PART III THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD CHAPTER I ORIGINAL SOURCES DOMESDAY BOOK, which is of great importance for the study of Anglo-Saxon institutions, is examined in § 50 a. $34. CHRONICLES AND ROYAL BIOGRAPHIES. For the events of the fifth and sixth centuries we must rely mainly upon the meagre information afforded by Gildas. Nennius, who has evoked so much discussion in recent years, is of little value as an historical authority, and Geoffrey of Monmouth is still less reliable. From 596 onward we have two safe guides, the two most important authorities mentioned in this section, namely, Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. From them Ethelwerd (No. 1366) and the Latin chroniclers of the twelfth century, notably Florence of Worcester, Simeon of Durham, Henry of Huntingdon, and William of Malmesbury, derive most of their facts regarding Anglo-Saxon history; but these later writers, especially Simeon of Durham, add some information drawn from sources not now extant. See No. 1376; Petrie, Monumenta (No. 537), 83-92, 522-829; Earle, Two of the Saxon Chronicles (No. 1349), pp. lix.-lxvii. Bede is the foremost exponent of Northumbrian culture, which was unequalled elsewhere in Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries; and his Historia Ecclesiastica, with its connected narrative or grouping of facts, represents a type of historical writing quite distinct from the brief chronological memoranda of events contained in the annals or chronicles. The germinating point of the latter is to be sought in contemporary Latin notes or jottings entered in the margins of Easter tables, a practice which began in England probably not long after the coming of Augustine and was introduced into the kingdom of the Franks by English missionaries. These chronological notes were soon copied, amplified, and continued as independent works. See Wattenbach, Geschichtsquellen (No. 33), 6th edition, i. 138-40, 148-50; and, for the use of Easter tables at Canterbury, Reading, and Peterborough in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Liebermann, Geschichtsquellen (No. 586), 1, 9, 13. In the elaboration of the Easter-table jottings, old popular songs and royal genealogies (No. 1368) were sometimes turned to account. Thus were produced some of the annals that were used in the earlier portions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which originated in southern England. To this category of annalistic works belong also four remnants of Northumbrian historiography-the Annales Lindisfarnenses, the Chronologia Brevissima, the Continuatio Bedæ, and the lost chronicle (Nos. 1352, 1359, 1361, 1376); the Annales Cambriæ, and the Annals of Tigernach (Nos. 1351, 1377). The last two are the primary authorities for Wales and Ireland respectively; from them later writers derive much of their information regarding this period: they are, indeed, to Welsh and Irish history what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is to English history. Of these later derivatives the Brut y Tywysogion, the Annals of Ulster, and the Chronicon Scotorum (Nos. 1713, 1728, 1752) deserve particular mention, because, though the first is partly based upon the Annales Cambriæ, and the other two upon Tigernach, they contain additional information concerning the early history of England, Ireland, and Wales. Another group of sources comprises the monastic histories of Ramsey, Abingdon, Croyland, Ely, and Hyde (Nos. 1357-8, 1371-3), all compiled after the Norman Conquest. They are a combination of the chartulary and the chronicle, dealing mainly with local ecclesiastical history, but also containing some details regarding the general affairs of the kingdom and interesting illustrations of customs and institutions. Simeon's History of the Church of Durham (No. 1767) gives some valuable information regarding the secular affairs of northern England in the 9th century. Still more local in their scope are the tract on the siege of Durham and Elmham's work on Canterbury (Nos. 1362, 1364). Of royal biographies Asser's life of Alfred is the most important. Two others are also worthy of notice, the Encomium Emmæ and the contemporary Vita Edwardi (Nos. 1365, 1378); these are of some value for the study of political history in the eleventh century. For biographies of prelates, etc., see § 38 d. For the careers of Sweyn, Cnut, and other Danish chieftains who invaded Britain, see Adam of Bremen (No. 1356), the War of the Gaedhill (No. 1380), Langebek's Scriptores (No. 585), and the Norse sagas (§ 35). A more detailed enumeration of editions, and other information concerning the chroniclers of the Anglo-Saxon period, will be found in the works mentioned in § 2, especially in Potthast's Bibliotheca, the Dictionary of National Biography, and Hardy's Catalogue of Materials (Nos. 25, 39, 45); cf. Petrie's Monumenta (No. 537), preface. 