THE ‘PARKER CHRONICLE’: CHRONOLOGY GONE AWRY

Nicholas Sparks

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

One could think of a chronicle simply as a narrative of events in the

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

toriography: ‘dating from the late ninth century, it was prepared in the
circle and probably even the household of King Alfred’.3
Some words are first needed on the phrase ‘the order of time’,
since it is with questions of order and disorder in the making of time
that this study is chiefly concerned. It seems that the Anglo-Saxon
compilers found it most convenient to cast in chronicle form what
hitherto had been collected by way of earlier sources. But the sources
which the compilation drew upon must have had different ways for
the reckoning of years. And so error was introduced into the narrative
by additions from sources which did not share the same original
chronology.4
The aim of this study, which unfolds naturally in two sections,
considers alien chronologies left in the context of the ASC. The first
part examines the ASC in general, and some of the different ways that
competing chronologies have been incorporated into the body of
annals. The second part examines an important moment of scribal
dislocation found in MS A alone. First, then, to sketch in outline some
of the different modes of reckoning the years found in the wider
context of the ASC.
The Parker Chronicle, as noted, is the earliest copy of the ASC,
which exists in seven Old English witnesses, each a continuation of
(substantially) the same original work.5 The first, or original, hand of
MS A seems to have been writing probably at the beginning of the
tenth century (or thereabouts). In respect of textual authority, how-
ever, we are reminded of the classic dictum recentiores non
deteriores; the corollary, of course, that greater antiquity need not
imply greater authority, for as Plummer and others have noted, MS A
is a copy of a copy at least two removes from the (putative) original
compilation.6
The nucleus of the ASC is a collection of early records evidently
available for copying from the early 890s. Accordingly, it is reason-
able to date the most recent stage of the compilation perhaps a little
earlier.7 The archetype of the ASC, that is, the substrate text from
which all the other texts were copied or derived, is referred to as ‘the
common stock’.8 Put together in Wessex apparently during the reign
of King Alfred (871–899), the common stock is said to have been
connected with Alfred’s programme of mass translation and book
production.9 But the relation of Alfred and the ASC is sometimes
questioned because no hard evidence exists (it seems) to link the King
directly with any part of the first compilation. F. M. Stenton has
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 65

argued that the ASC was produced as a private work written for an
ealdorman or thegn interested in the south-western shires (Stenton
1970: 106-15; 1971: 692-93). But that theory raises more questions
than it answers, not least in view of the national outlook afforded by
the political and dynastic scope of the sources. Moreover, because the
work was a major intellectual undertaking, the administrative agency,
let alone the physical resources, needed for such widespread copying
and distribution to major political and ecclesiastical centres of
England, must have been immense.10 Furthermore, a copy of the ASC
is known to have been available already at Alfred’s court; for so much
is confirmed from the details of Asser’s Life.11
If the relation of Alfred and the Chronicle is open to inter-
pretation, then could traces of still earlier sources provide us with a
glimpse of the previous history of the work? On the state of the text
under Alfred, J. Earle saw the origin of the work in the outline of older
chronicles: ‘… the difficulties of imagining that such a collection of
annals (meagre as it often is), covering a period of 437 years, could
have been made in 892 if Chronicles had not been kept before, are
insuperable’ (1865: vi). Such a view presumes the existence of a pre-
Alfredian chronicle, which implies that its offspring, emerging from a
later tradition of West-Saxon historiography, came to represent the
starting-point of an Alfredian continuation. Accordingly, then, it is not
unreasonable to assume that the West-Saxon Regnal List came to be
associated with the ASC text at this point, since the text of the List,
which developed its present form under Alfred, carried no further than
the point of his accession.12
The idea of a pre-Alfredian chronicle is tantalizing. Features of
the mid ninth-century annals, for instance, have prompted the theory
that the final years of Æthelwulf’s reign marked the end of an older
chronicle. In respect of this theory, J. B. Wynn has remarked:
As annal 855 is approached, the writing becomes fuller, more detailed
and more varied, culminating in the narrative in annal 855 of the last
two years of Æthelwulf’s reign. This is followed by a genealogy tracing
Æthelwulf’s ancestry back to Adam; it concludes with the pious Amen,
and seems to suggest the end of an older chronicle.13

