Talk:Anglo-Saxon Chronicle/Archive 1

Comments
This was an interesting article, but can anyone discuss (and intelligently add) 1) a date for the texts 2) some details of the historiography of the text?

...some of the writers had a particular agenda in mind -- the legitimisation of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the British Isles...

Does anyone else think that this is a bit anchronistic? I don't think that the the Anglo-Saxons had quite the preoccupationwith legitimization that modern peoples would. Besides, by the time the A-S Chronicles were written the A-S conquest was centuries old.David Stapleton 03:38, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * There were (and are :-) ) Celtish parts of the island, so the idea of legitimization is at least conceivable, but I reviewed Blair's book (my only info source in print), and I don't see any mentions of it as an issue. Unless there's a quotable authority that makes the claim, it should be whacked. Stan 04:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There was a widespread contemporary belief that the world would end at the millennium (AD 1000)

As far as I know this is false, and this conception of things has much to do with old historiographical errors and with an old lecture of sources. Even Anglo-Saxons from the Dark Ages, particularly scholars and christian kings like the ones who are probably behind the A.S.C. would not have dared to pretend to know the date of the end of the world. In general, during the Middle Ages, many scholars wrote that only God knew for sure when and where the end of the world would come : this idea came from St Augustine ; and Bede, also used as a major source by the A.S.C. anonymous writers, was no exception among them! Last, but not least, the times of Alfred the Great were times of Renaissance and not a dark, supertitious epoch.

Last, the Anglo-Saxons *did* have a preoccupation to legitimize their occupation of Britain: this preoccupation, though very different from the one "modern" people could have, was even one of Bede's major ideas when he wrote his H.E.G.A. : in short, they had to prove themselves to be worthy as God's chosen people to 1) explain that they had the right to rule England, in a christian perspective and 2) legitimize their newly founded church and its expansion to the borders of the Earth (in Germany, Frisia and Saxony), still they had this concern in a christian, augustinean perspective.

Of course, this remained a concern as long as the priority was to legitimize the formation of a united and unique christian english nation (in the times of Bede), and probably this wasn't any longer in the times of Alfred, when the unity of the english people was achieved. Maybe you should check B. Colgrave works (including reference translation of Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum) on this matter. 82.66.175.78 00:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

References to Portsmouth
Are these correct as Portsmouth was not founded until the twelth century. It would appear odd that the Chronicles contain a founding myth for a non-existant townNuttah68 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Portsmouth, the modern town, was indeed founded in the twelfth century. But there had been Roman settlements in the area - Portchester being a notable example - that took their names from the Latin portus, meaning a port or harbour. It's quite possible that Port (the Anglo-Saxon fellow) was named after this Latin place-name.t.maisey 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: Inaccuracies?
I dispute the "Inaccuracies" section. Some rather blatant statements are made without any sources (such as "Other annals were simply invented"). There could be other explanations for the supposed inaccuracies besides the chroniclers making stuff up. We need to at least give sources for why we think these sections are "invented" or tone down the language. Otherwise the whole section violates NPOV and NOR. Roachmeister 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed part of this section and rewritten and sourced part of it. The removed section is:

Other annals were simply invented. Under 477 we read that Wlencing was the son of Ælle, but Wlencing is a patronymic meaning ‘son of Wlenca’, so he cannot also have been son of Ælle. Clearly the chronicler has carelessly extracted Wlencing from an early form of the place-name Lancing. Moving on to 501, Portsmouth is located at the mouth of a port; it is not named after Port; he was quarried out of the place-name. Then under 508 Natanleag means ‘wet meadow’, so it was not named after a slain Welsh king called Natanleod; he is an invention. If it can be sourced, it should be added back in some form. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike! Roachmeister 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To-do
-- Mike Christie (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Add information about the history of [I]. This page has a catalogue and description of the manuscripts, including some history.  Cotton MS Caligula A xv is listed with the following description: "11th-century material Part A, except the annals (ff. 133-7) from 1085, are by one scribe who was writing soon after 1073. The annals from 1085 are in various hands, some of them of the Canterbury type. This part at least was written at Christ Church. Part B, ff. 142-3 are in one hand of the second half of the 11th century; ff. 144-153 are in a second hand of the 11th/12th century. The notice of a "benedictio cerei" on Easter Sunday (9 Apr.) 1083 is added by another hand in a blank space on f. 141. Was at St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury in the Middle Ages." However, I can't be sure I am decoding this correctly.  I have added an abbreviated form of this description to the article.
 * Clean up the lead
 * Add a section on the importance of the manuscript to historians
 * Add a section on linguistic form used
 * Add/improve a section on problems of interpretation and inconsistencies among the manuscripts
 * Add note on Wessex bias; lack of independent Mercian, East Anglian sources, or Northumbrian after 802.
 * Add map showing places of composition (Abingdon, Canterbury, Peterborough, Worcester, Winchester)


