THE ‘PARKER CHRONICLE’, CHRONOLOGY GONE AWRY.

THE ‘PARKER CHRONICLE’: CHRONOLOGY GONE AWRY

Nicholas Sparks

Abstract The object of this study is alien chronologies left in the framework of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The paper unfolds in two parts: the first considers different modes of reckoning time used generally in the Chronicle, the second considers an important moment of dis-location peculiar to the Parker Chronicle. The second part reviews the following important questions: Does the first scribal break on folio 16 correspond with an identifiable textual break? How far may the Parker Chronicle be considered to reflect the text of its exem-plar? And to what extent can the shape of the original Chronicle text be inferred from the physical evidence presented by the Parker Chronicle?

I One could think of a chronicle simply as a narrative of events in the order of time and assume that such a conception, which takes the succession of years as its framework, would be accurate in the chrono-logical information it provides.1 Therefore, the Parker Chronicle (also cited as MS A) is exceptional, since its various alternatives in matters of chronology cause a good deal of complication. The Parker Chron-icle manuscript is named after its former owner Archbishop Matthew Parker (†1575), and is among the manuscripts given by him to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; the chronicle itself occupies fols. 1v-32r of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 173.2 MS A is the oldest surviving witness of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (hereafter ASC): a complicated historical record which has come down to us in seven different manuscripts and a single leaf, each with its own unique story of literary growth and textual transmission. Accordingly, then, the ASC presents an astonishing web of history. Composed in the native tongue, anonymous and written by many hands, it is, after Bede, the chief source for English history and a great relic of Anglo-Saxon his-

Nicholas Sparks

64

toriography: ‘dating from the late ninth century, it was prepared in the circle and probably even the household of King Alfred’.3 Some words are first needed on the phrase ‘the order of time’, since it is with questions of order and disorder in the making of time that this study is chiefly concerned. It seems that the Anglo-Saxon compilers found it most convenient to cast in chronicle form what hitherto had been collected by way of earlier sources. But the sources which the compilation drew upon must have had different ways for the reckoning of years. And so error was introduced into the narrative by additions from sources which did not share the same original chronology.4 The aim of this study, which unfolds naturally in two sections, considers alien chronologies left in the context of the ASC. The first part examines the ASC in general, and some of the different ways that competing chronologies have been incorporated into the body of annals. The second part examines an important moment of scribal dislocation found in MS A alone. First, then, to sketch in outline some of the different modes of reckoning the years found in the wider context of the ASC. The Parker Chronicle, as noted, is the earliest copy of the ASC, which exists in seven Old English witnesses, each a continuation of (substantially) the same original work.5 The first, or original, hand of MS A seems to have been writing probably at the beginning of the tenth century (or thereabouts). In respect of textual authority, how-ever, we are reminded of the classic dictum recentiores non deteriores; the corollary, of course, that greater antiquity need not imply greater authority, for as Plummer and others have noted, MS A is a copy of a copy at least two removes from the (putative) original compilation.6 The nucleus of the ASC is a collection of early records evidently available for copying from the early 890s. Accordingly, it is reason-able to date the most recent stage of the compilation perhaps a little earlier.7 The archetype of the ASC, that is, the substrate text from which all the other texts were copied or derived, is referred to as ‘the common stock’.8 Put together in Wessex apparently during the reign of King Alfred (871–899), the common stock is said to have been connected with Alfred’s programme of mass translation and book production.9 But the relation of Alfred and the ASC is sometimes questioned because no hard evidence exists (it seems) to link the King directly with any part of the first compilation. F. M. Stenton has

The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry

65

argued that the ASC was produced as a private work written for an ealdorman or thegn interested in the south-western shires (Stenton 1970: 106-15; 1971: 692-93). But that theory raises more questions than it answers, not least in view of the national outlook afforded by the political and dynastic scope of the sources. Moreover, because the work was a major intellectual undertaking, the administrative agency, let alone the physical resources, needed for such widespread copying and distribution to major political and ecclesiastical centres of England, must have been immense.10 Furthermore, a copy of the ASC is known to have been available already at Alfred’s court; for so much is confirmed from the details of Asser’s Life.11 If the relation of Alfred and the Chronicle is open to inter-pretation, then could traces of still earlier sources provide us with a glimpse of the previous history of the work? On the state of the text under Alfred, J. Earle saw the origin of the work in the outline of older chronicles: ‘… the difficulties of imagining that such a collection of annals (meagre as it often is), covering a period of 437 years, could have been made in 892 if Chronicles had not been kept before, are insuperable’ (1865: vi). Such a view presumes the existence of a pre-Alfredian chronicle, which implies that its offspring, emerging from a later tradition of West-Saxon historiography, came to represent the starting-point of an Alfredian continuation. Accordingly, then, it is not unreasonable to assume that the West-Saxon Regnal List came to be associated with the ASC text at this point, since the text of the List, which developed its present form under Alfred, carried no further than the point of his accession.12 The idea of a pre-Alfredian chronicle is tantalizing. Features of the mid ninth-century annals, for instance, have prompted the theory that the final years of Æthelwulf’s reign marked the end of an older chronicle. In respect of this theory, J. B. Wynn has remarked:

As annal 855 is approached, the writing becomes fuller, more detailed and more varied, culminating in the narrative in annal 855 of the last two years of Æthelwulf’s reign. This is followed by a genealogy tracing Æthelwulf’s ancestry back to Adam; it concludes with the pious Amen, and seems to suggest the end of an older chronicle.13

Against a pre-Alfredian compilation, Professor Bately has argued the case for a unitary chronicle as opposed to a two-stage compilation.14 On the basis of vocabulary, a change of authorship in the annals for the 870s and 880s is adduced (ipso facto the possible continuation of

Nicholas Sparks

66

older work), but no decisive argument has yet been brought against the existence of a pre-855 Chronicle. The genealogy of Æthelwulf is equivocal, I think. It may have been deliberately deployed, since it looks back and forth in both directions with an emphasis on the West-Saxon royal line.15 The idea of a chronicle within a chronicle com-plicates the history of the postulated archetype.16 Moreover, it gives the text a kind of living chronology, where the past becomes like a series of receding vistas, and each new copy evolves as an outgrowth of its predecessor. No matter whether there are grounds for the view of a pre-Alfredian chronicle or whether MS A is regarded as the copy of (a copy of) sources put together for the first time under Alfred, the problem of untangling the mixed bag of chronologies must have seriously exercised the compilers. The main system of reckoning in the ASC is the mode of calculating the years from the Incarnation of our Lord, the so-called anno Domini era (Declerq 2000; also Moss-hammer 2008). Using the era of Incarnation for historical purposes changed the course of medieval historiography. The evolution of annals was due in part to the entry of historical notices in the margins of cyclus decennovenalis, the 19-year paschal cycle of Dionysius Exiguus, originally made for keeping the date of Easter (Harrison 1976: ch. 4). The Christian era became the Anglo-Saxon norm after it was adopted by Bede in his greater treatise on the reckoning of time De Temporum Ratione and then afterwards in the Historia Ecclesias-tica Gentis Anglorum (Levison 1966). R. L. Poole noted of the origins of the Christian era in English historical traditions:

