The original manuscript of theChronicle was created late in the ninth century, probably inWessex, during the reign of KingAlfred the Great (r. 871–899). Its content, which incorporated sources now otherwise lost dating from as early as the seventh century, is known as the "Common Stock" of theChronicle.[2] Multiple copies were made of that one original and then distributed to monasteries across England, where they were updated, partly independently. These manuscripts collectively are known as theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle. Almost all of the material in theChronicle is in the form of annals, by year. The earliest is dated at 60 BC, the annals' date forJulius Caesar's invasions of Britain. In one case, theChronicle was still being actively updated in 1154.
Nine manuscripts of theChronicle, none of which is the original, survive in whole or in part. Seven are held in theBritish Library, one in theBodleian Library at Oxford, and the oldest in theParker Library ofCorpus Christi College, Cambridge. The oldest seems to have been started towards the end of Alfred's reign, while the most recent was copied atPeterborough Abbey after a fire at that monastery in 1116. Some later medieval chronicles deriving from lost manuscripts contribute occasional further hints concerningChronicle material.
Both because much of the information given in theChronicle is not recorded elsewhere, and because of the relatively clear chronological framework it provides for understanding events, theChronicle is among the most influential historical sources forEngland between thecollapse of Roman authority and the decades following theNorman Conquest;[3]Nicholas Howe called it andBede'sEcclesiastical History of the English People "the two great Anglo-Saxon works of history".[4] TheChronicle's accounts tend to be highly politicised, with the Common Stock intended primarily to legitimise theHouse of Wessex and the reign of Alfred the Great. Comparison betweenChronicle manuscripts and with other medieval sources demonstrates that the scribes who copied or added to them omitted events or told one-sided versions of them, often providing useful insights into early medieval English politics.
TheChronicle manuscripts are also important sources for thehistory of the English language;[3] in particular, in annals from 1131 onwards, the laterPeterborough text provides key evidence for the transition from the standardOld English literary language to earlyMiddle English, containing some of the earliest known Middle English text.[5]
Historians agree that the Common Stock of theChronicle (sometimes also known as theEarly English Annals)[6] was edited into its present form between 890 and 892 (ahead of BishopAsser's use of a version of the Common Stock in his 893Life of King Alfred),[7] but there is debate about precisely which year, and when subsequent continuations began to be added.[8][9]: 15 [10]: 350–52
It is not known for certain where the Common Stock was compiled, not least because thearchetype is lost, but it is agreed to have been in Wessex.[11][9]: 15 [12][13][14] The patron might have been King Alfred himself (Frank Stenton, for example, argued for a secular household outside the court),[13] andSimon Keynes andMichael Lapidge commented that we should "resist the temptation to regard it as a form of West Saxon dynasticpropaganda".[15] Yet there is no doubt that the Common Stock systematically promotes Alfred's dynasty and rule, and was consistent with his enthusiasm for learning and the use of English as awritten language. It seems partly to have been inspired by theRoyal Frankish Annals, and its wide distribution is also consistent with Alfredian policies.[16][10]: 347–54 Its publication was perhaps prompted by renewed Scandinavian attacks on Wessex.[12]
The Common Stock incorporates material from multiple sources, including annals relating to Kentish,South Saxon, Mercian and, particularly,West Saxon history.[17] It is unclear how far this material was first drawn together by the editor(s) of the Common Stock and how far it had already been combined before the late ninth century: there are no obvious shifts in language features in the Common Stock that could help indicate different sources.[18] Where the Common Stock draws on other known sources its main value to modern historians is as an index of the works and themes that were important to its compilers; where it offers unique material it is of especial historical interest.
