a great portion of the alterations are merely verbal, and of course imperceptible in a translation, yet they contribute in an extraordinary degree to the polish and elegance of his style.[1] Another excellent feature of Malmesbury's literary character is, his love of truth. He repeatedly declares that, in the remoter periods of his work, he had observed the most guarded caution in throwing all responsibility, for the facts he mentions, on the authors from whom he derived them; and in his own times he avers, that he has recorded nothing that he had not either personally witnessed, or learned from the most credible authority. Adhering closely to this principle, he seems to have been fully impressed with the difficulty of relating the transactions of the princes, his contemporaries, and on this account he repeatedly apologizes for his omissions. But here is seen his dexterous management in maintaining an equipoise between their virtues and vices; for he spares neither William the First, nor his sons who succeeded him: indeed several of his strictures in the earlier editions of this work, are so severe, that he afterwards found it necessary to modify and soften them.
His character and attainments had early acquired a high degree of reputation among his contemporaries. He was entreated by the monks of various monasteries to write either the history of their foundations, or the lives of their patron saints. He associated with persons of the highest consequence
- De Serie Evangelistarum, Carmine. The Order of the Evangelists, in verse, Leland, Collect. 4. 157. These two have not occurred.
- De Miraculis B. Andreæ. The Miracles of S. Andrew. MS. Cotton. Nero, E. 1. Abridged from a very prolix work.
- Abbreviaiio Amalarii de Ecclesiasticis Officiis. Amalarius on Ecclesiastical Offices, abridged. MS. Lambeth. 380.
- Epitome Historiæ Aimonis Floriacensis. The History of Haimo of Flory, abridged. MS. Bodley, Selden. Arch. B. 32.
- ↑ These remarks on the character and style of our author must be received, as they say, cum grano salis. They more justly evince the zeal of Mr. Sharpe than the merits of Malmesbury's composition. The classical reader will probably lament with me that our early historians should have used a style so cumbersome and uninviting. To this general censure Malmesbury is certainly no exception. His Latinity is rude and repulsive, and the true value of his writings arises from the fidelity with which he has recorded facts, which he had either himself witnessed or had obtained from eye-witnesses.