 * I think everything in the list above is dealt with, one way or another. Mike Christie (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedigree section
I removed this: Some of the annals are derived from earlier sources such as Prosper and Bede and the annal for 430 demonstrates this: Prosper of Aquitaine wrote that in 430: “Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots who believed in Christ, and was ordained as their first bishop”. This story was known to Bede and was repeated by him: “In the year 430 Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots that believed in Christ to be their first bishop”. This annal was then copied into the earliest version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (version A, compiled in 891): “430. In this year bishop Palladius was sent by Pope Celestine to the Scots to strengthen their faith”. But during the twelfth century the manuscript was altered to read: “… Palladius (vel Patricius)…”. In another version of the chronicle (version E, written in 1121) Palladius disappears and is replaced by Patrick: “430. In this year Patrick was sent by pope Celestine to preach baptism to the Scots”. Notice how with each scribe the story changes a little, so starting from Palladius being sent to the Irish who were already Christian, it eventually becomes a tale about Patrick being sent to convert the Irish.

because I can find no source for it. I can source the different versions of the text -- Swanton has a note and references on the confusion between Palladius and Patrick -- but it's the derivation from Prosper I can't source. Swanton's refs mention Prosper so I suspect this is all perfectly accurate, so if anyone can source this, please put some version of this back in. Swanton's ref is "Charles-Edwards, T.M., "Palladius, Prosper, and Leo the Great: mission and primatial authority", in D.N. Dumville et al., Saint Patrick, AD 493-1993 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 1-12". Mike Christie (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibson edition
I took out the note about Gibson's "Chronicum Saxonicum" title implying that "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" was a later name for the chronicle. I can't find any source for this, and it's apparent from the Law Exchange site that there were, in fact, earlier editions, so without knowing those titles the claim can't be made. It's a bit OR anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed
No major issues. Chubbles 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * lol k 209.191.204.138 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Further research
Here are some comments from qp10qp at the FAC review. These are points raised that I can't answer from my existing books and which need research. I've added a couple of comments of my own in response, indented below each point.