From the time of Bede, at all events, the year was in England reckoned from the Incarnation. It was the discovery of this Era that made the revival of historiography possible, and it was beyond question an English discovery. (1926: 26)

Reckoning from the Incarnation was taken up on the authority of Bede, for in several places the Anglo-Saxon compiler carries over pas-sages directly from Bede’s Epitome, or the chronological summary, to his History, and enters almost every entry in it.17 However, problems arise from the so-called ‘error of Dionysus’, namely, the claim that his Easter tables had mistakenly recorded the true Year of Grace (Declerq 2000: 189-93). The first Dionysian table was issued for the cycle beginning AD 532, but what is not made clear is how the year was calculated ab incarnatione. It is generally accepted that Dionysius put


67

the Incarnation between two and four years too late, but what may be said for an error of this kind: safeguarded by authority, perpetuated by convention, and compounded by the dislocation of individual texts? If the Incarnation grew up as the standard era after Bede, then it hardly seems likely that it could have been used to date the earliest English records. Besides the passages taken over from the Epitome (which had been retrospectively synchronized, presumably by Bede himself), for most of the early compilation the Anglo-Saxon compilers probably had to deal with several dating systems derived from local sources. In fact, a number of older systems lurk within the narrative: there is the anno mundi system (= AM) employing the so-called Mundane era, which calculates events from the Book of Genesis according to the Six Ages of the World (Bately 1979b: 177-94). As a working method, this system attempts to synchronize world history within the framework of annals, but far from establishing a universal era, or presenting the ASC with any kind of substantial world view, the AM system presents a chronology that is much disordered, causing as much confusion among its own dates as for those which use the Christian era (Bately 1979b: 192-94). Turning, next, to some of the other chronologies which can be seen to exist beneath the surface of the narrative: the dislocation of events by thirty-three years in the early section of the ASC is attributed to the fact that annals from an Easter Table using Victorius of Aqui-tane’s Annus Passionis era had been mistakenly entered into the AD system.18 Furthermore, if parallels between the ASC and the Old English Orosius may be taken to indicate a common literary back-ground, it could possibly imply that sources using the era of ab urbe condita (from the founding of the City [Rome]) had been synchro-nized within the framework of the ASC.19 The foundation of Wessex is also established as an era for the king-lists of the ASC, but the myth of Cerdic serves just as well for glorifying the ruling West-Saxon dynas-ty, and rather less it seems an arbitrary point for the reckoning of time (Foot 1996: 25-49; also Asser-KL 217, n.62). That the regnal chrono-logy of the ASC is much disordered may be seen from the comparison of the West-Saxon Regnal List with the length of different reigns pre-sented in the narrative.20 Finally, there is the mythological era found in the upper reaches of the royal genealogies: alliterative schemes of an ancient type that trace the descent of the early kingdoms back to the figure of Woden.21

Nicholas Sparks

68

II This second section considers a moment of significant dislocation peculiar to the Parker Chronicle. There are several questions of dating which will be considered next in view of the physical evidence of MS A. Does the scribal break at the foot of folio 16r in MS A correspond with an identifiable break in the text of the ASC? To what extent does MS A represent its exemplar? On the dissection of the annals at this point, Professor Keynes has recently remarked:

The annals for 891 and 892 cannot be associated with, or dissociated from, the preceding annals by application of linguistic criteria alone, but on textual and historical grounds they do seem to belong to the common stock, and not with the material which follows. (Keynes 1986: 197; also Asser-KL, 277-79)

The first or original hand of MS A has been assigned termini post and ante quem of 891 x c.920 on evidence from the general character of the script. The question of date raises the question of origin: where was MS A written?22 Several divergent views of the manuscript evidence have been published over the last half century. For this study, the growth of the codex and the character of the script are main concerns, and since these are visible in that part of MS A containing the annals for 891 and 892, a review of the evidence is needed. The collation of MS A has been subject to much disagreement since the part of the codex containing the ASC-text reflects an unusual construction. The first quire, Q. I, is of seven leaves, originally eight, the first having been excised so that now only a stub remains. The first leaf had already strayed by the last quarter of the sixteenth century.23 Accordingly, therefore, the present folio 7 is now a singleton. The collation of Q. I is usually formulated: I8 (wants 1). The parchment is stiff and suede-like, ruddy brown in colour, with rough uneven edges. The arrangement of the leaves is in HFHF, pricked after folding in both inner and outer lateral margins and then ruled on the hair-side recto.24 Structurally speaking, Q. IV is virtually the mirror image of Q. I. It consists of seven leaves, originally eight, the last having been excised. The structure of that quire is usually formulated: IV8 (wants 8). It is probable that the final leaf was blank and cut away by the binder when Q. IV was inserted between Q.I–III and Q.V (containing the Laws), before c.950.25 The main concern for MS A at this point is the make-up of Q. II and Q. III. The preparation of these gatherings


69

has recently been questioned and so a quire scheme has been drawn to assist comprehension of their structure:

The skins of Q. I look and feel the same as Q. II, with the exception of folio 16, a singleton, which is thinner and skived more closely than the others. The folios 9 and 14 are also singletons. With the exception of folio 14, there is no trace of pricking or ink-trails on the stubs.26 The arrangement of the leaves is in HFHF, pricked in the lateral margins after folding, then ruled in the first the hair-side. Five sewing stations appear of the original binding structure. It is certain that folio 16 was not one half of a bifolium subsequently cancelled. For confirmation of this, we may refer to three facts: (i) the physical difference of the membrane; (ii) the unusual pattern of ‘double pricking’ which differs in shape and position from fols. 8-15; and (iii) the ruling of 39 long lines compared with 36 long lines throughout the rest of the quire. Taken together it favours the view that folio 16 was a probable supply-leaf added to the end of Q. II to receive an overflow of the text from the exemplar.

