ENGLISH CHRONICLES. The writing of English chronicles begins with the 'Anglo Saxon Chronicle' the earliest English history written in the English language, and the ear liest vernacular record of national events in modern Europe. The 'Chronicle opens with the Christian era, combining in its earlier parts records of Roman, Christian and British events. It rapidly becomes strictly national, carrying the record of English history forward to a consid erable period after the Norman Conquest. It treats in general of the affairs of all the Eng lish-speaking peoples in Great Britain, and as one of the first attempts at an expression of coherent national life and as a trustworthy source of information concerning the language, history and social manners and customs of the Anglo-Saxon period, the importance of the 'Chronicle' can hardly be overestimated. Al though the work itself does not mention the name of its author, there is strong evidence to show that in its original form it was under taken at the suggestion of King Alfred and was in part actually written by him. From this original form, now no longer extant, copies were made and carried to different sections of England, where they served as foundations of what, from that time, became separate and in dependent chronicles. Seven of these local chronicles, with a fragment of an eighth, have come down to us. The date at which the orig inal parent version was made was about 892, and the place was probably Winchester, the cap ital of the West-Saxon kingdom. The form in which the
Although no single model or source for the 'Chronicle) is known, there were in existence in Alfred's time a number of Latin works which were of help in its first compilation. Of these the .most important were Bede's (Historia Ecclesiastica Genus Anglorum,) finished in 731; Bede's 'De temporum ratione,' a chronological essay containing a short epitome of the history of the world from Adam to 729 A.D.; Orosius' (Universal History) ((Pauli Orosii Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VIP ) ; and doubtless many records of national events preserved in local monastic libraries. But the (Chronicle' was an original work in that it strove to record the life of a nation. Just as the codes of laws systematized the customs and rules of living of the people, so the 'Chronicle' fixed for them the ever-receding events of their history.
From the period of its original composition to the middle of the llth century, the (Anglo Saxon Chronicle> established the form for all historical writing in England. Although we
now know only seven, with the fragmentary eighth, versions of the (Chronicle,' the number in the Anglo-Saxon period must have been niuch greater, copies being probably kept at every important monastery and town. Toward the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, however, the (Chronicle) tends to become less and less national and more and more ecclesiastical in its character. In harmony with this change the language of chronicle writing changed also to Latin. The use of Anglo-Saxon as late as 1154, the date of the latest entry in that tongue, appears only in one version, and is plainly due to reasons of respect for the traditional lan guage of the (Chronicle.) To take the place of the English annals of the (Chronicle,' new histories began to be written in Latin. The earliest of these was that of Ethelwerd; others from the beginning of the 12th to the' 14th century were the histories of Symeon of Dur ham, Florence of Worcester, William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, Roger of Hoveden, Matthew of Paris, Matthew of West minster, Roger of Wendover, and Ralph Higden, whose (Polychronicon) was the ((standard work of general history in the 14th and 15th cen turies') (Babington, ed. of (Higden) in the Rolls Series, p. xliii). All of these Latin histories derived much of their material either directly or indirectly from the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.' In the Middle English ,period several metrical histories were wntten in English, the (Brut) of Layamon, the chronicles of Robert of Gloucester and of Robert Manning of Brunne; but these are better characterized as historical romances than as attempts at veracious history. The writing of prose histories in English begins again with Trevisa's translation of Higden's (Polychronicon,) made in 1387, and with John C.apgrave's original chronicle, written about the middle of the following century, The tone of Capgrave's work, as compared with the (Anglo Saxon Chronicle,' is extremely naive. The writers of the (Chronicle' had a most rigid sense of historical fact, but the work of Capgrave and his contemporaries is marked by an altogether uncritical and credulous mingling of legend and history. As a result, however, of this infusion of the romantic spirit into historical writing, the older annalistic method gave way to one in which greater attention was paid to a consecu tive narrative interest, after the manner of modern historical writing. The national awakening accompanying the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth resulted in a renewed in terest in the writing of these history-chronicles. In 1516 appeared Fabyan's (New Chronicles of England and France' ; in 1562 Grafton's (Abridgment of the Chronicles of England' ; in 1565 Stowe's (Summarie of Englyshe Chroni cles' ; and in 1578, the most important of the Elizabethan chronicles because of the use made of it by Shakespeare, (The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland,' written by Holinshed with the assistance of several others. The term chronicle continued to be used in the titles of historical works to the end of the 17th century, as in Sir Roger de Coverley's favorite book, Baker's (Chronicle of the Kings of Eng land,' 1643; by this time, however, the naive annalistic chronicle had largely given way to the more philosophical treatment of events which is designated by the name of history.
For general bibliography, consult Gross, (Sources and Literature of Eng lish History from the Earliest Times to about 148S) (1900). Editions of most of the chroni cles will be found in the Rolls Series; the best edit:on of the (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle> is that of Earle and Plummer (Oxford 1892-99). The literary significance of the chronicles is dis cussed by Schofield, (English Literature f rom the Norman Conquest to Chaucer) (pp. 29-46) ; and by Schelling, 'English Chronicle Plays) (New York 1902). Consult also (Cambric*, History of English Literature' (Vol. I, chap. 7, 1907).