From the first annal, for 60BC, down to 449, the Common Stock mostly presents key events from beyond Britain, a body of material known as the "world history annals". These drew onJerome'sDe Viris Illustribus, theLiber Pontificalis, the translation ofEusebius'sEcclesiastical History by Rufinus, andIsidore of Seville'sChronicon.[19][10]: 348–49 Alongside these, down to the early eighth century, the Common Stock makes extensive use of the chronological summary from the end ofBede'sEcclesiastical History (and perhaps occasionally theHistory itself).[20][10]: 348 Scholars have read these annals as functioning to present England as part of the Roman and Christian world and its history.[4][21]
Sixth- and seventh-century battles of West-Saxon kings according to theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle
From 449, coverage of non-British history largely vanishes and extensive material about the parts of England which by the ninth century were in Wessex, often unique to theChronicle, appears. TheChronicle offers an ostensibly coherent account of theAnglo-Saxon settlement of southern Britain by seafarers who, through a series of battles, establish the kingdoms of Kent, Sussex, and Wessex. This material was once supposed by many historians to be reliable evidence, and formed the backbone of a canonical narrative of early English history; but its unreliability was exposed in the 1980s.[22][23]
The historianKen Dark argues that a ninth-century text is only reliable for the fifth and sixth century if it is based on written sources dating to the period, and as there is no reason to believe that any substantial texts were written at that time, there is no reason to trust entries in theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle for this period.[24]
The earliest non-Bedan material here seems to be based primarily on royal genealogies and lists of bishops that were perhaps first being put into writing around 600, as English kings converted to Christianity, and more certainly by the end of the reign ofIne of Wessex (r. 689–726).[25][26][10]: 349 Such sources are best represented by theAnglian King-list and the probably derivedWest Saxon Genealogical Regnal List. Detailed comparison of these sources with the Common Stock has helped to show the degree of invention in the Common Stock's vision of the fifth and sixth centuries. For example, perhaps due to edits in intermediary annals, the beginning of the reign ofCerdic, supposedly the founder of the West-Saxon dynasty, seems to have been pushed back from 538AD in the earliest reconstructable version of the List to 500AD in the Common Stock.[26]
At times, invention, usually throughfolk-etymologicalorigin-myths based onplace-names, is even more obvious. For example, between 514 and 544 theChronicle makes reference to Wihtgar, who was supposedly buried on theIsle of Wight atWihtgaræsbyrg ("Wihtgar's stronghold") and gave his name to the island. However, the name of the Isle of Wight derives from the LatinVectis, not fromWihtgar. The actual name of the fortress was probablyWihtwarabyrg ("the stronghold of the inhabitants of Wight"), and either the Common Stock editor(s) or an earlier source misinterpreted this as referring to Wihtgar.[27]
In addition to the sources listed above, it is thought that the Common Stock draws on contemporary annals that began to be kept in Wessex during the seventh century, perhaps as annotations of Easter Tables, drawn up to help clergy determine the dates of upcoming Christian feasts, which might be annotated with short notes of memorable events to distinguish one year from another.[28][10]: 348 The annal for 648 may mark the point after which entries that were written as a contemporary record begin to appear, and the annal for 661 records a battle fought by Cenwalh that is said to have been fought "at Easter", a precision which implies a contemporary record.[29][28]: 132–35 [30][31] Similar but separate sources would explain the dates and genealogies forNorthumbrian andMercian kings.[32]
The entry for 755, describing howCynewulf took the kingship ofWessex fromSigeberht, is far longer than the surrounding entries, and includes direct speech quotations from the participants in those events. It seems likely that this was taken by the scribe from existing saga material.[33][34]: 39–60
From the late eighth century onwards, a period coinciding in the text with the beginning of Scandinavian raids on England, the Chronicle gathers momentum.[17] As theChronicle proceeds, it loses its list-like appearance, and annals become longer and more narrative in content. Many later entries contain a great deal of historical narrative in each annal.[35]
After the originalChronicle was compiled, copies were made and distributed to various monasteries. Additional copies were made, for further distribution or to replace lost manuscripts, and some copies were updated independently of each other. It is copies of this sort that constitute our survivingChronicle manuscripts.