1349. *Anglo-Saxon chronicle (The). Chronicon Saxonicum, ed. Edmund Gibson. Oxford, 1692. The Saxon chronicle, with an English translation, ed. James Ingram. London, 1823. Edited, with a translation, in Petrie's Monumenta (No. 537), 291-466. London, 1848. — The Anglo-Saxon chronicle, with a translation, ed. Benjamin Thorpe. Rolls Series. 2 vols. London, 1861. — Two of the Saxon chronicles parallel, ed. John Earle. Oxford, 1865. - The same, ed. Charles Plummer, on the basis of Earle's edition. 2 vols. Oxford, 1892-99. This is the best edition. Translated by J. A. Giles, 1847, and J. Stevenson, 1853: Nos. 574, 597. This is the oldest historical work written in any Germanic language, and is the basis of most of our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history from the year 732 onward. The MSS., with the periods which they cover, are : A = Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, clxxiii. (B.C. 60-A.D. 1070). The compilation of each MS. has been identified with a religious house in southern England: hence A is called the Winchester chronicle; B has been assigned to Canterbury; C to Abingdon; D to Worcester; E to Peterborough ; F to Canterbury; G is largely a late copy of A. The greater part of G was destroyed in the Cottonian fire of 1731, but the whole was printed by Abraham Wheloc in 1643. The best authorities regard A as the oldest, but believe that it it is a copy of an older original of the 9th century, from which also the other MSS. (B–G) were derived directly or indirectly. Thorpe's valuable edition contains the texts of six MSS. (A-F) in parallel columns. In the introduction to Earle's edition of A and E we find for the first time a careful investigation of the structure and pedigree of all the MSS. Some writers believe that the Chronicle was first compiled in Alfred's reign and at his command; but the researches of Earle, Grubitz, and Horst show that N the Alfredian compilation was merely the continuation and expansion of older annals. As to the nature of the original nucleus or germinating point opinions diverge. The nucleus probably comprised brief contemporary Latin annals written at Winchester in the 7th and 8th centuries; this work was continued and expanded about the year 855, and again in Alfred's reign, about 892. The annals of the first five centuries seem to have been inserted by the Alfredian compiler, who made considerable use of Bede down to 732. From Alfred's time onward the Chronicle was continued independently in different monasteries until the second half of the 12th century. This independence gradually caused so great divergence in the various MSS. that we are justified in regarding them as a series of distinct works with a common basis, a series to which we may apply the plural designation, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. The best contributions to our knowledge of this subject are those of Earle, Plummer, Grubitz, and Horst. The fullest account is Plummer's, in vol. ii. of his edition of the Chronicle; he believes that the idea of a national chronicle as opposed to local annals was Alfred's, and that the idea was carried out under Alfred's supervision. Literature: GRUBITZ, ERNST. Kritische Untersuchung über die angelsächischen Annalen bis zum Jahre 893. Göttingen, 1868, pp. 34. (In his opinion the nucleus of the oldest part of the Chronicle comprises brief contemporary annals compiled at Canterbury and dealing with local ecclesiastical matters; of these annals there are traces from A.D. 664 to 833. In the middle of the 9th century they were continued either at Canterbury or at Winchester in the form of general annals to 855, with Wessex as the central point of interest; and in this continuation much attention was given to the Danes and to military affairs. Probably after 870 additions were made at Winchester from B.C. 60 to A.D. 755, and from 855 onward.) HARDY, T. D. Catalogue of materials, i. 647-60. London, 1862. HORST, KARL. Zur Kritik der altenglischen Annalen. Darmstadt, 1896, pp. 39. (Praises Thorpe's edition and criticises Earle's. Believes that a compilation of annals to 865 was made, probably at Winchester, before 871, and was continued by the same writer to the close of 893. MS. C originated not at Abingdon, but in Dorset, perhaps at Sherborne.) Beiträge zur Kenntniss der altenglischen Annalen. Englische Studien, xxiv. 1-16, xxv. 195–218, etc. Leipsic, 1897-98. (Examines the pedigree of the MSS.) HOWORTH, H. H. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle. Athenæum, 1877, Sept. 8, pp. 308-10; 1879, Sept. 20, pp. 367-9; 1880, Oct. 9, pp. 465-7; 1882, Aug. 12, pp. 207-8. (Believes that the Chronicle, as it has come down to us, was compiled at Winchester in the 10th century; and that the oldest MS. is B, not A.) KUPFERSCHMIDT, MAX. Ueber das Handschriftenverhältniss der Winchester-Annalen. Englische Studien, xiii. 165-87. Heilbronn, 1889. (Deals with the relations of the MSS. to each other and to the lost original.) PAULI, REINHOLD. Two of the Saxon chronicles parallel [a review of Earle's edition]. Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1866, ii. 1406-23. Göttingen, 1866. |