The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

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).

*****************************************************************

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

severally out of date, having been superseded by almost 175 years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.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY:

ORIGINAL TEXT --

Classen, E. and Harmer, F.E. (eds.): "An Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

from British Museum, Cotton MS. Tiberius B iv." (Manchester,

1926)

Flower, Robin and Smith, Hugh (eds.): "The Peterborough Chronicle

and Laws" (Early English Text Society, Original Series 208,

Oxford, 1941).

Taylor, S. (ed.): "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: MS B" <aka "The

Abingdon Chronicle I"> (Cambridge, 1983)

OTHER TRANSLATIONS --

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 --

Bede: "A History of the English Church and People" <aka "The

Ecclesiastical History">, translated by Leo Sherley-Price

(Penguin Classics, London, 1955, 1968).

Poole, A.L.: "Domesday Book to Magna Carta" (Oxford University

Press, Oxford, 1951, 1953)

Stenton, Sir Frank W.: "Anglo-Saxon England" (Oxford University

Press, Oxford, 1943, 1947, 1971)

*****************************************************************

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.

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 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.

During the sanguinary conflicts of the eleventh century, which

ended first in the temporary triumph of the Danes, and afterwards

in the total subjugation of the country by the Normans, literary

pursuits, as might be expected, were so much neglected, that

scarcely a Latin writer is to be found: but the "Saxon Chronicle"

has preserved a regular and minute detail of occurrences, as they

passed along, of which subsequent historians were glad to avail

themselves. For nearly a century after the Conquest, the Saxon

annalists appear to have been chiefly eye-witnesses of the

transactions which they relate (23). The policy of the Conqueror

led him by degrees to employ Saxons as well as Normans: and

William II. found them the most faithful of his subjects: but

such an influx of foreigners naturally corrupted the ancient

language; till at length, after many foreign and domestic wars,

tranquillity being restored on the accession of Henry II.,

literature revived; a taste for composition increased; and the

compilation of Latin histories of English and foreign affairs,

blended and diversified with the fabled romance and legendary

tale, became the ordinary path to distinction. It is remarkable,

that when the "Saxon Chronicle" ends, Geoffrey of Monmouth

begins. Almost every great monastery about this time had its

historian: but some still adhered to the ancient method.

Florence of Worcester, an interpolator of Marianus, as we before

observed, closely follows Bede, Asser, and the "Saxon Chronicle"

(24). The same may be observed of the annals of Gisburne, of

Margan, of Meiros, of Waverley, etc.; some of which are anonymous

compilations, whilst others have the name of an author, or rather

transcriber; for very few aspired to the character of authors or

original historians. Thomas Wikes, a canon of Oseney, who

compiled a Latin chronicle of English affairs from the Conquest

to the year 1304, tells us expressly, that he did this, not

because he could add much to the histories of Bede, William of

Newburgh, and Matthew Paris, but "propter minores, quibus non

suppetit copia librorum." (25) Before the invention of printing,

it was necessary that numerous copies of historical works should

be transcribed, for the instruction of those who had not access

to libraries. The transcribers frequently added something of

their own, and abridged or omitted what they thought less

interesting. Hence the endless variety of interpolators and

deflorators of English history. William of Malmsbury, indeed,

deserves to be selected from all his competitors for the

superiority of his genius; but he is occasionally inaccurate, and

negligent of dates and other minor circumstances; insomuch that

his modern translator has corrected some mistakes, and supplied

the deficiencies in his chronology, by a reference to the "Saxon

Chronicle". Henry of Huntingdon, when he is not transcribing

Bede, or translating the "Saxon Annals", may be placed on the

same shelf with Geoffrey of Monmouth.

As I have now brought the reader to the period when our

"Chronicle" terminates, I shall dismiss without much ceremony the

succeeding writers, who have partly borrowed from this source;

Simon of Durham, who transcribes Florence of Worcester, the two

priors of Hexham, Gervase, Hoveden, Bromton, Stubbes, the two

Matthews, of Paris and Westminster, and many others, considering

that sufficient has been said to convince those who may not have

leisure or opportunity to examine the matter themselves, that

however numerous are the Latin historians of English affairs,

almost everything original and authentic, and essentially

conducive to a correct knowledge of our general history, to the

period above mentioned, may be traced to the "Saxon Annals".