The manuscripts were produced in different places, and at times adaptations made to the Common Stock in the course of copying reflect the agendas of the copyists, providing valuable alternative perspectives. These colour both the description of interactions betweenWessex and other kingdoms, and the descriptions of the Vikings' depredations. For example, the Common Stock's annal for 829 describesEgbert's invasion ofNorthumbria with the comment that the Northumbrians offered him "submission and peace". The Northumbrian chronicles incorporated intoRoger of Wendover's thirteenth-century history give a different picture, however: "When Egbert had obtained all the southern kingdoms, he led a large army into Northumbria, and laid waste that province with severe pillaging, and made King Eanred pay tribute."[36][37]
Similar divergences are apparent in how different manuscripts copy post-Common Stock continuations of theChronicle. For example,Ælfgar, earl ofEast Anglia, and son ofLeofric, the earl of Mercia, was exiled briefly in 1055. The [C], [D] and [E] manuscripts say the following:[38][39]
[C]: "Earl Ælfgar, son of Earl Leofric, was outlawed without any fault ..."
[D]: "Earl Ælfgar, son of Earl Leofric, was outlawed well-nigh without fault ..."
[E]: "Earl Ælfgar was outlawed because it was thrown at him that he was traitor to the king and all the people of the land. And he admitted this before all the men who were gathered there, although the words shot out against his will."
The 1055 campaign involving Ælfgar and Welsh KingGruffudd ap Llywelyn, as recorded in manuscripts [C], [D], and [E], offers examples of how scribes shaped narratives to align with regional or political agendas. Besides [C] emphasizing Ælfgar's innocence, his collaboration with Gruffudd, who is portrayed as a key ally and titled as a Welsh king, is also extensively mentioned. Conversely, [E] omits Gruffudd's title and focuses on Ælfgar's alleged treachery, framing both figures as aggressors in the Hereford campaign.[40]
Cardiff University historian Rebecca Thomas states this ideological framing aligns with [E]'s broader "pro-Godwine" perspective (referring to the Anglo-Saxon Godwine family dynasty to whomKing Harold II belonged) . Meanwhile, [D] minimizes details of Gruffudd's involvement in the campaign, offering a more subdued account that excludes his royal title and reduces his role to a supporting figure.[41]
Scribes might also omit material, sometimes accidentally, but also for ideological reasons. Ælfgar was Earl of Mercia by 1058, and in that year was exiled again. This time only [D] has anything to say: "Here Earl Ælfgar was expelled, but he soon came back again, with violence, through the help of Gruffydd. And here came a raiding ship-army fromNorway; it is tedious to tell how it all happened."[38] In this case other sources exist to clarify the picture: a major Norwegian attempt was made on England, but [E] says nothing at all, and [D] scarcely mentions it. It has sometimes been argued that when theChronicle is silent, other sources that report major events must be mistaken, but this example demonstrates that theChronicle does omit important events.[39]
The process of manual copying introduced accidental errors in dates; such errors were sometimes compounded in the chain of transmission. The whole of the Common Stock has a chronological dislocation of two years for the period 756–845 due to two years being missed out in the archetype.[42] In the [D] manuscript, the scribe omits the year 1044 from the list on the left hand side. The annals copied down are therefore incorrect from 1045 to 1052, which has two entries.[43]
A more difficult problem is the question of the date at which a new year began, since the modern custom of starting the year on 1 January was not universal at that time. The entry for 1091 in [E] begins atChristmas and continues throughout the year; it is clear that this entry follows the old custom of starting the year at Christmas. Some other entries appear to begin the year on 25 March, such as the year 1044 in the [C] manuscript, which ends withEdward the Confessor's marriage on 23 January, while the entry for 22 April is recorded under 1045. There are also years which appear to start in September.[43]
A map showing the places where the various chronicles were written, and where they are now kept[5]
Of the nine surviving manuscripts, seven are written entirely inOld English (also known as Anglo-Saxon). One, known as theBilingual Canterbury Epitome, is in Old English with a translation of each annal intoLatin. Another, thePeterborough Chronicle, is in Old English except for the last entry, which is in earlyMiddle English. The oldest (Corp. Chris. MS 173) is known as theWinchester Chronicle or theParker Chronicle (afterMatthew Parker, anArchbishop of Canterbury, who once owned it), and is written in Old English until 1070, then Latin to 1075. Six of the manuscripts were printed in an 1861 edition for theRolls Series byBenjamin Thorpe with the text laid out in columns labelled A to F. He also included the few readable remnants of a burned seventh manuscript, which he referred to as [G], partially destroyed in a fire atAshburnham House in London in 1731. Following this convention, the two additional manuscripts are often called [H] and [I].[5]
The surviving manuscripts are listed below; though manuscript G was burned in a fire in 1731, and only a few leaves remain.[5]
The relationships between seven of the different manuscripts of theChronicle. 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 version produced in the north of England that did 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.[54] The diagram at right gives an overview of the relationships between the manuscripts. The following is a summary of the relationships that are known.[5]
[A2] was a copy of [A], made in Winchester, probably between 1001 and 1013.
