User talk:Maximilianshepherd

'Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

•	The function of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle The Anglo Saxon Chronicle was not written by historians and according to Gervase of Canterbury who was writing in the 12th century, the chronicle was not intended as a piece of historical writing. Gervase, clearly maps out the differences between the writings of historians and chroniclers. He states that chroniclers pay no attention to causation or outcomes and merely records facts and maintains objectivity whereas the historian embellishes his writings with personalities, description and analysis. Although the chronicle attempts to remain objective, it is arguably impossible to maintain this and as Cecily Clark (1971) correctly pointed out, personality is bound to slip in. The objective idea behind chronicle writing and the fact it is difficult to maintain is not too dissimilar from Lord Acton’s Whig view of history. Both Lord Acton and medieval chroniclers aimed to be objective in order to provide unquestionable histories and like Acton’s Cambridge History, there is no acknowledgment of where information was gained and thus everything in both accounts is presented as absolute fact which does not make for a reliable source. On the other hand, the idea behind chronicle writing also fits in to other schools of history (i.e. the search for objectivity is also a feature of Marxism). Moreover, as Gervase points out, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle was not written as a piece of historical writing and so it could be further argued that we should not bother to place it in a historiographical context. Going one step further, some would argue that the Chronicle fits better if seen as a piece of literature rather than history.

•	Interpretation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle In his 1949 work Literature of the Anglo-Saxons, George Anderson claimed that ‘the whole study of this work bristles with academic hazards’. Anderson makes a valid point as many historians have disagreed over their interpretation of the chronicle given its simplistic nature which arguably leaves a lot to interpretation. Anderson also claims the chronicle is ‘genuine’, a claim with which many would not agree, as every piece of writing is arguably motivated by something and has an agenda. He also goes on to describe the work as having an ‘authentic flavour that only the writings of a bystander could impart’. This however has been disputed as the chronicle was written and copied by monks rather than the eye witness themselves. It has also been pointed out that the chronicle tends to focus on the history of ‘great men’ and individuals rather than ordinary Anglo-Saxon bystanders and so Anderson’s claim cannot be entirely correct. The disagreements between historians over their interpretations of the chronicle is evident from Charles Beard’s 1906 critique of Thomas Hodgkin’s idea that the chronicle tells us that ‘witans’ were influential in electing a king and that successions were smooth and purely elective. Beard suggests that the chronicle is misleading and Hodgkin may have been lead astray by the use of the word ‘chosen’ to describe how King Cnut came to the throne. Beard suggests this word and the whole chronicle for that matter is misleading and leads to wrong interpretations as held by historians such as Hodgkin. In her 1997 book, The Memory of 1066 in Written and Oral Traditions, Elisabeth Van Houts claims that Janet Coleman attributes the detached, objective nature of the chronicle to the fact that the Benedictine monks who were responsible for writing the chronicle were brain-washed into forgetting their family and loved ones and so never thought the mention ordinary individuals in their writings. However, Van Houts goes on to disagree with Coleman and claims that their sombre writing was due to the deep sorrow over losing the Battle of Hastings. Although it can be agreed that the chronicle is pro-English and patriotic to some extent (maybe even the fact it is written in English is evidence of this), the idea that the monk were hindered by ‘gloom’ seems a slight exaggeration as the English were used to having foreign kings and actually adapted to having a French king. Van Houts uses a range of continental sources for her work and claims that this is due to the lack of English sources regarding the Conquest as a result of the deep sorrow the English felt after 1066. However, it can be argued that the only way to learn about the reaction of the English to the conquest is to address English sources rather than outside sources. Style and form of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

•	Simplistic language of the Chronicle

The simplistic language of the chronicle is intended to make it seem void of opinion and adhere to Gervase’s description of annalist writing rather than historical writing. The lagnauge of the chronicle has often been described as semi-formulaic which lacks a wide range of vocabulary and is virtually void of description. This in itself however, gives insight into the chronicle and makes it interesting as it is clearly different to other texts of the time and thus the simplicity of the language is actually a tool to understanding medieval society. The extreme objectivity that the chronicle aims towards supports the widely held view that the chronicle was written during the reign of (if not in parts by the hand of) King Alfred during the 9th century. This was in order to reform and rebuild England after a series of Viking raids. Throughout history, the desire to return to simplicity and get ‘back to basics’ has often been the result of a period of unrest and corruption as is seen through examples such as the Counter Reformation during the early modern period and even the Marxist desire to focus on structures and thus a purer history than that of the Whig history of great men. Therefore it could be argued that the simplistic language of the chronicle reveals a reason for its production and despite the simplicity of the text, the language gives us insight as to its desired function and he social and political context of Britain at the time. •	The evolution of style throughout the chronicle

