Talk:Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comments
This was an interesting article, but can anyone discuss (and intelligently add) 1) a date for the texts 2) some details of the historiography of the text?
...some of the writers had a particular agenda in mind -- the legitimisation of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the British Isles...
Does anyone else think that this is a bit anchronistic? I don't think that the the Anglo-Saxons had quite the preoccupationwith legitimization that modern peoples would. Besides, by the time the A-S Chronicles were written the A-S conquest was centuries old.David Stapleton 03:38, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
- There were (and are :-) ) Celtish parts of the island, so the idea of legitimization is at least conceivable, but I reviewed Blair's book (my only info source in print), and I don't see any mentions of it as an issue. Unless there's a quotable authority that makes the claim, it should be whacked. Stan 04:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There was a widespread contemporary belief that the world would end at the millennium (AD 1000)
As far as I know this is false, and this conception of things has much to do with old historiographical errors and with an old lecture of sources. Even Anglo-Saxons from the Dark Ages, particularly scholars and christian kings like the ones who are probably behind the A.S.C. would not have dared to pretend to know the date of the end of the world. In general, during the Middle Ages, many scholars wrote that only God knew for sure when and where the end of the world would come : this idea came from St Augustine ; and Bede, also used as a major source by the A.S.C. anonymous writers, was no exception among them! Last, but not least, the times of Alfred the Great were times of Renaissance and not a dark, supertitious epoch.
Last, the Anglo-Saxons *did* have a preoccupation to legitimize their occupation of Britain: this preoccupation, though very different from the one "modern" people could have, was even one of Bede's major ideas when he wrote his H.E.G.A. : in short, they had to prove themselves to be worthy as God's chosen people to 1) explain that they had the right to rule England, in a christian perspective and 2) legitimize their newly founded church and its expansion to the borders of the Earth (in Germany, Frisia and Saxony), still they had this concern in a christian, augustinean perspective.
Of course, this remained a concern as long as the priority was to legitimize the formation of a united and unique christian english nation (in the times of Bede), and probably this wasn't any longer in the times of Alfred, when the unity of the english people was achieved. Maybe you should check B. Colgrave works (including reference translation of Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum) on this matter. 82.66.175.78 00:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] intelligent responses
I agree there should be some massive revision. Dating-wise, it's not a simple proposition - all of the manuscripts were carried on in semi-independence, and thusly need to be dated differently, i.e. throughout the 11th and 12th centuries even. As far as the 'blatant' Anglo-Saxon, anti-British, anti-Norman agenda, we should be rather past this entirely superficial reading of the ASC by now. Also, the end of the world stuff is complete rubbish, and, in particular when compared with, say, the ASC poems, not worth mentioning. Nonetheless, it's a complicated text, and hovers on awkward borders between fish and foul...
[edit] References to Portsmouth
Are these correct as Portsmouth was not founded until the twelth century. It would appear odd that the Chronicles contain a founding myth for a non-existant townNuttah68 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Portsmouth, the modern town, was indeed founded in the twelfth century. But there had been Roman settlements in the area - Portchester being a notable example - that took their names from the Latin portus, meaning a port or harbour. It's quite possible that Port (the Anglo-Saxon fellow) was named after this Latin place-name.t.maisey 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed: Inaccuracies?
I dispute the "Inaccuracies" section. Some rather blatant statements are made without any sources (such as "Other annals were simply invented"). There could be other explanations for the supposed inaccuracies besides the chroniclers making stuff up. We need to at least give sources for why we think these sections are "invented" or tone down the language. Otherwise the whole section violates NPOV and NOR. Roachmeister 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