[B] was used in the compilation of [C] atAbingdon, in the mid-11th century. However, the scribe for [C] also had access to another version, which has not survived.
[D] includes material fromBede'sEcclesiastical History written by 731 and from a set of 8th-centuryNorthumbrian 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 theMercian Register. This manuscript was composed at themonastery in Peterborough, some time after a fire there in 1116 that probably destroyed their copy of theChronicle; [E] appears to have been created thereafter as a copy of aKentish version, probably fromCanterbury.
[F] appears to include material from the same Canterbury version that was used to create [E].
Asser'sLife of King Alfred, which was written in 893, includes a translation of theChronicle'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.[notes 1]
Æthelweard wrote a translation of theChronicle, known as theChronicon Æthelweardi, into Latin in the late 10th century; the version he used probably came from the same branch in the tree of relationships that [A] comes from.[56]
Asser's text agrees with [A] and with Æthelweard's text in some places against the combined testimony of [B], [C], [D] and [E], implying that there is a common ancestor for the latter four manuscripts.[57]
AtBury St Edmunds, some time between 1120 and 1140, an unknown author wrote a Latin chronicle known as theAnnals of St Neots. This work includes material from a copy of theChronicle, but it is very difficult to tell which version because the annalist was selective about his use of the material. It may have been a northernrecension, or a Latin derivative of that recension.[56]
All the manuscripts described above share a chronological error between the years 756 and 845, but it is apparent that the composer of theAnnals of St Neots was using a copy that did not have this error and which must have preceded them. Æthelweard's copy did have the chronological error but it had not lost a whole sentence from annal 885; all the surviving manuscripts have lost this sentence. Hence the error and the missing sentence must have been introduced in separate copying steps, implying that none of the surviving manuscripts are closer than two removes from the original version.[57]
A page from theWinchester, orParker,Chronicle, showing the genealogical preface
TheWinchester (orParker)Chronicle is the oldest manuscript of theChronicle that survives. It was begun atOld 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.[5] The section containing theChronicle takes up folios 1–32.[58] Unlike the other manuscripts, [A] is of early enough composition to show entries dating back to the late 9th century in the hands of different scribes as the entries were made.[59]
The first scribe's hand is dateable to the late 9th or very early 10th century; his entries cease in late 891, and the following entries were made at intervals throughout the 10th century by several scribes. The eighth scribe wrote the annals for the years 925–955, and was clearly at Winchester when he wrote them since he adds some material related to events there; he also usesceaster, or "city", to mean Winchester.[59] The manuscript becomes independent of the other recensions after the entry for 975. The book, which also had a copy of theLaws of Alfred andIne bound in after the entry for 924, was transferred to Canterbury some time in the early 11th century,[5] as evidenced by a list of books that Archbishop Parker gave to Corpus Christi.[58]
While at Canterbury, some interpolations were made; this required some erasures in the manuscript. The additional entries appear to have been taken from a version of the manuscript from which [E] descends.[59] The last entry in the vernacular is for 1070. After this comes the LatinActa Lanfranci, which covers church events from 1070 to 1093. This is followed by a list ofpopes and the Archbishops of Canterbury to whom they sent thepallium. The manuscript was acquired by Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury (1559–1575) and is in the collection of theParker Library, Corpus Christi College.[5]
TheAbingdon Chronicle I was written by a single scribe in the second half of the 10th century. TheChronicle takes up folios 1–34.[60] 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 10th century. [B] was at Abingdon in the mid-11th century, because 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 popes and the archbishops of Canterbury to whom they sent the pallium.[5]
A page from the [C] Abingdon II text of theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle. This entry is for 871, a year of battles between Wessex and the Vikings.