Nicholas Sparks

70

Q. III differs radically in its composition from the preceding quires. The membranes are thicker and lighter in colour, with a waxy surface, except for folio 25, which is a thin, wrinkly type of limp membrane. Folios 19, 22, 25 are singletons. The final leaf (fol. 25) also seems to be a later supply, probably added by the same scribe who began writing on the last four lines of fol. 24v and then continued overleaf.27 The arrangement in Q. I and Q. II is HFHF, the normal In-sular fashion. But in Q. III, and all subsequent quires, the arrangement changes to HFFH: a continental symptom.28 The manner of pricking also changes. The skins are pricked in the outer margin only. Accord-ingly, they were pricked before folding: another continental symp-tom.29 Significantly, folio 24 of Q. III bears the only other example of ‘double pricking’, found elsewhere only on folio 16. Thenceforward, the ruling varies from 26 long lines on fols. 17r-21v, to 25 long lines on fols. 22r-32v. The written space diminishes: c.245x145 mm. on fols. 1-16; c.230 x 160 mm. on leaves 17 and 18; c.225 x 140 mm. on fols. 19-30 (Ker 1957: 58; but cf. Sato 1997: 83-85). Scholars differ in their views of the evidence and so the question arises: was Q. II originally a quaternion? If so, it may be formulated: II8 (+ 1 after 8).30 Or was it a quinion? In which case it may be formu-lated: II10 (lacks 3, 9; + 1 after 10).31 There is a similar divergence with regard to Q. III. Scholars on one side incline to favour the for-mulation: III8 (+ 1 after 8), the underlying assumption being that MS A was originally made up of gatherings of four bifolia intended to make eight leaves, and that this system remained consistent for the


71

whole codex.32 Scholars on the other side incline to favour another formulation: III10 (lacks 3, 7; + 1 after 10), the underlying assumption being that the singletons (fols. 19, 22) were originally conjoined pairs, that is, planned bifolia which were cancelled at some later stage – with the corollary, of course, that MS A grew now by quaternions, now by quinions, therefore, quite irregularly.33 From the purely codicological point of view, Q. II and Q. III are virtually identical, but their preparation differs radically. The change-over of scribes at folio 16 coincides with a marked increase in continental symptoms. What this signifies is a new production phase at some chronological remove after the original writing campaign. Although MS A is written from the first in clearly English script, the preponderance of continental symptoms seems to speak for growing continental influence in the scriptorium or the region where it was made.34 From analysis of the construction of the codex we shall now pass to a closer view of the hands employed on pieces of the writing.With regard to the first or original hand, the writing campaign has been assigned termini post and ante quem of 891 x c.920 based on the palaeography of the manuscript. But scholars differ in their views of the details of the handwriting. The date of the minuscule is critical, since the change between the first and second scribes seems to be the key to dating the manuscript. The scribes’ work must be assessed with some deliberation. The first hand extends to the foot of folio 16r: the death of Suibhne in 891 is followed by a mark of punctuation (l. 36) after which the annal-number 892 is entered on the next line as if ready for new material. The first hand writes a revived style of cursive bookhand which was in use at the same period as T. J. Brown’s Phase II Type B minuscule was terminally mutating in Southumbrian scriptoria from the middle of the ninth-century.35 The features of the handwriting are transitional in character, showing formative tendencies of the conscious shift from the narrow, pointed minuscule of s. ix to the wider, squarer script of s. x.36 The prevailing trends of the scribe, or the guidelines of his model, anticipates the full-blown development of the reformed script-style known as the English Square minuscule.37 The beginnings of that style appear here in the first hand of MS A. Manuscripts associated with scribe 1 of MS A are more or less datable to within ten years of 900, to judge at least from the resem-blance of the first hand to the script of (i) the Old English bounds near

Nicholas Sparks

72

the foot of fol. 40v in Cotton MS Harley 2965, the ‘Book of Nunna-minster’.38 Those specimens are in a similar hand to (ii), the second scribe in Trinity College, MS. B.15.33 (368), the ‘Trinity Isidore’, who was working in the same scriptorium at around the same time as the restorer of the ‘Corpus Sedulius’, now bound after MS A and the Laws of Alfred in (iii) Corpus Christi College, MS 173, fols. 57-83.39 The scribe who restored the copy of Sedulius has been identified with the first hand of the Parker Chronicle. The second hand of the Trinity Isidore is sometimes assigned to the writing of two more specimens: (iv) a form of confession on fol. 41r in MS Harley 2965,40 and (v) a fragment of Bede in the National Archives, SP 46/125, fol. 302r.41 A dated charter comparable with the first hand of MS A is in Cotton MS Augustus, ii.89.42 The Eardwulf grant is a slightly later copy of a genuine charter dated 875 and written in an upright and compacted script of s. ix/x.43 The script bears something of the aspect of fols. 1r-16r of MS A, but the hand is not identical and the resemblance is not close enough to press the matter further.44 For that part of the manuscript from the West Saxon Regnal List to 891, a consensus has seemed to emerge (not without exception) which assigns the first hand to c.900: Plummer and Parkes date the script to the last decade of the ninth century;45 Bately, with Ker and Brown, assigns it to around the end of the ninth or the beginning of the tenth centuries;46 Dumville proposes a date in the 910s (but just possibly as late as the 920s) (Dumville 1987: 164; 1992: ch. 3). From the earliest form of the text, that is, the form in which it circulated during Alfred’s reign, a date of c.900, is a decade or so beyond the lower limit of the original compilation. But the first hand of MS A, both majuscule and minuscule forms, seems to be slightly later than the evidence from contents which is signified by the co-terminus of the ASC-text and the List, 891 x c.899. Accordingly, then, one could suppose that the text of MS A is a slightly later copy of a recension first created in 891 x c.899, and extended thereafter by scribes who continued the text beyond where their exemplar originally broke off. The palaeography of MS A is a difficult subject, and it is not the aim here to consider it any more in commenting on the chronological mishap which marks the end of the first scribal stint and the beginning of the second, whereby the original dates were altered by one year up to and including the annal-number for 929.47 The dislocation is purely mechanical and unique to MS A, yet it provides an instructive view of West-Saxon historiography around the end of the ninth century. In the


