The Peterborough Chronicle, Volume 1: Introduction and Text

By Bernard J. Muir

The book consists of three parts: I. Introduction, including the history of research, detailed paleographical and codicological analysis, and discussion of the other Anglo-Saxon Chronicle manuscripts, and their textual relations; II. The Critical Edition, presenting the text in its immediate seventeenth-century manuscript context, with notes; III. The Modern English Translation, including detailed historical and philological notes. A bibliography, indexes and extensive comparanda complete the book. This edition, translation and commentary greatly enhance the accessibility and research potential of one of the most important primary sources for the history, language and culture of Anglo-Saxon England.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Release date: Dec 6, 2022
• ISBN: 9781839987007

Book preview

The Peterborough Chronicle, Volume 1

The Peterborough Chronicle

Oxford, Bodl. MS Laud misc. 636

ASC witness E

A critical edition in its seventeenth-century

manuscript context

edited by

Bernard J Muir

and

Nicholas A Sparks

Volume 1

Introduction and Text

© 2022

Anthem Press

An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company

www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2022

by ANTHEM PRESS

75–76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK

or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK

and

244 Madison Ave #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

© 2022 Bernard J. Muir and Nicholas A. Sparks editorial matter and selection; individual chapters © individual contributors

The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022943265

A catalog record for this book has been requested.

ISBN-13: 978-1-83998-6-994 (Hbk)

ISBN-10: 1-83998-6-999 (Hbk)

Cover image: Oxford, Bodl. MS Laud misc. 636, f. 1r (detail)

This title is also available as an e-book.

Foreword

This is the first edition of the Peterborough Chronicle (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 636) to provide an annotated critical edition of the text accompanied by a translation with a full historical commentary, together with a codicological analysis of the manuscript in its seventeenth-century post-Dissolution context. It also includes detailed paleographical observations on the state of the text, much as Muir’s earlier edition of The Exeter Anthology (Exeter, D&C MS 3501, ff. 8-130) did. William L'Isle took the manuscript apart while it was in his possession and interleaved the original parchment leaves with larger modern watermarked paper ones on which he transcribed passages from Chronicle witness A (and sometimes G) that supplied details wanting in the annals of the present manuscript, effectively working towards making a rudimentary critical edition; he added further transcriptions on the scholar's papers bound now at the end of the manuscript. Earlier, Archbishop Matthew Parker (or someone in his immediate circle) had gone through the manuscript and underlined names and events of particular interest to him in tell-tale red chalk; these passages usually pertain to ecclesiastical and episcopal matters. Both L'Isle and Parker did not hesitate to write directly on the manuscript itself, a common practice in the early modern period. Other hands, late medieval and early modern, have also added comments and annotations to the codex, some of which cannot be attributed to a particular person; all of them are discussed in the Introduction.

The assumption of the present editors is that readers interested in investigating the codicological and paleographical analysis of the manuscript will access the images on the Bodleian Library website; these were made specifically for this project with the financial support of the Australian Research Council. The data presented in the textual analysis will be of particular interest to those wanting to investigate practices of scribes when copying and correcting the text. Consequently, the textual notes refer to the manuscript throughout so that readings referred to can be easily located in the high-resolution digital scans. The earlier monochrome facsimile edition by Whitelock (1954) reproduced only the manuscript itself and not L'Isle's annotations, unless they were written on the manuscript itself, so that the lines and other cross-references L'Isle drew connecting his transcriptions to the manuscript proper were enigmatic for those unfamiliar with his interventions in the codex. The scans made by the Bodleian for this project included the annotations on the interleaves, but sadly these have not been reproduced on its website; consequently, scholars and students still have no remote access to this material at a time when there is considerable interest in the development of Anglo-Saxon studies in the early modern period. Schematic diagrams included in this edition clearly demonstrate the present structure of the manuscript.

The Text and Translation in this edition differ at times in their presentation, reflecting the difference between Old and Modern English and contemporary reading practices and expectations. Extremely long annals in Old and early Middle English have been subdivided at times to make them easier to follow; these subdivisions usually reflect the episodic nature of individual annals.

Every effort has been made to give credit in the commentary to earlier editions, translations and studies. The invaluable work of Earle and Plummer (subsequently updated by Whitelock) has provided a firm foundation for all subsequent studies of witnesses A and E and of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle generally.

Acknowledgements

BJM would like to thank and acknowledge the following: Graeme Smith for processing the Tiffs and guiding me in my development of the digital edition as originally planned; he played the Mac keyboard like a Steinway! June Gassin, who has always supported my innovative digital research and who continues to offer me encouragement; John Stinson, who has been involved in the binding and presentation of personal copies of this edition for me; my friend and colleague Andrew Turner with whom I have worked closely on a number of projects during the past 25 years; and Abby Robinson, who has been involved in this and a number of my other projects. Miranda Fyfield provided guidance in formatting the complex index of personal names, a very specialised skill dealing with 16 Roberts, 7 Rogers, 22 Williams and more Æthel-s than anyone has the right to ask an indexer to cope with!