 * "It is known that the Winchester manuscript is at least two removes from the original of the Chronicle." At that point I wanted to know how that is known, if this is the earliest surviving manuscript. Later there is some explanation of all the interlinkings, but I needed more information at that point.
 * I think this would be very interesting but none of my sources cover it. I think a specialist paper on the ASC recensions would have to be consulted; the material I do have says that ASC recensions are wildly complex.Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at that diagram till I'm blue in the face, trying to work out what the two removes are. The Parker joins back pretty directly to the original, even if there's a node above Aethelweard's version, so I don't see more than one remove there. Incidentally, why are the St Neot's annals so directly and closely linked to the unknown original? The description of them in the article doesn't claim such a position, as far as I can see. (I'm finding that diagram a little hard to decipher: for example, if Parker is the earliest manuscript, why is Aethelweard higher up the diagram? I'm not complaining; I find it interesting.) qp10qp 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I understand the relationships (I am not a mediævalist at all) is that the lines don't mean a single remove, they mean an unknown number of removes. So the St. Neot's annals are not necessarily closely linked to the original -- it's just that the links don't pass through any of the other known nodes.  For the Parker ms, I assume that there is some artefact of copying -- some kind of transmitted error? -- that indicates it's not original, though I can't figure out how they know it's two removes from the source.  Perhaps Æthelweard includes an error of some kind that is preserved in the Parker ms, but the Parker ms also includes other errors?  But how could one know those errors were not introduced by the Parker scribe?  Another possible source of confusion is that the diagram is not supposed to indicate date by height in the diagram -- maybe a note could be added making that clearer.  Basically, all a line means is that a given manuscript on the lower end of the line appears to have used the manuscript on the higher end as a source, possibly via intervening copies. Does that clarify it? Mike Christie (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I'm coming to the conclusion that the removes are calculated from the differences from the common compilations that were originally sent out together and which were probably identical. If, as you say, the Parker scribe introduced differences traceable to two other, different documents, then that would make the "at least two removes". And even if other versions of the chronicle are found in later manuscripts, their similarities would associate them with the original compilation and show up the differences in the Parker manuscript. I think. :) I'm scraping around Googlebooks at the moment, and I'll get there in the end. qp10qp 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found out that the removes of the Parker text were researched by Dumville and Lapidge, 84. I'm searching Lapidge, whose name comes up a lot on Googlebooks, though not that article: hopefully, I can catch him explaining elsewhere what he discovered. qp10qp 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is known, I'd be interested to know why the chronicles petered out when they did. Were they suppressed by the Normans? Were the monks becoming culturally French? Were the chronicles replaced by Latin equivalents? I've no idea; but I'd be interested to read about that.
 * No information on this one, but I agree it would be good to know. Perhaps the monasteries were no longer the sole repositories of learning, and the scholarly aspects of monastic life became less and less valued?  Anyway, worth adding when known. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not yet found anything which addresses this directly, but it's looking as if the main reason might have been that the monasteries were given French abbots. Crystal, in his Encyclopedia of the English Language, says that within twenty years of the Norman invasion, almost all the religious houses were under French-speaking superiors, while several new foundations were entirely French. Anglo-Saxon was not used for any legal, governmental, or administrative purposes, either. The disappearance of written Anglo-Saxon seems shockingly abrupt, but it's possible that many of the monks were already bilingual, since Edward the Confessor was French influenced, having lived there for twenty years, and many at his court were either French or could speak French (and monks tended to come from noble or high-up families). What seems to have happened then is that Old English petrified as a written language while it continued to develop orally. Crystal notes that after the fire at Peterborough, the Chronicle was copied up in Anglo-Saxon and continued in that language till 1131; but it resumed in 1154 in contemporary English, which seems to indicate that Anglo-Saxon was now, to all intents and purposes, a dead language. Since some writers suggest that the whole point of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was to boost a sense of nationalism, maybe the defeat by the Normans destroyed its cultural purpose. This is all a bit vague, so I'll continue to look for a referenceable theory about why the Chronicle ran out of steam. qp10qp 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it does need to be better referenced, but it sounds like you're on the right track. I'll keep an eye out too, though I'm focusing on the period before 900 so it is less likely I'll run into something about the end of the Chronicle.  By the way, I really appreciate having another editor on this page -- I've done a lot of work here and enjoyed it, but it's fun to collaborate too.  Thanks for jumping in.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm just on Wikipedia for fun, so I dabble here and there as fancy takes me. I actually did my history exams at school on Anglo-Saxon subjects, but fell under the spell of a late medievalist tutor at university and so I never got to study the period academically (much to the disgust of my former school teachers), though I did Bede as a set text for the historians paper


 * By the way, I've noticed that all the books seem to use the term "common stock" for the original compilation, but the article doesn't. Do you think maybe it should? qp10qp 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no history background at all, though I've been reading popular history books for a while. I decided to pick up the Anglo-Saxon articles as a way to direct my reading, help Wikipedia, and, I hope, learn something, all at the same time.  I don't suppose you'd be interested in working with me on a couple of the other Anglo-Saxon articles, would you?  My target list is at User:Mike Christie/Anglo-Saxon articles.  I'd like to get as many as possible of these up to GA or FA status.  So far I've got Asser to FA, Ethelbald of Mercia to GA, and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to GA (and FA shortly, I hope).  Anyway, if you're interested, let me know; I'm currently working on Aelle of Sussex.  I do have some research to do on Ethelbald of Mercia, too, but I'm waiting for an interlibrary loan to get the relevant material.