73

belief that there was nothing more to add for the year 891, scribe 1 inserted the annal-number for 892 three lines from the bottom of fol. 16r, clearly expecting another installment.48 The second scribe, with more to add to the same year, failed to expunge his predecessor’s annal-number for 892 and commenced overleaf at the top of fol. 16v

with the words ‘7 þy ilcan geare ofer Eastron’, describing the long-haired star which appeared at the Rogations. Scribe 2 started his next entry with an annal-number 892 of his own and thereby introduced duplication into the series. Sometime later, ‘the corrector’, noticing the duplication, proceeded to alter events by one year (compounding an existing error caused by the barren annals 913–915), reflecting his understanding of the chronology and so (he thought) producing harmony of the annals.49 From this turn of events some remarks may be made on the chronology of the ASC and the attitude of the scribes in relation to MS A. Two facts support the view that scribe 1 thought that he had finished writing for the year 891: (i) he followed the passage with his major punctuation mark used elsewhere only at the end of annals, and (ii) he then wrote the annal-number for 892 in the margin of the next line and then stopped.50 The train of events that year includes: (a) the late summer or autumn movements of the Danish army and the battle which Arnulf won on the River Dyle, (b) the landing of three Irish exiles on the shores of Cornwall, and (c) the death of Suibhne, anchorite and scholar of Clonmacnoise.51 With text for the same year continued at the head of fol. 16v, it seems reasonable to assume that scribe 1 made use of a source which carried up to, but not beyond, Easter, which fell that year on the 4 April. The commencement of the year in this part of the ASC is still under consideration.52 But only two modes of computation require notice. The reckoning of the year from the Cæsarian Indiction (24 September) and from Midwinter (25 De-cember): these are the only styles evident in this section of the annals. Essays in the chronology have shown that the series of years from 851–890 provide evidence for dating from 24 September, but this ceases to hold after 892.53 A reversion to Midwinter dating, used in the early section of the ASC, is possible but not necessary.54 But a change of dating here is beside the point. Whether our scribe’s source used Cæsarian or Christmas dating, the copy which lay before him hardly went beyond Easter. In other words, it broke off after about half-way through the calendar year. It seems therefore that what lay

Nicholas Sparks

74

before scribe 1 was incomplete or defective: why else would he write just half an annal?55 In the next place, we turn to a view of scribe 2 and the beginning of his portion of annals in MS A. With something more to add to the year 891, scribe 2 started writing overleaf (fol. 16v) but failed to erase the annal-number for 892 left by his predecessor at the foot of the pre-vious page. Perhaps he did not notice the point of continuation, simply skipping over the blank annal-number, just as he did later on for the blank annal-numbers 913–915. The standing practice here seems to have been to enter several annal-numbers in advance of future material. But scribe 2 broke convention by starting with the connec-tive phrase ‘7 þy ilcan geare ofer Eastron’. In regard to professional standards, the proficiency of scribe 1 is clearly beyond that of scribe 2. Perhaps it may suggest the circumstances that could obtain if scribe 2 was still a young man in training.56 The script he practised was of a younger type and his quiring was more recent in England. Moreover, scribe 2 lacked the professional habits which come naturally to an old hand: only a man new to the business fails to follow the rules of the workplace. It is someone unused to writing annals who commits such basic errors common to their form. It is someone new to the script-orium who fails to follow the lines set down by their predecessor. As for dating the event, the comet of 891 is recorded by numer-ous independent witnesses.57 The same comet is recorded in two continental sources of s. x1: (i) the St Gall continuation of the Annales Alamannici;58 and (ii) the Annales Laubacenses from Lobbes.59 Oriental chronicles from China and Japan tell of ‘the broom star’ which appeared in that year around the middle of May. This confirms the notice in the ASC which cites the appearance of the comet at the Rogation days (or earlier) – which fell that year on 10-12 May (Kronk 1999: 140). That scribe 2 copied an exemplar which was nearly con-temporary with events cannot be ruled out. In the last place, then, to the ‘corrector’, who only compounded chronological error for his part in the narrative. We know that this hand added a minim to the year properly given as 892, making it 893, and then continued to alter the sequence of years up to and including annal-number 929.60 Neither the scribe nor the locality of the scripto-rium can be identified with certainty, but we do know that this correcting scribe had the numbers in the annals before the copy in British Library, Cotton MS Otho B. XI was made from MS A at Win-chester between 1001–1013.61 The ‘corrections’ are unsightly, made


75

by a sloppy, unskilled hand. Accordingly, then, it may be reasonable to see the operation as carried out by someone relatively untrained in writing. The point worth noticing, however, is how the corrector turned to the framework of annals for guidance. The distinction here is telling: scribe 2 copied his exemplar but omitted to erase existing annal-numbers; the corrector altered a series of annal-numbers but omitted to consult the text. The fact that the corrector did not (or could not) read the text may indicate a foreign scribe. But perhaps we need not go so far. The stint of correction is perfunctory, I think, merely working at a glance to bring order to the sequence of annals. Conclusions The object of this paper has been to consider the number of alternatives in matters of chronology in the ASC. The ASC may be considered to embody several different chronologies which have been combined to form one (seemingly) coherent narrative. The appearance of annals gives the misleading impression of a single, continuous work, originating in an ancient past, then marching forward in the order of time. Upon closer inspection, however, the text of the ASC hides several inconsistencies beneath its fabric. Traces of older chron-ologies can help us to catch a glimpse of the patchwork of compilation wherein the cohesion of different systems produces, in due course, the synthesis of narrative and time. Notes 1 For much guidance and invaluable discussion at various stages in the process of production, let the kindness of Juliana Dresvina, Christopher de Hamel, Mark Hurn, Susan Kelly, Simon Keynes, Erik Kooper, Bernard Muir, Jane Roberts, Rebecca Rushforth, Peter Stokes, and Simon Thomas be gratefully recorded; any errors are of course my own responsibility. 2 For a general introduction to the manuscript: Gneuss (2001: no. 52), Ker (1957: no. 39); also Flower and Smith (1941), Plummer (1892-99: II, xxiii-xxvii), Bately (1986: xxiii-cxxvii). 3 Dr Christopher de Hamel, Gaylord Donnelley Fellow Librarian, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, kindly made this suggestion at an exhibition of chronicles put together for the Cambridge International Chronicles Symposium 2008. 4 Secondary literature bearing on the chronology is extensive; listed here is a selection of works which provides an essential starting point for investigation of the sources: Whitelock (1952: cxxxix-cxliii), also Beaven (1918: 328-42), Angus (1938: 194-210), Vaughan (1954: 59-66).