I have also to thank The Australian Research Council, which has underwritten so many of my research projects over the past three decades.

The following libraries have reproduced images for us and granted permission to publish them: The Bodleian Library (Oxford), British Library (London), Corpus Christi College (Cambridge), Cambridge University Library, The Society of Antiquaries (London), and Rochester Cathedral Library.

My contribution to this edition is dedicated to my dear friend Graeme Smith, now deceased, who made so many of my digital publications possible and who is so deeply missed.

… … …

NAS would like to thank and acknowledge the following: above all, Bernard J. Muir, my former supervisor, now colleague and co-editor, who first sparked my interest in the language, literature and culture of the Anglo-Saxons and whose encouragement to start writing again for this project came at a crucial moment.

I must thank next my doctoral supervisor, Professor Simon D. Keynes, whose encyclopedic knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history had a profound and lasting influence on my own work.

The Institute of English Studies - School of Advanced Study, London, for granting me a Visiting Research Fellowship during the years 2011 to 2013, which made research for this project possible and enabled me to consult manuscripts in libraries in London, Oxford and Cambridge. Special thanks are due to Professors Michelle Brown, Jane Roberts, and Mr Ian Willison, who provided encouragement, advice and support throughout the fellowship and beyond.

The Medieval and Early Modern Centre, the School of Literature, Art, and Media, at the University of Sydney, where I have been an Honorary Associate from 2013 to the present. I would like to acknowledge the support of successive directors Professors Liam Semler, Jonathan Wooding, Daniel Anlezark, and Dr John Gagne.

The custodians of various libraries and manuscript collections deserve special thanks for their assistance. Particularly I would mention Dr Karen Attar and Mr Mike Mulcay in the Senate House Library, The University of London; Mr Julian Harrison, Curator of Pre-1600 Historical Manuscripts in the British Library; Dr Bruce C. Barker-Benfield, former senior assistant librarian in the Department of Special Collections and Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library; Dr Suzanne Paul and

Ms Gill Cannell, former Sub Librarians in the Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

My good friend, Dr Tadashi Kotake, whose courtesy, advice and enduring interest in this project and others have been greatly appreciated.

My beloved wife, Laura Sparks, has been a constant source of encouragement and patient support. Her suggestions and good sense are always of value. My kids, Harry and Lucy, made no small contribution to my world for the better.

My contribution to this edition is dedicated to my family.

The Peterborough Chronicle Witness E : Contents

VOLUME 1

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Contents

Introduction

Abbreviated References

Text

Bibliography

Gathering Key and Analysis

Earlier Catalogue Descriptions

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Origin and Provenance of E ¹

The Peterborough Chronicle, formally known as Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud misc. 636, is a major witness to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and is identified in critical literature by the siglum E; it is one of the most important historical documents for the early history of England. It was compiled at Peterborough in three stages during the period 1121-55 – this attribution is made because of its inclusion throughout of charters, entitlements and other matter of purely local significance relating specifically to that monastery. The Peterborough origin is further confirmed by the manuscript's handwriting: the hand of the first scribe ('Scribe 1') closely resembles that of London, BL MS Harl. 3667 (see folios 1r, f. 1v, and f. 3r) and BL MS Cotton Tib. C.i (ff. 2-42; see f. 3r, f. 3v, and f. 13v) – both of these were once parts of the same larger manuscript.² Bishop 1949 (p. 440) drew attention to the resemblance between the hand of the scribe ('Scribe 2') of the Final Continuation and a hand found in two other Peterborough manuscripts, CCCC MS 134 (the Carolingian Benedictine Berengaudus of Ferrières' treatise On the Apocalypse, the correcting hand); see folios 15v, 27r, 30v, 44r, and 111v) and London, Society of Antiquaries MS 60 (the Liber Niger or 'Black Book of Peterborough'), folios 6-71 (cf. folios 30v-31r, 34v-35r, 39v- 40r, and 59v-60r). Sparks notes the similarity of Scribe 2's handwriting with that found in another book of known Peterborough provenance, the correcting hand of CCCC MS 160, which also uses the same insertion symbols as the correcting hand of CCCC MS 134; see folios 12r, 16r, and 18v (of MS 160). In light of these affiliations and conclusions, it is interesting that E is not mentioned in later catalogues of the holdings of the Peterborough monastic library.³

Whitelock notes that after 1031, 'E [or more precisely, the ancestor of E] is no longer a northern chronicle, but has moved to Canterbury' (1954, p. 30):

Its entries at 1043 (for 1045), 1044 (for 1046), 1046 (for 1049) and 1061 reveal a special interest in St Augustine's at Canterbury, and it is well informed on Kentish affairs in 1043 (for 1044), 1046 (for 1048), 1048 (for 1051), and 1052; the reference in 1046 (for 1049) to Eadnoth, bishop of Dorchester, as 'bishop to the north' proves that the text is being written in the south.