C includes additional material from local annals at Abingdon, where it was composed.[5] The section containing theChronicle (folios 115–64) is preceded by King Alfred'sOld English translation ofOrosius's world history, followed by amenologium and somegnomic verses of thelaws of the natural world and of humanity.[61] Then 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.[5]
[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 theChronicle. This scribe also inserted, after the annal for 915, theMercian Register, which covers the years 902–924, and which focuses onÆthelflæd. The manuscript continues to 1066 and stops in the middle of the description of theBattle of Stamford Bridge. In the 12th century a few lines were added to complete the account.[5]
TheWorcester Chronicle appears to have been written in the middle of the 11th century. After 1033 it includes some records fromWorcester, 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'sEcclesiastical History and from a set of 8th-centuryNorthumbrian annals. It is thought that some of the entries may have been composed byArchbishop Wulfstan.[5]
[D] contains more information than other manuscripts on northern andScottish affairs, and it has been speculated that it was a copy intended for the Anglicised Scottish court. From 972 to 1016, thesees ofYork 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 16th century, parts of the manuscript were lost; eighteen pages were inserted containing substitute entries from other sources,[5] including [A], [B], [C] and [E]. These pages were written byJohn Joscelyn, who was secretary to Matthew Parker.[62]
ThePeterborough Chronicle: In 1116, a fire at the monastery at Peterborough destroyed most of the buildings. The copy of theChronicle 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 aKentish version—most likely to have been from Canterbury.[5] The manuscript was written at one time and by a single scribe, down to the annal for 1121.[63] The scribe added material relating to Peterborough Abbey which is not in other versions.[5]
The Canterbury original which he copied was similar, but not identical, to [D]: the Mercian Register does not appear, anda poem about theBattle of Brunanburh in 937, which appears in most of the other surviving copies of theChronicle, is not recorded. The same scribe then continued the annals through to 1131; these entries were made at intervals, and thus are presumably contemporary records.[5]
A second scribe, in 1154, wrote an account of the years 1132–1154, though his dating is known to be unreliable. This last entry is in Middle English, rather than Old English. [E] was once owned byWilliam Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury 1633–1645, so is also known as theLaud Chronicle.[5] The manuscript contains occasional glosses in Latin, and is referred to (as "the Saxon storye of Peterborowe church") in an antiquarian book from 1566.[63] According to Joscelyn, Nowell had a transcript of the manuscript. Previous owners includeWilliam Camden[64] andWilliam L'Isle; the latter probably passed the manuscript on to Laud.[65]
TheCanterbury Bilingual Epitome (London, British Library, Cotton Domitian A.viii, folios 30-70): In about 1100, a copy of theChronicle was written atChrist Church, Canterbury,[66] 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 (on folios 30–70[67]) 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 with [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,[5] includingRobert Talbot.[67]
Copy of theWinchester Chronicle: [A2] was copied from [A] at Winchester in the eleventh century and follows a 10th-century copy of an Old English translation of Bede'sEcclesiastical History.[58] The last annal copied was 1001, so the copy was made no earlier than that; an episcopal list appended to [A2] suggests that the copy was made by 1013. This manuscript was almost completely destroyed in the 1731 fire atAshburnham House inWestminster, where theCotton Library was housed.[5] Of the original 34 leaves, seven remain, ff. 39–47 in the manuscript.[68]
A transcript had been made byLaurence Nowell, a 16th-century antiquary, which was used byAbraham Wheelocke in an edition of theChronicle printed in 1643.[5] Because of this, it is also sometimes known as [W], after Wheelocke.[5] Nowell's transcript copied the genealogical introduction detached from [B] (the page now British Library MS. Cotton Tiberius Aiii, f. 178), rather than that originally part of this document. The original [A2] introduction was later removed prior to the fire and survives as British Library Add MS 34652, f. 2.[69] The appellations [A], [A2] and [G] derive from Plummer, Smith and Thorpe, respectively.[68]
TheCottonian 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 that the manuscript was written at Winchester. There is not enough of this manuscript for reliable relationships to other manuscripts to be established.[5] Ker notes that the entries may have been written contemporarily.[70]