Against a pre-Alfredian compilation, Professor Bately has argued the

case for a unitary chronicle as opposed to a two-stage compilation.14
On the basis of vocabulary, a change of authorship in the annals for
the 870s and 880s is adduced (ipso facto the possible continuation of
66 Nicholas Sparks

older work), but no decisive argument has yet been brought against
the existence of a pre-855 Chronicle. The genealogy of Æthelwulf is
equivocal, I think. It may have been deliberately deployed, since it
looks back and forth in both directions with an emphasis on the West-
Saxon royal line.15 The idea of a chronicle within a chronicle com-
plicates the history of the postulated archetype.16 Moreover, it gives
the text a kind of living chronology, where the past becomes like a
series of receding vistas, and each new copy evolves as an outgrowth
of its predecessor.
No matter whether there are grounds for the view of a pre-
Alfredian chronicle or whether MS A is regarded as the copy of (a
copy of) sources put together for the first time under Alfred, the
problem of untangling the mixed bag of chronologies must have
seriously exercised the compilers. The main system of reckoning in
the ASC is the mode of calculating the years from the Incarnation of
our Lord, the so-called anno Domini era (Declerq 2000; also Moss-
hammer 2008). Using the era of Incarnation for historical purposes
changed the course of medieval historiography. The evolution of
annals was due in part to the entry of historical notices in the margins
of cyclus decennovenalis, the 19-year paschal cycle of Dionysius
Exiguus, originally made for keeping the date of Easter (Harrison
1976: ch. 4). The Christian era became the Anglo-Saxon norm after it
was adopted by Bede in his greater treatise on the reckoning of time
De Temporum Ratione and then afterwards in the Historia Ecclesias-
tica Gentis Anglorum (Levison 1966). R. L. Poole noted of the origins
of the Christian era in English historical traditions:
From the time of Bede, at all events, the year was in England reckoned
from the Incarnation. It was the discovery of this Era that made the
revival of historiography possible, and it was beyond question an
English discovery. (1926: 26)

Reckoning from the Incarnation was taken up on the authority of

Bede, for in several places the Anglo-Saxon compiler carries over pas-
sages directly from Bede’s Epitome, or the chronological summary, to
his History, and enters almost every entry in it.17 However, problems
arise from the so-called ‘error of Dionysus’, namely, the claim that his
Easter tables had mistakenly recorded the true Year of Grace (Declerq
2000: 189-93). The first Dionysian table was issued for the cycle
beginning AD 532, but what is not made clear is how the year was
calculated ab incarnatione. It is generally accepted that Dionysius put
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 67

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

II

This second section considers a moment of significant dislocation

peculiar to the Parker Chronicle. There are several questions of dating
which will be considered next in view of the physical evidence of MS
A. Does the scribal break at the foot of folio 16r in MS A correspond
with an identifiable break in the text of the ASC? To what extent does
MS A represent its exemplar? On the dissection of the annals at this
point, Professor Keynes has recently remarked:
The annals for 891 and 892 cannot be associated with, or dissociated
from, the preceding annals by application of linguistic criteria alone,
but on textual and historical grounds they do seem to belong to the
common stock, and not with the material which follows. (Keynes 1986:
197; also Asser-KL, 277-79)

The first or original hand of MS A has been assigned termini post

and ante quem of 891 x c.920 on evidence from the general character
of the script. The question of date raises the question of origin: where
was MS A written?22 Several divergent views of the manuscript
evidence have been published over the last half century. For this
study, the growth of the codex and the character of the script are main
concerns, and since these are visible in that part of MS A containing
the annals for 891 and 892, a review of the evidence is needed.
The collation of MS A has been subject to much disagreement
since the part of the codex containing the ASC-text reflects an unusual
construction. The first quire, Q. I, is of seven leaves, originally eight,
the first having been excised so that now only a stub remains. The first
leaf had already strayed by the last quarter of the sixteenth century.23
Accordingly, therefore, the present folio 7 is now a singleton. The
collation of Q. I is usually formulated: I8 (wants 1). The parchment is
stiff and suede-like, ruddy brown in colour, with rough uneven edges.
The arrangement of the leaves is in HFHF, pricked after folding in
both inner and outer lateral margins and then ruled on the hair-side
recto.24 Structurally speaking, Q. IV is virtually the mirror image of Q.
I. It consists of seven leaves, originally eight, the last having been
excised. The structure of that quire is usually formulated: IV8 (wants
8). It is probable that the final leaf was blank and cut away by the
binder when Q. IV was inserted between Q.I–III and Q.V (containing
the Laws), before c.950.25 The main concern for MS A at this point is
the make-up of Q. II and Q. III. The preparation of these gatherings
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 69