From 1079, E (or better, its ancestor hereafter designated as √E) is the only witness to the Chronicle (with the exception of H which contains a fragment of annals for the years 1113 and 1114); it cannot be known for certain when it returned to Peterborough from Canterbury.⁴ Our E, however, is a copy made at Peterborough after 1121,⁵ into which twenty Interpolations relating to the monastery, its lands and entitlements were incorporated, as noted above.⁶ It contains annals written in Old English and Latin for the period 60 BCE to 1154, although there are no entries for the period 59-1 BCE. Since it records historical events for more than 70 years longer any other of the major witnesses (ASC MSS ABCDF), extending past the middle of the twelfth century, it is also very important linguistically, because its final entries are among the earliest surviving examples of Middle English – indeed, readers virtually experience the birth of Middle English as they advance through these entries.

According to Joscelyn's list of Chronicle manuscripts (now London, BL MS Cotton Nero C.iii, f. 208r – it did not include the bi-lingual F or the now fragmentary H) – E was acquired by Sir William Cecil (1520-98) in or around 1565/ 6;⁷ its whereabouts in the decades bef ore that, after the Dissolution of the Monasteries, are unknown.⁸ From Cecil (afterwards Lord Burghley), it seems to have passed directly into William L'Isle's possession (by 1622, when he mentions it in a letter to Cotton),⁹ but there is nothing to indicate how he obtained it; he owned it until his death in 1637.¹⁰ Richard James (1592-1638), Cotton's librarian from about 1625, refers to it as 'Cronica Saxon. Mri. W. Lisle' (Oxford, Bodl. Lib. MS James 17, f. 115r). There is also an earlier reference to 'the Saxon Chronicles of Peterborough, Canterbury, and Abingdon' by the jurist and historian John Selden (1584-1654) in The Historie of Tithes (1618), and in a marginal note to this reference, all three manuscripts are stated to be 'in Bibl.

Cottoniana' (Lutz, 2000, p. 18). They may have been in his library for some time before passing to L'Isle, but there are no traces of Cotton's ownership in E.¹¹ Archbishop Laud, the last private owner of the manuscript, acquired it in 1638 (L'Isle had died in 1637); he donated it to the Bodleian Library in 1639, as recorded at the bottom of f. 1¹².

1.2 Contents: The Evolution and Structure of the Text

1.2.1 The Text Proper: An Overview

¹³

The version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as witnessed by Oxford Bodleian Library MS Laud misc. 636 (witness E) is remarkable for a number of reasons,¹⁴ not the least of which is that it extends further than any of the other major witnesses – up to an annal for 1154, which includes reference to one event from 1155.¹⁵ Linguistically, it spans the transition from Old to Middle English – its Final Continuation is one of the earliest surviving examples of the latter; in it the evolution of the English language is readily seen in developments in orthography, phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary.¹⁶ Although its text had its distant origins in the Common Stock lying behind the surviving witnesses to the tradition (see Section 3.3), together with witnesses D and F it represents a sub-group that from the tenth century onwards often focuses on Northern affairs,¹⁷ whereas witnesses ABC focus on events in the South, centred in particular around Abingdon, Canterbury, Winchester and Worcester.¹⁸ But the relationships between the various witnesses are anything but straightforward, and the elucidation or disentanglement of these has been a central concern of critical writing about the Chronicle since study of it first began in the sixteenth century in the context of the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536-41, by the authority of the 1534 Act of Supremacy) and the establishment of an English national Church under Henry VIII.¹⁹ Numerous updates to the Chronicle were issued periodically and circulated widely to major civic centres and monasteries; structurally, E reflects this piecemeal growth in that sections or chunks of annals demonstrating particular interest in different centres can be detected in it.²⁰ Moreover, manuscripts are very portable, and it has been demonstrated that the surviving major witnesses were sometimes taken from one centre to another for copying, comparison, amplification, and verification, which led to textual contamination and compounded the complexity of their interrelationships. The evidence reviewed below indicates that there were once many more versions of the Chronicle in circulation than survive either in whole or in part today.

