(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:4) (cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:28)(cid:30)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:10) (cid:10) (cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:19)!(cid:4)"(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:4)#(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:4)$(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:28)%(cid:30)&’(cid:4) ((cid:16)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:23)(cid:4))(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:9))(cid:4)*(cid:15)!(cid:4)"!(cid:5)!(cid:4)+(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:4)$(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:28)%,-’(cid:4) .(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:25)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:25)(cid:4)(cid:9))(cid:4)/(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8))(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:25)(cid:4)0(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:4)1(cid:13))(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:4)$(cid:28)22(cid:28)(cid:10)(cid:30)’(cid:4) 2 3 Credits Support the Northern Scholarship Project and help us make Germanic Iron Age, Viking Age and medieval scholarship and texts accessible to everyone. To find out how you can help, go to: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/northern_scholar.php This text brought to you in PDF format by: Pádraic I.M. MacUidhir Visit Northvegr on the web at: http://www.northvegr.org/ (cid:1) This text transcribed by (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:10)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:25) [email protected] Get Northvegr Texts on CD-ROM © 2003 Northvegr and A. Odhinssen. The formatting and construction of this PDF is free for personal use only. It may not be distributed in any form without prior permission. 4 5 Introduction Originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, approximately A.D. 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes until the middle of the 12th Century. The original language is Anglo-Saxon (Old English), but later entries are essentially Middle English in tone. Translation by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional readings from the translation of Dr. J.A. Giles (London, 1847). The text of this edition is based on that published as "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" (Everyman Press, London, 1912). This edition is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN in the United States. This electronic edition was edited, proofed, and prepared by Douglas B. Killings ([email protected]), July 1996. PREPARER'S NOTE: At present there are nine known versions or fragments of the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" in existence, all of which vary (sometimes greatly) in content and quality. The translation that follows is not a translation of any one Chronicle; rather, it is a collation of readings from many different versions. The nine known "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" MS. are the following: A-Prime The Parker Chronicle (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 173) A Cottonian Fragment (British Museum, Cotton MS. Otho B xi, 2) B The Abingdon Chronicle I (British Museum, Cotton MS. Tiberius A vi.) C The Abingdon Chronicle II (British Museum, Cotton MS. Tiberius B i.) D The Worcester Chronicle (British Museum, Cotton MS.Tiberius B iv.) E The Laud (or "Peterborough") Chronicle (Bodleian, MS.Laud 636) F The Bilingual Canterbury Epitome (British Museum, Cotton MS. Domitian A viii.) NOTE: Entries in English and Latin. H Cottonian Fragment (British Museum, Cotton MS. Domitian A ix.) I An Easter Table Chronicle (British Museum, Cotton MS.Caligula A xv.) This electronic edition contains primarily the translation of Rev. James Ingram, as published in the Everyman edition of this text. Excerpts from the translation of Dr. J.A. Giles were included as an appendix in the Everyman edition; the preparer of this edition has elected to collate these entries into the main text of the translation. Where these collations have occurred I have marked the entry with a double parenthesis (()). WARNING: While I have elected to include the footnotes of Rev. Ingram in this edition, please note that they should be used with extreme care. In many cases the views expressed by Rev. Ingram are severely out of date, having been superseded by almost 175 years of active scholarship. At best, these notes will provide a starting point for inquiry. They should not, however, be treated as absolute. 