It is now time to examine, who were probably the writers of these

"Annals". I say probably, because we have very little more than

rational conjecture to guide us.

The period antecedent to the times of Bede, except where passages

were afterwards inserted, was perhaps little else, originally,

than a kind of chronological table of events, with a few

genealogies, and notices of the death and succession of kings and

other distinguished personages. But it is evident from the

preface of Bede and from many passages in his work, that he

received considerable assistance from Saxon bishops, abbots, and

others; who not only communicated certain traditionary facts

"viva voce", but also transmitted to him many written documents.

These, therefore, must have been the early chronicles of Wessex,

of Kent, and of the other provinces of the Heptarchy; which

formed together the ground-work of his history. With greater

honesty than most of his followers, he has given us the names of

those learned persons who assisted him with this local

information. The first is Alcuinus or Albinus, an abbot of

Canterbury, at whose instigation he undertook the work; who sent

by Nothelm, afterwards archbishop of that province, a full

account of all ecclesiastical transactions in Kent, and in the

contiguous districts, from the first conversion of the Saxons.

From the same source he partly derived his information respecting

the provinces of Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, and Northumbria.

Bishop Daniel communicated to him by letter many particulars

concerning Wessex, Sussex, and the Isle of Wight. He

acknowledges assistance more than once "ex scriptis priorum"; and

there is every reason to believe that some of these preceding

records were the "Anglo-Saxon Annals"; for we have already seen

that such records were in existence before the age of Nennius.

In proof of this we may observe, that even the phraseology

sometimes partakes more of the Saxon idiom than the Latin. If,

therefore, it be admitted, as there is every reason to conclude

from the foregoing remarks, that certain succinct and

chronological arrangements of historical facts had taken place in

several provinces of the Heptarchy before the time of Bede, let

us inquire by whom they were likely to have been made.

In the province of Kent, the first person on record, who is

celebrated for his learning, is Tobias, the ninth bishop of

Rochester, who succeeded to that see in 693. He is noticed by

Bede as not only furnished with an ample store of Greek and Latin

literature, but skilled also in the Saxon language and erudition

(26). It is probable, therefore, that he left some proofs of

this attention to his native language and as he died within a few

years of Bede, the latter would naturally avail himself of his

labours. It is worthy also of remark, that Bertwald, who

succeeded to the illustrious Theodore of Tarsus in 690, was the

first English or Saxon archbishop of Canterbury. From this

period, consequently, we may date that cultivation of the

vernacular tongue which would lead to the composition of brief

chronicles (27), and other vehicles of instruction, necessary for

the improvement of a rude and illiterate people. The first

chronicles were, perhaps, those of Kent or Wessex; which seem to

have been regularly continued, at intervals. by the archbishops

of Canterbury, or by their direction (28), at least as far as the

year 1001, or by even 1070; for the Benet MS., which some call

the Plegmund MS., ends in the latter year; the rest being in

Latin. From internal evidence indeed, of an indirect nature,

there is great reason to presume, that Archbishop Plegmund

transcribed or superintended this very copy of the "Saxon Annals"

to the year 891 (29); the year in which he came to the see;

inserting, both before and after this date, to the time of his

death in 923, such additional materials as he was well qualified

to furnish from his high station and learning, and the

confidential intercourse which he enjoyed in the court of King

Alfred. The total omission of his own name, except by another

hand, affords indirect evidence of some importance in support of

this conjecture. Whether King Alfred himself was the author of a

distinct and separate chronicle of Wessex, cannot now be

determined. That he furnished additional supplies of historical

matter to the older chronicles is, I conceive, sufficiently

obvious to every reader who will take the trouble of examining

the subject. The argument of Dr. Beeke, the present Dean of

Bristol, in an obliging letter to the editor on this subject, is

not without its force; -- that it is extremely improbable, when

we consider the number and variety of King Alfred's works, that

he should have neglected the history, of his own country.