Nicholas Sparks

76

5 For an account of the tradition: Whitelock, EHD, pp. 109-38; also Keynes, (forth-coming), this was kindly communicated to me by Professor S. D. Keynes. 6 The are two types of proof, of which the second was unknown to Plummer: (i) the chronological dislocation of the annals 756–842 which exists in the surviving manu-scripts but was not present in the version used by the twelfth-century compiler of the Annals of St. Neots (Plummer 1899: II, xxvii, xciv, cii-civ); (ii) the omission by all the extant manuscripts of a sentence lost by homoioteleuton but present in the Chronicle of Æthelweard under the annal for 885 (Stenton 1970: 111-12). 7 Of the lower limit of the compilation of the original ASC-text, it is worth noting Dorothy Whitelock’s observation that ‘it is reasonable to date the compilation of the Chronicle as taking place during the late 880s’ for ‘it gives no impression it was compiled in haste for immediate use’ (Whitelock unpublished: ch. 19). See also the important recent studies: Bately (1980a: esp. 109-16; 1985: 7-26), Keynes (forth-coming), Asser-KL (esp. 39-44, 275-81). 8 For the putative first, or original, form of the ASC-text (the so-called ‘common stock’) propounded by Plummer, that is, the theory on the existence of an original text of the ASC which gave rise to the hypothesis that there once existed a single copy, or archetype, called by him ‘æ’ (descending from an autograph, pre-archetype ‘Æ’), from which all other texts were copied or derived. Conversely, then, the original, or common recension of the ASC-text was supposedly capable of reconstruction from collation of the medieval manuscripts (see Plummer 1899: xxiii, cii-cxiv, and cxvii). 9 There is no proof linking Alfred or his circle directly with the compilation of the ASC, but the circumstances do not speak against it. In regard to the Alfredian connexion, see Bately (1978: 127-29), and also Keynes (forthcoming). 10 Stenton (1970) accounted for the problem of circulation by proposing a model ‘in imitation of the practice which the king was known to have adopted for the circulation of his own works’, but whether an ealdorman or thegn of the ninth century had suf-ficient resources to execute such a plan is questionable. Bately proposed an alternative that could bridge the gap between private compilation and public record, which, of course, raises again the problem of Alfred’s involvement (Bately 1980a: 129). 11 That Asser used a version of the Chronicle for the biography of King Alfred which was written in 893, is certain (Asser-KL: 41-42, 55-56, 275-81; see also Asser-S: lxxi-lxxiv, lxxxv-lxxxviii). 12 For the complicated history of the West-Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and its relation to the Chronicle, see Sisam (1990: esp. 190-92); but cf. Dumville (1985: esp. 32-33, n.33). 13 Wynn (1956: 77, n.28); but cf. Clark, who argues that stylistic continuity is main-tained in the whole Alfredian section (1971: esp. 215-21). 14 Bately (1979a: 237; 1980a: esp. 98-101). The idea of a ‘two-stage compilation’ seems unnecessarily limited while the previous history of the work is still unclear. 15 Sisam saw the genealogy of Æthelwulf as late and artificial (1990: 190-92); see also Keynes (1986: 197-98). 16 There have been numerous proponents of a pre-Alfredian compilation, although the theory was hardly taken up in the second half of the twentieth century: Chadwick (1907: 27); see also Wheeler (1921: 161-71), Hodgkin (1952: 624), Harrison (1971: 527-33), Stenton (1971/2: 118-19), Gransden (1974: 37).


77

17 Plummer’s knowledge of the Historia Ecclesiastica provided the first real insight into Bede’s influence on the ASC (1899: II, lxi, lxix, xci, cxiii); see also Grubitz (1868), Bately (1979a: 233-54). 18 For discrepancies arising from notices mistakenly entered from an Easter table using the obsolete era of Victorius of Aquitane, see Chadwick (1907: 24, n.1). 19 Hodgkin (1952: 624-27), and also Plummer (1899: II, cvi-cviii); but cf. Bately, who is against the idea and rejects Alfredian authorship (1979b: 189-92; 1980b: lxxxiii-lxxxvi). 20 For problems arising from the comparison of the West-Saxon Genealogical Regnal List with the ASC, see Plummer (1899: II, lxxix-xc, 2-3); also Dumville (1985: 21-66). 21 For discussion of sources before the ASC, see Dumville (1976: 23-50); also Keynes (2005: 47-67). 22 Localisation is contentious but Winchester is uneasily accepted, cf. Ker (1957: lvii-lix, 58-59); also Bishop (1964-68: 248), Bately (1986: xxxiii). For the scriptorium of Nunnaminister, Winchester: Parkes (1976: 158; 2003: 171-85); but cf. Dumville, who rejects Parkes’ evidence for Nunnaminister but accepts the possibility of the Old Minister (1992: ch. 3; 1987: 163-64). 23 Older pagination exists to fol. 32v, or p. 66: in Parkerian red crayon as far as fol. 17r. The present folio 1r is paginated 3 by Parker, indicating that the first leaf, now lost, was present in the sixteenth century. The contents of the missing leaf are sug-gested by the description in the so-called Parker Register (Corpus Christi College MS. 575, p. 62) under the pressmark S.11 (‘Annales Saxon. Ecclie. Cant. Leges Aluredi regis’, where the (old) incipit is listed as ‘Willelm cyng’); see also James (1912: xxxvii). According to Ker, this leaf contained a writ of William the Conqueror, copied by Joscelyn into Cotton Vitellius D. VII, fol. 40, and described as ‘Charta libertatum ejusdem Ecclesiæ (ie. Ecclesiæ Christi Cantuariensi), per R. Guilielmum I. Saxonice.’ The language and the provenance of the writ support the identification (Ker 1957: 57). For a possible source of the writ: Keynes, apud Bately (1986: xx, n.38). 24 Quires of Irish manuscripts are often made up of a varying numbers of sheets, or else in quinions, sets of five sheets making ten leaves. Many of the older English manuscripts are of five sheets. To form a quire, five (or four) sheets are folded, almost invariably with hair side outside, then pricked in the inner as well as the outer margin, then ruled in the first recto of the folded quire, then ruled again as needed either on the hair side recto just before the middle of the quire or on a flesh side recto just after the middle. Occasionally the quire was turned over and ruled on the last verso, which was normally a hair side (Brown (unpubl.); also Lowe (CLA 2, vi-viii), Ker (1957: xxiii-xxv). 25 The various stages of codicological growth require further study. The late addition of Q. IV is indicated by a series of tenth-century quire signatures: an abraded graph at the foot of the folio 7v (Q. I), the letter ‘c’ at the foot of folio 25v (Q. III), and the letter ‘e’ at the foot of folio 42v (Q. VI). What this shows is that Q. I–III and the Laws (Q. V) were bound together before Q. IV, containing the annals for 924–1070 and the Acta Lanfranci, was inserted into A. The date is suggested by the lower limit of the annals for 924–955, which were entered by a single scribe en masse. The addition was therefore before c.956 (Ker 1957: 58). Dumville restricted the upper limit on the evidence of the script as Phase III, Square minuscule of the 940s and 950s. Q. IV is thus assigned by him to 946 x c.956 (1992: 62-66; 1994: 144-51).