Easter Table Chronicle: A list ofChronicle entries accompanies a table of years, found on folios 133–37 in a badly burned manuscript containing miscellaneous notes on charms, the calculation of dates for church services, and annals pertaining to Christ Church, Canterbury.[71] Most of theChronicle's entries pertain to Christ Church, Canterbury. Until 1109, the death ofAnselm of Canterbury, they are in English. All but one of the following entries are in Latin.[72]
Part of [I] was written by a scribe soon after 1073,[5] in the same hand and ink as the rest of the Caligula MS. After 1085, the annals are in various contemporary hands. The original annalist's entry for theNorman conquest is limited to "Her forðferde eadward kyng"; a later hand added the coming ofWilliam the Conqueror, "7 her com willelm."[72] At one point this manuscript was atSt Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury.[5][73]
Two manuscripts are recorded in an old catalogue of the library of Durham; they are described ascronica duo Anglica. In addition, Parker included a manuscript calledHist. Angliae Saxonica in his gifts but the manuscript that included this, now Cambridge University Library MS. Hh.1.10, has lost 52 of its leaves, including all of this copy of the chronicle.[57][74]
The three mainAnglo-Norman historians,John of Worcester,William of Malmesbury andHenry of Huntingdon, each had a copy of theChronicle, which they adapted for their own purposes.[75]Symeon of Durham also had a copy of theChronicle.[57] Some later medieval historians also used theChronicle, and others took their material from those who had used it, and so theChronicle became "central to the mainstream of English historical tradition".[75]
Henry of Huntingdon used a copy of theChronicle that was very similar to [E]. There is no evidence in his work of any of the entries in [E] after 1121, so although his manuscript may actually have been [E], it may also have been a copy—either one taken of [E] prior to the entries he makes no use of, or a manuscript from which [E] was copied, with the copying taking place prior to the date of the last annal he uses. Henry also made use of the [C] manuscript.[57]
TheWaverley Annals made use of a manuscript that was similar to [E], though it appears that it did not contain the entries focused on Peterborough.[76] The manuscript of the chronicle translated byGeoffrey Gaimar cannot be identified accurately, though according to historianDorothy Whitelock it was "a rather better text than 'E' or 'F'". Gaimar implies that there was a copy at Winchester in his day (the middle of the 12th century); Whitelock suggests that there is evidence that a manuscript that has not survived to the present day was at Winchester in the mid-tenth century. If it survived to Gaimar's time that would explain why [A] was not kept up to date, and why [A] could be given to the monastery at Canterbury.[57]
John of Worcester'sChronicon ex chronicis appears to have had a manuscript that was either [A] or similar to it; he makes use of annals that do not appear in other versions, such as entries concerningEdward the Elder's campaigns and information about Winchester towards the end of the chronicle. His account is often similar to that of [D], though there is less attention paid toMargaret of Scotland, an identifying characteristic of [D]. He had the Mercian register, which appears only in [C] and [D]; and he includes material from annals 979–982 which only appears in [C]. It is possible he had a manuscript that was an ancestor of [D]. He also had sources which have not been identified, and some of his statements have no earlier surviving source.[57]
A manuscript similar to [E] was available toWilliam of Malmesbury, though it is unlikely to have been [E] as that manuscript is known to have still been in Peterborough after the time William was working, and he does not make use of any of the entries in [E] that are specifically related to Peterborough. It is likely he had either the original from which [E] was copied, or a copy of that original. He mentions that the chronicles do not give any information on the murder ofAlfred Aetheling, but since this is covered in both [C] and [D] it is apparent he had no access to those manuscripts. On occasion he appears to show some knowledge of [D], but it is possible that his information was taken from John of Worcester's account. He also omits any reference to a battle fought byCenwealh in 652; this battle is mentioned in [A], [B] and [C], but not in [E]. He does mention a battle fought by Cenwealh atWirtgernesburg, which is not in any of the extant manuscripts, so it is possible he had a copy now lost.[57]
One early edition of theChronicle wasAbraham Wheelocke's 1644Venerabilis Bedae Historia Ecclesiastica, printed in Cambridge and based on manuscript G.[77] An important edition appeared in 1692, byEdmund Gibson, an English jurist and divine who later (1716) becameBishop of Lincoln. TitledChronicon Saxonicum, it printed the Old English text in parallel columns with Gibson's own Latin version and became the standard edition until the 19th century. Gibson used three manuscripts of which the chief was thePeterborough Chronicle.[78] It was superseded in 1861 byBenjamin Thorpe'sRolls Series edition, which printed six versions in columns, labelled A to F, thus giving the manuscripts the letters which are now used to refer to them.
