2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF ENGLISH HISTORY
2.1. The most old English chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
To understand a material we are going to present here, it would be better if a reader knows main things from English, Roman and Byzantine history. As to Roman and Byzantine history, we assume that it is more or less the case. But old English history is not so generally well-known. That is why we are going to present here a brief review of "English history textbook".
Surely, we could simply suggest that a reader looks through one of modern books concerned with English history before he reads this paper. But all such books are necessarily the secondary texts which, in fact, copy an information from more old texts and documents devoted to English history. The problem is that this coping proves to be not so good (part of information is lost). That is why we prefer to analyse medieval historical texts themselves rather then modern textbooks, which are based on them. An important advantage of these medieval texts is that they were written more close to the time of creation of now traditional global chronological version (it was I.Scaliger's one). Our experience says that an information about old history was been lost while publishing new and new textbooks from that time up to now. Medieval texts are more valuable for reconstruction of real history.
Our analysis was based mostly on three famous medieval English chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" [9]. In fact, these texts form a basis for modern concept of old and medieval English history.
Also we used well-known "Chronological Tables" which were compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of 19th c. These fundamental tables cover all historical epochs which seemed important to experts in the end of 19th century.
Now it is assumed that so-called "legendary" English history started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in 12-13th cc. B.C. Nevertheless a 1000-year period from Trojan war to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st c. B.C.) is considered usually as a "dark time".
From the time of creation and establishment of modern chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and D.Petavius in 16-17th cc.) it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60 B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But it is known today that documents speak about English history only from approximately 1 A.D., i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It was the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its records ([2], p.4).
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle consists of several separate manuscripts:
Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle (60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),
Manuscript B: The Abigdon Chronicle I (A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),
Manuscript C: The Abigdon Chronicle II (60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),
Manuscript D: The Worcester Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079), (with twelfth-century addition 1080 - 1130 A.D.),
Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),
Manuscript F: The Bilingual Canterbury Epitome (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).
It is well-known that all these manuscripts duplicate each other in the sense that they all speak about the same events, but in more or less details. That is why all they are placed in the publication [2] parallel to each other in a very convenient manner, which makes it easy to compare different records concerning the same year. Maybe, all these manuscripts have the same written original and in fact represent different scripts of one old chronicle.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle covers an epoch from 1 A.D. to 11th century (except manuscript E which stops in 1153).
It is traditionally assumed that all these manuscripts were written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in the form which we have today. But it is only a hypothesis which is strongly based on the Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very natural. For example, manuscript A exists now only in two "copies" and both of them were made only in 16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The original version (from which these two copies were made) was practically burned out in a fire. As to other manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, their history is not clear from [2]. For example, it is not pointed out what were the methods of determining of dates when existing copies were made. One could have an idea that the dating was as follows: if last records of these manuscripts refer to 11-12th cc., then the copies we now posses are necessarily written just in that form in 11-12th cc. Leaving aside other objections, we must say that this speculation in fully based on Scaliger's chronology. If real dates of last mentioned events change, then such dating of a manuscript would also change.
Difficulties with reconstruction of a true story for origin of these manuscripts are well-known among experts. For example David Knowles had to claim that:
"The question of provenance and interdependence of the various versions [of the Chronicle] are so complicated that any discussion soon assumes the appearance of an essay in higher mathematics" ([2],p.xxxi).
Moreover, G.N.Garmonsway says that any modern analysis of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles Plummer's revision (1892-1899) of it's original edition published by John Earle in 1865. It should be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again "associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with certain persons from 16th century - Archbishop Parker (1504-1575) and Archbishop Laud (1573-1645). Here is his text:
"Any account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary based on Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John Earle (1865) which was published in two volumes by the Oxford University Press in 1892-9... Plummer's edition... gives prominence on opposite pages to manuscripts A and E, associated respectively with the names of Archbishop Parker (1504-75) and Archbishop Laud (1573-1645); ... The other manuscripts were once in the possession of Sir Robert Cotton (1571-1631), and are to be found in the Cottonian collection of manuscripts in the British Museum" ([2],p.xxxi).
It seems that all the manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which are available today were actually written (or revised) not earlier than in 15-16th centuries. However, they are considered to be written in this form in 11-12th cc. Probably the only reason for such point of view is that traditional dates of the last events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle belong to this epoch: 11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It is possible that events from 11-12th cc. were described by somebody in 15-16th cc. and we actually possess his secondary text which could be very far from an original version. And also, the dates of events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle strongly depend on a used chronological concept. If it changes then the dating of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle would change automatically.
There is a strong argument which suggests that manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a rather late origin. The problem is that all these manuscripts use modern "A.D." era which came into regular practical use only in 15th century. It is a known fact in traditional history. Later we will also present some facts which suggest that the authors of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were already familiar with J.Scaliger's chronological concept (16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological concept of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written much later then it is usually accepted.
The reason for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be paid such great attention in our reconstruction of English history is very simple. It turns out that:
"Thanks to the example of Bede, the Chronicle is the first history written in English to use his mastery innovation of reckoning years as from the Incarnation of Our Lord - "Years of Grace" as they were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).
Concerning the way of presenting dates in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle we should make a remark. It is accepted that in medieval England they used for "A.D." era the following formula: "Years from the Incarnation of Our Lord". It is accepted today that this formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of Grace". But this equivalence in not so evident and requires a special investigation. (We will return to this subject later and discuss it in more details). Note that there is a strange similarity between two well-known names-terms: Grace - Greece.