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

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

Q. III differs radically in its composition from the preceding

quires. The membranes are thicker and lighter in colour, with a waxy
surface, except for folio 25, which is a thin, wrinkly type of limp
membrane. Folios 19, 22, 25 are singletons. The final leaf (fol. 25)
also seems to be a later supply, probably added by the same scribe
who began writing on the last four lines of fol. 24v and then continued
overleaf.27 The arrangement in Q. I and Q. II is HFHF, the normal In-
sular fashion. But in Q. III, and all subsequent quires, the arrangement
changes to HFFH: a continental symptom.28 The manner of pricking
also changes. The skins are pricked in the outer margin only. Accord-
ingly, they were pricked before folding: another continental symp-
tom.29 Significantly, folio 24 of Q. III bears the only other example of
‘double pricking’, found elsewhere only on folio 16. Thenceforward,
the ruling varies from 26 long lines on fols. 17r-21v, to 25 long lines
on fols. 22r-32v. The written space diminishes: c.245x145 mm. on
fols. 1-16; c.230 x 160 mm. on leaves 17 and 18; c.225 x 140 mm. on
fols. 19-30 (Ker 1957: 58; but cf. Sato 1997: 83-85).
Scholars differ in their views of the evidence and so the question
arises: was Q. II originally a quaternion? If so, it may be formulated:
II8 (+ 1 after 8).30 Or was it a quinion? In which case it may be formu-
lated: II10 (lacks 3, 9; + 1 after 10).31 There is a similar divergence with
regard to Q. III. Scholars on one side incline to favour the for-
mulation: III8 (+ 1 after 8), the underlying assumption being that MS
A was originally made up of gatherings of four bifolia intended to
make eight leaves, and that this system remained consistent for the
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 71

whole codex.32 Scholars on the other side incline to favour another

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

the foot of fol. 40v in Cotton MS Harley 2965, the ‘Book of Nunna-
minster’.38 Those specimens are in a similar hand to (ii), the second
scribe in Trinity College, MS. B.15.33 (368), the ‘Trinity Isidore’,
who was working in the same scriptorium at around the same time as
the restorer of the ‘Corpus Sedulius’, now bound after MS A and the
Laws of Alfred in (iii) Corpus Christi College, MS 173, fols. 57-83.39
The scribe who restored the copy of Sedulius has been identified with
the first hand of the Parker Chronicle. The second hand of the Trinity
Isidore is sometimes assigned to the writing of two more specimens:
(iv) a form of confession on fol. 41r in MS Harley 2965,40 and (v) a
fragment of Bede in the National Archives, SP 46/125, fol. 302r.41 A
dated charter comparable with the first hand of MS A is in Cotton MS
Augustus, ii.89.42 The Eardwulf grant is a slightly later copy of a
genuine charter dated 875 and written in an upright and compacted
script of s. ix/x.43 The script bears something of the aspect of fols. 1r-
16r of MS A, but the hand is not identical and the resemblance is not
close enough to press the matter further.44
For that part of the manuscript from the West Saxon Regnal List
to 891, a consensus has seemed to emerge (not without exception)
which assigns the first hand to c.900: Plummer and Parkes date the
script to the last decade of the ninth century;45 Bately, with Ker and
Brown, assigns it to around the end of the ninth or the beginning of
the tenth centuries;46 Dumville proposes a date in the 910s (but just
possibly as late as the 920s) (Dumville 1987: 164; 1992: ch. 3). From
the earliest form of the text, that is, the form in which it circulated
during Alfred’s reign, a date of c.900, is a decade or so beyond the
lower limit of the original compilation. But the first hand of MS A,
both majuscule and minuscule forms, seems to be slightly later than
the evidence from contents which is signified by the co-terminus of
the ASC-text and the List, 891 x c.899. Accordingly, then, one could
suppose that the text of MS A is a slightly later copy of a recension
first created in 891 x c.899, and extended thereafter by scribes who
continued the text beyond where their exemplar originally broke off.
The palaeography of MS A is a difficult subject, and it is not the
aim here to consider it any more in commenting on the chronological
mishap which marks the end of the first scribal stint and the beginning
of the second, whereby the original dates were altered by one year up
to and including the annal-number for 929.47 The dislocation is purely
mechanical and unique to MS A, yet it provides an instructive view of
West-Saxon historiography around the end of the ninth century. In the
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 73