Besides a genealogy of the kings of Wessex from Cerdic to his own

time, which seems never to have been incorporated with any MS. of

the "Saxon Chronicle", though prefixed or annexed to several, he

undoubtedly preserved many traditionary facts; with a full and

circumstantial detail of his own operations, as well as those of

his father, brother, and other members of his family; which

scarcely any other person than himself could have supplied. To

doubt this would be as incredulous a thing as to deny that

Xenophon wrote his "Anabasis", or Caesar his "Commentaries".

From the time of Alfred and Plegmund to a few years after the

Norman Conquest, these chronicles seem to have been continued by

different hands, under the auspices of such men as Archbishops

Dunstan, Aelfric, and others, whose characters have been much

misrepresented by ignorance and scepticism on the one hand; as

well as by mistaken zeal and devotion on the other. The indirect

evidence respecting Dunstan and Aelfric is as curious as that

concerning Plegmund; but the discussion of it would lead us into

a wide and barren field of investigation; nor is this the place

to refute the errors of Hickes, Cave, and Wharton, already

noticed by Wanley in his preface. The chronicles of Abingdon, of

Worcester, of Peterborough, and others, are continued in the same

manner by different hands; partly, though not exclusively, by

monks of those monasteries, who very naturally inserted many

particulars relating to their own local interests and concerns;

which, so far from invalidating the general history, render it

more interesting and valuable. It would be a vain and frivolous

attempt ascribe these latter compilations to particular persons

(31), where there were evidently so many contributors; but that

they were successively furnished by contemporary writers, many of

whom were eye-witnesses of the events and transactions which they

relate, there is abundance of internal evidence to convince us.

Many instances of this the editor had taken some pains to

collect, in order to lay them before the reader in the preface;

but they are so numerous that the subject would necessarily

become tedious; and therefore every reader must be left to find

them for himself. They will amply repay him for his trouble, if

he takes any interest in the early history of England, or in the

general construction of authentic history of any kind. He will

see plagarisms without end in the Latin histories, and will be in

no danger of falling into the errors of Gale and others; not to

mention those of our historians who were not professed

antiquaries, who mistook that for original and authentic

testimony which was only translated. It is remarkable that the

"Saxon Chronicle" gradually expires with the Saxon language,

almost melted into modern English, in the year 1154. From this

period almost to the Reformation, whatever knowledge we have of

the affairs of England has been originally derived either from

the semi-barbarous Latin of our own countrymen, or from the

French chronicles of Froissart and others.

The revival of good taste and of good sense, and of the good old

custom adopted by most nations of the civilised world -- that of

writing their own history in their own language -- was happily

exemplified at length in the laborious works of our English

chroniclers and historians.

Many have since followed in the same track; and the importance

of the whole body of English History has attracted and employed

the imagination of Milton, the philosophy of Hume, the simplicity

of Goldsmith, the industry of Henry, the research of Turner, and

the patience of Lingard. The pages of these writers, however,

accurate and luminous as they generally are, as well as those of

Brady, Tyrrell, Carte, Rapin, and others, not to mention those in

black letter, still require correction from the "Saxon

Chronicle"; without which no person, however learned, can possess

anything beyond a superficial acquaintance with the elements of

English History, and of the British Constitution.