6 CONTENTS (cid:1) Introduction (pg. 7) (cid:1) Part 1: A.D. 1 - 748 (pg. 19) (cid:1) Part 2: A.D. 750 - 919 (pg. 47) (cid:1) Part 3: A.D. 920 - 1014 (pg. 72) (cid:1) Part 4: A.D. 1015 - 1051 (pg. 97) (cid:1) Part 5: A.D. 1052 - 1069 (pg. 117) (cid:1) Part 6: A.D. 1070 - 1101 (pg. 135) (cid:1) Part 7: A.D. 1102 - 1154 (pg. 155) SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY: • ORIGINAL TEXT -- o Classen, E. and Harmer, F.E. (eds.): "An Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from British Museum, Cotton MS. Tiberius B iv." (Manchester, 1926) o Flower, Robin and Smith, Hugh (eds.): "The Peterborough Chronicle and Laws" (Early English Text Society, Original Series 208, Oxford, 1941). o Taylor, S. (ed.): "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS B" (Cambridge, 1983) • OTHER TRANSLATIONS -- o Garmonsway, G.N.: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" (Everyman Press, London, 1953, 1972). HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Contains side-by-side translations of all nine known texts. • RECOMMENDED READING -- o Bede: "A History of the English Church and People" , translated by Leo Sherley-Price (Penguin Classics, London, 1955, 1968). o Poole, A.L.: "Domesday Book to Magna Carta" (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1951, 1953) o Stenton, Sir Frank W.: "Anglo-Saxon England" (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1943, 1947, 1971) 7 Original Introduction to Ingram's Edition [1823] England may boast of two substantial monuments of its early history; to either of which it would not be easy to find a parallel in any nation, ancient or modern. These are, the Record of Doomsday (1) and the "Saxon Chronicle" (2). The former, which is little more than a statistical survey, but contains the most authentic information relative to the descent of property and the comparative importance of the different parts of the kingdom at a very interesting period, the wisdom and liberality of the British Parliament long since deemed worthy of being printed (3) among the Public Records, by Commissioners appointed for that purpose. The other work, though not treated with absolute neglect, has not received that degree of attention which every person who feels an interest in the events and transactions of former times would naturally expect. In the first place, it has never been printed entire, from a collation of all the MSS. But of the extent of the two former editions, compared with the present, the reader may form some idea, when he is told that Professor Wheloc's "Chronologia Anglo- Saxonica", which was the first attempt (4) of the kind, published at Cambridge in 1644, is comprised in less than 62 folio pages, exclusive of the Latin appendix. The improved edition by Edmund Gibson, afterwards Bishop of London, printed at Oxford in 1692, exhibits nearly four times the quantity of the former; but is very far from being the entire (5) chronicle, as the editor considered it. The text of the present edition, it was found, could not be compressed within a shorter compass than 374 pages, though the editor has suppressed many notes and illustrations, which may be thought necessary to the general reader. Some variations in the MSS. may also still remain unnoticed; partly because they were considered of little importance, and partly from an apprehension, lest the commentary, as it sometimes happens, should seem an unwieldy burthen, rather than a necessary appendage, to the text. Indeed, till the editor had made some progress in the work, he could not have imagined that so many original and authentic materials of our history still remained unpublished. To those who are unacquainted with this monument of our national antiquities, two questions appear requisite to be answered: -- "What does it contain?" and, "By whom was it written?" The indulgence of the critical antiquary is solicited, whilst we endeavour to answer, in some degree, each of these questions. To the first question we answer, that the "Saxon Chronicle" contains the original and authentic testimony of contemporary writers to the most important transactions of our forefathers, both by sea and land, from their first arrival in this country to the year 1154. Were we to descend to particulars, it would require a volume to discuss the great variety of subjects which it embraces. Suffice it to say, that every reader will here find many interesting facts relative to our architecture, our agriculture, our coinage, our commerce, our naval and military glory, our laws, our liberty, and our religion. In this edition, also, will be found numerous specimens of Saxon poetry, never before printed, which might form the ground-work of an introductory volume to Warton's elaborate annals of English Poetry. Philosophically considered, this ancient record is the second great phenomenon in the history of mankind. For, if we except the sacred annals of the Jews, contained in the several books of the Old Testament, there is no other work extant, ancient or modern, which exhibits at one view a regular and chronological panorama of a PEOPLE, described in rapid succession by different writers, through so many ages, in their own vernacular LANGUAGE. Hence it may safely be considered, nor only as the primaeval source from which all subsequent historians of English affairs have principally derived their materials, and consequently the criterion by which they are to be judged, but also as the faithful depository of our national idiom; affording, at the same time, to the scientific investigator of the human mind a very interesting and extraordinary example of the changes incident to a language, as well as to a nation, in its progress from rudeness to refinement. 