Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The initial page of the Peterborough Chronicle.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a collection of annals narrating the history of the Anglo-Saxons and their settlement in Great Britain. Much of the information in these documents consists of rumours of events that happened elsewhere and so may be unreliable. However for some periods and places, the chronicle is the only substantial surviving source of information.

[edit] Compilation

It is not known when the Anglo-Saxon chronicle was begun. The earliest surviving manuscript, the Winchester Chronicle, was written by a single scribe up to the year 891. The scribe then wrote the year number, DCCCXCII, in the margin of the next line, but subsequent material was written by other scribes.^[1] This appears to place the composition of the chronicle at no later than 892; and further evidence is provided by Bishop Asser's use of a version of the chronicle in his work Life of King Alfred, known to have been composed in 893.^[2] However, it is also known that the Winchester manuscript is at least two removes from the original of the Chronicle. As a result there is no proof that the Chronicle was compiled at Winchester, and it is difficult to fix the date of composition.^[3]

However, it is generally thought that the chronicles were composed during the reign of Alfred the Great, which lasted from 871 to 899. Alfred deliberately tried to revive learning and culture during his reign, and also encouraged the use of English as a written language. The Chronicle themselves, as well as the distribution of copies to other centres of learning, may be a consequence of the changes Alfred introduced.^[4]

The manuscripts were produced in different places, and each manuscript represents the biases of its scribes. The chronicle has entries spanning AD 1 to 1154, and two manuscripts have an entry - misdated - for 60 BC, recording Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain. The term Anglo-Saxon appears to be a later addition, as the first printed edition (1692) was called "Chronicum saxonicum."

After the original chronicle was compiled, copies were kept at various monasteries and were updated independently. Sometimes items important to the locals, such as the fertility of the harvest or the paucity of bees, would be eagerly recorded, whereas distant political events could be overlooked. A combination of the individual annals allows us to develop an overall picture. Thus the various versions of the chronicle are an important development in historiography as well as useful historical documents in their own right.

[edit] Surviving manuscripts

A page from the Winchester, or Parker, Chronicle, showing the genealogical preface.

There are nine surviving manuscripts, of which eight are written entirely in Anglo-Saxon, while the ninth is in Anglo-Saxon with a translation of each annal into Latin. One (the Peterborough Chronicle) contains early Middle English as well as Anglo-Saxon. The oldest (Corp. Chris. MS 173) is known as the Parker Chronicle, after Matthew Parker who once owned it, or the Winchester Chronicle. Six of the manuscripts were printed in an 1861 edition by B. Thorpe, with the text laid out in columns labelled A through F. This nomenclature is widely used, and is given below. Following this convention, three further manuscripts are often called [G], [H] and [I].

The surviving manuscripts are listed below; though manuscript G was burned in a fire in 1731, and only a few leaves remain.

Version A is of particular importance for the dating of the chronicle. The manuscript is in the handwriting of some thirteen or fourteen scribes and the first scribe wrote as far as 891. For this reason the composition of the chronicle is generally dated to the reign of King Alfred.

[edit] Relationships between the manuscripts

The relationships between seven of the different manuscripts of the Chronicle. The fragment [H] cannot be reliably positioned in the chart. Other related texts are also shown. The diagram shows a putative original, and also gives the relationships of the manuscripts to a Northern version that does not survive but which is thought to have existed.

The manuscripts are all thought to derive from a common original, but the connections between the texts are more complex than simple inheritance via copying. The diagram at right gives an overview of the relationships between the manuscripts. The following is a summary of the relationships that are known.^[1]

• [A²] was a copy of [A], made in Winchester, probably between 1001 and 1013.
• [B] was used in the compilation of [C] at Abingdon, in the mid-eleventh century. However, the scribe for [C] also had access to another version, which has not survived.
• [D] includes material from Bede's Ecclesiastical History and from a set of eighth-century Northumbrian annals, and is thought to have been copied from a northern version that has not survived.
• [E] has material that appears to derive from the same sources as [D], but does not include some additions that appear only in [D], such as the Mercian Register. This manuscript was composed at the monastery in Peterborough, sometime after a fire there in 1116 that probably destroyed their copy of the Chronicle; [E] appears to have been created thereafter as a copy of a Kentish version, probably from Canterbury.
• [F] appears to include material from the same Canterbury version that was used to create [E].
• Asser's Life of King Alfred, which was written in 893, includes a translation of the Chronicle's entries from 849 to 887. Only [A], of surviving manuscripts, could have been in existence by 893, but there are places where Asser departs from the text in [A], so it is possible that Asser used a version that has not survived.^[5]
• Aethelweard wrote a translation of the Chronicle into Latin in the late tenth century; the version he used probably came from the same branch in the tree of relationships that [A] comes from.^[6]
• At Abingdon, some time between 1120 and 1140, an unknown author wrote a Latin chronicle known as the Annals of St. Neots. This work includes material from a copy of the Chronicle, but it is very difficult to tell which version as the annalist was selective about his use of the material. It may have been a northern recension, or a Latin derivative of that recension.^[7]

[edit] History of the manuscripts

A map showing the places where the various chronicles were written, and where they are now kept.