 * Re "common stock": I haven't noticed that in the refs I'm using. Where have you seen it?  If it's a commonly used phrase, by all means let's mention it, but I'd want to be sure it's not an idiosyncrasy of one or two authors.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are just a few examples from a quick search of Googlebooks. I found this term cropping up pretty much everywhere in the pages I searched yesterday evening:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OZWhnrn5m6EC&pg=PA14&ots=cmnoB851gG&dq=%22common+stock%22+%22Anglo-Saxon+Chronicle%22&sig=JCvjqsCN6d4UvEYIg7ZLS3HYTok

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QU3IQNiMmUYC&pg=PA18&ots=TpOSEM7o7-&dq=This+history+is+divided+into+what+scholars+call+the+%E2%80%98common+stock%27+that+runs+as+far+as+890+or+891+and+a+series+of+continuations+that+run+to&sig=jYIrfYpCGAH6YUWqOQk17NXbFLg

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f65VUNvxQjkC&pg=PA35&ots=bd5Wb8oTyi&dq=%22common+stock%22+%22Anglo-Saxon+Chronicle%22&sig=KA3I9xnR5W3YTSuSW4PEA3zuhJI

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=f8B4NAl2r48C&pg=RA1-PR20&ots=zvfh64rHgB&dq=%22common+stock%22+%22Anglo-Saxon+Chronicle%22&sig=o4K6GBiLL1ETN9sGUC78BWfkXMw

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T_l8NoM7r1sC&pg=PA180&ots=l6ECtqmHzH&dq=%22common+stock%22+%22Anglo-Saxon+Chronicle%22&sig=QOJUjcDuocaLWCCytgYKd05JS-c

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Nl0_nXQD5i4C&pg=RA1-PA167&ots=LvthOwjz85&dq=%22common+stock%22+%22Anglo-Saxon+Chronicle%22&sig=lmGrqKGuc4naWEFEKUzXRfsJEUk

On the other point, I really prefer to do serious work from my own book collection rather than floundering for information on the internet, and I would not be comfortable trying to take more than a passing interest in these Anglo-Saxon articles. Googlebooks and the web are fine for chasing a few points, but they would be a laborious and dubious way to research a whole article. But do contact me for reviews, copy-edits, etc. I always enjoy reading Anglo-Saxon articles. qp10qp 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent IP edits
Among the current edits are changes from "[A]" to "(A)" (and similar changes) for the ms. references. The square brackets are used in at least a couple of the references used for the article, but I've never seen parentheses used. I suggest we go back to square brackets. Mike Christie (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been twenty minutes since the IP edited, and it looks like a random IP so there's no guarantee they've read the note I've left them. I'm going to revert this change; if anyone disagrees let's discuss here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dating
In a number of places in the article where dates in which manuscripts were started, or created, or composed, are mentioned, I found myself confused about whether it was talking about the originals (now lost) or the extant copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.136.254 (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Question
Can someone who knows explain the opening paragraph: "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. ". My question is about Britons being from Armenia, obviously they were not from Armenia. Why Armenia? Surely the author could have come up with something more exotic than Armenia? Is this similar to the Roman claim of Trojan origin in the Aeneid?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speculation but it could be related to:


 * Armenia lies in the highlands surrounding the Biblical mountains of Ararat, upon which, according to Judeo-Christian history, Noah's Ark came to rest after the flood.


 * i.e. essentially claiming the Britons are directly descended from key Christian figures. DNA studies obviously confirm this not being the case, of course. --81.150.229.68 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It could likewise be a corruption of Armorica, modern-day Brittany. Perhaps the writer was puzzled by the name "Armorica" and came to the conclusion that it was the same as "Armenia" ("Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tanais (Don), and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names.") 62.47.231.153 (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The text is taken from Bede's Ecclesiastical History - Bede says Armorica, but a few lines above had mentioned Armenia, just a slip by the writer of the ASC. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