8 ENDNOTES: (1) Whatever was the origin of this title, by which it is now distinguished, in an appendix to the work itself it is called "Liber de Wintonia," or "The Winchester-Book," from its first place of custody. (2) This title is retained, in compliance with custom, though it is a collection of chronicles, rather than one uniform work, as the received appellation seems to imply. (3) In two volumes folio, with the following title: "Domesday- Book, seu Liber Censualis Willelmi Primi Regis Angliae, inter Archlyos Regni in Domo Capitulari Westmonasterii asservatus: jubente rege augustissimo Georgio Tertio praelo mandatus typis MDCCLXXXIII" (4) Gerard Langbaine had projected such a work, and had made considerable progress in the collation of MSS., when he found himself anticipated by Wheloc. (5) "Nunc primum integrum edidit" is Gibson's expression in the title-page. He considers Wheloc's MSS. as fragments, rather than entire chronicles: "quod integrum nacti jam discimus." These MSS., however, were of the first authority, and not less entire, as far as they went, than his own favourite "Laud". But the candid critic will make allowance for the zeal of a young Bachelor of Queen's, who, it must be remembered, had scarcely attained the age of twenty-three when this extraordinary work was produced. 9 But that the reader may more clearly see how much we are indebted to the "Saxon Chronicle", it will be necessary to examine what is contained in other sources of our history, prior to the accession of Henry II., the period wherein this invaluable record terminates. The most ancient historian of our own island, whose work has been preserved, is Gildas, who flourished in the latter part of the sixth century. British antiquaries of the present day will doubtless forgive me, if I leave in their original obscurity the prophecies of Merlin, and the exploits of King Arthur, with all the Knights of the Round Table, as scarcely coming within the verge of history. Notwithstanding, also, the authority of Bale, and of the writers whom he follows, I cannot persuade myself to rank Joseph of Arimathea, Arviragus, and Bonduca, or even the Emperor Constantine himself, among the illustrious writers of Great Britain. I begin, therefore, with Gildas; because, though he did not compile a regular history of the island, he has left us, amidst a cumbrous mass of pompous rhapsody and querulous declamation some curious descriptions of the character and manners of the inhabitants; not only the Britons and Saxons, but the Picts and Scots (6). There are also some parts of his work, almost literally transcribed by Bede, which confirm the brief statements of the "Saxon Chronicle" (7). But there is, throughout, such a want of precision and simplicity, such a barrenness of facts amidst a multiplicity of words, such a scantiness of names of places and persons, of dates, and other circumstances, that we are obliged to have recourse to the Saxon Annals, or to Venerable Bede, to supply the absence of those two great lights of history -- Chronology and Topography. The next historian worth notice here is Nennius, who is supposed to have flourished in the seventh century: but the work ascribed to him is so full of interpolations and corruptions, introduced by his transcribers, and particularly by a simpleton who is called Samuel, or his master Beulanus, or both, who appear to have lived in the ninth century, that it is difficult to say how much of this motley production is original and authentic. Be that as it may, the writer of the copy printed by Gale bears ample testimony to the "Saxon Chronicle", and says expressly, that he compiled his history partly from the records of the Scots and Saxons (8). At the end is a confused but very curious appendix, containing that very genealogy, with some brief notices of Saxon affairs, which the fastidiousness of Beulanus, or of his amanuensis, the aforesaid Samuel, would not allow him to transcribe. This writer, although he professes to be the first historiographer (9) of the Britons, has sometimes repeated the very words of Gildas (10); whose name is even prefixed to some copies of the work. It is a puerile composition, without judgment, selection, or method (11); filled with legendary tales of Trojan antiquity, of magical delusion, and of the miraculous exploits of St. Germain and St. Patrick: not to mention those of the valiant Arthur, who is said to have felled to the ground in one day, single-handed, eight hundred and forty Saxons! It is remarkable, that this taste for the marvelous, which does not seem to be adapted to the sober sense of Englishmen, was afterwards revived in all its glory by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the Norman age of credulity and romance. We come now to a more cheering prospect; and behold a steady light reflected on the "Saxon Chronicle" by the "Ecclesiastical History" of Bede; a writer who, without the intervention of any legendary tale, truly deserves the title of Venerable (12). With a store of classical learning not very common in that age, and with a simplicity of language seldom found in monastic Latinity, he has moulded into something like a regular form the scattered fragments of Roman, British, Scottish, and Saxon history. His work, indeed. is professedly ecclesiastical; but, when we consider the prominent station which the Church had at this time assumed in England, we need not be surprised