The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Thorpe)/Volume 1/Preface

PREFACE

It is deeply to be regretted that an historic monument so important, and of such great interest to all students of our early times, not only in Britain, but throughout all Germanic lands, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, should afford us no information with regard to its several writers,^[1] or to the mode in which it gradually grew into the form in which we now possess it. Equally devoid are we of all indirect or collateral evidence, tending to cast a glimmering of light on these points. Conjecture, therefore, and that founded only on probability, is all we can have recourse to, in an attempt to account for the phenomenon. One point, however, seems indisputable, viz., that the several manuscripts, whether West Saxon or Mercian, are derived from a common original; whence the question naturally arises, how and by whom was such original issued to the several monasteries, which, from their rank, or the reputation of one or other of their inmates, for learning or superior penmanship, were deemed qualified for the proposed object of multiplying copies; and where it received such additional matter as, on account of local interest or other circumstances, might seem desirable to those whose province it was to supervise the literary department of the brotherhood.

As contributors to the composition of the Saxon Chronicle, the names of king Ælfred and of archbishops Plegemund and Dunstan have been mentioned. This, too, is pure conjecture; though, with respect at least to Ælfred and Plegemund, a conjecture by no means void of probability; nor shall we perhaps greatly err in assigning to their influence and authority the earlier or original portion of the earliest manuscript,^[2] ending with the year 891, and which, from a comparison of the form of its letters with those of other manuscripts of the same period, may be safely assigned to the end of the ninth century, and, with a semblance of probability, as the prototype of the other copies. In favour, too, of Ælfred's participation in the composition of the Chronicle, may be noticed the greater fullness of narrative that prevails, from the year 853, or soon after Ælfred's birth; also that (with the exception of MS. Cott. Domit. A. VIII.), the account of the acts of that prince, is, in all the manuscripts, so strikingly similar; while, in other cases, they frequently exhibit great deviations from each other.

The testimony also supplied us by the old French chronicle of Geffrei Gaimar, who lived in the middle of the twelfth century, is of some authority, as tending to corroborate the supposition, that to king Ælfred we are indebted for a Saxon Chronicle, and, down to his time, probably in its present form. According to the same chronicler, that prince had a copy of a chronicle at Winchester fastened by a chain, so that all who wished might read; but that it might not be taken from the spot^[3]; a custom of which traces still exist in England, or at least have existed, within the memory of the present generation. A further corroboration of the existence of the Chronicle in its present form, in the days of king Ælfred, is the circumstance, that his friend, Asser, bishop of Sherborne, translates and incorporates much of its matter, in his Latin life of his royal patron, from the year 849 to 887.

The Saxon Chronicle comprises the period from the invasion of Britain by Julius Cassar to the accession of Henry II. in A.D. 1154; and is, conjointly with the Ecclesiastical History of Beda, the principal source whence our early chroniclers have derived their matter.

What has just been stated, with reference to king Ælfred, may perhaps tend in some degree to account for the distribution of copies of the Chronicle among certain religious houses, during the reign of that prince: but how it was continued in after-times we are without any intimation whereupon to found more than a probable conjecture; although all the extant copies, not excepting that which least resembles the others (Domit. A. VIII.), bear proofs of a common prototype, as must be evident to every reader of the several texts displayed in the present edition. Of this subject, the passage from the Scotichronicon, quoted below, offers a curious and not improbable illustration;^[4] though, perhaps, too vague and too recent to be considered as evidence.