belief that there was nothing more to add for the year 891, scribe 1
inserted the annal-number for 892 three lines from the bottom of fol.
16r, clearly expecting another installment.48 The second scribe, with
more to add to the same year, failed to expunge his predecessor’s
annal-number for 892 and commenced overleaf at the top of fol. 16v
with the words ‘7 þy ilcan geare ofer Eastron’, describing the long-
haired star which appeared at the Rogations. Scribe 2 started his next
entry with an annal-number 892 of his own and thereby introduced
duplication into the series. Sometime later, ‘the corrector’, noticing
the duplication, proceeded to alter events by one year (compounding
an existing error caused by the barren annals 913–915), reflecting his
understanding of the chronology and so (he thought) producing
harmony of the annals.49
From this turn of events some remarks may be made on the
chronology of the ASC and the attitude of the scribes in relation to MS
A. Two facts support the view that scribe 1 thought that he had
finished writing for the year 891: (i) he followed the passage with his
major punctuation mark used elsewhere only at the end of annals, and
(ii) he then wrote the annal-number for 892 in the margin of the next
line and then stopped.50 The train of events that year includes: (a) the
late summer or autumn movements of the Danish army and the battle
which Arnulf won on the River Dyle, (b) the landing of three Irish
exiles on the shores of Cornwall, and (c) the death of Suibhne,
anchorite and scholar of Clonmacnoise.51 With text for the same year
continued at the head of fol. 16v, it seems reasonable to assume that
scribe 1 made use of a source which carried up to, but not beyond,
Easter, which fell that year on the 4 April. The commencement of the
year in this part of the ASC is still under consideration.52 But only two
modes of computation require notice. The reckoning of the year from
the Cæsarian Indiction (24 September) and from Midwinter (25 De-
cember): these are the only styles evident in this section of the annals.
Essays in the chronology have shown that the series of years from
851–890 provide evidence for dating from 24 September, but this
ceases to hold after 892.53 A reversion to Midwinter dating, used in
the early section of the ASC, is possible but not necessary.54 But a
change of dating here is beside the point. Whether our scribe’s source
used Cæsarian or Christmas dating, the copy which lay before him
hardly went beyond Easter. In other words, it broke off after about
half-way through the calendar year. It seems therefore that what lay
74 Nicholas Sparks

before scribe 1 was incomplete or defective: why else would he write

just half an annal?55
In the next place, we turn to a view of scribe 2 and the beginning
of his portion of annals in MS A. With something more to add to the
year 891, scribe 2 started writing overleaf (fol. 16v) but failed to erase
the annal-number for 892 left by his predecessor at the foot of the pre-
vious page. Perhaps he did not notice the point of continuation, simply
skipping over the blank annal-number, just as he did later on for the
blank annal-numbers 913–915. The standing practice here seems to
have been to enter several annal-numbers in advance of future
material. But scribe 2 broke convention by starting with the connec-
tive phrase ‘7 þy ilcan geare ofer Eastron’. In regard to professional
standards, the proficiency of scribe 1 is clearly beyond that of scribe 2.
Perhaps it may suggest the circumstances that could obtain if scribe 2
was still a young man in training.56 The script he practised was of a
younger type and his quiring was more recent in England. Moreover,
scribe 2 lacked the professional habits which come naturally to an old
hand: only a man new to the business fails to follow the rules of the
workplace. It is someone unused to writing annals who commits such
basic errors common to their form. It is someone new to the script-
orium who fails to follow the lines set down by their predecessor.
As for dating the event, the comet of 891 is recorded by numer-
ous independent witnesses.57 The same comet is recorded in two
continental sources of s. x1: (i) the St Gall continuation of the Annales
Alamannici;58 and (ii) the Annales Laubacenses from Lobbes.59
Oriental chronicles from China and Japan tell of ‘the broom star’
which appeared in that year around the middle of May. This confirms
the notice in the ASC which cites the appearance of the comet at the
Rogation days (or earlier) – which fell that year on 10-12 May (Kronk
1999: 140). That scribe 2 copied an exemplar which was nearly con-
temporary with events cannot be ruled out.
In the last place, then, to the ‘corrector’, who only compounded
chronological error for his part in the narrative. We know that this
hand added a minim to the year properly given as 892, making it 893,
and then continued to alter the sequence of years up to and including
annal-number 929.60 Neither the scribe nor the locality of the scripto-
rium can be identified with certainty, but we do know that this
correcting scribe had the numbers in the annals before the copy in
British Library, Cotton MS Otho B. XI was made from MS A at Win-
chester between 1001–1013.61 The ‘corrections’ are unsightly, made
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 75