Nicholas Sparks

78

26 Folio 14 is curious. According to Parkes, ‘leaves 2 and 7 of the second quire are two singletons instead of a bifolium. The arrangement of material on this second singleton (fol. 14) leads us to suspect that it is a cancel’ (1976: 154). The layout of the annals, the verso especially, is unusually spread out as compared with surrounding pages, which looked to Bately as if this was a decision made by the scribe in response to a deletion of material (1980a: 115, n.2). 27 The difference in feel and look between fol. 24 and fol. 25 was observed by Ker in his review of the facsimile (1942: 116). For the character and affinities of the new scribe at this point, see Dumville (1992: 78-81, 92, n.186, and 94, n.195). 28 Insular writing supports, either parchment or vellum, are in general thick and hard with a slightly roughened surface which is suede-like and clinging to the touch, with hair sides and flesh sides similar in texture and colour made virtually indistinguish-able by rubbing with pumice or pounce. Continental parchment is typically softer, paler, and often finely wrinkled, with hair sides more yellow in colour and flesh sides whiter than Insular membranes (Brown (unpubl.; 1972: 127-35); see also Lowe (CLA 2, vi-vii), Bishop (1971: xii). 29 For the make-up of Insular manuscripts before the Conquest, see Ker (1957: xxiii-xxv). 30 For treatment of Q. II as a quaternion, that is, a gathering of four sheets folded to make eight leaves, see Ker (1942: 118; 1957: 58); also Parkes (1976: 150), Bately (1986: xvi-xvii); as Bately has indicated this was also the preferred collation of T. J. Brown (1986: xvi, n.19). 31 For treatment of Q. II as quinion, a gathering of five sheets folded to make a quire of ten leaves (Plummer (1899: II, xxiv), James (1912: I, 395), Thompson et al. (1903-30, vol. I: 279, pls. 134-36), and also the General Editors of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (Bately [1986]: clxviii-clxix). 32 The quire of 8 leaves, normal in Anglo-Saxon practice, is often made, not of four sheets, but of three sheets and two half-sheets. The half-sheets are never placed outside or in the middle of the quire, but form one of the two inner layers (Ker 1942: 118; 1957: xxiii-xxv). 33 Lowe saw an ‘appalling lack of uniformity’ with regard to the construction of a normal Insular quire, but where method exists the preference is shown for the quinion, that is, the gathering of five bifolia, or ten leaves folded (CLA 2, vii). 34 Looking to the future, it may be desirable to conduct ancient, or historical, DNA analysis, which has been proved valuable for identifying multiple stages of parchment manufacture, treatment and storage, and if developed further could be used to form the cornerstone for studies of animal population; for understanding Anglo-Saxon animal husbandry; and for identifying the provenance of parchments. As yet, this field is still in its infancy (see Bower et al. 2010; Campana et al. 2010). 35 For a review of the Insular system, see Brown (1993), Barker-Benfield (1978), and esp. Dumville (1997), Crick (1997: 63-79). 36 Ker (1957: 58), also Bishop (1964-68: 248); for the features and affinities of the script and particular phases of its development, see the studies listed under the next note and the references therein. 37 Parkes (1976), p. 158-160; 2003: 172-82); but cf. Dumville (1992: ch. 3; 1987: esp. 163). 38 London, BL, MS. Harley 2965, fol. 40v: prov. Winchester, perhaps Nunnaminster, by s. ix/x (Gneuss 2001: no. 432). The resemblance of the handwriting to the script of


79

MS. A to 891 was noticed by Ker, who asked the question (which has remained unanswered) as to whether the script itself represents a scriptorium type or the hand of a single scribe working at different dates (1957: lix, 58, 308-9). Parkes went further, asserting scribal identity (2003: 173, n.11, Plate 30b); but cf. Dumville (1992: ch. 3, esp. 83-85). 39 Bishop, followed by Parkes, ascribed the second hand of the ‘Trinity Isidore’ (Plate XIXb) and the restored passages of ‘Corpus Sedulius’ (Plate XIXa) to the same workshop: Bishop (1964-68: 248), Parkes (1976: 156-62). 40 Bishop, followed by Parkes, identified the Sedulius restorer with the main hand of A to 891 (Bishop 1964-68: 248), Parkes (1976: esp. 156-59); but cf. Dumville, who rejects the identification along with the further specimens associated (next note) with the second hand of ‘Trinity Isidore’ (1992: ch. 3, 84-86). 41 Roper notes the resemblance of the script of the fragment to the second hand of the ‘Trinity Isidore’, but does not equate the scribes (1983: 125-28). Parkes claims scribal identity, favouring a view of the fragment as an earlier stage in the development of the same scribe’s handwriting (2003: 173, n.8). 42 As the editors of the New Palaeographical Society have noted of the first hand, which extends to 891, finishing with the number for 892: ‘Its date is probably not much, if at all later, and it may be compared with that of a date of a charter of Eardwulf, dated in 875’ (Thompson et al. 1913-30, vol. I: p. 279, plates. 134-36). 43 Sawyer (1968: no. 1203); also Brooks and Kelly (forthcoming: no. 94), kindly communicated to me by Dr S. E. Kelly. 44 For the received date of the copy, see Brooks (1984: 170, n.77); but cf. Dumville (1987: 157, n.52). 45 Plummer thought that from 892 (or a little earlier) the entries are roughly con-temporary: Plummer (1899: II, xxvii). In his most recent study, Parkes dates the writing of fols 1r-19v to the reign of Alfred (d. 899) (2008: 133, n.39). 46 Ker dates the original campaign of writing A to s. ix/x (1957: 57); Bately assigns the first hand to the end of the ninth century or the beginning of the tenth century, namely, ‘circa 900’ (1986: xxiv-xxv). G. F. Warner, sometime keeper of manuscripts in the British Museum, dated hands Nos. 1-6, 900 x 930 (apud Plummer 1899: II, xxvii, n.2). 47 Parker Chronicle, 40, n.14; also Whitelock (1955: 201), Bately (1986: liv). 48 For the possible implications of the scribal division, see Parkes (1976: 170), Dumville (1992: ch. 3, esp. 90, n.1, and 99-103), Bately (1986: xxx-xxxiv, lv-lvi). 49 Angus (1938: 197); see also Vaughan (1954: 64-66), Dumville (1992: Appendix I). 50 The exception (sa. 792) suggests that the mark was used systematically, but the significance of its use within annals seems not to have been fully considered. The punctuation mark occurs intra annales three times: (i) ASC 755 A, in the episode of Cynewulf and Cyneheard, fol. 10r24, (ii) ASC 855 A, used to divide the genealogy of Æthelwulf and the amen coda from the accession of his two sons, Æthelbald and Ethelbert, fol. 13r31, (iii) ASC 871 A used to mark the accession of Alfred, followed on the next line by a littera notabilior, fol. 14r20 (but cf. Bately 1986: lxii). 51 The movements of the Danes and the Frankish victory at the Battle of Leuven are reported in the Annals of Fulda, sa. 891, and the death of Suibhne is also in the Annals of Ulster, sa. 890 (= 891) (Plummer 1899: II, 103-5). 52 For a survey of the chronicles and charters of Western Europe, see Poole (1921: 113-37).