While regarding Alfred as the probable originator of the Saxon Chronicle, it must, at the same time, be evident that in England there already existed written memorials of our early times, whence he, or rather perhaps his coadjutors, derived materials; and to such Beda alludes,^[5] in the words: "A principio voluminis hujus usque ad tempus quo gens Anglorum fidem Christi percepit, ex priorum maxime scriptis, hinc inde collectis, ea quæ promeremus didicimus." He also speaks of "monimenta literarum;" also Malmesbury: "Sunt sane quædam vetustatis indicia, chronico more et patrio sermone, per annos Domini ordinata."^[6]

In thus assuming Ælfred and his coadjutors as the originators of the Saxon Chronicle, the question arises: Is the Chronicle, in succeeding ages, to be regarded as a contemporaneous narrative of events? Generally speaking, I am inclined to answer in the affirmative, although it certainly is not free from interpolations of later date. Such interpolations are, however, chiefly prevalent in manuscript Domitian A. VIII., and the Laudian manuscript. As an instance of such interpolation, may be noticed the entry A.D. 876, in the manuscript first mentioned, where it is said, that Rodla (Rolf, Rollo)^[7] penetrated into Normandy, and reigned fifty years. The date (876) of Rolf's landing in France is correctly given, at least it accords both with Ordericus Vitalis and Florence of Worcester. The year of his death is variously given; for, according to another interpolated entry, in the same manuscript, the accession of his son, William I., took place in the year 928, and this date accords with that assigned by the Chron. Alberici for the death of Rolf. In fact, all the entries in this manuscript respecting Normandy, previous to the Conquest, as well as some others, may safely be placed to the account of the monastic scribe, and not belonging to the genuine Chronicle.

A remarkable case of what would be pronounced an interpolation, did it not appear in no less than five of the six manuscripts, occurs under the year 755, under which date, an event, the murder of Cynewulf, is recorded, which did not occur until 784, when it is again, and rightly, mentioned. This instance would, if needful, tend to show, that as early as the time of Ælfred there was one model whence the other copies were taken, with the exception of MS. Domitian, A. viii., which can hardly be dated earlier than the middle of the twelfth century, and may be pronounced a careless composition, by more hands than one, from beginning to end.

From the beginning of the Chronicle to the death of Beda (A.D. 734), we are enabled to form a judgment as to the sources whence much of its matter is derived; but from that date until the time of Ælfred (or about a hundred and fifty years), we know not from what materials the narrative was compiled. Tradition, which in those days must have been in much greater request than it is now, no doubt contributed its share; some marginal notes also in the volumes of monastic libraries, may have afforded information, as, it appears, was the case on the Continent; although I am not aware tha any such are extant in this country.
Such a continuous chain of occurrences as that exhibited in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, would, it is reasonable to suppose, display a gradation of changes in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, during the two centuries from the time of Ælfred to the death of Harold: such is not, however, the case, as the language is the same throughout, with regard both to its vocabulary and its inflexions; nor until some time after the Conquest do we observe any material corruptions; they then begin to be but too manifest. Yet, even here we have hardly a just criterion in the Peterborough, or Laudian, manuscript, much of the later parts of which are evidently the work of illiterate, or even foreign, monks, glaringly ignorant of the use of genders and cases. From this period may be dated the break-up of the old "English undefiled." The evil was for some time partial in its influence: its focus was the Norman court; the Saxon, at least its vocabulary, long kept its ground in the country: as an example of this may be compared the courtly jargon of Chaucer with the rugged downright Saxon of Piers Ploughman.

I regret my inability to supply any information relative to the authors of the poetic effusions in the Saxon Chronicle. Are they by the writers of the prose narrative, or are they only insertions? The latter seems to me the more probable opinion. Of these, the first, not only in the order of time, but in excellence, is the ode on the Battle of Brunnanburh (A.D. 937); and a matter it is of regret that the name of its author has irrecoverably perished. Of the other pieces, little can be said in praise; they are rather rhythmical and alliterative prose than poetry; while, on the other hand, the effusion on the assassination of king Eadward, and the account of the murder of the young prince Ælfred, son of the Confessor, may be regarded as unmetrical poetry. In preceding editions of the Chronicle an attempt has been made to reduce them to metrical arrangement, but as they are defective both in rhythm and alliteration, I have printed them continuously, as in the manuscripts.