by a sloppy, unskilled hand. Accordingly, then, it may be reasonable

to see the operation as carried out by someone relatively untrained in
writing. The point worth noticing, however, is how the corrector
turned to the framework of annals for guidance. The distinction here is
telling: scribe 2 copied his exemplar but omitted to erase existing
annal-numbers; the corrector altered a series of annal-numbers but
omitted to consult the text. The fact that the corrector did not (or could
not) read the text may indicate a foreign scribe. But perhaps we need
not go so far. The stint of correction is perfunctory, I think, merely
working at a glance to bring order to the sequence of annals.

Conclusions
The object of this paper has been to consider the number of
alternatives in matters of chronology in the ASC. The ASC may be
considered to embody several different chronologies which have been
combined to form one (seemingly) coherent narrative. The appearance
of annals gives the misleading impression of a single, continuous
work, originating in an ancient past, then marching forward in the
order of time. Upon closer inspection, however, the text of the ASC
hides several inconsistencies beneath its fabric. Traces of older chron-
ologies can help us to catch a glimpse of the patchwork of compilation
wherein the cohesion of different systems produces, in due course, the
synthesis of narrative and time.

Notes
1
For much guidance and invaluable discussion at various stages in the process of
production, let the kindness of Juliana Dresvina, Christopher de Hamel, Mark Hurn,
Susan Kelly, Simon Keynes, Erik Kooper, Bernard Muir, Jane Roberts, Rebecca
Rushforth, Peter Stokes, and Simon Thomas be gratefully recorded; any errors are of
course my own responsibility.
2
For a general introduction to the manuscript: Gneuss (2001: no. 52), Ker (1957: no.
39); also Flower and Smith (1941), Plummer (1892-99: II, xxiii-xxvii), Bately (1986:
xxiii-cxxvii).
3
Dr Christopher de Hamel, Gaylord Donnelley Fellow Librarian, Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, kindly made this suggestion at an exhibition of chronicles put
together for the Cambridge International Chronicles Symposium 2008.
4
Secondary literature bearing on the chronology is extensive; listed here is a selection
of works which provides an essential starting point for investigation of the sources:
Whitelock (1952: cxxxix-cxliii), also Beaven (1918: 328-42), Angus (1938: 194-210),
Vaughan (1954: 59-66).
76 Nicholas Sparks

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

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

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

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

53
Thorogood (1933: passim). For the ensuing period, see Beaven (1918: esp. 328),
Whitelock (1952: cxl-cxli), Vaughan (1954: 59.), Wynn (1956: esp. 74)
54
Hodgkin (1924: 497-510); see also Parker Chronicle, 9-12, but cf. Vaughan, who
found insufficient evidence for Christmas dating (1954: 64-65). Wynn allowed the
possibility of Christmas dating but preferred to see the change of reckoning as the
difference between earlier and contemporary sources (1956: 77-78).
55
For the same inference, drawn rather differently from the evidence, see Parkes
(1976: 154); but cf. Dumville (1992: ch. 3, esp. p. 90).
56
Dumville put forward the theory of scribal collaboration (1992: ch. 3); Bately left
open the possibility of collaboration but identified the work of least three hands in this
part of the manuscript: ‘the question of precisely when scribes 1, 2a, and 2b were
writing also remains unanswered’ (1986: xxx-xxxiv).
57
Mark Hurn at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, kindly tells me
that it does not appear that the orbit has been calculated for the comet and it has not
been established that it is periodic (private communication); cf. Stevenson (1898: 73-
74).
58
Annales Alamannici. Annalium Alamannicorum Continuatio Sangallensis, [see
under the relevant annal-number].
59
Annales Laubacenses, [see under the relevant annal-number].
60
Plummer (1899: I, 84, n.1); see also Parker Chronicle, 10, Whitelock (1955: 201,
n.2).
61
Lutz (1981: xxxi-xxxii), Bately (1986: xcviii-xcic), Dumville (1992: ch. 3, 101,
n.217).

