), 5. 6, 16, 18 
 
 Scargill-Bird, S. R., his work on 
 the Public Records, 215 
 
 Schultens, Albert, his work 
 ' Monumenta Vetustiora Arabiae,' 
 24 
 
 Scotland, 95, 117, 121, 208 
 
 Scott, Edward J. L., of the British 
 Museum, 84 
 
 Scott, George Gilbert, his work on 
 Westminster Abbey, 81 
 
 Scottish documents, 57 ; Scotch 
 bonnet gold piece of 1539, 79 ; 
 Scotch historian, 117 ; Scottish 
 story, 130 
 
 Scythian, 18 
 
 Sea, the Baltic, 95 ; the Black, 95 ; 
 the Caspian, 95 ; the North, 95 
 
 Serafini, Professor Cavaliere '^Cam- 
 illo, Director of the coin depart- 
 ment in the Vatican Library, 90, 
 93 
 
 Shakespeare, William (his mys- 
 terious collaborators and histori- 
 cal plays, 131), 208 
 
 Sherwood, John, Bishop of 
 Durham, 67 
 
 Shirley, Rev. Walter W., editor of 
 ' Royal and Historical Letters of 
 the Reign of Henry III.,' 64 
 
 Sicily (kingdom of, 50), Arabic 
 numerals early used in, 108 
 
 Sigismund, Archduke of the Tyrol, 
 97 
 
 Silvester II., a Pope of Rome, 105. 
 See Gerbertus 
 
 Simeon of Durham, an early 
 chronicler, 186, 187, 194 
 
 Simon, Bishop of Paris, 28 
 
 Sixtus IV., a Pope of Rome, 91-93 
 
 Smirnov, Professor, a good 
 Turkish scholar, employed in 
 the Oriental Department of the 
 Imperial Public Library at St. 
 Petersburg, 75 
 
 Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge, 154 
 
 Solar cycle, 3-5, 8 
 
 Solar cycles, 4, 5, 8, 21, 22 
 
 Solar eclipses, 7 
 
 Solar year, 11 
 
 Solomon the King, 24 
 
 Spain, 35, 105, 107, 108 
 
 Spanish, 68 
 
 Spanish era, 35, 46, 50 
 
 Stanley, the Dean of Westminster, 
 
 his ' Memorials of Westminster 
 
 Abbey,' 42, 81, 82, 126 
 State Paper Office, none till 1578, 
 
 126 
 
 State Record Office, vii 
 State Papers and Records, 50, 57, 
 
 62, 84, 88, 112, 122, 124-126, 156, 
 
 214 
 State Papers Domestic and 
 
 Foreign, edited by Mr. Lemon, 
 
 Mrs. Everett Green, Messrs. 
 
 Bruce and Hamilton, Mr. 
 
 Brewer, and others, 64 
 State Trials, 123 
 Stephen, King of England, 45, 48, 
 
 61, 142, 160, 187, 189, 192, 193, 
 
 196 
 
 Stockholm, 94, 95 
 Stockholm National Museum coin 
 
 department, 94, 95, 220 
 'Stone of Tmutarakan,' on which is 
 
 the earliest dated inscription in 
 
 the Russian language, 89 
 Strasburg, 177 
 
 Sunday letter, cycle of the, 3 
 Sweden, 94, 95 
 Swedes, the, 94 
 Swedish, 95 
 Swiss early dated coin, 79, 80, 98, 
 
 221 
 
 Switzerland, 98 
 Sybil, the leaves of the, 211 
 Syria, 108 
 
 Talbot, Thomas, a name inscribed 
 on a wall in the Beauchamp 
 Tower, with the date of 1462 in 
 Arabic numerals, 87 
 
 Tanner, Thomas, a learned divine 
 and antiquary and bibliographer 
 (his 'Bibloth. Brit. Hiber.' of 
 1748, 162, 172), 165 
 
 Tarragona, Council of, 35 
 
 Taylor, Edgar, his translation in 
 prose of part of the ' Roman de 
 Rou,' 149
 
 238 
 
 Taylor, Isaac, his work on ' The 
 
 Alphabet,' etc., 104 
 Thierry, Jacques Nicolas Augustus, 
 
 French historian and author of 
 
 ' The Norman Conquest of Eng- 
 land,' 144 
 Thorold Rogers, Professor James E., 
 
 his 'History of Agriculture and 
 
 Prices in England from 1259 to 
 
 1703,' 218 
 Thorpe, Benjamin, his translations, 
 
 36-38 
 
 Time, how computed, 1 
 Times newspaper, The, 112, 114 ; 
 
 correspondence in it in 1898 
 
 about King Alfred, 185 
 Tischendorf Sinaitic Codex at St. 
 