Of the chronology of the Anglo-Saxons, before their conversion to Christianity, or from what data the writers of the Chronicle reduced the time of events, down to the coming of Augustine (A.D. 596), to the era of the Incarnation,^[8] we have no knowledge; though that our pagan forefathers had some system of time-reckoning there cannot be a doubt.

In this edition of the Saxon Chronicle, the texts of the several manuscripts are printed entire; a plan which, at first sight, may appear objectionable, on the score of the great mass of repetition it necessarily occasions of matter not only substantially but frequently verbatim and even literatim identical. But to produce the Chronicle complete, there was no midway between the plan here adopted, and the less satisfactory one hitherto followed, of taking the most esteemed manuscript for a text, and printing beneath all deviations from it, in the shape of various readings, unpleasant and inconvenient to consult, and, it is believed, by only a few readers, ever consulted; and frequently equalling in mass, and sometimes exceeding, the text itself. Nor does this method afford the requisite facility to those desirous of weighing the several narratives of the same event against each other, as the narrative of a West Saxon against that of a Mercian; or of a partisan of earl Godwine and Harold against that of one inimical to their house. And to the investigator of dialects the arrangement in columns cannot be otherwise than useful and welcome. The foregoing considerations will, it is hoped, be deemed a sufficient apology for the plan here adopted.

Of the translation the text is formed from those of the original which, coinciding in matter, are susceptible of collation; all deviations from which are placed beneath the line, with an indication at foot of the manuscript whence such discrepant or additional matter is derived.

A few words here may not be out of place respecting the pronunciation of the Anglo-Saxon letters, in the proper names of persons and places occurring in the Chronicle. J has the sound of the English y, as in all the Germanic tongues, and in Italian; c is pronounced like k; though, when the language, owing apparently to foreign influence, had lost its purity, with respect both to its pronunciation and vocabulary, this sound of k before e and i degenerated into ch, like the Italian ce and ci; when ceap, ceorl, cinne, cirice, became our cheap, churl, chin, church, Scotice kirk. In later times, too, the þ (ð) in proper names of persons beginning with Æthel, is often found changed to g, as Ægelred for Æþelred, Ægelward for Æþelward, etc. The Saxon g, as in German, was always hard, as in our give, begin, and in general before e and i, in all English words derived from the Saxon.

The Indexes have been framed on the model of my predecessors, Bishop Gibson and Dr. Ingram, to whose praiseworthy labours in that department I have made some additions. Of such Anglo-Saxon terms as are necessarily retained in the translation, a short Glossary is given at the end of the second volume. For ampler explanation of these terms, recourse may be had to the late Mr. Kemble's "Saxons in England," Hallam's "State of Europe during the Middle Ages" Spelman's "Glossarium Archæologicum," etc.
The manuscripts of which the texts are here printed are —

A. A small folio on vellum, belonging to the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, marked clxxiii. (formerly S. xi.), containing the Annals of England from the invasion of Julius Cæsar to A.D. 1070. Prefixed to this manuscript is a Genealogy of the West Saxon Kings, from the landing of Cerdic and his son Cynric, to the accession of Ælfred. "It is written in double columns to the year 417, at fol. 9, but afterwards in single columns. The first original hand ends at page 33, with the year 891, whence it is continued in a variety of hands. Between A.D. 1 and A.D. 891, it contains many interlineary additions, apparently of the twelfth century. They are, for the greater part, written on erasures of the original text, mostly taken from Beda, through the medium, as it would seem, of a copy resembling D. or E., and were apparently intended to supply deficiencies in the original narrative. The narrative of this copy to A.D. 806, relates chiefly to transactions south of the Thames, its notices of Northern matters being generally brief and taken from Beda; but from that year it becomes general to A.D. 925. Afterwards its notices are few, and only at intervals."^[9]