Bibliography
Abbreviations
ASC = Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
ASE = Anglo-Saxon England
CLA = Codices Latini Antiquiores
EETS, OS, SS = Early English Text Society, Original Series, Supplementary Series
EHD = English Historical Documents
EHR = English Historical Review
MGH, SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores
PBA = Proceedings of the British Academy
TRHS = Transactions of the Royal Historical Society

Primary sources
[Alfred] Asser’s Life of King Alfred. Ed. W. H. Stevenson. Oxford, 1959. Referred to
as Asser-S, followed by page number.
[Alfred] Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other Contemporary
Sources. Ed. and trans. Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Classics, 1983. Referred to as Asser-KL, followed by page number.
[ASC] Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, with supplementary extracts from the
others. Ed. J. Earle. Oxford, 1865.
[ASC] Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. 2 vols. Ed. C. Plummer. Oxford, 1892,
1899; rpt. with two notes by Dorothy Whitelock, 1952.
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 81

[ASC] The Parker Chronicle and Laws (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 173):
A Facsimile. Ed. R. Flower and H. Smith. EETS, OS 208. London: Oxford
University Press , 1941 (for 1937).
[ASC] The Parker Chronicle (832–900). 3rd edn. Ed. A. H. Smith. Methuen’s Old
English Library. London, 1951.
[ASC] Die Version G der Angelsächsischen Chronik: Rekonstruktion und Edition. Ed.
A. Lutz. Munich, 1981.
[ASC] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vols. III-IX. Gen. ed.
David Dumville and Simon Keynes. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1983-2008.
[ASC] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A. Ed. Janet Bately. Vol. III of Dumville and
Keynes (1983-2008).
[ASC] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation. Ed. D Whitelock et al.
London, 1961.
Annales Alamannici. Annalium Alamannicorum Continuatio Sangallensis. In Annales
et chronica aevi Carolini. Vol. I. Ed. G. H. Pertz. MGH, SS I. Hannover, 1826.
Annales Laubacenses. In Annales et chronica aevi Carolini. Vol. I. Ed. G. H. Pertz.
MGH, SS I. Hannover, 1826..
English Historical Documents. I. c.500–1042. Ed. Dorothy Whitelock. London: Eyre
and Spottiswoode, 1955.
The Old English Orosius. Ed. Janet Bately. EETS, SS 6. London: Oxford University
Press, 1980.

Secondary literature
Angus, W. S. (1938). ‘The Chronology of the Reign of Edward the Elder.’ EHR 53:
194-210.
Barker-Benfield, B. C. (1978). ‘The Insular Hand.’ Times Literary Supplement, 27
January 1978: 100.
Bately, J. M. (1979a). ‘Bede and the Anglo–Saxon Chronicle.’ In Saints, Scholars,
and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Charles W. Jones. Ed.
M. H. King and W. M. Stevens. Michigan, 1979. Pp. 233-54.
––– (1979b). ‘World history in the Anglo–Saxon Chronicle: its sources and separate-
ness from the Old English Orosius.’ ASE 8: 177-94.
––– (1980a). ‘The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 60 B.C. to A.D. 890:
Vocabulary as Evidence.’ PBA 64: 93-129.
–––, ed. (1980b). See The Old English Orosius.
––– (1985). ‘The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Once More.’ Leeds
Studies in English 16: 7-36.
–––, ed. (1986). See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A.
Beaven, M. R. (1918). ‘The Beginning of the Year in the Alfredian Chronicle (866–
87).’ EHR 33: 328-42.
Bishop, T. A. M. (1964-68). ‘An Early Example of the Square Minuscule.’ Trans-
actions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 4: 246-53.
––– (1971). English Caroline Minuscule. Oxford.
Bower, M. A., et al. (2010). ‘The potential for extraction and exploitation of DNA
from parchment: a review of the opportunities and hurdles.’ Journal of the
Institute of Conservation 33: 1-11.
82 Nicholas Sparks