[edit] [A]: The Winchester Chronicle

The Winchester, or Parker, Chronicle, is the oldest manuscript of the Chronicle that survives. It was begun at Old Minster, Winchester, towards the end of Alfred's reign. The manuscript begins with a genealogy of Alfred, and the first chronicle entry is for the year 60 BC. The first scribe stopped with the year 891, and the following entries were made at intervals throughout the tenth century by several scribes. The manuscript becomes independent of the other recensions after the entry for 975. The book, which also had a copy of the Laws of Alfred and Ine bound in after the entry for 924, was transferred to Canterbury some time in the early eleventh century. The last entry in the vernacular is for 1070. After this comes the Latin Acta Lanfranci, which covers church events from 1070-1093. This is followed by a list of popes, and the archbishops of Canterbury to whom they sent the pallium. The manuscript was at one time owned by Matthew Parker, who was archbishop of Canterbury 1559-1575.

[edit] [B] The Abingdon Chronicle I

[B] was written by a single scribe in the second half of the tenth century. It begins with an entry for 60 BC, and ends with the entry for 977. A manuscript that is now separate (British Library MS. Cotton Tiberius Aiii, f. 178) was originally the introduction to this chronicle; it contains a genealogy, as does [A], but extends it to the late tenth century. It is known that [B] was at Abingdon in the mid-eleventh century, as it was used in the composition of [C]. Shortly after this it went to Canterbury, where interpolations and corrections were made. As with [A], it ends with a list of the popes and the archbishops of Canterbury to whom they sent the pallium.

[edit] [C] The Abingdon Chronicle II

[C] includes additional material from local annals at Abingdon, where it was composed. It also includes an Old English translation of Orosius's world history, followed by a menologium and some verses of the laws of the natural world and of humanity. There follows a copy of the chronicle, beginning with 60 BC; the first scribe copied up to the entry for 490, and a second scribe took over up to the entry for 1048. [B] and [C] are identical between 491 and 652, but differences thereafter make it clear that the second scribe was also using another copy of the chronicle. This scribe also inserted, after the annal for 915, the Mercian Register, which focuses on Aethelflaed. The manuscript continues to 1066, and stops in the middle of the description of the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In the twelfth century a few lines were added to complete the account.

[edit] [D] The Worcester Chronicle

[D] appears to have been written in the middle of the eleventh century. After 1033 it includes some records from Worcester, so it is generally thought to have been composed there. Five different scribes can be identified for the entries up to 1054, after which it appears to have been worked on at intervals. The text includes material from Bede's Ecclesiastical History and from a set of eighth-century Northumbrian annals. It is thought that some of the entries may have been composed by Archbishop Wulfstan. [D] contains more information than other manuscripts on Scottish affairs, and it has been speculated that it was a copy intended for the Anglicized Scottish court. The version of the chronicle used to create [D] was well-informed on northern affairs. From 972 to 1016 the sees of York and Worcester were both held by the same person—Oswald from 972, Ealdwulf from 992, and Wulfstan from 1003, and this may explain why a northern recension was to be found at Worcester. By the sixteenth century, parts of the manuscript were lost; eighteen pages were inserted containing substitute entries from other sources. These pages were probably written by John Joscelyn, who was secretary to Matthew Parker.

[edit] [E] The Peterborough Chronicle

In 1116 a fire at the monastery at Peterborough destroyed most of the buildings. The copy of the chronicle kept there may have been lost at that time or later, but in either case, shortly thereafter a fresh copy was made, apparently copied from a Kentish version—mostly likely from Canterbury. The manuscript was written at one time and by a single scribe down to the annal for 1121. The scribe added material relating to the abbey which is not in other versions. The Canterbury original which he copied was similar but not identical to [D]; the Mercian Register does not appear, and a poem about the Battle of Brunanburh, in 937, which appears in most chronicles, does not appear here. The same scribe then continued the annal through 1131; these entries were made at intervals and are presumably contemporary records. Finally, a second scribe, in 1154, wrote an account of the years 1132-1154; his dating is known to be unreliable. This last entry is in Middle English, unlike the previous entries, and is one of the earliest texts for that language. [E] was once owned by William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury 1633-1654, and so is also known as the Laud Chronicle.

[edit] [F] The Canterbury Bilingual Epitome

At about 1100 a copy of the Chronicle was written at Christ Church, Canterbury, probably by one of the scribes who made notes in [A]. This version is written in both Old English and Latin; each entry in Old English was followed by the Latin version. The version the scribe copied is similar to the version used by the scribe in Peterborough who wrote [E], though it seems to have been abridged. It includes the same introductory material as [D] and, along wth [E], is one of the two chronicles that does not include the "Battle of Brunanburh" poem. The manuscript has many annotations and interlineations, some made by the original scribe and some by later scribes.