intelligent responses
I agree there should be some massive revision. Dating-wise, it's not a simple proposition - all of the manuscripts were carried on in semi-independence, and thusly need to be dated differently, i.e. throughout the 11th and 12th centuries even. As far as the 'blatant' Anglo-Saxon, anti-British, anti-Norman agenda, we should be rather past this entirely superficial reading of the ASC by now. Also, the end of the world stuff is complete rubbish, and, in particular when compared with, say, the ASC poems, not worth mentioning. Nonetheless, it's a complicated text, and hovers on awkward borders between fish and foul... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutefish (talk • contribs) 2 February 2005; marked unsigned 23:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Caligula A.15
I'm in the middle of moving the discursive comments in the footnotes to a separate notes section; this is now fairly common practice in FAs but back when I wrote this article I didn't know how to do it. I found something that now baffles me; perhaps Ker will resolve it when we get our hands on a copy. The description of ms. I, Caligula A.15, the Easter Table Chronicle, doesn't seem to be found in Swanton, which is where I sourced it to. Swanton (p.xiv and footnote) does describe that ms, and gives the folios (132-139, a detail worth adding if we keep this), but he doesn't call it [I] and doesn't refer to it as an ms of the ASC. Looking in Google Books I see The Peterborough Chronicle 1070-1154 by Cecily Clark (1958), which includes "The other fragment, called I by Plummer and consisting of bilingual notes in the margin of an Easter Table,5 is ... Caligula A xv, f. 132*". When I go to the book itself Google won't show me that quote, but it seems clear that (a) it's a fragment and should be described as such, and (b) we need to cite someone other than Swanton to refer to it as [I]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK--I got Ker now. It is a GOLDMINE. I'll add what Ker has (right now I'm looking at MS A/A2/G). Drmies (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've added what Ker gave me to Caligula. What would be fun is to write the articles for all those manuscripts; there's more juicy detail, and a wikilink to those articles would be great. I have the book for another couple of weeks, and it's only a couple of manuscripts. I see now that I don't think I addressed all your comments (above) and I'm home--the book is at the office, so maybe tomorrow I'll have another look and see what I can do. BTW, what I do remember is that Ker's index, for ASC, says "See History and chronicles" or some such thing. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure either if it explicitly says "ASC" in that entry. I'll check tomorrow, and I'll also double-check the folio numbers: I see now that Swanton's numbers are a bit different. I wonder what Gneuss has; that book should be coming in next week. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

 * A Winchester (or Parker) Chronicle, Corpus Christ 173--Ker 39 art. 1
 * B Abingdon Chronicle I, Cotton Tiberius A. vi--Ker 188 art. 1
 * C Abingdon Chronicle II, Cotton Tiberius B. i--Ker 191 art. 4
 * D Worcester Chronicle, Cotton Tiberius B. iv--Ker 192
 * E Peterborough (or Laud) Chronicle, Bodleian Laud misc. 636--Ker 346
 * F Bilingual Canterbury Epitome, Cotton Domitian viii--Ker 148
 * G or A2 or W A copy of the Winchester Chronicle, Cotton Otho B. xi+Otho B. x, 2--Ker 180 art. 3
 * H Cottonian Fragment, Cotton Domitian ix--Ker 150
 * I An Easter Table Chronicle, Cotton Caligula A. xv--Ker 139A art. r

Mike, I hope it's OK with you if I do the MS designations per Ker. Those are only minor tweaks anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

History of editions
Re-reading the history of editions section I suspect this is very much shorter than it should be. I also don't like the way the Earle and Plummer editions are cited to themselves; if these are important editions, someone (perhaps Ker) will say so. I have just ordered a copy of a 1927 reprint of Plummer which may have something citable about Earle, but I don't have any good sources for the general history of scholarly editions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * there is a long discussion in on pages 276-277, but he doesn't discuss editions. Grandsen in Historical Writing in England c 550 to 1307 has some more but again, it's not necessarily on the editions. Graves A Bibliography of English History to 1485 will give you the various editions up until his publication date in 1975, but he's not always great about annotating the entries with what you're looking for. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is partly visible in Google Books, but the part I can see (p. 276) does look as though it's more of a general introduction to the texts and not a discussion of the editions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Graves says of the various editions he lists "The best edition is Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. by Charles Plummer on the basis of an edition (Oxf. 1865) by John Earle. 2 vol. Oxf. 1899; Reprinted with a note on the commencement of the year and a bibliographical note by Dorothy Whitelock, 1952.". (Graves, p. 285). He says of Thorpe's edition "neither the text nor the translation is deemed entirely satisfactory." Graves also states "Among other translations, that by George N. Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Everyman's Library, 1953; 2nd ed 1955), can be especially recommended.". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that should be handy. There's a fair amount in Whitelock's EHD, which I think perhaps I didn't have when I wrote this article; she lists the then-current scholarly editions.  I'll start adding some material from EHD to the article when I'm through with the bibliographic notes from Drmies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some of the editions mentioned by Whitelock; I don't particularly like the resulting format, though. It would probably work better in a table.  I'll see if I can find a way to bring it up to date with more recent editions and then might try a tabular layout.  Whitelock also lists numerous articles on aspects of the ASC, such as chronology; I don't think we can list them but they would be good sources for further expansion of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll peruse JSTOR when I have a moment, later today (I'm about to run off and teach "The Metamorphosis" and "Barn Burning"--great fun!). Haven't picked up Ker yet but I will today. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm caught up with answering questions; I don't think I'll do much more from EHD tonight but will try to get some done tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative edition
It seems from references I'm finding that the Boydell and Brewer "Collaborative Editions" are likely to be the current scholarly editions of choice. Swanton mentions a couple. Here's a listing in bibliographic format; this is mostly drawn from second hand book listings so I don't feel I can add it to the article, but if/when we find references to these editions we can move them to the article. Per this page the list below appears to be complete, despite the odd numbering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)