B. "The Cottonian Manuscript, Tiberius A. vi., originally a small folio, but now much shrunk by fire. It extends from the Incarnation to A.D. 977, and is written in one uniform hand, apparently of the latter part of the tenth century; but it may be doubted whether the transcript was completed, as the dates after A.D. 552 are only occasionally marked. To A.D. 918, the text varies but little from that of Wheloc, or Manuscript G.; but the compiler of this, or a similar copy, having found the Annals of Mercia, during the government of Æthelfleda, in a separate form, instead of attempting to distribute them chronologically among the events of the original chronicle, returned from A.D. 918 to A.D. 896, and thence inserted them continuously to A.D. 919, when the two accounts run into one. Thenceforward to A.D. 934 it differs from Manuscript G.; but afterwards, till it ceases at A.D. 975, it again resembles that copy. It was first collated by Dr. Ingram."^[10] It formerly belonged to the Monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury.

C. "The Cottonian Manuscript, Tiberius B. i.,^[11] in square folio; from the invasion of Julius Cæsar to A.D. 1066 ; written apparently in the same hand to A.D. 1046, afterwards in various hands. It appears to have been transcribed from a copy of the same class as B., as far as that manuscript extends, but its chronology is complete. Afterwards it agrees for the most part with Manuscripts D., E., and F., to A.D. 1056, when it becomes blank to A.D. 1065, and ends, in a hand of the twelfth century, with the story of the Dane [r. Norwegian] at Stamford Bridge, in A.D. 1066. In a few instances, differing from the other copies, it seems to begin the year at Easter.^[12] Its variations were first printed by Dr. Ingram."^[13]

D. "The Cottonian Manuscript, Tiberius B. iv., is in medium folio; from the Incarnation to A.D. 1079; written in one hand to A.D. 1016, afterwards in several. It is much mutilated from A.D. 261 to A.D. 693, but part of the hiatus has been filled up by Josceline from other copies; it is also mutilated at the end. To A.D. 806, it has much in common with Manuscripts E. and F. It sometimes enlarges the text, not only by fuller extracts from Beda, but by the addition of many events relating especially to Mercia and Northumbria, which would seem to imply the existence of a distinct Chronicle, at least during the greater part of the eighth century; and it probably also agreed with Manuscript E., in that portion which is now lost in that copy. Afterwards it is nearly the same as Manuscripts A. and G., to the beginning of the tenth century, when it interweaves the account of Æthelflæd's exploits, sometimes abridged, chronologically, but rather confusedly, and with some repetitions. After the middle of the tenth century it has some peculiar circumstances relating to the Northumbrian affairs, whenceforward it agrees generally with Manuscripts C, E., and F. Its variations were first printed by Dr. Ingram. The portion extending from A.D. 1043 to the end, has been printed by Lye, as an appendix to his Saxon Dictionary, from a faulty transcript by Lambard, now at Christ Church, Canterbury."^[14] In the chronology of the eighth and ninth centuries, this manuscript is, in numerous instances, a year behind the three preceding manuscripts, herein agreeing with the chronicles of the north country, as Simeon of Durham, etc., and as appears to have originally been the case with the Corpus Christi Manuscript, previous to erasure.

E. "The Bodleian Manuscript, Laud. 636 (formerly E. 80), from the Incarnation to A.D. 1154, a small quarto, originally interleaved in folio; it is written in double columns from A.D. 12. to A.D. 476, afterwards in single columns. The hand as well as the ink vary but little to A.D. 1122, whence to A.D. 1154, where it ends, mutilated, it is in various hands. On the margin, between A.D. 1128 and AD. 1140, is inserted a brief Chronicle in French, from Brutus to Edward I.; and on the interleaving, and sometimes on the margin of the Chronicle, are collations from Manuscript A., together with a few notes. To A.D. 891, in common with Manuscript D., it is derived from a copy similar to Manuscript A., but with large additions, either from Beda or from a copy like that used for Manuscript D. It contains only a few scanty notices between A.D. 891 and A.D. 975, many years being wholly blank; but from that time it agrees more or less with Manuscripts C, D, and F, till they severally end. From A.D. 655 it has many late additions concerning Peterborough, to which monastery it appears to have belonged. It has also certain Latin notices interspersed between A.D. 114 and A.D. 812, which are derived from a source similar to that of the Chronicon Cadomense, printed by Duchesne."^[15]