Brooks, N. P. (1984). The early history of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church
from 597 to 1066. Leicester.
Brooks, N. P., and S. E. Kelly, ed. (forthcoming). Charters of Christ Church,
Canterbury.
Brown, T. J. (1972). ‘The Distribution and Significance of Membrane prepared in the
Insular Manner.’ In Colloques Internationaux du C.N.R.S 547. Paris. Pp. 127-
35.
––– (unpublished). The Lyell Lectures in Bibliography: The Insular System of Scripts,
c.600–c.850. From the original lodged in The Senate House Library, University
of London.
––– (1993). ‘The Irish Element in the Insular System of Scripts to c. AD 850.’ In A
Palaeographer’s View: Selected Writings of Julian Brown. Ed. Janet Bately,
Michelle Brown and Jane Roberts. London. Pp. 201-20.
Campana, M. G., et al. (2010). ‘A flock of sheep, goats and cattle: ancient DNA
analysis reveals complexities of historical parchment manufacture.’ Journal of
Archaeological Science 37: 1317-25.
Chadwick, H. M. (1907). The Origin of the English Nation. Cambridge.
Clark, C. (1971). ‘The narrative mode of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the
Conquest.’ In England before the Conquest: studies in primary sources
presented to Dorothy Whitelock. Ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes. Cambridge.
Pp. 215-35.
Crick, J. (1997). ‘The case for a West Saxon minuscule.’ ASE 26: 63-79.
Declerq, G. (2000). Anno Domini: The Origins of the Christian era. Turnhout.
Dumville, D. N. (1976). ‘The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal
Lists.’ ASE 5: 23-50.
––– (1985). ‘The West-Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the chronology of early
Wessex.’ Peritia 4: 21-66.
––– (1987). ‘English Square minuscule script: the background and earliest phases.’
ASE 16: 147-79.
––– (1992). Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: six essays on political,
cultural, and ecclesiastical revival. Woodbridge.
––– (1994). ‘English Square minuscule script: the mid-century phases.’ ASE 23: 133-
64.
––– (1997). A Palaeographer’s Review: the Insular System of Scripts in the Early
Middle Ages.Vol. I. Osaka.
–––, and Simon Keynes, ed. (1983-2008). See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A
Collaborative Edition.
Earle, J., ed. (1865). See Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, with supplementary
extracts from the others.
Gneuss, H. (2001). Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and
Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Medieval and
Renaissance Texts and Studies 241. Tempe.
Gransden, A. (1974). Historical Writing in England. I. c.550 to c.1307. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul..
Grubitz, E. (1868). Kritische Untersuchung über die angelsächsischen Annalen bis
zum Jahre 893. Göttingen.
Foot, S. (1996). ‘The Making of Angelcynn: English Identity before the Norman
Conquest.’ TRHS 6, 6th series. Pp. 25-49.
 The ‘Parker Chronicle’: Chronology Gone Awry 83