 Petersburg, 90 
 Toledo, 50 
 Tomb, 81, 82, 85 
 Tombs, 81, 82, 84, 85, 221 
 Toulouse, 128 
 Tours, the Municipal Library there, 
 
 34 
 Tower of London, 80, 87, 88, 132, 
 
 221 
 Tradition, 28, 111, 127, 148, 152, 
 
 184, 187, 217 
 
 Traditional, v, 29, 80, 184 
 Trevisa, John de, Chaplain to Lord 
 
 Berkeley, and translator of Ealph 
 
 Higden's ' Polychronicon,' 203 
 Trivet, .Nicolas, a Dominican and 
 
 early chronicler, 205 
 Trojans, the, 204 
 Trotter, Colonel, Consul-General at 
 
 Galatz, on the Danube, 76 
 Truth, and search after it, vi 
 Tudor, 132 
 Tudor, the reigning House from 
 
 1485 to 1603, 80, 81, 129, 130, 196 
 Tudor historians, the, 127 
 Tudor period, vi, 128, 129, 186 
 Tudor writers, vii, 172, 185 
 Tuke, Brian, 57, 63 
 Turkish, 75 
 Turks, the, 75 
 Turris Cartularia, of ancient Rome, 
 
 31 
 
 Universities of Bologna and Paris, 
 157 
 
 Upper Burgundy Records, Incarna- 
 tion dating, first mentioned in 
 888 A.D. 
 
 Urbino, 128, 129, 161, 163 
 
 Valla, 26. See Laurentius 
 
 Vatican, Archives and Records of 
 the, 26, 30, 31, 33 
 
 Vatican collection of coins, 90-92, 
 94, 220 
 
 Venice, 71 
 
 Verefied, Bishop of Worcester, 182 
 
 Vergil, .Polydore, of Urbino, Italian- 
 Anglo ecclesiastic (author of 'His- 
 toria Anglica,' and another work 
 on Inventions, 59, 162), 128-133, 
 135-144, 156, 161, 162, 165, 166, 
 168-171, 173, 179, 181, 184, 187, 
 189, 191, 193, 195, 197-199, 201- 
 204, 206, 207, 210, 211 
 
 Verulam, the old name of St. Al- 
 bans, 200 
 
 Vicanius, Richard, 200 
 
 Victorian era, dating from January 1, 
 1887, 62, 113 
 
 Victoria, Queen and Empress of 
 India, our reigning Sovereign, 
 110-112, 156, 159 
 
 Vienna museums, 96-98, 220 
 
 Vivaria, or Viviers Monastery, in 
 Calabria, 157 
 
 Volga River, 95 
 
 Wace, Maistre or Master, a Nor- 
 man poet and Canon of Bayeux, 
 reputed author of the ' Roman de 
 Ecu,' 146. 149, 151, 185, 186 
 
 Wales. 169. 184 
 
 Walpole, Horace, 132 
 
 Walsingharn, Thomas, a Benedic- 
 tine monk of St. Albans, 135-137, 
 139 
 
 Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, a 
 friend of Geoffrey Arthur of 
 Monmouth, 207 
 
 Walter of Coventry, an early 
 chronicler and Benedictine writer, 
 195, 205 
 
 Wars of the Roses, 136 
 
 Weissenborn, Frederick W. H. C. 
 H., of Eisenach, professor and 
 German author who wrote about
 
 239 
 
 Gerbertus in a ' Contribution to 
 the Knowledge of Medieval Mathe- 
 matics,' 1887, and ' Eine Studie 
 zur Geschichte der Einmhrung 
 der jetzigen Ziffern in Europa 
 durch Gerbert,' 1892, 106, 108 
 
