The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is one of the most important artifacts of English history. As a text, it is a remarkable record of events that helps shine a light onto the so-called “Dark Ages.” However, the Chronicle is more than just a record. In many ways, it is more than a mere annal of history. The writing of the Chronicle sheds as much light onto Anglo-Saxon England as the text itself.
So, What Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?
In the 890s CE, a group of scholars in the Kingdom of Wessex were commissioned to write a chronicle of Anglo-Saxon history. It began with a preface on the peoples of Britain and a brief series of events in Roman Britain and Christianity beginning with Caesar’s invasion in 50 BCE. From the mid-fifth century onwards, the focus changes with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons and the development of the disparate kingdoms that would become England. As the years progress, the narrative and entries become more detailed and more reliable as contemporary sources became available.
One of the Chronicle’s most famous entries is from 793. “In this year, fierce, foreboding omens came over the land of Northumbria, and wretchedly terrified the people. There were excessive whirlwinds, lightning storms and fiery dragons were seen flying in the sky…shortly after in the same year, on January 8th, the ravaging of heathen men destroyed God’s church at Lindisfarne through brutal robbery and slaughter.” It is easy to imagine the entry’s author, having witnessed more recent Viking raids into Wessex, drew from his own experiences for this entry. The Vikings had, for better or worse, greatly influenced the early Chronicle.
The original production in Wessex became known as the “Common Stock” of the Chronicle. The Common Stock was copied and distributed to Monasteries and houses of learning across England. It wasn’t the first chronicle written in England, but it was the first commissioned by a secular figure for distribution across the country. The original commissioner was likely a Wessexian noble or a member of Alfred the Great’s court. The extent to which Alfred himself was involved is uncertain. However, given his academic interests and the logistical scale involved, he likely at least knew of its existence and approved of its wider distribution.
Propaganda or Scholarship?
It is easy to assume that the original production of the Chronicle was a propaganda piece intended to promote Alfred’s public image and that of Wessex. However, for a propaganda piece, it is surprisingly light on details about the important highlights of Alfred’s reign. For example, the entry for Alfred’s victory over the Great Heathen Army at the Battle of Edington is notoriously sparse. While other events are more detailed, Alfred is not singled out as being the sole savior of the Anglo-Saxons.
That said, the Common Stock was undoubtedly pro-Wessex. This can be explained by the Common Stock’s origination in Wessex but the language in some of the entries provides a clear indication that Wessex, if not Alfred, had been the most successful Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in defending against the Vikings. For example, the entry for 851 records the battle of Aclea, where Alfred’s father Æthelwulf attacked a Viking army, that the Chronicle notes had earlier routed the Mercian king Beorhtwulf. According to the entry, Æthelwulf “made the greatest slaughter of the heathen army that we have ever heard reported to this present day.”
Rather than the propaganda of Alfred, it might be better to see the Chronicle as an attempt at fostering unity and legitimacy between the Anglo-Saxons. The Chronicle was published soon after Alfred was proclaimed King of all Anglo-Saxons rather than just King of Wessex. Alfred now had effective overlordship of the remaining Anglo-Saxons arrayed against the Vikings and the Danelaw but his rule over previously independent lands would not have been certain.
A text celebrating Anglo-Saxon history and Wessex’s own contribution to it, while not overtly praising Alfred, would have been a reasonable political move. After Alfred and the initial production, the Chronicle was then copied and distributed. This copying and distribution became the next twist in the Chronicle’s tale.
The Chronicle Copies and New Perspectives
What we now call the Chronicle is in fact a collection of nine different copies, six full and three fragmentary, that have survived to the present day. The copies derive from the Common Stock but through additional sources, authors, and new perspectives all display unique details from the other existing copies.
Thanks to these different versions, historians have been able to trace the development of the Chronicle over time. The Common Stock seems to have continued until around 892 CE. Thereafter, scholars across England incorporated new local sources and even their own local chronicles to update the Chronicle and revise previous entries. As the years progressed, more versions with different inclusions were published and different scholars continued to update their versions of the Chronicle to create a fascinating web of historiography and sources over time.
The six full copies, named for their original location and ordered by age, are as follows: [A] the Winchester Chronicle, continued to 977 CE; [B] the Abingdon Chronicle I and [C] Abingdon Chronicle II, continued to 977 and 1066 CE respectively; [D] The Worcester Chronicle continued to 1079; [E] the Peterborough Chronicle, continued to 1153 and [F] the Bilingual Canterbury Epitome, continued to 1058. The three fragments are: [G] the Copy of the Winchester Chronicle, [H] the Cottonian Fragment, and [I] the Easter Table Chronicle. Alongside the Chronicle, are three independent works that used the same sources as the Common Stock. The different copies are referred to as ASC [for Anglo Saxon Chronicle] then whichever letter is assigned to them.
The Copies and Their Continuation
The different copies of the Chronicle create a fascinating tapestry of historiography, different sources, and local perspectives over time. ASC A, the Winchester Chronicle, is only a few copies removed from the Common Stock. It was produced in Alfred’s capital of Winchester and continued until 977 CE keeping to a Wessexian perspective. In the 12th century, it was updated with mostly church-related entries from other chronicles rather than a genuine continuation of the original. As the Chronicle was dispersed, however, more regional versions began to appear with different takes.