Some remarks may here be requisite on the CHRONOLOGY of the

"Saxon Chronicle". In the early part of it (32) the reader will

observe a reference to the grand epoch of the creation of the

world. So also in Ethelwerd, who closely follows the "Saxon

Annals". It is allowed by all, that considerable difficulty has

occurred in fixing the true epoch of Christ's nativity (33),

because the Christian aera was not used at all till about the

year 532 (34), when it was introduced by Dionysius Exiguus; whose

code of canon law, joined afterwards with the decretals of the

popes, became as much the standard of authority in ecclesiastical

matters as the pandects of Justinian among civilians. But it

does not appear that in the Saxon mode of computation this system

of chronology was implicitly followed. We mention this

circumstance, however, not with a view of settling the point of

difference, which would not be easy, but merely to account for

those variations observable m different MSS.; which arose, not

only from the common mistakes or inadvertencies of transcribers,

but from the liberty which the original writers themselves

sometimes assumed in this country, of computing the current year

according to their own ephemeral or local custom. Some began

with the Incarnation or Nativity of Christ; some with the

Circumcision, which accords with the solar year of the Romans as

now restored; whilst others commenced with the Annunciation; a

custom which became very prevalent in honour of the Virgin Mary,

and was not formally abolished here till the year 1752; when the

Gregorian calendar, commonly called the New Style, was

substituted by Act of Parliament for the Dionysian. This

diversity of computation would alone occasion some confusion; but

in addition to this, the INDICTION, or cycle of fifteen years,

which is mentioned in the latter part of the "Saxon Chronicle",

was carried back three years before the vulgar aera, and

commenced in different places at four different periods of the

year! But it is very remarkable that, whatever was the

commencement of the year in the early part of the "Saxon

Chronicle", in the latter part the year invariably opens with

Midwinter-day or the Nativity. Gervase of Canterbury, whose

Latin chronicle ends in 1199, the aera of "legal" memory, had

formed a design, as he tells us, of regulating his chronology by

the Annunciation; but from an honest fear of falsifying dates he

abandoned his first intention, and acquiesced in the practice of

his predecessors; who for the most part, he says, began the new

year with the Nativity (35).

Having said thus much in illustration of the work itself, we must

necessarily be brief in our account of the present edition. It

was contemplated many years since, amidst a constant succession

of other occupations; but nothing was then projected beyond a

reprint of Gibson, substituting an English translation for the

Latin. The indulgence of the Saxon scholar is therefore

requested, if we have in the early part of the chronicle too

faithfully followed the received text. By some readers no

apology of this kind will be deemed necessary; but something may

be expected in extenuation of the delay which has retarded the

publication. The causes of that delay must be chiefly sought in

the nature of the work itself. New types were to be cast;

compositors to be instructed in a department entirely new to

them; manuscripts to be compared, collated, transcribed; the text

to be revised throughout; various readings of great intricacy to

be carefully presented, with considerable additions from

unpublished sources; for, however unimportant some may at first

sight appear, the most trivial may be of use. With such and

other difficulties before him, the editor has, nevertheless, been

blessed with health and leisure sufficient to overcome them; and

he may now say with Gervase the monk at the end of his first

chronicle,

"Finito libro reddatur gratia Christo." (36)

Of the translation it is enough to observe, that it is made as

literal as possible, with a view of rendering the original easy

to those who are at present unacquainted with the Saxon language.

By this method also the connection between the ancient and modern

language will be more obvious. The same method has been adopted

in an unpublished translation of Gibson's "Chronicle" by the late

Mr. Cough, now in the Bodleian Library. But the honour of having

printed the first literal version of the "Saxon Annals" was

reserved for a learned LADY, the Elstob of her age (37); whose

Work was finished in the year 1819. These translations, however,

do not interfere with that in the present edition; because they

contain nothing but what is found in the printed texts, and are

neither accompanied with the original, nor with any collation of

MSS.

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.

(6) The reader is forcibly reminded of the national dress of the

Highlanders in the following singular passage: "furciferos

magis vultus pilis, quam corporum pudenda, pudendisque

proxima, vestibus tegentes."

(7) See particularly capp. xxiii. and xxvi. The work which

follows, called the "Epistle of Gildas", is little more than

a cento of quotations from the Old and New Testament.

(8) "De historiis Scotorum Saxonumque, licet inimicorum," etc.

"Hist. Brit. ap." Gale, XV. Script. p. 93. See also p. 94

of the same work; where the writer notices the absence of

all written memorials among the Britons, and attributes it

to the frequent recurrence of war and pestilence. A new

edition has been prepared from a Vatican MS. with a

translation and notes by the Rev. W. Gunn, and published by

J. and A. Arch.

(9) "Malo me historiographum quam neminem," etc.

(10) He considered his work, perhaps, as a lamentation of

declamation, rather than a history. But Bede dignifies him

with the title of "historicus," though he writes "fiebili

sermone."

(11) But it is probable that the work is come down to us in a

garbled and imperfect state.

(12) There is an absurd story of a monk, who in vain attempting

to write his epitaph, fell asleep, leaving it thus: "Hac

sunt in fossa Bedae. ossa:" but, when he awoke, to his great

surprise and satisfaction he found the long-sought epithet

supplied by an angelic hand, the whole line standing thus:

"Hac sunt in fossa Bedae venerabilis ossa."