Qs for Mike
Mike et al., got a few questions for you. Some of my comments are probably easily addressed, but I don't want to butt in and start editing right away.
 * Thanks -- I will try to start looking at these tonight but it may be a day or two. Please jump in and edit if you see improvements; and the same goes for Ed -- I don't have any desire to treat this as "my" article.  I really appreciate the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Surviving manuscripts
Drmies (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "and none of them is the original version"--how can there be the idea of one single original when the project consisted, from the start, of multiple annals? If the phrase refers to the one version from which the copies were made that were distributed and then updated locally, there needs to be a tweaking of some sort. Besides, would that one original be sent out? Wouldn't it be kept in a royal archive of sorts? And (I'm not an expert on this matter, or on this geography: I can't tell one place in England from another, because of the rain) is there any one of the nine that is closest to that archive?
 * The sources do use the word "original", and there seems to be a definite assumption that there was one original copy from which all copies descend. For example, Abels (p. 15) says "even A is at least twice removed from the original text of the Chronicle".  I will see if I can find a source that discusses this explicitly, but I imagine the sequence as follows: Alfred instructs the monks to prepare the Chronicle, and they write the "original"; he also wants it disseminated, so he has it copied, and those copies are distributed to monasteries throughout England.  As other monasteries want copies, or as copies are destroyed, fresh copies get made; hence there is a family tree of recensions. What do you think needs to be changed in the text to clarify this (assuming I can source any additional explanation)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike, it's this in the lead that prompted my remark: "The annals were initially created late in the 9th century, probably in Wessex, during the reign of Alfred the Great. Multiple manuscript copies were made..." "The annals", the plural, means "a chronological record" (American Heritage), singular. This is of course correct, but I think for lay readers it would be helpful to say that the Chronicle started with, as you say, one version, copies of which were subsequently sent out. In other words, clarifying that "annals" here refers to (probably) one original MS would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just got my wife to read the first two sentences and she did not really "get" that the ASC is a unitary manuscript; it seemed to her possible that it could have been a set of unrelated annals in different manuscripts. So I think you're right that this needs clarification.  How about: "The first manuscript of the Chronicle was created late in the 9th century ..." for that second sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think your wife is a wonderful person, for putting up with you and agreeing with me. But "first"--"original" has a nice touch to it, and you said the sources use it (I don't have Swanton here, for instance), so maybe "original" is a good term to use. If I remember correctly (from a decade ago) it's justified given how it started as a project, so I have no objection to that word if the sources bear it out. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. My wife is indeed wonderful; though in return for putting up with my Wikipedia activities she does get to live in close quarters with a very fine moustache. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Only Peterborough is linked in the text in the second main section. Why aren't the other three with articles? Seems easy to link them all in that table.
 * Never mind--there aren't any more articles; I changed the somewhat misleading piped links (three in a row) in Peterborough Chronicle to redlinks.
 * 1) "The Parker Chronicle or The Winchester Chronicle": mentioned in reverse order in the table.
 * I switched the table to have "Winchester" first, following Swanton; I don't have any other reason to pick one first, so that could change if it turns out Parker is more common elsewhere. Though I think most sources just use the letters these days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "The Laud Chronicle or The Peterborough Chronicle", in the table: if "Laud" has precedence, why is our article called Peterborough? If Laud does not have precedence, why list it first? For this and the previous question, if, for instance, Laud is secondary and Parker is now more secondary (I don't know if it is or not--you do), perhaps do the alternate name parenthetically in the table, for clarity's sake. I don't know if it makes a huge difference, but that "or" in between those italicized names, I don't find that pretty.