Nicholas Sparks

80

53 Thorogood (1933: passim). For the ensuing period, see Beaven (1918: esp. 328), Whitelock (1952: cxl-cxli), Vaughan (1954: 59.), Wynn (1956: esp. 74) 54 Hodgkin (1924: 497-510); see also Parker Chronicle, 9-12, but cf. Vaughan, who found insufficient evidence for Christmas dating (1954: 64-65). Wynn allowed the possibility of Christmas dating but preferred to see the change of reckoning as the difference between earlier and contemporary sources (1956: 77-78). 55 For the same inference, drawn rather differently from the evidence, see Parkes (1976: 154); but cf. Dumville (1992: ch. 3, esp. p. 90). 56 Dumville put forward the theory of scribal collaboration (1992: ch. 3); Bately left open the possibility of collaboration but identified the work of least three hands in this part of the manuscript: ‘the question of precisely when scribes 1, 2a, and 2b were writing also remains unanswered’ (1986: xxx-xxxiv). 57 Mark Hurn at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, kindly tells me that it does not appear that the orbit has been calculated for the comet and it has not been established that it is periodic (private communication); cf. Stevenson (1898: 73-74). 58 Annales Alamannici. Annalium Alamannicorum Continuatio Sangallensis, [see under the relevant annal-number]. 59 Annales Laubacenses, [see under the relevant annal-number]. 60 Plummer (1899: I, 84, n.1); see also Parker Chronicle, 10, Whitelock (1955: 201, n.2). 61 Lutz (1981: xxxi-xxxii), Bately (1986: xcviii-xcic), Dumville (1992: ch. 3, 101, n.217). Bibliography Abbreviations ASC = Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ASE = Anglo-Saxon England CLA = Codices Latini Antiquiores EETS, OS, SS = Early English Text Society, Original Series, Supplementary Series EHD = English Historical Documents EHR = English Historical Review MGH, SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores PBA = Proceedings of the British Academy TRHS = Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Primary sources [Alfred] Asser’s Life of King Alfred. Ed. W. H. Stevenson. Oxford, 1959. Referred to

as Asser-S, followed by page number. [Alfred] Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other Contemporary

Sources. Ed. and trans. Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1983. Referred to as Asser-KL, followed by page number.

[ASC] Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, with supplementary extracts from the others. Ed. J. Earle. Oxford, 1865.

[ASC] Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. 2 vols. Ed. C. Plummer. Oxford, 1892, 1899; rpt. with two notes by Dorothy Whitelock, 1952.


81

[ASC] The Parker Chronicle and Laws (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 173):

A Facsimile. Ed. R. Flower and H. Smith. EETS, OS 208. London: Oxford University Press , 1941 (for 1937).

[ASC] The Parker Chronicle (832–900). 3rd edn. Ed. A. H. Smith. Methuen’s Old English Library. London, 1951.

[ASC] Die Version G der Angelsächsischen Chronik: Rekonstruktion und Edition. Ed. A. Lutz. Munich, 1981.

[ASC] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vols. III-IX. Gen. ed. David Dumville and Simon Keynes. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1983-2008.

[ASC] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A. Ed. Janet Bately. Vol. III of Dumville and Keynes (1983-2008).

[ASC] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation. Ed. D Whitelock et al. London, 1961.

Annales Alamannici. Annalium Alamannicorum Continuatio Sangallensis. In Annales et chronica aevi Carolini. Vol. I. Ed. G. H. Pertz. MGH, SS I. Hannover, 1826.

Annales Laubacenses. In Annales et chronica aevi Carolini. Vol. I. Ed. G. H. Pertz. MGH, SS I. Hannover, 1826..

English Historical Documents. I. c.500–1042. Ed. Dorothy Whitelock. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1955.

The Old English Orosius. Ed. Janet Bately. EETS, SS 6. London: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Secondary literature Angus, W. S. (1938). ‘The Chronology of the Reign of Edward the Elder.’ EHR 53:

194-210. Barker-Benfield, B. C. (1978). ‘The Insular Hand.’ Times Literary Supplement, 27

January 1978: 100. Bately, J. M. (1979a). ‘Bede and the Anglo–Saxon Chronicle.’ In Saints, Scholars,

and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Charles W. Jones. Ed. M. H. King and W. M. Stevens. Michigan, 1979. Pp. 233-54.

––– (1979b). ‘World history in the Anglo–Saxon Chronicle: its sources and separate-ness from the Old English Orosius.’ ASE 8: 177-94.

––– (1980a). ‘The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 60 B.C. to A.D. 890: Vocabulary as Evidence.’ PBA 64: 93-129.

–––, ed. (1980b). See The Old English Orosius. ––– (1985). ‘The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Once More.’ Leeds

Studies in English 16: 7-36. –––, ed. (1986). See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A. Beaven, M. R. (1918). ‘The Beginning of the Year in the Alfredian Chronicle (866–

87).’ EHR 33: 328-42. Bishop, T. A. M. (1964-68). ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule.’ Trans-

actions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 4: 246-53. ––– (1971). English Caroline Minuscule. Oxford. Bower, M. A., et al. (2010). ‘The potential for extraction and exploitation of DNA

from parchment: a review of the opportunities and hurdles.’ Journal of the Institute of Conservation 33: 1-11.

Nicholas Sparks

82

Brooks, N. P. (1984). The early history of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church

from 597 to 1066. Leicester. Brooks, N. P., and S. E. Kelly, ed. (forthcoming). Charters of Christ Church,

Canterbury. Brown, T. J. (1972). ‘The Distribution and Significance of Membrane prepared in the

Insular Manner.’ In Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S 547. Paris. Pp. 127-35.

––– (unpublished). The Lyell Lectures in Bibliography: The Insular System of Scripts, c.600–c.850. From the original lodged in The Senate House Library, University of London.

––– (1993). ‘The Irish Element in the Insular System of Scripts to c. AD 850.’ In A Palaeographer’s View: Selected Writings of Julian Brown. Ed. Janet Bately, Michelle Brown and Jane Roberts. London. Pp. 201-20.

Campana, M. G., et al. (2010). ‘A flock of sheep, goats and cattle: ancient DNA analysis reveals complexities of historical parchment manufacture.’ Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1317-25.

Chadwick, H. M. (1907). The Origin of the English Nation. Cambridge. Clark, C. (1971). ‘The narrative mode of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the

Conquest.’ In England before the Conquest: studies in primary sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock. Ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes. Cambridge. Pp. 215-35.

Crick, J. (1997). ‘The case for a West Saxon minuscule.’ ASE 26: 63-79. Declerq, G. (2000). Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian era. Turnhout. Dumville, D. N. (1976). ‘The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal

Lists.’ ASE 5: 23-50. ––– (1985). ‘The West-Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the chronology of early

Wessex.’ Peritia 4: 21-66. ––– (1987). ‘English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases.’