(13) See the preface to his edition of the "Saxon Chronicle".

(14) This will be proved more fully when we come to speak of the

writers of the "Saxon Chronicle".

(15) Preface, "ubi supra".

(16) He died A.D. 734, according to our chronicle; but some place

his death to the following year.

(17) This circumstance alone proves the value of the "Saxon

Chronicle". In the "Edinburgh Chronicle" of St. Cross,

printed by H. Wharton, there is a chasm from the death of

Bede to the year 1065; a period of 330 years.

(18) The cold and reluctant manner in which he mentions the

"Saxon Annals", to which he was so much indebted, can only

be ascribed to this cause in him, as well as in the other

Latin historians. See his prologue to the first book, "De

Gestis Regum," etc.

(19) If there are additional anecdotes in the Chronicle of St.

Neot's, which is supposed to have been so called by Leland

because he found the MS. there, it must be remembered that

this work is considered an interpolated Asser.

(20) The death of Asser himself is recorded in the year 909; but

this is no more a proof that the whole work is spurious,

than the character and burial of Moses, described in the

latter part of the book of "Deuteronomy", would go to prove

that the Pentateuch was not written by him. See Bishop

Watson's "Apology for the Bible".

(21) Malmsbury calls him "noble and magnificent," with reference

to his rank; for he was descended from King Alfred: but he

forgets his peculiar praise -- that of being the only Latin

historian for two centuries; though, like Xenophon, Caesar,

and Alfred, he wielded the sword as much as the pen.

(22) This was no less a personage than Matilda, the daughter of

Otho the Great, Emperor of Germany, by his first Empress

Eadgitha or Editha; who is mentioned in the "Saxon

Chronicle", A.D. 925, though not by name, as given to Otho

by her brother, King Athelstan. Ethelwerd adds, in his

epistle to Matilda, that Athelstan sent two sisters, in

order that the emperor might take his choice; and that he

preferred the mother of Matilda.

(23) See particularly the character of William I. p. 294, written

by one who was in his court. The compiler of the "Waverley

Annals" we find literally translating it more than a century

afterwards: -- "nos dicemus, qui eum vidimus, et in curia

ejus aliquando fuimus," etc. -- Gale, ii. 134.

(24) His work, which is very faithfully and diligently compiled,

ends in the year 1117; but it is continued by another hand

to the imprisonment of King Stephen.

(25) "Chron. ap." Gale, ii. 21.

(26) "Virum Latina, Graec, et Saxonica lingua atque eruditione

multipliciter instructum." -- Bede, "Ecclesiastical

History", v. 8. "Chron. S. Crucis Edinb. ap.", Wharton, i.

157.

(27) The materials, however, though not regularly arranged, must

be traced to a much higher source.

(28) Josselyn collated two Kentish MSS. of the first authority;

one of which he calls the History or Chronicle of St.

Augustine's, the other that of Christ Church, Canterbury.

The former was perhaps the one marked in our series "C.T."A

VI.; the latter the Benet or Plegmund MS.

(29) Wanley observes, that the Benet MS. is written in one and

the same hand to this year, and in hands equally ancient to

the year 924; after which it is continued in different hands

to the end. Vid. "Cat." p. 130.

(30) Florence of Worcester, in ascertaining the succession of the

kings of Wessex, refers expressly to the "Dicta Aelfredi".

Ethelwerd had before acknowledged that he reported many

things -- "sicut docuere parentes;" and then he immediately

adds, "Scilicet Aelfred rex Athulfi regis filius; ex quo nos

originem trahimus." Vid. Prol.

(31) Hickes supposed the Laud or Peterborough Chronicle to have

been compiled by Hugo Candidus (Albus, or White), or some

other monk of that house.

(32) See A.D. xxxiii., the aera of Christ's crucifixion, p. 23,

and the notes below.

(33) See Playfair's "System of Chronology", p. 49.

(34) Playfair says 527: but I follow Bede, Florence of Worcester,

and others, who affirm that the great paschal cycle of

Dionysius commenced from the year of our Lord's incarnation

532 -- the year in which the code of Justinian was

promulgated. "Vid. Flor. an." 532, 1064, and 1073. See

also M. West. "an." 532.