The origin and development of the text of witness E is in some ways more straightforward than that of the other major witnesses, but it is at the same time more sophisticated, strategic and rhetorical. This is because the greater part of it (down to 1121) was copied out continuously by a single scribe (Scribe 1) in a short period of time soon after that date from an ancestor borrowed from Canterbury;²¹ the manuscript was perhaps made to replace an earlier version that would have been lost in the disastrous fire of 1116, which destroyed all the monastic buildings except for the chapter house and the dormitory – the association of some versions of the Chronicle with major centres and monastic houses and the evidence for so much cross-contamination among the surviving witnesses indicate lively and widespread chronicling activity, so it seems plausible that there would have been a copy at Peterborough prior to the fire. Codicological evidence indicates that E itself is a 'copy' – it contains a considerable number of scribal copying errors.²² Curiously, there is no record of E in later monastic and cathedral catalogues.²³ This re-copying of the complete Chronicle down to 1121 afforded the monastic scribe/chronicler (Scribe 1, who would have been working under the direction and following the instructions of a supervisor) the opportunity to incorporate (sometimes spurious) charters and other documents into its earlier sections, confirming various land grants, incomes and entitlements to Peterborough Abbey (or Medeshamstede, as it was earlier called); twenty such Interpolations,²⁴ placed strategically throughout E, have been identified.²⁵

Although the chronicler appears to have tried to make them blend into their contexts by using traditional formulaic language,²⁶ they reveal themselves not only by their focus on Peterborough's affairs and their generally larger scale than surrounding annals, but also by residual linguistic features which clearly date them to the twelfth century; moreover, their style is often highly rhetorical and exclamatory, unlike the staid language found generally in the entries down to the mid-eleventh century.²⁷ Home (2010) has observed that the incorporated foundational charter materials recorded under the years 656, 675 and 963 are not just translations of original documents, but have been made into performative speech acts by the chronicler, ratified by a written and witnessed document (p. 81).²⁸

While the annals to 1121 were being copied, Scribe 1 incorporated a number of entries in Latin into the transcript, many of which focus on continental and Norman affairs and appear to be drawn from a source very similar to the Annals of Rouen (Annales Rotomagenses; Allen, 2009).29 Yet other insertions describe Roman ecclesiastical and liturgical developments, such as additions to the ritual of the Mass. The disposition and structure of these various additions – their seamless integration into the Chronicle narrative – suggest that the scribe had his source materials readily at hand as he worked (these must have been borrowed or copied soon after the library was destroyed in 1116).³⁰ Subsequently, Scribe 1 added further annals for the years 1122-31 in six stints; these are known as the First Continuation.³¹ Still later, in or soon after 1155, Scribe 2 added records for 1132-54/5, with those for 1140-54 being in just two chronologically jumbled entries; these are known as the Final Continuation. In presenting his material in this way, he deliberately chose to abandon the formal structure of the Chronicle with its separate annals for individual years.

In the late thirteenth century, a single scribe entered a short Anglo-Norman chronicle in the top, outer and bottom margins of folios 86v-90v (it does not, however, extend into the bottom margin on the f. 90v); it represents a common type of short Brut, and describes events from the period of the legendary Brutus to the reign of Edward I (†7 July 1307).³² Since it is not significant for the study of E and is in a different language, the Anglo-Norman text is not included in this edition, though, inevitably, it is reproduced in the digital facsimile images of the folios on which it occurs.

The twelfth and thirteenth centuries were witness to a creative outburst in the writing of English national chronicles and histories in Latin (see Section 3.5). A few of the authors of these consulted and drew upon either E or a source shared with it; of particular relevance are the writings of Hugh Candidus (Mellows, 1949) and John (earlier known as 'Florence') of Worcester (Darlington, 1995),³³ and reference has been made to their writings throughout the commentary here. The Waverley Annals (Luard, 1865) and Henry of Huntingdon (Greenway, 1996) used a source close to E, but without the Peterborough Interpolations. The contemporary and later Latin chronicles are of great interest because they often provide additional materials not found in surviving witnesses to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(s), indicating that many earlier sources have been lost and can only be known indirectly; they must, of course, be read and interpreted judiciously. It is noteworthy that the chroniclers at Peterborough chose to continue to write their records in (Old) English in the midst of all this contemporary literary and historical activity in Latin. This may have been because from the very outset E was intended principally to be Peterborough's monastic house history, although it continued to record events of national interest, as in the more generic chronicle tradition; in this context it is important to recall, as noted just above, that in the entries for 1140-54/5 Scribe 2 abandoned the year by year chronicle structure which normally begins with a notice of the king's itinerary and other related activities.

1.2.2 Dating and the Annal Numbers

Witness E opens with a Preface, which is derived from Bede's in the Historia Ecclesiastica (Colgrave and Mynors 1969; see also Lapidge, 2008-2010), but the account here is much reduced;³⁴ this is followed by an entry referring to Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 60 BCE.³⁵ Thereafter each entry is dated systematically ('In the year…' or a variation of this) from 1 to 1154 CE (which includes one event from the beginning of 1155). Scribe 1 made numerous corrections to his numbering currente calamo; he made other errors that he failed to notice and correct – all errors and corrections are noted in the commentary here.³⁶

Folios 2-7 are in double columns (witness A, CCCC MS 173, ff. 1v-4r is also written in two columns – witness G, a copy of A, is unexpectedly in triple columns for this section);³⁷ this was done for economy since for many of the years down to the first half of the fifth century the entries are either very short or are completely lacking.