[edit] [A²]/[G] Copy of the Winchester Chronicle

[A²] was copied from [A] at Winchester. The last annal copied was 1001, so the copy was made no earlier than that; and an episcopal list appended to [A²] suggests that the copy was made by 1013. This manuscript was almost completely destroyed in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, where the Cotton Library was housed at that time. A few leaves remain. However, a transcript had been made by Laurence Nowell, a sixteenth century antiquary, and it was used by Abraham Wheloc in an edition of the Chronicle printed in 1643. Because of this, it is also sometimes known as [W], after Wheloc.

[edit] [H] Cottonian Fragment

[H] consists of a single leaf, containing annals for 1113 and 1114. In the entry for 1113 it includes the phrase "he came to Winchester"; hence it is thought likely the manuscript was written at Winchester. There is not enough of this manuscript for reliable relationships to other manuscripts to be established.

[edit] Pedigree

Some of the annals are derived from earlier sources such as Prosper and Bede and the annal for 430 demonstrates this:

Prosper of Aquitaine wrote that in 430: “Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots who believed in Christ, and was ordained as their first bishop”. This story was known to Bede and was repeated by him: “In the year 430 Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots that believed in Christ to be their first bishop”. This annal was then copied into the earliest version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (version A, compiled in 891): “430. In this year bishop Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots to strengthen their faith”. But during the twelfth century the manuscript was altered to read: “… Palladius (vel Patricius)…”. In another version of the chronicle (version E, written in 1121) Palladius disappears and is replaced by Patrick: “430. In this year Patrick was sent by pope Celestine to preach baptism to the Scots”.

Notice how with each scribe the story changes a little, so starting from Palladius being sent to the Irish who were already Christian, it eventually becomes a tale about Patrick being sent to convert the Irish.

[edit] Inaccuracies

This section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time. This article has been tagged since March 2007.

Other annals were simply invented. Under 477 we read that Wlencing was the son of Ælle, but Wlencing is a patronymic meaning ‘son of Wlenca’, so he cannot also have been son of Ælle. Clearly the chronicler has carelessly extracted Wlencing from an early form of the place-name Lancing. Moving on to 501, Portsmouth is located at the mouth of a port; it is not named after Port; he was quarried out of the place-name. Then under 508 Natanleag means ‘wet meadow’, so it was not named after a slain Welsh king called Natanleod; he is an invention. And under 514 we find Wihtgar, who in 534 is given the Isle of Wight, and in 544 is buried at Wihtgaraburg. But Wihtgaraburg does not mean 'Wihtgar's fortress' but 'the fortress of the inhabitants of Wight', and Wight itself is derived from Romano-British Vectis.^[8]

[edit] Availability

The translated texts (together with explanatory materials) are available in books and on the Internet, so scholars at all levels can now consult them directly.

See Anglo-Saxon kingdom genealogy for a comparison of the genealogies of the Canterbury and Winchester manuscripts with the one given by Snorri Sturluson in his Edda.

[edit] See also

• Anglo-Saxon literature

[edit] Footnotes

1. ^ ^{a b} Swanton, Michael (1998). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Routledge, xxi-xxviii. ISBN 0-415-92129-5. 
2. ^ Keynes, Simon; Lapidge, Michael (2004). Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. Penguin Classics, 55. ISBN 0-140-44409-2. 
3. ^ See P. Wormald, "Alfredian Manuscripts", in Campbell, James (2000). The Anglo-Saxon State. Hambledon and London, 142. ISBN 0-85285-176-7. 
4. ^ Blair, Peter Hunter (1966). Roman Britain and Early England: 55 B.C. - A.D. 871. W.W. Norton & Company, 12. ISBN 0-393-00361-2. 
5. ^ For example, Asser omits Esla from Alfred's genealogy; [A] includes Esla, but [D] does not. See footnote 4 in Keynes, Simon; Lapidge, Michael (2004). Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. Penguin Classics, 228-229. ISBN 0-140-44409-2. 
6. ^ Swanton, Michael (1998). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Routledge, xix. ISBN 0-415-92129-5. 
7. ^ Swanton, Michael (1998). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Routledge, xix-xx. ISBN 0-415-92129-5. 
8. ^ Ekwall, E. 1947. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 3rd edition

[edit] References

• Anne Savage, "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles", ISBN 1-85833-478-0, pub CLB 1997
• Peter Hunter Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 352-355
• Ekwall, E. 1947. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 3rd edition.
• Michael Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles London, J.M. Dent 1996
• Bately, J. (ed.) 1986. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 3: MS. A. Cambridge. (Authoritative edition of most important manuscript.)

[edit] External links

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at Project Gutenberg - Public domain copy.
• Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Transcribed original texts
• Transcribed original text
• The Chronicle from The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Volume I, 1907–21.