John Earle editedTwo of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel (1865).[79]Charles Plummer revised this edition, providing notes, appendices, and glossary in two volumes in 1892 and 1899.[80][77] This edition of the A and E texts, with material from other versions, was widely used; it was reprinted in 1952.[77]
The standard modern English translations are byDorothy Whitelock, who produced a translation showing all the main manuscript variants,[81] andMichael Swanton.[82]
H. A. Rositzke published a translation of the [E] text inThe Peterborough Chronicle (New York, 1951).
An edition and facing-page modern English translation of the [A] text appears in Janet Bately, Joseph C. Harris, and Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe, with Susan Irvine,The Old English Chronicle, Volume I: The A-Text to 1001 and Related Poems, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 91 (Cambridge, MA, 2025).
Beginning in the 1980s, a set of scholarly editions of the text in Old English have been printed under the series title "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition". They are published byD. S. Brewer under the general editorship ofDavid Dumville andSimon Keynes.[83][notes 2] As of 2021, the volumes published are:
1. Dumville, David ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 1 MS F, facsimile edition, 2003
3. Bately, Janet ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 3 MS A, 1986
4. Taylor, Simon ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 4 MS B, 1983
5. O'Brien O'Keeffe, Katherine ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 5 MS C, 2000
6. Cubbin, G. P. ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 6 MS D, 1996
7. Irvine, Susan ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: 7. MS E, 2004
8. Baker, Peter ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 8 MS F, 2000
10. Conner, Patrick ed.,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 10 The Abingdon Chronicle AD 956–1066 (MS C with ref. to BDE), 1996
17. Dumville, David and Lapidge, Michael,Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 17 The annals of St Neots with Vita Prima Sancti Neoti, 1996
The Collaborative Edition did not include MS G because an edition by Angelika Lutz, described byPauline Stafford as "excellent", had recently been published.[84]
Other modern scholarly editions of differentChronicle manuscripts are as follows. The [C] manuscript has been edited by H. A. Rositzke as "The C-Text of the Old English Chronicles", inBeiträge zur Englischen Philologie, XXXIV, Bochum-Langendreer, 1940.[77] A scholarly edition of the [D] manuscript is inAn Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from British Museum Cotton MS., Tiberius B. iv, edited by E. Classen and F. E. Harmer, Manchester, 1926.[77] The [F] text was printed in F. P. Magoun, Jr.,Annales Domitiani Latini: an Edition in "Mediaeval Studies of the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies", IX, 1947, pp. 235–295.[77]
^abAbels, Richard (2005).Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Longman. p. 15.ISBN0-582-04047-7..
^abcdefSusan Irvine, 'The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle', inA Companion to Alfred the Great, ed. by Nicole G. Discenza and Paul E. Szarmach, Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition, 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 344–67;doi:10.1163/9789004283763_014.
^Wormald, "Alfredian Manuscripts", p. 158, in Campbell et al.,The Anglo-Saxons.
