THE CHRONICLERS AND THE "HE chroniclers and antiquaries of the Tudor period, various as they were in style and talent, shared the same sentiment, the same ambition. There breathed in each one of them the spirit of nationality. They recognised that the most brilliant discovery of a brilliant age was the discovery of their own country. With a full voice and a fervent heart they sang the praise of England. They celebrated with what eloquence they possessed her gracious climate, her fruitful soil, her brave men, and her beautiful women. Both by precept and by example they did honour to their native speech. Our English tongue,' said Camden, 'is as fluent as the Latin, as courteous as the Spanish, as Court-like as the French, and as amorous as the Italian.' Camden praised by precept alone, and composed all his works, save one, in Latin. The other chroniclers, discarding Latin and writing in their own English, paid the language a far higher tribute-the tribute of example. All agreed with Plutarch that a part of the Elisian A Fields is to be found in Britain.' And, as they regarded these fair fields with enthusiasm, so they looked back with pride upon Britain's legendary history and the exploits of her kings. Steadfast in observation, tireless in panegyric, they thought no toil, no pæan, outran the desert of England. Topographers, such as Camden and Leland, travelled the length and breadth of England, marking highroad, village, and township, collecting antiquities, copying inscriptions, and painting with what fidelity they might the face of the country. The ingenuity of Norden and Speed designed the maps which have acquired with time an unexpected value and importance. The popular historians, gentle and simple, gathered the truth and falsehood of the past with indiscriminate hand, content if they might restore to the world the forgotten splendour of England, and add a new lustre to England's ancient fame. Their goodwill and patriotism were limited only by their talent. Zealous in intention, they were not always equal to the task they set themselves. The most of them had but a vague sense of history. They were as little able to sift and weigh evidence as to discern the true sequence and meaning of events. Few were even dimly interested in the conflict of policies or in the science of government. What they best understood were the plain facts of battle and death, of plague and famine, of sudden comets and strange monsters. Their works, for the most part, are the anecdotage of history, and not to be wholly despised on that account, since an anecdote, false in itself, is often the symbol of the truth, and since, in defiance of research, it is from the anecdotes of the Tudor chroniclers that we derive our knowledge of English history. For that which had been said by others they professed an exaggerated respect. They accepted the bare word of their predecessors with a touching credulity. In patient submission and without criticism they followed the same authorities. There is no chronicler, who did not use such poor light as Matthew Paris and Roger Hoveden, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Gildas, Giraldus Cambrensis and Polydore Vergil could afford. Each one of them borrowed his description of Agincourt from Titus Livius, and, with a wisdom which deserves the highest applause, they all adapted to their purpose the account of Richard III.'s reign, attributed to Sir Thomas More. With one or two exceptions, then, the Chronicles are not so much separate works as variations of the same legend. Their authors pillaged with a light heart and an unsparing hand, and, at times, did what they could to belittle their robberies by abusing the victims. If their sense of history was small, small also was their tact of selection. They looked upon the world with the eye of the modern reporter. They were hot upon the discovery of strange 'stories.' They loved freaks of nature, and were never so happy as when a new star flashed into their ken. Their works, indeed, hold a place midway between history and what we should now call journalism. Stow, for in |