 * "Peterborough" does seem to be more standard than "Laud"; Swanton says it's "occasionally" called the Laud Chronicle, so I think that's safe to switch. As for the "or", I've removed it, but now I think the repeated "The" looks ugly without the "or".  I'm tempted to remove the "The"s as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See the Dutch translation offered for nitpick. ;) I agree and think that "the" can go. I see two other options: "Winchester Chronicle (or Parker Chronicle)" and "Winchester (or Parker) Chronicle". Sorry to be so, well, ant-fucky. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah. I bet I can out-nitpick you six days out of seven.  I've removed the "the"s, but now we have "(or Laud)" in the middle of the Peterborough Chronicle blue link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see--but I personally don't have any esthetic objections to that. I don't know if it's an FA issue, but I'd say leave it be. BTW, thanks for making those edits. I do like the cell contents a lot better and in a table shorter is always better. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "One is in Old English with a translation of each annal into Latin." Which one? Or make this information available in the table; that strikes me as a useful and elegant solution.
 * I specified which it was in the paragraph rather than the table; there's not much spare white space in the table and I think it's OK to have that in narrative form -- there are other similar descriptive comments in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thorpe and other links
I removed some of the links in the EL section--I thought that as a reviewer that was within my scope. ;) (Tony Jebson has a fantastic house, but his e-edition is not authoritative, AFAIK--he's not a trained Anglo-Saxonist, for instance.) Anyway, I don't see Thorpe linked anywhere, and the edition and translation are available online, full-text. (One could add them to the EL section--but I would link him in the notes, because I would cite him--read on). In fact, he's not cited at all in the article. Certainly (but again, I'm no expert) Thorpe should be cited in the "Surviving MS" section, though I have nothing against Swanton--it's just that I'm not sure if there were issues, disputes, things that were cleared up by the time Swanton came around that may be noteworthy, etc. After all, if Thorpe comes up with the info in the tables in 1861 and by Swanton's time his findings still stand, then that is noteworthy in its own right. I don't know if Thorpe was ever challenged or not--but it's hard to imagine that any topic in A-S scholarship goes unchallenged for a century and a half. This may also fit into the "History of editions and availability" section, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to expand the coverage of historical editions and the history of the scholarship; I think that's definitely a weak area. I don't have any sources, though.  I'm going to skip doing anything about this right now, and go on with the other comments below, since I think ELs can be done last, but I agree a link to the Thorpe edition seems valuable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ker cites only "Thorpe", not "eds." or "trans." or some such thing. I assume he's referring to the "editions" part, but since I am not sure I'm not going to add the URL in the template--I am not sure which one to add, and they are not numbered consecutively. Perhaps the EL section is the best place after all. We certainly need to add those links to Benjamin Thorpe. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Map
Can we tweak the map? First of all, my eyes are getting old and the font is small. Second, it's easier to reference things if the place names and the MS names (discussed next to the map) are both represented on the map. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but before I do this let's agree what should be on the map. Here are my suggestions:
 * The map doesn't need the rivers -- it can be a straightforward outline map of southeast England.
 * The place names listed are all useful. Are there any that could be added?
 * Font size should be increased.
 * I'll add manuscript names after places as follows: Winchester [A]; Abingdon [B], [C]; Worcester [D]; Peterborough [E]; Canterbury [F].
 * If there are no other changes in a few days I'll drop a request at User talk:Kmusser. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rivers should go, definitely. I can't think of any other place names, but that doesn't mean much. Ealdgyth? And how about adding boundaries for Kent, Wessex, and Sussex? Esp. Wessex comes up a couple of times in the text. There are two maps at Heptarchy, one with actual lines for the boundaries, but even without lines adding the names would be helpful. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not there was a fairly big ruckus three years ago on the question of whether maps of Anglo-Saxon England should show boundaries. Start here if you want to read the details.  The outcome was that maps without boundaries are to be preferred, though it was not a unanimous consensus.  I'd suggest adding Kent, Wessex, South Saxons, East Saxons, and East Anglia; all are mentioned in the article.  I'd rather not use "Sussex" and "Essex" as those have modern meanings and there is a fairly standard alternative available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True dat, I should have realized that the first time. I got The Anglo-Saxon Age: A Very Short Introduction in this week, and the map is, well, a mess. It would have changed every decade or so anyway. I am just fine with your suggestions. (Sorry, I see now that this comes a full week after your response.) Drmies (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographical database