^abF. M. Stenton, 'The South-Western Element in the Old English Chronicle', in A. G. Little ed,Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout (Manchester 1925) p. 22
^abLapidge,Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 35.
^Janet Bately, 'The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 60 BC to AD 890: Vocabulary as Evidence',Proceedings of the British Academy, 64 (1978), 93—129.
^Janet M. Bately, 'World History in theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle: Its Sources and its Separateness from the Old English Orosius',Anglo-Saxon England, 8 (1979), 177–94.
^Janet Bately, 'Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle', inSaints, Scholars and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Charles W. Jones, ed. by Margot H. King and Wesley M. Stevens, 2 vols (Collegeville: 1979), I 233–54.
^Courtnay Konshuh, 'Constructing Early Anglo-Saxon Identity in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles', inThe Land of the English Kin: Studies in Wessex and Anglo-Saxon England in Honour of Professor Barbara Yorke, ed. by Alexander Langlands and Ryan Lavelle (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 154–80.
^Barbara Yorke, 'Fact or Fiction? The Written Evidence for the Fifth and Sixth Centuries AD',Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 6 (1993), 45–50.
^Dark,Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, pp. 43-44
^David N. Dumville, 'The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal Lists',Anglo-Saxon England, 5 (1976), 23–50.
^abDavid N. Dumville, 'The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the Chronology of Early Wessex',Peritia, 4 (1985), 21–66 [repr. David N. Dumville,Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993), item VIII.
^abKenneth Harrison,The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
^F. M. Stenton,Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England, ed. by D. M. Stenton (1970), pp. 116–26 [repr. from'The Foundations of English History',Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 9 (1926), 159–73].
^"Cotton Catalogue". Archived fromthe original on 23 April 2007. Retrieved11 April 2007. See Caligula A.15, under "Provenance", which gives a description of the manuscript and some of its history.
^abcdefgWhitelock,English Historical Documents, p. 129.
^The title in full isChronicon Saxonicum; seu Annales Rerum in Anglia Praecipue Gestarum, a Christo nato ad Annum Usque MCLIV. deducti, ac jam demum Latinitate donati. Cum Indice Rerum Chronologico. Accedunt Regulae ad Investigandas Nominum Locorum Origines. Et Nominum Locorum ac Virorum in Chronico Memoratorum Explicatio. A detailed description of a first edition is listed at"Law Books – October 2002 List". Archived fromthe original on 28 November 2007. Retrieved2 March 2014.
Campbell, James (2000).The Anglo-Saxon State. Hambledon and London.ISBN1-85285-176-7.
Crystal, David (1995).The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-59655-6.
Dark, Ken (2000).Britain and the End of the Roman Empire. Stroud, UK: Tempus Publishing.ISBN978-0-7524-2532-0.
Ekwall, Eilert (1947).The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. Oxford: Clarendon Press.OCLC3821873.
Gneuss, Helmut (2001).Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. Vol. 241. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.ISBN978-0-86698-283-2.
Greenfield, Stanley Brian (1986).A New Critical History of Old English Literature. New York: New York University Press. p. 60.ISBN0-8147-3088-4.
Hunter Blair, Peter (1960).An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2003 edition:ISBN0-521-83085-0)
Hunter Blair, Peter (1966).Roman Britain and Early England: 55 B.C. – A.D. 871. New York: Norton.ISBN0-393-00361-2.
Ker, Neil Ripley (1957).Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: At the Clarendon.
Keynes, Simon; Michael Lapidge (2004).Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. New York: Penguin Classics.ISBN0-14-044409-2.
Lapidge, Michael (1999).The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.ISBN0-631-22492-0.
Lutz, Angelika, ed. (1981).Die Version G der Angelsächsischen Chronik : Rekonstruktion und Edition Die Version G der Angelsächsischen Chronik : Rekonstruktion und Edition (in German and Old English). Munich, Germany: W. Fink.ISBN9783770520213.
Several poems in versions of theChronicle are edited, annotated and linked to digital images of their manuscript pages, with modern translations, in theOld English Poetry in Facsimile Project:https://oepoetryfacsimile.org