Some years pass completely unnoticed by Scribe 1, having neither number nor text – 647, 657, 816, 853, 1049-51, 1065, and 1088; in some instances the textual material is also missing in other witnesses – what is unusual in E is that in these instances the scribe omits the annal number as well as the text. Scribe 2 has not entered a year number for annals 1133-4, 1136, 1139, and 1141-55, but since, as mentioned earlier, he has abandoned the strict annalistic structure these may have been deliberate omissions and not oversight or an error.³⁸ The number for year 852 is repeated, and as a result the number 853 is omitted. The number 856, which is a blank annal, appears twice, as does 931. Some of these omissions and duplications result in short strings of incorrectly numbered annals (e.g. 1039-51, and 1085-8); all such errors and inconsistencies have been noted where they occur.

1.2.3 The Peterborough Interpolations

Our manuscript, the present E, is a copy of a Northern witness to the Chronicle, which in turn was itself ultimately derived from an exemplar very similar to that used by the chronicler of D (if not the same manuscript; see Section 3.4.1). During the copying of his exemplar, soon after 1121, Scribe 1 (or the chronicler, presumably working under the direction of a supervisor) took the opportunity to incorporate materials into E that give it its unique character and firmly establish Peterborough as its place of origin. Twenty additions, commonly referred to as the Peterborough Interpolations, have been identified;³⁹ they occur at folios: 14r, l. 19 (year 654), 14v, l. 4 (656); Sawyer S1968, no. 68, 17v, l. 17 (675); Sawyer, S72, 19v, l. 23 (686); Sawyer, S233, 24r, l. 27 (777); Sawyer, S1412 and S144, 29r, l. 15 (852); Sawyer, S1440, 30v, l. 12 (870), 36v, l. 5 (963; Sawyer, S787, 46v, l. 4 (1013), 51r, l. 28 (1041), 56r, l. 9 (1052), 57v, l. 28 (1066), 58v, l. 16 (1069), 58v, l. 20 (1070), 74v, l. 29 (1102), 75r, l. 21 (1103), 76v, l. 30 (1107), 78v, l. 4 (1114), 79r, l. 5 (1115), and 79r, l. 22 (1116). There are also passages specifically concerned with Peterborough affairs in the First and Final Continuations in annals for 1124 (f. 83v), 1125 (f. 84v), 1127 (f. 85v), 1128 (f. 86v), 1130 (f. 87v), 1131 (f. 88r), 1132 (f. 88v) and 1154 (f. 91v).⁴⁰

The Interpolations incorporate (often spurious) charters and other documents into E, confirming various land grants, incomes and entitlements to Peterborough Abbey (or Medeshamstede, as it was called earlier); they are distributed strategically throughout E.⁴¹ Although the chronicler appears to have tried to make them blend into their contexts by using traditional formulaic language, they reveal themselves not only by their focus on Peterborough's affairs and their generally larger scale than surrounding annals, but also by residual linguistic features which clearly date them to the twelfth century.⁴² Home observes that the incorporated foundational charter materials recorded under the years 656, 675 and 963 are not just translations of original documents, but have been made into performative speech acts by the chronicler, ratified by a written and witnessed document (2010, p. 81).⁴³

The Interpolations are usually appended to the end of a pre-existing annal and open with a phrase such as 'And in the same year…', but a few are additions positioned in the middle of an annal (as in 870, 1070 and 1107); and on two occasions, 853 and 963, the Interpolation comprises the whole annal.⁴⁴ The additions in the annals for 1041 and 1052 were added later and continue into the margins because there was insufficient room for them to be incorporated seamlessly into the text block. Around the same time that E was drawing to a close (1154/5), a Latin chronicle detailing the history of the Abbey was composed by the Peterborough monk Hugh Candidus (or 'Albus'; Mellows, 1949), probably during the abbacy of William of Waterville (f. 91v, Willelm de Walteuile), who was chosen as abbot by the monks in 1155 following the death of Abbot Martin on 2 January (as recorded in the final annal in E, numbered 1154, l. 22).⁴⁵ Hugh drew upon E [or perhaps its exemplar] for post-Conquest material, but had access to the same sources as the chronicler of E for the pre- Conquest period, and perhaps others that are now lost.⁴⁶