Maybe the original (and forgotten today) meaning of a formula "Years of Grace" differs from one which is accepted today. Maybe it was "years in Greece", "Greek years" or something like this. It is possible also that there is a relation between terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of Christ associated in some sense with a name of country "Greece"? For example Christ religion = "Greece religion"? It might be because in medieval epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine empire, and another it's name was Romea, Rome. So Christian, "Roman" religion could be called also as "Greek religion"; but if so then there might be a confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old "Greek", Byzantine era which was used sometimes, as well as "A.D.", with it's thousands omitted. It could be not obvious which era was actually used in an old documents which indicate "Years of Grace". Of course, such kind of similarity between different terms could not be considered as very strong arguments supporting any point of view. It play a role of preliminary speculations and should be considered as a serious argument only in the case when it appears (repeats) constantly in a long historical parallelism, when similar names arise simultaneously for hundreds of years in two different epochs after one of them is shifted in time as a whole and then compared with another one.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written in a very laconic manner,
it was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them devoted to a
certain year. Many years are not described at all (there are some
lacunas in the text). It is considered today that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks about events from the beginning of A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1a, Fig1.b.
Fig.1b
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum".
Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" is a rather short text, only about 24 pages in [8]. There exist more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius' book which are known today (see [8]).
"The earliest manuscripts are dated today by 9th or 10th centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even 14th centuries. In some of the manuscripts are indications that the author was Gildas. Nennius is called as the author sufficiently rare. Thus, this manuscript is possibly - compilation... The original text was lost, we do not have it today. But there exists its Irish translation of 11th century" ([8],p.269).
Translation was made from the publication: "Nennius et l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934. Some manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals Cambriae", which is considered to be compiled approximately in 954 A.D. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" does not have nor chronological subdivision neither any chronological notes except the following two ones:
1) A table titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time distances in years between some biblical events - and already according to Scaliger's calculations, which were carried out only in 16th c.
2) Chapter XVI of the "Historia" has a section titled "The ground of the dating" , which speaks about the relative distances (in years) between a few events from English history.
In both cases chronological notes are very brief. Resume is that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote the "Historia". It's original text does not exist today, a translation which is considered to be carried out in 11th c. The text does not have it's own chronological scale. Surely, all questions which arise with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, refer to "Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is written in a free artistic manner with many stylistic accessories. It suggests that this manuscript is of rather late origin. Such text could be written only in an atmosphere of a deep and well developed literary tradition when many people use writing and reading books and paper is not a treasure.
It is accepted today that Nennius describes certain events in a time interval from the ancient epoch of Trojan war to 10-11th cc. A.D. In fact it is a result of only a traditional chronological concept (which suggests that short Nennius' text covers an extremely large 2000-year historical period) that one could find today giant lacunas in chronology of "Historia". Fig.1a and Fig.1b show by a dotted line the epoch which is considered to be covered by "Historia". According to traditional chronological concept, Nennius easily omits whole centuries in his story, makes giant chronological jumps without any explanations. He seems not to notice it at all and continues his story after such jumps as if nothing was missed.
2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum". "Histories of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth".
It is generally accepted today that this chronicle was written in 30th or 40th of 12th century ([8], p.196) by Galfridus Monemutensis who based it on Nennius' text, sometimes even copying Nennius "errors" ([8], p.231, comments to chap. 17; see also [8], p.244). Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather big one - about 130 pages in [8]. In opposition to Anglo-Saxon Chronicle his text has no chronological subdivision (no indication about years). His writing style was rather complicated, with many accessories, moralities, philosophical excursions et cetera. Galfridus is even considered to be not a historian only but also a poet. Surely, the traditional point of view that Galfridus wrote his book after Nennius, is correct. It is known also that Galfridus made an extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History of the English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9], p.244). It is assumed that Bede's "History" covers 597-731 A.D.
It is remarkable that modern commentators point out "the extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation of the antique tradition" ([9], p.207). For example, Galfridus not only used ancient plots, but also copied a stylistic manner of ancient authors ([9], p.207). It seems that Galfridus writes his book being fully influenced by the atmosphere of antiquity. It was pointed out that Galfridus copies some of his topics directly from ancient authors (for example, from Stacius), but does not give any references ([9], p.236).
Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" was extremely popular in medieval times. "Today we have about two hundreds (! - Auth.) copies of his "History",... which were written in different places starting from 12th century and until 15th century, i.e., up to appearance of the first printed edition" ([9],p.228). At first time "Historia" was printed in Paris in 1508.
Fig.1a and Fig.1b show a historical epoch which is assumed to be covered by Galfridus' text (according to traditional chronology). Notice that it is approximately the same time interval as for Nennius' case: namely, from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D. Of course, Galfridus' book is much bigger then Nennius' one, but being referred again to the giant 2000-year time interval, it could not cover it all without huge lacunas. And really, traditional chronology states that Galfridus "omit" large historical epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself does not mind it at all. He calmly continues his story without notifying a reader that he sometimes actually misses whole historical epochs in his chronology.
2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles.
In our work we use also some other English chronicles of supposedly 9-13th centuries, particularly those represented in a book by V.I.Matuzova "English medieval documents" [10]. Here we would like to present a very interesting list which was compiled by V.I.Matuzova as a result of her investigation of these chronicles rather than to characterize them in details. We will discuss this subject in the next section.
