Page images
PDF
EPUB

his favourite study, that there appears to have been no toil so formidable as to impede his progress, no circumstance so insignificant as to be deemed unworthy of his observation. In collecting the mass of particulars with which his works abound, he was less indebted to the previous information of others than to his own indefatigable exertions. He not only perused the MSS. and registers of each college, and the public archives of the University; but we find him also poring over the records belonging to the Tower, and most of the public offices in the metropolis, as well as passing much of his time amongst those private collections which were not then concentrated in the British Vatican-the Bodleian Library. By these persevering researches he was enabled to collect almost every circumstance which could be procured relative to the annals and early history of Oxford; and as many of the original documents from which he derived his information are, perhaps, no longer in existence, his volumes must ever be regarded as an invaluable depository of antiquarian lore; a museum of curious remains, which every succeeding historian of that University must study with attention, and from which he must be content to copy the manners and customs of its earlier days.

The fate which attended the publication of Anthony's works is somewhat remarkable. When he had finished his History and Antiquities, the manuscript was purchased by the University, and, under the superintendance of Dr. Fell, Dean of Christ Church, translated into Latin, and published in folio, 1674. The difficulty of rendering into tolerable Latin the minute details of the original, obliged the translators to take great liberties with the English copy; and the omissions, alterations, and interpolations became at length so numerous, that honest Anthony was greatly mortified to find his favourite offspring not only removed from the care of its proper parent, but so tortured and disfigured, that he could scarcely recognize a kindred feature.

About two years, however, after the publication of the translation, Anthony began to write out anew his English copy, and to make whatever additions he could collect, intending, at some future period, to publish his own work in his own way. At his death, in 1695, his MSS. came to the Bodleian and Ashmolean Libraries, where they remained till 1788, when that part of them which contained the history of the colleges and halls was edited by Mr. Gutch, the present Registrar of the University, who afterwards published the remaining parts of the History and Antiquities, from the original manuscripts.

Yet precious as these records must ever be to the genuine lover of antiquity, it must be confessed that the quaint phraseology and minute detail with which they abound, render them but ill calcu

lated

lated for the amusement or instruction of the general reader. Such is the change which has been produced in style, language, and, we had almost said, in ideas, since the middle of the seventeenth century, that there are few writers of that age whose works are not become so obsolete, as to require, in some degree, the stamp of modern times, before they can hope to obtain currency. And if this be true in other branches of literature, it is peculiarly so with regard to the writings of the antiquary, who either purposely adopts or insensibly acquires the language and style of the century preceding. It was, therefore, with pleasure that we observed a History of the University of Oxford, undertaken by a gentleman so well qualified for the task as Mr. Alexander Chalmers. We must, however, apprise our readers that these volumes are confined to an historical account of the colleges and halls; the lives of their founders; a description of the buildings; and a catalogue of some of the most distinguished persons who have received their education in each society.

It is to be lamented that Mr. Chalmers did not take a wider range in a field so open and inviting, and that he did not consider 'some account of the rise and progress of the University as connected with the history of literature,' too indispensibly belonging to the present work to be altogether omitted. It was to this interesting branch of his subject that our expectations were more particularly directed; and though we are happy to find, from a note subjoined to his introductory preface, that he intends, at no distant period, to enter fully upon it, yet we must repeat our regret that he should have been such a niggard of his treasures on the present occasion. Judging, however, of the work, by the standard which he has himself proposed, as a history of the colleges, &c. which should be more ample than the common guides, and yet less prolix and confused than the collections of Anthony Wood,' we think that he has accomplished the object which he professes to have had in view, and presented us with a very accurate and judicious account of the antiquities and present state of the several colleges and halls. The body of the work is, of course, principally taken from Wood; but Mr. Chalmers has added many interesting particulars from his own observation, or such as he has been able to glean during his occasional residence on the spot and (what must be considered as an important feature in the work) he has incorporated the substance of those separate histories of particular colleges which have been so ably written by Smith, Louth, Warton, and Churton. After a neat preface, in which he pays a handsome compliment to the University for the facilities which they afforded him in the course of his researches, Mr. Chalmers gives, in the introduction,

a slight

a slight sketch of the mode of education pursued there previously to the period of the first regular foundation.

To ascertain the precise period of the first establishment of an university at Oxford appears to be no less difficult than to determine the origin of nations: ad Deos referre auctores,' seems to have been a favourite maxim with the historians of both. Anthony Wood has been at the pains to enumerate the several absurd and fabulous traditions which have prevailed on this subject, and which have been so often and so gravely alleged in proof of the superior antiquity of Oxford to Cambridge. These Mr. Chalmers has very properly omitted; but we cannot help suspecting that, in his endeavours to avoid the absurd fictions of monkish legends, he has fallen into a degree of scepticism which appears to be unwarranted.

'It seems agreed upon among the ablest antiquaries of modern times, that although this University may be traced to very high antiquity, and far beyond the age of satisfactory records or annals, the illustrious monarch, who was formerly supposed to have founded or restored it, had really no share whatever in its establishment; and it is certain, that no document or well-authenticated history can be produced in which the name of Alfred appears as a benefactor to the University of Oxford. And if we can trace no credible information to his days, it will surely be more fruitless to carry our researches higher, and follow, either with doubt or credulity, the absurd traditions which speak of the state of learning at Oxford and Cambridge before the Christian æra.'-Vol. i, p. 11.