ASC B and C, Abingdon I and Abingdon II, were both written in what was the Kingdom of Mercia. Both include revisions and inclusions to the original Chronicle entries from local Mercian sources. They also included the so-called “Mercian Register” a series of entries from 901-924 CE not found in the Common Stock or ASC A. It largely focuses on Æthelflæd, Alfred’s daughter and the last true independent ruler of Mercia after her husband Æthelred died in 911 CE. The register celebrates her life and achievements and those of her daughter Ælfwynn who succeeded her mother briefly in 918 CE before being deposed by her uncle, the King of Wessex.
ASC D, the Worcester Copy, also contains the Mercian Register and other Mercian sources. However, it also drew from a now-lost copy known as the Northern Copy for its addition of entries relevant to the North of England. By at least the 11th century, the Northern Copy was circulating further south as both ASC E and F, the Peterborough Copy and Canterbury Epitome, use details from it. However, both are missing the Mercian Register. Clearly, there was a significant movement and variation in copies of the Chronicle across England.
ASC E also has its own charmingly unique perspective. Written by two chroniclers in Peterborough Abbey to replace a destroyed original copy, it includes the history of Peterborough dating back to the Abbey’s founding in 656 CE. An admirable attempt to raise the prominence of their hometown and a wonderful local source of history!
The Development of the Later Chronicle
As the years passed and the new copies continued, the Chronicle evolved from a singular historical record to a network of historical perspectives and local contemporary commentaries. This also had an impact on its tone and literary style over the years.
The first way this is seen is in the five poems of the Chronicle. All were written from the 10th-11th centuries and are interesting examples of Old English Poetry. The most famous is The Battle of Brunanburh which takes up most of the entry for 937 CE, describing a great victory of King Æthelstan, grandson of Alfred. It is lurid yet well-detailed, describing how “the field was slick with men’s blood from when the burning sun in morning time…sank to its setting.” It is an epic akin to Beowulf, yet composed by Christian scholars for a historical chronicle. A sign perhaps, of the continued warrior culture of the Anglo-Saxons but also of the more narratively indulgent later Chronicle.
Another development is in the more superlative language used by later chroniclers. For example, Edgar, King of England from 959-975 CE is enthusiastically praised in all the chronicle versions. Even his death was the basis for another poem in ASC A and B, while other versions also devoted their 975 entries to his praises. By comparison, Alfred the Great’s death received no such fanfare. This praise likely stems from Edgar’s support of the monastic orders of Britain, the same orders in charge of the Chronicle. Yet it is also due to the individual chroniclers adding their own perspectives and personal narrative styles. The eulogy poem in the two chronicles that finished just after his death could have been the result of a final chronicler wishing praise on their former patron.
This literary style continued through with the later Chronicle copies. ASC D and E write that “Among the English, no worse deed was ever done” than the murder of Edgar’s son, Edward the Martyr in 979 CE. This is another example of the chroniclers indulging in hyperbole. However, it could also be the bitter perspective of later chroniclers identifying this murder as the cause of later calamities during the reign of his brother, Æthelred the Unready, and onward.
The Chronicle’s End
Anglo-Saxon England came to a sudden end with the Norman Conquest of 1066, yet this is not true of the Chronicle. Only two versions (ASC, D, and E) continue past 1066 with any serious commentary and insight on the Norman Conquest and beyond. However, both versions provide a fascinating conclusion to the Chronicle’s story.
ASC D, written only 13 years after the conquest, includes in its entry for 1066 the battle of Hastings and William’s ascension to the throne. “Thereafter” it continues, “Things were very bad.” The Chronicle relates the looting and pillaging of monasteries and settlements by the Normans and further destruction before ending with the line: “May the end be swift if God wills it!” It is hard to imagine a more devastating report on the year 1066 or a way of ending this copy of the Chronicle. The context of ASC D coming from the Northern Copy adds further emphasis to these entries, as the North was hit particularly hard by the Normans.
This was a very poignant end to ASC D but it was not the end of the Chronicle itself. ASC E was compiled in the 12th century and many of its entries on the years after 1066 come from now lost copies that were continued post-conquest. So the Normans did not wholly destroy the Chronicle and it continued to hold prestige.
The entry for 1087 comments on William’s death with some surprising respect. Though a hard ruler, the entry notes that “A man of any account might fare over the kingdom with his bosom full of gold and not be molested.” ASC E continued well into the 12th century, providing a unique English, rather than Norman, perspective on the period, including the infamous reign of King Stephen. It also provides a wonderful insight into the development of English itself, as the language of the Chronicle shifted gradually from Old to Middle English.
Eventually, however, this final copy of the Chronicle was discontinued. It was no longer deemed necessary to continue the story of the Anglo-Saxons in their language. Yet, copies of the Chronicle were preserved in monasteries across the country, surviving hundreds of years until today.
