s as much part of his scheme as
English history. Only, as he proceeded, the mass of details would
necessarily thicken, and he would be compelled to narrow his inquiries.
Having to choose, he naturally selected the nation which he regarded as
the heir of successive empires, a race more valiant than the warriors,
whether of Macedon or of Rome. But he distinctly preferred as a
historical subject antiquity to recent times. As he says, 'Whosoever in
writing a modern history shall follow truth too near the heels, it may
haply strike out his teeth.'

[Sidenote: _Breviary of the History of England._]

It has been conjectured that he had already, before the History received
its final shape, experimented on the more contracted or concentrated
theme to which he purposed ultimately to devote himself. Archbishop
Sancroft possessed a short manuscript entitled a _Breviary of the
History of England under William the First_. This was printed in 1693
without the Archbishop's consent, under the title _An Introduction to
the Breviary of the History of England, with the Reign of King William
I, entitled the Conqueror_. Sancroft, a good judge, considered the work
in all its parts much like Ralegh's way of writing, and worthy of him.
Though the language is more careless than Ralegh's, and the tone is less
elevated, there is a resemblance in the diction. But much importance
cannot be attached to a general similarity in the style of compositions
belonging to the same age. Sancroft had the manuscript from an old
Presbyterian in Hertfordshire, 'which sort of men were always the more
fond of Sir Walter's books because he was under the displeasure of the
Court.' Other manuscript copies also ascribe the authorship to Ralegh.
The book, which shows research, but is not very accurate, is almost
identical with the corresponding portion of the poet Samuel Daniel's
_Collection of the History of England_, printed in 1618, and entered
originally in the Register of the Stationers as a _Breviary of the
History of England_. Daniel introduces his narrative with the words:
'For the work itself I can challenge nothing therein, but only the
serving, and the observation of necessary circumstances with
inferences.' Ralegh, though it is not very likely, may have given the
fragment to Daniel for use in his history. Clearly he had formed a
project of writing a history of England himself. In an undated letter
from the Tower he asks Sir Robert Cotton to lend him thirtee