F. "The Cottonian Manuscript, Domitian A. viii. 2., from the Incarnation to A.D. 1056, in Saxon, in octavo or small quarto, is in a hand apparently of the twelfth century, and nearly of the same character throughout. It is often carelessly written, has many erasures, and is sometimes illegible, in which state it ends. Its basis to A.D. 891, in common with Manuscripts D. and E., was a copy similar to Manuscript G., with many additions, for the greater part resembling those copies; but the text, as compared with them, is generally compressed or slightly abbreviated. Like Manuscript E., it contains very little between A.D. 891 and A.D. 975, after which latter date it again coincides with Manuscripts C, D., and E., with some variations. It is mutilated or illegible till it ends. It contains also various peculiar additions, chiefly relating to Kentish ecclesiastical affairs; of which the first occurs under A.D. 694. The Latin version follows the text, year by year, and it is generally very close, but it has occasionally insertions which apparently are not translations."^[16]

G. "The Cottonian Manuscript, Otho B. xi. 2., from the Invasion of Julius Cæsar to A.D. 1001, is in small folio, according to Wanley,^[17] but now greatly shrunk by fire. This volume was supposed to have been entirely destroyed, but a considerable portion of Beda's Ecclesiastical History (No. 1.), and three damaged leaves of the Saxon Chronicle, in a hand apparently of the eleventh century (No. 2.), beginning A.D. 837 (823), and ending A.D. 871, have lately been recovered. This Manuscript formed the basis of Wheloc's edition, and a comparison of his text with such portions of the leaves as are readily legible, seems to show that he transcribed it very carefully. A transcript by Lambard, apparently from this copy, is among Usher's collections at Dublin."^[18]

W. By this letter are indicated the references to Wheelocke's edition of the Chronicle.

In addition to the foregoing there yet remains to be noticed the Cottonian Manuscript, Tiberius A. iii. (fol. 175), consisting of a single leaf, bound up with other manuscripts of a heterogeneous and miscellaneous character, containing the genealogy of the West Saxon kings, from Cerdic to Eadward, son of Eadgar, with whom it ends abruptly; whence it appears probable that it was composed during the short reign of that unfortunate prince; and may, as conjectured by Wanley (p. 199), have originally belonged to MS. Cott. Tiberius A. vi., which it not only resembles in its orthography and the form of its letters, but, like that manuscript, ends just before the murder of Eadward, A.D. 977: it is, therefore, inserted in the present edition immediately after that date.

"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was first published, under the title of 'Chronologia Anglo-Saxonica,' by Abraham Wheloc, at Cambridge, in the year 1644, in folio, with a Latin translation. His text was taken from the Cottonian Manuscript, Otho B. xi., collated with the Corpus Christi Manuscript, clxxiii."

"It was next edited by Edmund Gibson, afterwards Bishop of London, at Oxford, in the year 1692, in quarto. In addition to Wheloc's text, Gibson used the Bodleian Manuscript, Laud. 636, and copies of the Cottonian, Tiberius A. vi. and Domitian A. viii. Besides giving a new Latin version of his text, greatly enlarged, he added a preface, notes, and indexes, glossarial and chronological."

"The latest edition was published at London in 1823, in quarto, by the Reverend James Ingram, B.D., afterwards President of Trinity College, Oxford. Dr. Ingram collated all the known manuscripts, among which were two in the Cottonian collection (viz., Tiber. B. i. and Tiber. B. iv.) not employed by Gibson; and of his text, thus considerably enlarged, he gave an English version, together with a preface, notes, indexes of persons and places, and a brief grammar of the Anglo-Saxon language."