(35) "Vid. Prol. in Chron." Bervas. "ap. X." Script. p. 1338.

(36) Often did the editor, during the progress of the work,

sympathise with the printer; who, in answer to his urgent

importunities to hasten the work, replied once in the

classical language of Manutius: "Precor, ut occupationibus

meis ignoscas; premor enim oneribus, et typographiae cura,

ut vix sustineam." Who could be angry after this?

(37) Miss Gurney, of Keswick, Norfolk. The work, however, was

not published.

THE ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE

The island Britain (1) is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad.

And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or

British) (2), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first

inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia (3), and

first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the

Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and,

landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the

Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them

leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell

there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give

you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you

may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will

assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and

entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it,

as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on

condition that they chose their kings always on the female side

(4); which they have continued to do, so long since. And it

happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from

Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land.

Their leader was called Reoda (5), from whom they are named

Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).

Sixty winters ere that Christ was born, Caius Julius, emperor of

the Romans, with eighty ships sought Britain. There he was first

beaten in a dreadful fight, and lost a great part of his army.

Then he let his army abide with the Scots (6), and went south

into Gaul. There he gathered six hundred ships, with which he

went back into Britain. When they first rushed together,

Caesar's tribune, whose name was Labienus (7), was slain. Then

took the Welsh sharp piles, and drove them with great clubs into

the water, at a certain ford of the river called Thames. When

the Romans found that, they would not go over the ford. Then

fled the Britons to the fastnesses of the woods; and Caesar,

having after much fighting gained many of the chief towns, went

back into Gaul (8).

((B.C. 60. Before the incarnation of Christ sixty years, Gaius

Julius the emperor, first of the Romans, sought the land of

Britain; and he crushed the Britons in battle, and overcame them;

and nevertheless he was unable to gain any empire there.))

A.D. 1. Octavianus reigned fifty-six winters; and in the forty-

second year of his reign Christ was born. Then three astrologers

from the east came to worship Christ; and the children in

Bethlehem were slain by Herod in persecution of Christ.

A.D. 3. This year died Herod, stabbed by his own hand; and

Archelaus his son succeeded him. The child Christ was also this

year brought back again from Egypt.

A.D. 6. From the beginning of the world to this year were agone

five thousand and two hundred winters.

A.D. 11. This year Herod the son of Antipater undertook the

government in Judea.

A.D. 12. This year Philip and Herod divided Judea into four

kingdoms.

((A.D. 12. This year Judea was divided into four tetrarchies.))

A.D. 16. This year Tiberius succeeded to the empire.

A.D. 26. This year Pilate began to reign over the Jews.

A.D. 30. This year was Christ baptized; and Peter and Andrew

were converted, together with James, and John, and Philip, and

all the twelve apostles.

A.D. 33. This year was Christ crucified; (9) about five thousand

two hundred and twenty six winters from the beginning of the

world. (10)

A.D. 34. This year was St. Paul converted, and St. Stephen

stoned.

A.D. 35. This year the blessed Peter the apostle settled an

episcopal see in the city of Antioch.

A.D. 37. This year (11) Pilate slew himself with his own hand.

A.D. 39. This year Caius undertook the empire.

A.D. 44. This year the blessed Peter the apostle settled an

episcopal see at Rome; and James, the brother of John, was slain

by Herod.

A.D. 45. This year died Herod, who slew James one year ere his

own death.

A.D. 46. This year Claudius, the second of the Roman emperors

who invaded Britain, took the greater part of the island into his

power, and added the Orkneys to rite dominion of the Romans.

This was in the fourth year of his reign. And in the same year

(12) happened the great famine in Syria which Luke mentions in

the book called "The Acts of the Apostles". After Claudius Nero

succeeded to the empire, who almost lost the island Britain

through his incapacity.

((A.D. 46. This year the Emperor Claudius came to Britain, and

subdued a large part of the island; and he also added the island

of Orkney to the dominion of the Romans.))

A.D. 47. This year Mark, the evangelist in Egypt beginneth to

write the gospel.

((A.D. 47. This was in the fourth year of his reign, and in this

same year was the great famine in Syria which Luke speaks of in

the book called "Actus Apostolorum".))