Again, in his account of University College, of which Alfred has been supposed the founder, alluding to a petition to Richard II. in which John of Beverly, Bede, and other learned doctors were mentioned as having studied in that society, Mr. Chalmers ob

'serves,

All indeed that seems necessary to remark on this petition is, that Bede and John of Beverley had been dead above a century before Alfred was born, and that 872, the year usually assigned for the foundation of the college, was the second of that monarch's reign, during which he was involved in difficulties which precluded him from attention to any other objects than the preservation of his throne and people. He must, therefore, according to the opinion of Camden, Powel, and Hearne, have been only the restorer; but what he did restore does not appear to have been a college, or any regularly constituted society deserving the name; nor, which is of more importance, is there to be found, in any of the records belonging to the University, the smallest intimation respecting any benefactions, halls, or schools, in Oxford, given or founded by Alfred. The most ancient historians, his contemporaries, are equally silent, and Ralph Higden is the first who, in the fourteenth century, introduces him as establishing a common school at

Oxford of divers arts and sciences; but on what authority Higden asserts this, has not yet been discovered. With respect to the custom of praying for King Alfred, it is not older than the reign of Queen Mary, and then he was not mentioned in the prayer as founder of this college, but as the founder of the University, an honour to which he seems to have a better title.'-Vol. i, p. 24.

Whilst we leave the vindication of this illustrious monarch to those who have leisure for such discussions, as well as an interest in the question at issue, we shall just remark that it would, perhaps, have been more satisfactory if Mr. Chalmers had favoured us with some analysis of the arguments, or, at least, with a reference to the works of those able antiquaries of modern times,' whose opinion he considers so decisive. That a very strong and continuous tradition has prevailed in support of King Alfred's pretensions cannot be denied; and some of the ablest antiquaries of former times have believed and sanctioned it with the authority of their names. If, at this distance of time, no authentic documents can be produced to establish the fact, it may be replied, with equal truth, that neither do any exist to disprove it. But when Mr. Chalmers asserts that the most ancient historians, his contemporaries, are silent upon this subject, and that Ralph Higden, a writer of the fourteenth century, is the first who makes any mention of the fact, he could not surely have been aware of that remarkable passage in the Life of Alfred by Asserius Menevensis, his contemporary, which, if really authentic, must overpower every modern objection; and we cannot but think, that whatever may be his own opinion as to its authenticity, he ought to have taken some notice of a work which has received the sanction of so judicious an antiquary as Camden. As Mr. Chalmers, however, probably intends to discuss this question more at large in his promised History of the Rise and Progress of the University as connected with the History of Literature,' we shall abstain from any farther remarks at present; but we must remind him that, if he persists in expelling Alfred from the dignified situation which he has for so many centuries enjoyed, unless he can produce some more convincing arguments than those which he has now urged, the greater part of the world will be inclined to retain their ancient prejudices, and continue to venerate the memory of Alfred as the earliest patron of Oxford and of learning.

[ocr errors]

The arrangement which Mr. Chalmers has adopted throughout the work, in his account of each of the colleges, is certainly judicious, and embraces most of the topics which his subject seems to suggest. It would, perhaps, have added considerably to the general interest of the work if he had collected the peculiar customs which still prevail in each college, though they are rapidly falling

into

into disuse; since, however trifling or unimportant they may be in themselves, they nevertheless serve to distinguish the different societies from one another, and afford an authentic though imperfect representation of the habits and discipline of former times.

The following is the order which Mr. Chalmers has adopted. Commencing with a life of the founder, as copious, perhaps, as his materials would allow, he proceeds to enumerate the benefactions by which their pious purposes have been promoted, accompa nied with brief memoirs of the benefactors themselves. To this succeeds a list of the several livings in the possession and under the patronage of the college. The buildings are described with considerable minuteness, as well those which exist at the present day as those of which the college originally consisted, and the halls and other tenements which once occupied the site of the present edifice.

But although the accounts of the buildings belonging to each college are sufficiently circumstantial to convey a tolerable idea of the present and former state of architecture in Oxford, yet we wish he had prefixed to the work a brief dissertation expressly on this subject. Such an excursus would not, perhaps, have been without its use in directing the attention of those learned societies to a comparison of the chaste and beautiful specimens of pure Gothic, which are to be met with in some of the earlier foundations, with that clumsy and spurious species which has since been too generally adopted. The incongruous mixture of Grecian could not fail to occasion some pertinent and judicious remarks; for whatever may be the prevailing prejudice in favour of one or other of these opposite styles, to unite them in the same series of buildings is surely tasteless and absurd.

Having finished the description of the buildings, Mr. Chalmers next enumerates the most distinguished among those who have presided over the society-such of its members as have attained the episcopal dignity-and, last of all, those of other ranks who have rendered themselves eminent or notorious. To afford our readers some idea of the execution of the biographical part of the work, we shall select the life of Walter de Stapledon, the founder of Exeter College, as being the best suited to the limits of a review; though we think that the lives of William of Wickham and Cardinal Wolsey (both given at great length) afford the most favourable specimens of Mr. Chalmers' style.

Walter de Stapledon, bishop of Exeter, was the founder of this college (Exeter) and of Hart Hall, now Hertford College. All we have of his history begins with his advancement to the bishopric in

1307.

His name is local, and was taken from Stapledon, in the parish of Cookberry, the

ancient

« PreviousContinue »