528 APPENDIX recension. It was published by Dillmann in 186C (in his Chrestomathia rethioiiica) and has been translated by Kunig in Studien und Kritiken, 1878.] The history of monasticism in Palestine, where Hilarion (a.d. 291-371) occuiiies somewhat the same position as Pachomius in Egypt, is derived from the lives of the great abbots (Hilarion, Chariton, Euthymius, Sabas, Theodosius, &c.) as well as the ecclesiastical historians. The recent work on the subject by Father Oltarzhevski (Palestinskoe Monashestvo siv. do vi. vieka, 1896), though it contains a great deal of material, seems to be superficial and immethodical. 4. THE GOTHIC ALPHABET OF ULFILAS— (P. 76) The statements of Gibbon that the alphabet of Ulfilas consisted of twenty- four letters, and that he invented four new letters, are not quite accurate. The Goths before Ulfilas used the Runic alphabet, or futhorc (so called from the first six letters), consisting of twenty-four signs. Ulfilas based his alphabet on the Greek, adopting the Greek order : and adapted it to the requirements of Gothic speech. But his alphabet has twenty-five letters ; five of them are derived from the Runic, one from the Latin (S), and one is of uncertain origin. This uncertain letter has the value of Q, and corresponds, in position in the alphabet, to the Greek numeral sirnna (between E and Z). It is remarkable that the letters © and * are interchanged, ■i' is adopted to represent th, and occupies ninth place, corresponding to ©, while © is used for the sound W and holds the place coresponding to 4'. Thus the two additional sjvmbols which Gibbon selects for special mention are Greek, but applied to a different use. The English equivalents of the Gothic letters are as follows, in alphabetical order : — A, B, G, D, E, Q, Z, H, Th, I, K, L, M, N, J (runic), U (runic), P, R (runic), S, T, V, F (runic), Ch, W, O (runic). 5. THE SAXON CONQUEST OF BRITAIN— (P. 145) In regard to Vortigern's invitation, Mr. Freeman observes (Norman Conquest, i. 13-14) :— "The southern Britons were now exposed to the attacks of the Picts and Scots who had never submitted to the Roman voke, and there is no absurdity in the familiar story that a British prince took Teutonic mercenaries into his pay, and that these dangerous allies took advantage of the weakness of their hosts to establish themselves as permanent possessors of part of the island. But if the account be rejected, the general narrative of the Conquest is in no way affected ; and, if it be accepted, we ma}' be sure that Vortigern's imitation of man}' Roman precedents did but hasten the progress of events. The attempts which had been checked while the Roman power was flourishing were sure to be re- newed when the check was withdrawn, and if a Welsh King did invite a Jutish chieftain to defend him, that invitation was only the occasion, and not the cause, of the conquest which now began." The conquest began about the middle of the fifth century ; but, as Mr. Plummer observes (in his ed. of Bede. vol. ii., p. 27), it is improper to interpret Bede as committing himself (in B. i. 1.5) to the year a.d. 449 for the first coming of the Saxons. ' ' Bede never professes to know the exact year ... he always iises the word 'circiter ' in reference to it "—and circiter covers a.d. 446-457. In earlier times of course the shore of Britain was exposed to the raids of Saxon pirates, against which the Count of the Saxon shore had to guard. For the littiis >'^axonicuni meant the shore exposed to Saxon pirates, not the shore colonized by Saxon settlements. Cp. Freeman, op. cit., p. 11, note 2 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist, of England, i. p. 64. For the Saxon conquest in general see Guest, Origines Celticae, vol. ii. ; Free- man, op. cit., cap. 2 ; J. R. Green, Making of England. The Ecclesiastical