1.2.4 The Latin Annals in E

1.2.4.1 Sources and Analysis

In addition to the Interpolations, Scribe 1 added thirty-eight entries in Latin to E as he copied from his exemplar – these are not included by Whitelock in her translation, but attention is drawn to them in her footnotes when they record events related to English history (1979, p. 145); they are, however, printed as a group by Dumville (1983, pp. 55-7). Following Plummer (1952, II. pp. xlv-xlvii), Whitelock (1954, pp. 27-8) notes that one group of Latin entries pertains to English ecclesiastical affairs:⁴⁷ 890 (the election of Plegmund), 892 (the death of Wulfhere) and 964 (the expulsion of the secular canons);⁴⁸ and that another group focusing on Continental and Norman affairs are 'drawn from a source akin to the Annals of Rouen' (Annales Rotomagenses; Allen, 2009): 876 (Rollo invades and rules Normandy), 928 (William accedes in Normandy), 942 (Richard the Elder accedes), 994 (death of Richard the Elder), 1024 (death of Richard II, accession of Richard III), 1031 (death of Count Robert and the accession of William), 1046 (Battle at Val-ès-Dunes) and 1054 (Battle at Mortemer);⁴⁹ a third group comprises references to universal Church history: 114 (decree concerning holy water), 124 (decree concerning the 'Sanctus'), 134 (decree concerning the 'Gloria'), 202 (Easter is to be celebrated on a Sunday), 254 (Translations of Saints Paul and Peter), 311 (Councils at Nicaea and Arles), 379 (Council of Constantinople), 403 (Sunday is to be a day of fasting), 431 (conversion of the Jews on Crete), 433 (Synod of Ephesus), 439 (Synod of Chalcedon), 449 (Council of Chalcedon), 490 (establishment of the Rogations, also known in England as 'Gang Days' and 'Cross Week'), 528 (Dionysius' Easter Cycle), 591 (Gregory I's addition to the Canon of the Mass) and 625 (Dionysius' Cycle of 95 years), all found in the Annals of Rouen (Annales Rotomagenses; Allen 2009); and lastly, a group (also in the Annals of Rouen) referring to the founding of the Frankish kingdom (425) and to the career of Charlemagne: 769 (the beginning of Charles' reign), 778 (Charles in Spain and Saxony), 788 (Charles in Germany), 800 (Charles made emperor), 810 (reconciliation of Charles and Nicephorus) and 812 (death of Charles).⁵⁰ Whitelock (1979) overlooks the entry for the year 596 in her analysis – 'At this time the monastery of St Benedict was destroyed by the Lombards'; this would fall most readily among the entries recounting events from universal Church history – Plummer 1952, however, does include it in his listing of the Latin annals (II. pp. xlv, n. 3).

The first three annals dealing with universal Church history (for 114, 124 and 134) are also found in the bi-lingual witness F (all on f. 33v), indicating that the series was in their common ancestor; the rest were omitted by the scribe of F, perhaps because he was compiling a shorter chronicle, as Whitelock 1954 observes (p. 27).⁵¹

For general discussion of the use of Latin in the ASC, see Bredehoft 2001 (Chapter 5, pp. 119-36) and Dumville 1983.

1.2.4.2 Treatment of the Latin Annals in this Edition

The Latin annals in E, whether comprising a whole annal or part of one, are offset by paragraphing; all abbreviations have been expanded silently. [See Section 1.3.5 for further a more detailed statement of editorial policy.]

1.2.5 The First Continuation

As noted earlier, sometime soon after 1121 Scribe 1 transcribed E adding to it the Peterborough Interpolations and thirty-eight annals in Latin. Subsequently, annals were added for the years 1122-31; these are known collectively as the First Continuation. The density of material relating to the affairs of Peterborough Abbey in these annals indicates that they were composed at Peterborough itself.⁵² Ker 1957 (No. 346, pp. 424-5) observes that the scribe responsible for the annals to 1121 also added those for 1122-31, working in six stints, as attested to by changes in ink colour and slight differences in the script itself: i) 1122; ii) 1123; iii) 1124; iv) 1125-26 (to f. 85r, l. 7); v) 1126 (from f. 85r, l. 7)-27; and vi) 1128-31. This argument has been accepted by Clark 1958 (pp. xii-xiii) and Irvine 2004 (pp. ic-c) among others, including the present editors.⁵³

As Clark 1958 observes (p. xviii), with the annal for 1122 E presents not only a change in writing, but also in manner, attributable to the fact that Scribe 1 has now become an independent chronicler: 'The copied annals for the previous decade had been brief, sometimes scrappy, whereas the new annals are lively and detailed, as if composed by one who revelled in chronicle-making' (see Section 4.0 for an analysis of his rhetoric and style).⁵⁴