 Wells, of which place Polydore 
 Vergil was Archdeacon, 162, 197 
 
 Werdmuller, H. Zeller, Director of 
 the coin department in the Zurich 
 Museum, 98 
 
 West Arabic numerals, 105, 109 
 
 West Francian records, Incarna- 
 tion dating first mentioned in 888, 
 30 
 
 West Frankish Church, 26 
 
 Westminster Abbey, 48, 80-84, 86, 
 87, 220 
 
 Westminster Hall, 122 
 
 Westminster, Palace of, 58 
 
 Westmonasterium, or West Monas- 
 tery, 46, 58, 132, 137, 142 
 
 West of Europe, 39, 176 
 
 Whitehall, 123 
 
 Will of Henry VIII., 58, 126 
 
 William I. the Conqueror. King of 
 England, 36, 42, 44, 61, 110, 111, 
 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152-154, 
 156, 160, 174, 186, 216, 217 
 
 William Bufus, or Bouse, or the 
 Red, i.e., William II., King of 
 England, 44, 61, 143, 160 
 
 William III., King of England, 117, 
 118, 140, 156, 159 
 
 William IV., King of England, 113, 
 156', 159 
 
 William of Malrnesbury, reputed 
 author of ' Gesta Begum An- 
 glorum,' an early chronicler, 
 107, 182, 183, 188, 189 (bibliothe- 
 cary or librarian of his monas- 
 tery, 189 ; list of books said to 
 have been written by him, 190, 
 191), 192 
 
 William of Newburgh, surnamed 
 the Small, and reputed author 
 of ' Historia Anglicana,' 196, 197 
 
 Wills, 36, 37, 41, 216 
 
 Winchester, 153 ; the Benedictines 
 of, claim their monasteries as re- 
 ceptacles of the corpse of Alfred 
 the Great, 183 
 
 Windsor, 113 
 
 Windsor Castle, 140 
 
 Winterthur, Library of, 98 
 
 Wisby, the capital of Gothland, 95, 
 96 
 
 Wolsey, the Cardinal, 57, 62 
 
 Wood, Anthony, the Oxford Anti- 
 quary, 81 
 
 Woodstock, 62 
 
 Woodward. John, the date on his 
 tombstone in Westminster Abbey, 
 86 
 
 Wraysbury, Bectory of, 202 
 
 Year from the nativitv of Christ, 
 
 54, 139, 142 
 Year of, or from, the creation of the 
 
 world, 1, 89, 90 
 Year of, or from, the Incarnation, 
 
 46, 56, 57, 64 
 
 Year of the Christian era, 34, 89, 90 
 Year of the Consulate, 32 
 Year of the era, 63, 64 
 Year of the Lord, or of Christ, 67 
 Year of the Pontificate, or of the 
 
 reign of the Pope, 32, 46, 48, 50, 
 
 52, 56, 64, 65, 93 
 
 Year of the reigns of Kings, Em- 
 perors, and Sovereigns, 34, 45, 
 
 176, 177 
 Year of the reign of the King, 36, 
 
 44, 57-59, 63-66, 68, 69, 216, 218 
 Year, the date of its commencement 
 
 in England, 13, 116, 117 
 York, Duke oi, said to have been 
 
 murdered in the Tower, 132 
 Yorkshire, 193, 196 
 
 Zachary, a Pope of Borne, 32 
 Zeigelbauer, the writer about the 
 
 Benedictines, 28 
 Zero, the, 73, 74, 105 
 Zurich, 80, 98, 99, 220, 221 
 Zurich Becords, 99 
 
 BILLING AND SONS, PRINTERS, GU1LDFORD.
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 37, line 7, for ' Nicolas Harris ' read ' Harris Nicolas.' 
 Page 92, line 1, for ' 722 ' read ' 772.' 
 Page 176, line 11, for ' Gery ' read ' Giry.' 
 Page 177, line 15, for ' Bale ' read ' Basle.'
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 0N- 
 
 . 
 JUL 2619 
 
 IE 2 WKS FROM DATE RE( 
 
 ; <- - - f 
 
 . . - 
 
 A I. ; 99: 
 
 DUE2WKSF 
 
 JAN 2 1! 
 
 SRLF 
 3M&1 kOlAN 
 
 IVED 
 
 " 
 
 ECF.IVED