Mike, Ealdgyth, are you familiar with the Old English Newsletter? (Needs an article, by the way.) The greatest thing about it is this--sign up and look at it, and you'll see why. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was always a Anglo-Normanist ... so I will admit that the AS period isn't greatly known by me... went ahead and signed up.. bibliographies are always good. (I had a professor in college who paraphrased that military aphorism for historians "Amateurs read journal articles, professionals read bibliographies."...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm with the pig herds in Ivanhoe. Ha! Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have begun Old English Newsletter. Moonraker (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two removes
I just added a paragraph to the relationships section giving the argument as to why none of the surviving manuscripts are closer than two removes from the original. I'm paraphrasing from Whitelock; she doesn't spell it out as clearly as I've tried to do so let me know if I haven't made it clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That new section is helpful, I think. I have a few questions, though, about the preceding. [E] is derived from the Kentish chronicle, but Peterborough Chronicle says nothing about its relation to a Northern version, which is what our graph has. (That's a comment on that article, perhaps--I note it's not yours, and Ealdgyth made only a small edit to it.) But for [F], our text says it derives from Canterbury, the same (partial) source for [E] (I assume that Canterbury version=Kentish version). Moreover, the Peterborough article says that [E] is derived from [A]. Bottom line: does [E] derive from [A] (for a first part, as in the Peterborough article), from the Kentish version (as in "Relationships"), or from the Northern version (as in the graph and the "Relationships" section for [D])? The section in "History of the manuscripts" on [E] could do with that clarification also. One other thing: a brief entry in that section for [A] would be helpful, I think. It's getting late, and I hope I read the various sections and articles and graphs correctly... Drmies (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whitelock says explicitly that [E] is northern up to mid-11th century. It seems that the sequence is something like this:
 * Manuscript [X] arrives at Canterbury in about 1043, with contents indicating it is a northern version.
 * [X] is updated at Canterbury for a while
 * [X] is used as a basis for copying [F]; that scribe also inserted some of [X]'s readings into [A]
 * [X] either went to Peterborough and is [E], or went to Peterborough and was copied to create [E]
 * I'll add something from EHD on this, probably tomorrow -- I have a bit more to add from EHD on several of the mss. Once that's done we may have some reorg to do -- not sure the current section organization is the right way to go any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I pulled out EHD to add some more, and changed my mind; I'm going to hold off till September. I was looking at the info on B & C and it directly contradicts Swanton, who cites Taylor's recent Collaborative Edition.  I can get that via interlibrary loan, but not till after August, since I will be in Texas or the UK for much of the next month.  I'm going to put this on hold till then.  I'll see if I can get the other collaborative editions on loan too; I suspect they will be mines of information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the note of manuscripts, I've perused Gneuss. I added one easy reference for [F], but for the other entries there's no need to cite him. Pity--the Handlist cuts off at 1100, so no [E] and [H], and (this may be interesting) he doesn't mention the A-S Chronicle in his entry for [I] (which, he says, is from NE France--I should probably add that, but it's minor). Anyway, for what it's worth, he uses the same letters, though he chooses G over A2. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We may have to cut out [I] if I can't find a better source for that letter; I'm sure it's Plummer but the copy of Plummer I ordered has not yet arrived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation text
I don't really think we need the translation text that's been added a couple of times. It seems more detail than necessary, and it's hard to see why we would pick this specific edition to show the text. Even in an article about one of the specific manuscripts it would seem unnecessary to me, at least as long as there's a link to the text -- these are articles about the mss, and quotes should be included where they are useful to clarify a point, but not otherwise. We do include some quotes, in fact, and I think we have enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, the full translation is unnecessary and inappropriate here, particularly as a full section in the body of the article. What might be an idea, however, would be to extend the illustration caption a little, along the lines of "The initial page of the Peterborough Chronicle, which opens with a brief account of the island of Britain and its first inhabitants", to encourage interested readers to click on the link. GrindtXX (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Title
In the entry: "These manuscripts collectively are known as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle". How did this name came into existence? ~Rgd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.225.164 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lawbookexchange.com/oct02/law-books-oct02-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)