1.2.6 The Final Continuation

Still later, sometime in 1155 or soon afterwards, Scribe 2 added records for 1132- 54/5, with those for 1140-54 being in just two chronologically jumbled entries;⁵⁵ these are known collectively as the Final Continuation. As noted earlier, in presenting his material in this way he deliberately chose to abandon the formal structure of the Chronicle with its separate annals for individual years. These annals are also 'vigorous and vivid', but lack the 'felicity of style' of those in the First Continuation (as Clark observes, 1958, p. xix). Contrary to earlier critical opinion that the language here either represents a dying language or the 'imperfect English of a foreigner' (Thorpe 1861 and Howorth 1908), Clark rightly observes that '[t]he rich vocabulary, the fluent phrasing, and the wealth of Scandinavian idiom all prove native composition' (1958, p. xix).⁵⁶

1.2.7 The Anglo-Norman Chronicle

As noted in the Overview (Section 1.2.1), in the late thirteenth century a single scribe entered a short Anglo-Norman chronicle in the top, outer and bottom margins of folios 86v-90v; it represents a common type of short Brut, and covers the period from the legendary Brutus up to the reign of Edward I (†7 July 1307). Clark 1954 discusses this text in a brief appendix to Whitelock's facsimile edition of E (pp. 39-43).⁵⁷ Since it is not significant for the study of E, being unrelated to the ASC and in a different language, the Anglo-Norman text is not included in this edition. Although some observations on the codicology in relation to the layout and placement of the Anglo- Norman Brut will be found under section 2.0.

1.2.8 Annal Structure

Something needs to be said here about the different ways in which the chroniclers wrote or developed individual entries; some observations refer to the unknown chronicler(s) of the Common Stock, and others to Scribes 1 and 2 of E.

The subject matter of the Chronicle might broadly be said to describe secular history (things to do with royalty, kingdoms, and battles), ecclesiastical history (things to do with bishops, popes, churches and monasteries, and synods), and natural history (records of natural disasters – droughts, famines, pestilence, and celestial prodigies); the materials for these entries were drawn from a variety of sources, as is discussed elsewhere here. Many of the entries, especially down to the time of King Alfred, are simple, often recording just one event in several words or phrases. Others are complex or composite and have been developed in a variety of ways, the simplest being that a second event, often drawn from a different source, is mentioned after the first (sometimes one concerns secular affairs and the other ecclesiastical, as in, for example, 679, where the chronicler is clearly moving from one source to another). These additions are often marked linguistically by phrases such as Her…, 7 Her…, On ðy ilcan geare… (or an equivalent phrase), and latterly in E, when it is the sole remaining witness, by Eac… or Eac on ðam ilcan geare… (or some other variation).

Down to the year 1017 (with the exception of the first five entries), the Chronicle entries in Old English begin with Her… (which may have had either a locative or a temporal function – both have been considered by critics).⁵⁸ In the entry for 682, for the first time, the chronicler develops this into the phrase Her on ðissum geare…, which occurs occasionally at first, but becomes quite common from 993 (it is used thirty-five times from then onwards). Sometimes an entry has three clear constituents, as that for 634, where the first event mentioned is secular (concerning King Osirc in Deira), the second ecclesiastical (about Birinus' mission among the West Saxons), and the third secular again (concerning King Oswald in Northumbria). These events, probably drawn from different sources, are introduced thus: Her… 7 eac her… And Oswold eac her…. The entry for 685 has the structure, Her… 7 þy ilcan geare… 7 Her…; subsequent additions in this entry are introduced by syððan, so that the annal has a quite complex structure. As a variation of these, continuations or additions to an entry may begin with the phrase 7 þam ilcan geare… (or an equivalent phrase), as in the entry for 641. As is mentioned where apposite in the notes, celestial prodigies, famines, pestilence and civil unrest are often associated with dire events, as in the annal for 975, which describes aldorman Ælfhere's destruction of a great many monastic institutions.

1.3 Post-Reformation History

1.3.1 Early-Modern Scholarly Activity

The remains of the library of Peterborough are scattered, as in the case of the libraries from other houses in the important group of fenland Benedictine monasteries, like Crowland, Ely, Ramsey, and Thorney; very few books are still in their original homes.⁵⁹ Of extant Peterborough manuscripts, fewer than about four dozen are known to have survived; but most of these are service-books or archives, not library-books proper. In these are a sprinkling of Psalters or other liturgical books used for proper performance of Mass and Offices; two volumes of the old Abbey customary (London, Lambeth Palace, MSS 198, 198b) plus a handful of cartularies and registers, such as the Society of Antiquaries’ Liber Niger or 'Black Book' (London, Society of Antiquaries, MS 60, ff. 6-71 (see, for example, the plate of ff. 30v-31r); the well- known book of ‘Book of Robert of Swaffham’ (Peterborough, Dean and Chapter MS 1) ; or the ‘Book of Walter of Whittlesey’ (BL, MS Add. 39758) – but these are not library-books. Just over two dozen books are assignable to the old Peterborough Abbey library, but very few of them actually remained at Peterborough. Most of the books found their way into the hands of private collectors, chiefly in the sixteenth century, and are today found in other libraries.⁶⁰