An edition to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, down to the date of the Norman conquest, is included in the 'Monumenta Historica Britannica' published in the year 1848, in folio, by Royal authority. This edition, with an English translation, is by the late eminent Anglo-Saxon scholar, Mr. Richard Price, and is, as far as it extends, in every respect greatly superior to any of the preceding ones. In the present work a few of Mr. Price's notes are retained, and are distinguished by the initials R.P.

I have now to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Reinhold Pauli, Professor of History in the University of Tubingen, the able continuator (in German) of Dr. Lappenberg's History of England, and author of the Life of King Ælfred, for his kindness, when leaving England, in spontaneously presenting me with his transcripts of the Cottonian Manuscripts of the Saxon Chronicle, Tiberius B. i., Tiberius B. iv., and Domitian A. viii., and his collation of Tiberius A. vi. with Tiberius B. i. ; a favour for which I acknowledge myself deeply indebted.

B. Thorpe.

---

1. Under the year 1087 (p. 354; Transl. p. 188), the writer of that part of the Laudian manuscript (E.) speaks in the first person, both singular and plural, and informs us that he was not only a contemporary of, and personally acquainted with, the Conqueror, but that he had lived in his court; in his own words: þonne wille we be him awritan swa swa we hine ageaton • be him onlocodan • 7 oðre hwile on his hirede wunedon: then we will write concerning him as we understood him, who have looked on him and, at another time, sojourned in his court. From the above, however, we can only form the probable conjecture, that the writer, after his withdrawal from court, joined the brotherhood in the abbey of Peterborough.
2. The Corpus Christi manuscript.—It is the opinion of Dr. Lappenberg (England under the A. S. Kings, Introd. p. xxxix.), and, after him, of the author of the Preface to the 'Monumenta Historica Britannica' (p. 75), that this manuscript is in the dialect of Mercia; an opinion which, if well founded, would prove that the belief in Ælfred's participation in the work is wholly groundless. But the examples cited by the authority last mentioned, in support of the dialect being Mercian, seem to me more than questionable: as cuom for com, Walas for Wealas, slog for sloh, hiera for heora, Miercna for Mercna (or rather for hyra, Myrcna) ; since in Ælfred's Boethius we find hiera and hiere, with numerous other instances of ie for y, as ieldran for yldran, etc.; also ofslog for ofsloh, and genog for genoh; Wealas, too, occurs in this very Corpus manuscript. Cuom for com, may, with every probability, be regarded as an Anglian form; though even that may be only an archaism, Goth. cwam. The two dialects have, I believe, been never satisfactorily distinguished; at the same time, we may, I think, without risk of error, pronounce the Corpus manuscript of West Saxon origin.
3. Meis n'alout pas la terre issi,
   Ke nuls hom pur la guere,
   Seust coment alout la terre,
   Ne eel tens sul ne saveit
   Nuls hom ki chescon rei estait;
   Mes moignes e chanoines de abeies,
   Ki des reis escristrent les vies,
   Si adrescat chescon son per,
   Pur la veraic raison mustrer
   Des reis ; cumbien chescon regnat;
   Coment out nun, coment deviat;
   Quel fu oscis, et quels transi,
   Quels est ent[i]res, et quels purri:
   E des eveskes, ensement,
   Firent li clerc adrescement.
   Croniz ad nun, un livere grant;
   Engleis l'alerent assemblant.
   Ore est issi auctorizez,
   K'a Wincestre, en l'eveskez,
   La est des reis la dreite estorie;
   E les vies e la memorie.
   Li reis Elfred l'out en demaine;
   Fermer i list une chaine.
   Ki lire i volt bien i guardast;
   Mais de son liu nel' remuast.—
   II. 2316, seqq.
   
   

   Il [Elueret] fist escrivere un livre Engleis,
   Des aventures, e des leis,
   E des battailles de la terre,
   E des reis ki firent la guere:
   Et maint livere fist il escrivere,
   U li bon clerc vont sovent lire.—
   II. 3451, seqq.
   