if we find therein the same intermixture of civil, military, and ecclesiastical affairs, which forms so remarkable a feature in the "Saxon Chronicle". Hence Gibson concludes, that many passages of the latter description were derived from the work of Bede (13). He thinks the same of the description of Britain, the notices of the Roman emperors, and the detail of the first arrival of the Saxons. But, it may be observed, those passages to which he alludes are not to be found in the earlier MSS. The description of Britain, which forms the introduction, and refers us to a period antecedent to the invasion of Julius Caesar; appears only in three copies of the "Chronicle"; two of which are of so late a date as the Norman Conquest, and both derived from the same source. Whatever relates to the succession of the Roman emperors was so universally known, that it must be considered as common property: and so short was the interval between the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Saxons, that the latter must have preserved amongst them sufficient memorials and traditions to connect their own history with that of their predecessors. Like all rude nations, they were particularly attentive to genealogies; and these, together with the succession of their kings, their battles, and their conquests, must be derived originally from the Saxons themselves. and not from Gildas, or Nennius, or Bede (14). Gibson himself was so convinced of this, that he afterwards attributes to the "Saxon Chronicle" all the knowledge we have of those early times (15). Moreover, we might ask, if our whole dependence had been centered in Bede, what would have become of us after his death? (16) Malmsbury indeed asserts, with some degree of vanity, that you will not 10 easily find a Latin historian of English affairs between Bede and himself (17); and in the fulness of self- complacency professes his determination, "to season with Roman salt the barbarisms of his native tongue!" He affects great contempt for Ethelwerd, whose work will be considered hereafter; and he well knew how unacceptable any praise of the "Saxon Annals" would be to the Normans, with whom he was connected (18). He thinks it necessary to give his reasons, on one occasion, for inserting from these very "Annals" what he did not find in Bede; though it is obvious, that the best part of his materials, almost to his own times, is derived from the same source. The object of Bishop Asser, the biographer of Alfred, who comes next in order, was to deliver to posterity a complete memorial of that sovereign, and of the transactions of his reign. To him alone are we indebted for the detail of many interesting circumstances in the life and character of his royal patron (19); but most of the public transactions will be found in the pages of the "Saxon Chronicle": some passages of which he appears to have translated so literally, that the modern version of Gibson does not more closely represent the original. In the editions of Parker, Camden, and Wise, the last notice of any public event refers to the year 887. The interpolated copy of Gale, called by some Pseudo-Asserius, and by others the Chronicle of St. Neot's, is extended to the year 914 (20). Much difference of opinion exists respecting this work; into the discussion of which it is not our present purpose to enter. One thing is remarkable: it contains the vision of Drihtelm, copied from Bede, and that of Charles King of the Franks, which Malmsbury thought it worth while to repeat in his "History of the Kings of England". What Gale observes concerning the "fidelity" with which these annals of Asser are copied by Marianus, is easily explained. They both translated from the "Saxon Chronicle", as did also Florence of Worcester, who interpolated Marianus; of whom we shall speak hereafter. But the most faithful and extraordinary follower of the "Saxon Annals" is Ethelwerd; who seems to have disregarded almost all other sources of information. One great error, however, he committed; for which Malmsbury does nor spare him. Despairing of the reputation of classical learning, if he had followed the simplicity of the Saxon original, he fell into a sort of measured and inverted prose, peculiar to himself; which, being at first sufficiently obscure, is sometimes rendered almost unintelligible by the incorrect manner in which it has been printed. His authority, nevertheless, in an historical point of view, is very respectable. Being one of the few writers untainted by monastic prejudice (21), he does not travel out of his way to indulge in legendary tales and romantic visions. Critically considered, his work is the best commentary on the "Saxon Chronicle" to the year 977; at which period one of the MSS. which he seems to have followed, terminates. Brevity and compression seem to have been his aim, because the compilation was intended to be sent abroad for the instruction of a female relative of high rank in Germany (22), at her request. But there are, nevertheless, some circumstances recorded which are not to be found elsewhere; so that a reference to this epitome of Saxon history will be sometimes useful in illustrating the early part of the "Chronicle"; though Gibson, I know not on what account, has scarcely once quoted it.