The present manuscript is first caught sight of after the Dissolution in the household of Sir William Cecil, later Lord Burghley (†1598), at Cecil House, the Strand, London. It is not recorded in any of the medieval Peterborough catalogues, nor is it found in the notes of books in the library by John Leland about the time of the Dissolution.⁶¹ The Abbey was dissolved in 1539. Cecil, whose family held extensive lands in the area of the new cathedral, managed to obtain a few choice volumes from the old Abbey library; besides E, he owned Peterborough’s chronicle of Roger of Howden (BL MS Cotton Julius A.xi, ff. 3–112); and the Liber Niger or 'Black Book' of Peterborough, which was given to the Society of Antiquaries by the Earl of Exeter, a descendant of Cecil’s eldest son, may have belonged to him. By 1562 at the latest, Laurence Nowell (†1569?), writing on Anglo-Saxon history, was living as a tutor in Cecil’s household;⁶² and in his time a few texts of remarkable interest, some containing Old English, passed through his hands, such as the Old English Bede bound with witness G (BL MS Cotton Otho B.xi; see, for example, the plate of f. 45r), the ‘Vespasian Psalter’ (BL MS Cotton Vespasian A.i), and the ‘Beowulf manuscript’ (BL MS Cotton Vitellius A.xv, ff. 94-209).⁶³

In 1565, Nowell undertook a transcription of a selection of the annals chiefly from E (now BL MS Add. 43704); this is generally referred to as the ‘Additional transcript’. According to Lutz, this transcript was made to supplement an earlier transcription made by Nowell of the text of G (now BL MS Add. 43703, ff. 200-32), itself consisting of a full copy of the annals taken from that witness. Nowell's transcription of G can be dated by its own colophon to 1562 (f. 264r).⁶⁴ By contrast, the ‘Additional transcript’ was written out and continued on separate occasions, to judge by the layout of its text, which occupies two parts of unequal length on either side of a gap (ff. 2r- 91v and 94v-110v). The inscription of date on folio 2r is in Nowell’s handwriting (Laurens Nowell. a o 1565.), and so forms a probable terminus a quo for the manuscript’s production; the early-modern spine title (Hanc in Chron: Peterb. sis Saxon, 1565) is probably dependent upon this. In spite of the fact that it is dated by Nowell, the continuations added into this transcript, chiefly consisting of his annotations, cross-references and supplements derived from other manuscripts of the Chronicle (CBD, in that order), show that the ‘Additional transcript’ was anything but static.

On some later occasion, Nowell transcribed further annals from E into another of his notebooks (now BL MS Cotton Dom. xviii, ff. 38-125, the ‘Domitian transcript’). The ‘Domitian transcript’, which is really a conflation, reports a somewhat composite text, with its annals cut and recast, interpolated and abridged; its text consists of portions of annals up to 997 from E, identified as ex historia Saxonica Petroburgensi (f. 38), followed by portions of annals between 1043 and 1079 from D, identified as ex annalibus Saxonicis [cancel] aliis (f. 49). Its provenance in early-modern times is not known with certainty, but it is known to have enjoyed a wide circulation among a large circle of Elizabethan antiquaries. The text was known to Ussher, apparently, used by Lambarde, perhaps also by Selden, and before it came into the Cotton library it passed from Nowell, via Lambarde (†1601), to Joscelyn (†1603), finally being obtained by Cotton not later than 1612 (cf. Cotton’s note in BL MS Harley 6018, f. 256r, of the loan to Francis Tate of 5. books of Mappes in Saxon. 8 [o]).⁶⁵

It can be said for certain that Joscelyn must have known of E (and that Nowell had a copy of it) already by the time when he drew up his well-known List of Anglo-Saxon books (now BL MS Cotton Nero C.iii, f. 208r) c. 1565. Included in Joscelyn’s List are six (of the seven) extant versions of the Chronicle; our manuscript, the last item in his List is described as follows: Chronica Saxonica Petroburgensis monasterij ab anno christi primo ad annum christi 1148. est in manibus domini Willelmi Ciceli militis. et habet eius exemplum Laurentius Nowel.⁶⁶ Joscelyn’s List is the earliest extant reference to E after the Dis solution; it was probably obtained by Cotton, along with sundry books and other papers, at Joscelyn’s death in 1603.

At about the same time, Cecil seems to have lent the book to Parker (†1575), as witnessed by the many tell-tale marks (red-chalk underlinings, foliation, manicules, etc.) and added annotations in his handwriting