events described. Owing to the numerous entries relating to Peterborough, it evidently came into the possession of that monastery. Its pedigree, as traceable from the original chronicle, diverges more than any other from that of MS. A, with which it has therefore a considerable complementary importance, for which reason Messrs. Earle and Plummer made these two texts the groundwork of their editions.
MS. F, in the British Museum (Cott. Dom. A viii.), extends to 1058, but is mutilated at the end. It is a compilation from other transcripts, and has little original value, its most remarkable feature being that it is bi-lingual, each entry being written in Latin as well as English.
MS. G, the few remains of which are in the British Museum (Cott. Otho B xi), is now only known by the Dublin copy and by Wheloc's printed version. It is practically a copy of A.
The minute and exhaustive investigation of the subject by Mr. Plummer, from whom some of these particulars are derived, has proved that the original chronicle established by Alfred the Great, or any direct copy of it, is no longer extant. MSS. A, B and C, which are practically identical to the year 892, doubtless represent its substance to that date, but it will be noticed by the student that in all of these, from the middle of the eighth century to the middle of the ninth, the events are misdated by two or three years. This has arisen from the fact that a date left blank in the original copy has occasionally been inadvertently filled by the transcriber with the next entry, and so caused a general ante-dating of the succeeding