Although the chronicle remains relatively simplistic until the last entry, there are shifting styles throughout the chronicle as a result of the changing authors. For example, from the 891 entry onwards, the style is more detailed and syntax begins to differ. Syntax begins to change after the 9th century entries in general. For example, phrases such as ‘thanks be to God’ start to appear which not only reflect a change of syntax but also reflect changing attitudes of chronicle writing as the chronicler begins to interpret events and reflect his own opinions in his writing. Thus the chronicle appears to become more like a piece of historical writing. The chronicle also begins to jump chronology and ties themes together just as the historian does. For example, the 1011 entry closes with reference to the Bishop of Wichester Elfeah’s martyrdom the following year. Then again, as Cecily Clark points out, these changes in style are all relative and the chronicle never resembles a coherently written history but does however, become more complex and begins to let glimmers of thought and opinion filter through. Although historians such as Anderson describes the chronicle as ‘local, miscellaneous and inconsistent’ and some would argue that the increasing level of personal reaction makes the entries less factual and objective and thus less reliable, this does not hinder the usefulness of the source. Although it restricts the chronicle as a reference to what actually happened, the personal views of the chroniclers actually give us more insight into contemporary views and reactions and some would argue actual improves the usefulness of the source. Although the language becomes more varied throughout the chronicle, there are still some entries which are hard to interpret given the nature of the source. For example, the consistent use of ‘they’ to refer to both Cynewulf and Cynehead in the 755 entry is confusing as reflects the oral origins of the chronicle. The detailed distinctions between the two have been lost and were also clearly unknown to the monk who wrote down this particular entry. The increased use of the chronicler’s opinion also helps us to see that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is clearly a pro-English source and the patriotism is clear to see from various entries, particularly those surrounding the Norman Conquest. The varying interpretations of the various chroniclers also give us insight into the social and political context of the time. For example, the varying entries of the ‘Eustace-Godwin clash’ shows how party allegiance influenced the anal writings as Chronicle E portrays Godwin as a victim whereas D clearly blames his arrogance for his banishment.

Your contributed article, Historiography and Style of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Historiography and Style of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Hairhorn (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
Geographical Issues:

The origins of the nine surviving chronicles are largely confined to the South East providing only a limited perspective into the experiences of wider Anglo-Saxon England. They are based in what Matthew Innes calls;

‘[...] the political heartland of the kingdom of England, the core area in which kings were normally resident and from which they governed.' p70.

He also raises the issue that the chronicle

‘[...] usually use[s] traditional political labels based on pre-Viking political geography [...]’ p78. For example the names of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms like Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria are still used at a time when the alteration of these areas by Viking raiders and settlers is arguably rendering them incomparable to their old identity, an old identity still visualised by West Saxons. Taking into consideration Innes further point that ‘[...] we are more or less reliant on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which gives us the perspective from the West Saxon court.’ p78.

it is plausible to claim that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle may have been somewhat out of date, concerned with the retrospective, linguistically old and geographically detached from the eye of the storm, the part of England undergoing the most significant transformation of the period it was chronicling.

Unintentional Human Error:

It was commonplace, perhaps even something of a tradition to copy or borrow from other texts at this time. This can cause problems for a historian however, inadvertently passing on the inaccuracies of earlier works and perhaps even depicting the false pretence that works are in agreement with one another. Numerous dating errors have been discovered as the chronicle has been studied over time. These include issues such as differing opinions on the official date of the start of the calendar year some placing it at Christmas, others on the 25th of March or even as late as September, and even things like missing a year entirely.

Style Issues:

Entries are extremely variant in reliability. The predictably more detailed nature of contemporary logs perhaps require a different, altogether more rigorous type of analysis. Relatively recent past events should likewise be subjected to thorough scrutiny when it is considered that some annalists may be inclined to write the past differently when they have the benefit of foresight, choosing to present beliefs over time rather than beliefs of the time. The annal for 1067 in chronicle [D] for example contains a poem on Queen Margaret that alludes to the events that follow in 1070. In places the chronicles is highly functional, endeavouring only to write accurate and factual history accessible to all. However, for modern historians, the lack of a chief concern or aim is an aspect that which only serves to make the source more difficult to use and to analyse. Given the rather succinct style of chronicling it frequently falls upon the historian to interpret what is absent rather than what is present. Usually, this is done through comparison with the other chronicles but given that there are few, solid conclusions are not always attainable. Below Ann Williams comments on the issue, who has struggled in her attempts to glean information on the murder of Sigerferth and Morcar

‘[...] it is difficult to discern exactly what lies behind the brief account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.’ p5.

There is of course, also the very obvious point that the chronicle completely overlooks virtually any social groups that are not elites and royalty, a ruthlessly top down view. Gervase himself said that a good chronicler

‘[...] briefly sets forth the actions of kings and princes [...] and mentions also events, portents and miracles.’ pxviii.