Harrison, K. (1971). ‘Early Wessex annals in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.’ EHR 86:
527-33.
––– (1976). The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900. Cambridge.
Hodgkin, R. H. (1924). ‘The Beginning of the Year in the English Chronicle.’ EHR
39: 497-510.
––– (1952). A History of the Anglo-Saxons. 3rd edn. Oxford.
James, M. R. (1912). A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 2 vols. Cambridge.
Ker, N. R. (1942). ‘Review of The Parker Chronicle and Laws: A Facsimile.’ Medium
Ævum 11: 115-18.
––– (1957/1990). Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford, 1957;
rpt. with addenda: 1990.
Keynes, Simon (1985). ‘King Athelstan’s Books.’ In Learning and Literature in
Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to Peter Clemoes. Ed. M. Lapidge and
H. Gneuss. Cambridge. Pp. 143-201.
––– (1986). ‘A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready.’
TRHS 36, 5th series: 195-217.
––– (2005). ‘Between Bede and the Chronicle: London, BL, Cotton Vespasian B. vi,
fols. 104-9.’ In Latin learning and English lore: studies in Anglo-Saxon
literature for Michael Lapidge. Ed. K. O’Brien O’Keeffe and A. Orchard.
Toronto. Pp. 47-67.
––– (forthcoming). ‘Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.’ In Cambridge
History of the Book in Britain: From the Romans to the Normans. Vol. I. Ed. R.
Gameson.
–––, and Michael Lapidge, trans. (1983). See Alfred the Great.
Kronk, G. W. (1999). Cometography: A Catalogue of Comets. vol., I. Ancient–1799.
Cambridge.
Levison, W. (1966). ‘Bede as Historian.’ In Bede: His Life, Times, and Writings. Ed.
A. H. Thompson. New York. Pp. 111-51.
Lowe, E. A. (1934-71). Codices Latini Antiquiores. 11 vols and suppl. Oxford.
Lutz, A., ed. (1981). See Die Version G der Angelsächsischen Chronik.
Mosshammer, A. A. (2008). The Easter Computus and the Origins of Christian Era.
Oxford.
Neville, J. (2002). ‘Making their own Sweet Time: The Scribes of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle A.’ The Medieval Chronicle 2: 166-77.
Parkes, M. B. (1976). ‘The palaeography of the Parker manuscript of the Chronicle,
laws and Sedulius, and the historiography at Winchester in the late ninth and
tenth centuries.’ ASE 5: 149-71.
––– (1991). ‘A Fragment of an Early–Tenth Century Anglo–Saxon Manuscript and its
Significance.’ In his Scribes, Scripts, and Readers: Studies in the Communica-
tion, Presentation, and Dissemination of Medieval Texts. London: Hambledon
Press. Pp. 171-85.
––– (2008). Their Hands Before Our Eyes: A Closer Look at Scribes. The Lyell
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford 1999 (Ashgate).
Plummer, C. (1892, 1899). See Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. 2 vols.
Poole, R. L. (1921). ‘The Beginning of the Year in the Middle Ages.’ PBA 10: 113-37.
––– (1926). Chronicles and Annals. A Brief Outline of their History and Growth.
Oxford.
84 Nicholas Sparks

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

Office.’ ASE 12: 125-28.
Sato, S. (1997). ‘Back to the Manuscripts: Some Problems in the Physical
Descriptions of the Parker Chronicle.’ In Back to the Manuscripts – Papers from
the Symposium ‘The Integrated Approach to Manuscript Studies: A New
Horizon’ Held at the Eighth General Meeting of the Japan Society for Medieval
English Studies, Tokyo, December 1992. Tokyo: The Centre for Medieval
English Studies. Pp. 69-95 and figs 1a-3d-2.
Sawyer, P. H. (1968). Anglo–Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography.
Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8. London: Butler and Tanner.
Sisam, K. (1990). ‘Anglo–Saxon royal genealogies.’ Rpt. in British Academy papers
on Anglo–Saxon England. Ed. E. G. Stanley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pp. 145-204.
Stenton, F. M. (1970). ‘The South–western Element in the Old English Chronicle.’ In
Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England, being the Collected Papers of Frank
Merry Stenton. Ed. D. M. Stenton. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 106-15.
––– (1970/2). ‘The Foundations of English History.’ In Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon
England, being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton. Ed. D. M. Stenton.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pp. 116-26.
––– (1971). Anglo–Saxon England. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stevenson, W. H. (1898). ‘The date of King Alfred’s Death.’ EHR 13: 73-74.
Thompson E. M., et al. (1913-30). The New Palaeographical Society Facsimiles of
Ancient Manuscripts. 2nd series, vol. I. London.
Thorogood, A. J. (1933). ‘The Anglo–Saxon Chronicle in the Reign of Ecgberht.’
EHR 48: 353-63.
Vaughan, R. (1954). ‘The Chronology of the Parker Chronicle, 890–970.’ EHR 69:
59-66.
Wheeler, G.H. (1921). ‘The Genealogy of the Early West–Saxon Kings.’ EHR 36:
161-71.
Whitelock, D. (rpt. 1952). ‘On the commencement of the year in the Saxon
Chronicles.’ In Plummer (1899): II, cxxxix-cxliii.
––– (unpublished). King Alfred, manuscript in the keeping of Professor S. D. Keynes.
Trinity College, Cambridge. Ch. 19.
Wynn, J. B. (1956). ‘The Beginning of the Year in Bede and the Anglo–Saxon
Chronicle.’ Medium Ævum 25: 71-78.