((A.D. 47. This year Claudius, king of the Romans, went with an

army into Britain, and subdued the island, and subjected all the

Picts and Welsh to the rule of the Romans.))

A.D. 50. This year Paul was sent bound to Rome.

A.D. 62. This year James, the brother of Christ, suffered.

A.D. 63. This year Mark the evangelist departed this life.

A.D. 69. This year Peter and Paul suffered.

A.D. 70. This year Vespasian undertook the empire.

A.D. 71. This year Titus, son of Vespasian, slew in Jerusalem

eleven hundred thousand Jews.

A.D. 81. This year Titus came to the empire, after Vespasian,

who said that he considered the day lost in which he did no good.

A.D. 83. This year Domitian, the brother of Titus, assumed the

government.

A.D. 84. This year John the evangelist in the island Patmos

wrote the book called "The Apocalypse".

A.D. 90. This year Simon, the apostle, a relation of Christ, was

crucified: and John the evangelist rested at Ephesus.

A.D. 92. This year died Pope Clement.

A.D. 110. This year Bishop Ignatius suffered.

A.D. 116. This year Hadrian the Caesar began to reign.

A.D. 145. This year Marcus Antoninus and Aurelius his brother

succeeded to the empire.

((A.D. 167. This year Eleutherius succeeded to the popedom, and

held it fifteen years; and in the same year Lucius, king of the

Britons, sent and begged baptism of him. And he soon sent it

him, and they continued in the true faith until the time of

Diocletian.))

A.D. 189. This year Severus came to the empire; and went with

his army into Britain, and subdued in battle a great part of the

island. Then wrought he a mound of turf, with a broad wall

thereupon, from sea to sea, for the defence of the Britons. He

reigned seventeen years; and then ended his days at York. His

son Bassianus succeeded him in the empire. His other son, who

perished, was called Geta. This year Eleutherius undertook the

bishopric of Rome, and held it honourably for fifteen winters.

To him Lucius, king of the Britons, sent letters, and prayed that

he might be made a Christian. He obtained his request; and they

continued afterwards in the right belief until the reign of

Diocletian.

A.D. 199. In this year was found the holy rood. (13)

A.D. 283. This year suffered Saint Alban the Martyr.

A.D. 343. This year died St. Nicolaus.

A.D. 379. This year Gratian succeeded to the empire.

A.D. 381. This year Maximus the Caesar came to the empire. He

was born in the land of Britain, whence he passed over into Gaul.

He there slew the Emperor Gratian; and drove his brother, whose

name was Valentinian, from his country (Italy). The same

Valentinian afterwards collected an army, and slew Maximus;

whereby he gained the empire. About this time arose the error of

Pelagius over the world.

A.D. 418. This year the Romans collected all the hoards of gold

(14) that were in Britain; and some they hid in the earth, so

that no man afterwards might find them, and some they carried

away with them into Gaul.

A.D. 423. This year Theodosius the younger succeeded to the

empire.

A.D. 429. This year Bishop Palladius was sent from Pope

Celesrinus to the Scots, that he might establish their faith.

A.D. 430. This year Patricius was sent from Pope Celestinus to

preach baptism to the Scots.

((A.D. 430. This year Patrick was sent by Pope Celestine to

preach baptism to the Scots.))

A.D. 435. This year the Goths sacked the city of Rome; and never

since have the Romans reigned in Britain. This was about eleven

hundred and ten winters after it was built. They reigned

altogether in Britain four hundred and seventy winters since

Gaius Julius first sought that land.

A.D. 443. This year sent the Britons over sea to Rome, and

begged assistance against the Picts; but they had none, for the

Romans were at war with Atila, king of the Huns. Then sent they

to the Angles, and requested the same from the nobles of that

nation.

A.D. 444. This year died St. Martin.

A.D. 448. This year John the Baptist showed his head to two

monks, who came from the eastern country to Jerusalem for the

sake of prayer, in the place that whilom was the palace of Herod.

(15)

A.D. 449. This year Marcian and Valentinian assumed the empire,

and reigned seven winters. In their days Hengest and Horsa,

invited by Wurtgern, king of the Britons t