Motives, aims and intentions:

The strong political focus of the chronicles can also be problematic. Stephen Baxter has contrasted chronicles [C] and [E] in particular which are most notably opposed in their accounts of events like the outlawing of Earl AElfgar and the Northumbrian Rebellion. He convincingly shows how [C] represents Mercian interests and derides Wessex wherever possible, the same being true of [E] but in reverse. This not only reveals an important connection between the annalist clergymen and the Anglo-Saxon nobility but also justifies the assumption that much of their writing may have been fuelled by political rivalries. In the context of this politically fragmented Kingdom, annalists with different motives seem habitually predisposed to transpire the details of most 11th and 12th century events in such a way that distorts fact and fiction. This seemingly unremitting focus on the decentralised politics of Anglo-Saxon England also raises questions about just how relevant the source can be deemed to more specific areas of study and places limitations on its use. The chronicle can be both stylistically brief and purposefully brief. Selectivity and the active choice of inclusion and exclusion is recurring throughout. This can be seen in frustratingly ambiguous lines such as ‘Hakon died at sea’ p9 (Ann Williams).

In 1116 a fire in Peterborough conspicuously destroyed the majority of written documents in the monastery. Alice Sheppard has noted that here the annalist takes advantage of his opportunity

‘[...] to strengthen its present position and future potential through recreating the records of its past.’ p149.

Here a clear motive for stretching the truth is expressed by Sheppard as she writes

‘[...] even if the physical literal presence of the monastery is destroyed [...] its communal identity and cultural importance survive in its texts.’ p151. Consequently, she dubs the chronicle a ‘cultural force’ as much as a historical source through its crucial interest to preserve the history of monastic institutions.

Reliability of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
Geographical Issues:

The origins of the nine surviving chronicles are largely confined to the South East providing only a limited perspective into the experiences of wider Anglo-Saxon England. For example the names of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms like Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria are still used at a time when the alteration of these areas by Viking raiders and settlers is arguably rendering them incomparable to their old identity, an old identity still visualised by West Saxons. It is plausible to claim that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle may have been somewhat out of date, concerned with the retrospective, linguistically old and geographically detached from the eye of the storm, the part of England undergoing the most significant transformation of the period it was chronicling.

Unintentional Human Error:

It was commonplace, perhaps even something of a tradition to copy or borrow from other texts at this time. This can cause problems for a historian however, inadvertently passing on the inaccuracies of earlier works and perhaps even depicting the false pretence that works are in agreement with one another. Numerous dating errors have been discovered as the chronicle has been studied over time. These include issues such as differing opinions on the official date of the start of the calendar year some placing it at Christmas, others on the 25th of March or even as late as September, and even things like missing a year entirely.

Style Issues:

Entries are extremely variant in reliability. The predictably more detailed nature of contemporary logs perhaps require a different, altogether more rigorous type of analysis. Relatively recent past events should likewise be subjected to thorough scrutiny when it is considered that some annalists may be inclined to write the past differently when they have the benefit of foresight, choosing to present beliefs over time rather than beliefs of the time. The annal for 1067 in chronicle [D] for example contains a poem on Queen Margaret that alludes to the events that follow in 1070. In places the chronicles is highly functional, endeavouring only to write accurate and factual history accessible to all. However, for modern historians, the lack of a chief concern or aim is an aspect that which only serves to make the source more difficult to use and to analyse. Given the rather succinct style of chronicling it frequently falls upon the historian to interpret what is absent rather than what is present. Usually, this is done through comparison with the other chronicles but given that there are few, solid conclusions are not always attainable. There is of course, also the very obvious point that the chronicle completely overlooks virtually any social groups that are not elites and royalty, a ruthlessly top down view.

Motives, aims and intentions:

The strong political focus of the chronicles can also be problematic. Stephen Baxter has contrasted chronicles [C] and [E] in particular which are most notably opposed in their accounts of events like the outlawing of Earl AElfgar and the Northumbrian Rebellion. He convincingly shows how [C] represents Mercian interests and derides Wessex wherever possible, the same being true of [E] but in reverse. This not only reveals an important connection between the annalist clergymen and the Anglo-Saxon nobility but also justifies the assumption that much of their writing may have been fuelled by political rivalries. In the context of this politically fragmented Kingdom, annalists with different motives seem habitually predisposed to transpire the details of most 11th and 12th century events in such a way that distorts fact and fiction. This seemingly unremitting focus on the decentralised politics of Anglo-Saxon England also raises questions about just how relevant the source can be deemed to more specific areas of study and places limitations on its use. The chronicle can be both stylistically brief and purposefully brief. Selectivity and the active choice of inclusion and exclusion is recurring throughout.