ASE 16: 147-79. ––– (1992). Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: six essays on political,

cultural, and ecclesiastical revival. Woodbridge. ––– (1994). ‘English Square minuscule script: the mid-century phases.’ ASE 23: 133-

64. ––– (1997). A Palaeographer’s Review: the Insular System of Scripts in the Early

Middle Ages.Vol. I. Osaka. –––, and Simon Keynes, ed. (1983-2008). See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A

Collaborative Edition. Earle, J., ed. (1865). See Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, with supplementary

extracts from the others. Gneuss, H. (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 241. Tempe.

Gransden, A. (1974). Historical Writing in England. I. c.550 to c.1307. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul..

Grubitz, E. (1868). Kritische Untersuchung über die angelsächsischen Annalen bis zum Jahre 893. Göttingen.

Foot, S. (1996). ‘The Making of Angelcynn: English Identity before the Norman Conquest.’ TRHS 6, 6th series. Pp. 25-49.


83

Harrison, K. (1971). ‘Early Wessex annals in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.’ EHR 86:

527-33. ––– (1976). The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900. Cambridge. Hodgkin, R. H. (1924). ‘The Beginning of the Year in the English Chronicle.’ EHR

39: 497-510. ––– (1952). A History of the Anglo-Saxons. 3rd edn. Oxford. James, M. R. (1912). A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 2 vols. Cambridge. Ker, N. R. (1942). ‘Review of The Parker Chronicle and Laws: A Facsimile.’ Medium

Ævum 11: 115-18. ––– (1957/1990). Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford, 1957;

rpt. with addenda: 1990. Keynes, Simon (1985). ‘King Athelstan’s Books.’ In Learning and Literature in

Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to Peter Clemoes. Ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss. Cambridge. Pp. 143-201.

––– (1986). ‘A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready.’ TRHS 36, 5th series: 195-217.

––– (2005). ‘Between Bede and the Chronicle: London, BL, Cotton Vespasian B. vi, fols. 104-9.’ In Latin learning and English lore: studies in Anglo-Saxon literature for Michael Lapidge. Ed. K. O’Brien O’Keeffe and A. Orchard. Toronto. Pp. 47-67.

––– (forthcoming). ‘Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.’ In Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: From the Romans to the Normans. Vol. I. Ed. R. Gameson.

–––, and Michael Lapidge, trans. (1983). See Alfred the Great. Kronk, G. W. (1999). Cometography: A Catalogue of Comets. vol., I. Ancient–1799.

Cambridge. Levison, W. (1966). ‘Bede as Historian.’ In Bede: His Life, Times, and Writings. Ed.

A. H. Thompson. New York. Pp. 111-51. Lowe, E. A. (1934-71). Codices Latini Antiquiores. 11 vols and suppl. Oxford. Lutz, A., ed. (1981). See Die Version G der Angelsächsischen Chronik. Mosshammer, A. A. (2008). The Easter Computus and the Origins of Christian Era.

Oxford. Neville, J. (2002). ‘Making their own Sweet Time: The Scribes of Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle A.’ The Medieval Chronicle 2: 166-77. Parkes, M. B. (1976). ‘The palaeography of the Parker manuscript of the Chronicle,

laws and Sedulius, and the historiography at Winchester in the late ninth and tenth centuries.’ ASE 5: 149-71.

––– (1991). ‘A Fragment of an Early–Tenth Century Anglo–Saxon Manuscript and its Significance.’ In his Scribes, Scripts, and Readers: Studies in the Communica-tion, Presentation, and Dissemination of Medieval Texts. London: Hambledon Press. Pp. 171-85.

––– (2008). Their Hands Before Our Eyes: A Closer Look at Scribes. The Lyell Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford 1999 (Ashgate).

Plummer, C. (1892, 1899). See Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. 2 vols. Poole, R. L. (1921). ‘The Beginning of the Year in the Middle Ages.’ PBA 10: 113-37. ––– (1926). Chronicles and Annals. A Brief Outline of their History and Growth.

Oxford.

Nicholas Sparks

84

Roper, M. (1983), ‘A fragment of Bede’s De Temporum Ratione in the Public Record

Office.’ ASE 12: 125-28. Sato, S. (1997). ‘Back to the Manuscripts: Some Problems in the Physical

Descriptions of the Parker Chronicle.’ In Back to the Manuscripts – Papers from the Symposium ‘The Integrated Approach to Manuscript Studies: A New Horizon’ Held at the Eighth General Meeting of the Japan Society for Medieval English Studies, Tokyo, December 1992. Tokyo: The Centre for Medieval English Studies. Pp. 69-95 and figs 1a-3d-2.

Sawyer, P. H. (1968). Anglo–Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography. Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8. London: Butler and Tanner.

Sisam, K. (1990). ‘Anglo–Saxon royal genealogies.’ Rpt. in British Academy papers on Anglo–Saxon England. Ed. E. G. Stanley. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 145-204.

Stenton, F. M. (1970). ‘The South–western Element in the Old English Chronicle.’ In Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England, being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton. Ed. D. M. Stenton. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 106-15.

––– (1970/2). ‘The Foundations of English History.’ In Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England, being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton. Ed. D. M. Stenton. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 116-26.

––– (1971). Anglo–Saxon England. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stevenson, W. H. (1898). ‘The date of King Alfred’s Death.’ EHR 13: 73-74. Thompson E. M., et al. (1913-30). The New Palaeographical Society Facsimiles of

Ancient Manuscripts. 2nd series, vol. I. London. Thorogood, A. J. (1933). ‘The Anglo–Saxon Chronicle in the Reign of Ecgberht.’

EHR 48: 353-63. Vaughan, R. (1954). ‘The Chronology of the Parker Chronicle, 890–970.’ EHR 69:

59-66. Wheeler, G.H. (1921). ‘The Genealogy of the Early West–Saxon Kings.’ EHR 36:

161-71. Whitelock, D. (rpt. 1952). ‘On the commencement of the year in the Saxon

Chronicles.’ In Plummer (1899): II, cxxxix-cxliii. ––– (unpublished). King Alfred, manuscript in the keeping of Professor S. D. Keynes.

Trinity College, Cambridge. Ch. 19. Wynn, J. B. (1956). ‘The Beginning of the Year in Bede and the Anglo–Saxon

Chronicle.’ Medium Ævum 25: 71-78.

THE ‘PARKER CHRONICLE’, CHRONOLOGY GONE AWRY.

Documents

Transcript of THE ‘PARKER CHRONICLE’, CHRONOLOGY GONE AWRY.