   

     In a preceding line Gaimar calls the volume "La dreite estorie de Wincestre."

4. Ideoque statutum est convenienter, in plerisque regionibus, et, ut audivi, in Anglia, quod unumquodque monasterium, a regibus fundatum, haberet de ipso loco suum certum scribam vei scriptorem, qui omnia notabilia, tempore regis, saltem in regno vel e vicinis, contingentia, secundum quod veritas facti se haberet, cum data annotaret, et ad proximum generale concilium, post obitum regis, omnes illi chronographi convenirent, et sua veridicta sive scripta in medium producerent, et, electis a concilio sagacioribus et in talibus peritis et expertis, scripta examinarent, et, diligenti habita collatione, decongestis summarium extraherent, et chronicam compingerent ; ac in coenobiticis archivis librariorum pro authenticis chronicis, quibus fides daretur, scripta reponerent, ne temporum labilitate memoriæ gestorum in regno deperirent." Fordun, Scotichronicon, Cont. edit. Hearne, iv. p. 1348.
5. H. E. Prolog.
6. Prol. Gest. Reg.
7. As a progenitor of our Norman and Angevin kings, and, through them, of the present reigning house, a few words (after the example afforded by the Chronicle itself, in the case of the Saxon and Anglian kings) concerning Rolf's lineage, may not be deemed irrelevant. According to the idle tale told of this chieftain by the Norman writers, Dudo of St. Quentin, William of Jumieges, Benedict of St. More, and Wace, Rolf was a Dane, whose power appearing too formidable in the land, the king led a force against him and his brother Garin, or Gurim (Gorm ?); but, in an attempt to take his castle, was put to flight, though he afterwards worsted him through an ambuscade; from which, however, Rolf escaped, though his brother Garin was slain. He afterwards sailed to Scotland, and finally invaded and won the province thenceforward called Normandy. This story is probably the invention of a chronicler anxious to flatter the pride of his ducal patron. Far more probable is the account given by Snorri (Heimskringla, ch. 24), that Rolf was a son of Rognvald, jarl of Mœri in Norway, and, as we are told, was of so gigantic a stature, that he was compelled to go on foot, whence his appellation of Hrôlfr gavngr, or Rolf the ganger or walker. For his plunderings (strandhug) on the coast of Norway, he was expelled from the country by king Harald Harfagri. William of Malmesbury (and from him, Alberic) says of him: "De nobili, sed per vetustatem obsoleta, prosapia Noricorum editus." Dudo calls him the son of a truly free man, who, for no feudal obligation, would place his hands between those of another. And again: "Rollo superbo regum ducumque sanguine natus."
8. There are some anomalous appearances with respect to the time of beginning the year in MS. C. (Cott. Tiber. B. i.), before this period; but henceforward to the year 1053, it can hardly be questioned that the computation from Easter is followed in that copy. This event, therefore (king Eadward's marriage), according to our mode of reckoning, would belong to the year 1045. R. P. note to An. 1044.
9. Monumenta Historica Britannica, Preface, p. 75.
10. Monumenta Historica Britannica, Preface, p. 75.
11. Called by Josselyn Chronicon Abbendoniæ.
12. See p. xiv, note.
13. Monumenta Historica Brit., Preface, p. 76.
14. Monumenta Historica Britannica, Preface, p. 76.
15. Monumenta Historica Britannica, Preface, p. 73. The spurious charters inserted in this manuscript, in favour of the abbey of Peterborough, and apparently of the twelfth century, will be found printed beneath the line, so as not to interrupt the general narrative. It may be here observed, that the latter part of this manuscript is rather a Chronicon Petroburgense than a 'Saxon Chronicle,' being mostly made up of matter relating to that abbey, as the brawls with abbot Henry, etc. etc.
16. Monumenta Historica Britannica, Preface, p. 76.
17. Catalogus Librorum Septentrionalium, p. 219.
18. Monumenta Historica Britannica, Preface, p. 77.