^{page 177 note 1} The text I have used is that of Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, Charles (Oxford, 1892–1899; repr., 1952Google Scholar with contribution by Dorothy Whitelock), re-collated with the manuscripts. Unless otherwise stated quotations are from Plummet's MS , Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 173.

^{page 177 note 2} See Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896; repr., 1975) 1, 352–6.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 3} My figures do not include the entries s.a. 6 and 418, the formermerely giving the Annas Mundi date for that year (see below, app.), and the latter containing a reference to the Romans’ burial of subsequently unrecovered treasure, for which no source has yet been found and which does not seem to come into the category of ‘world history’.

^{page 177 note 4} 46 in Plummer's text of MS see below, p. 181, n. 3.

^{page 177 note 5} Two Saxon Chronicles n, cxiii. See also p. 7, where Plummer observes that although ‘much of medieval chronology comes from Jerome's translation of Eusebius's Chronicle… there is no very close resemblance here…Nor is there any great likeness to Isidore's Chron.’ For Jerome's translation of Eusebius, see Eusebii Chronici Canones, ed. Fotheringham, J. K. (London, 1923)Google Scholar; for Isidore's Chronicon, or Chronicorum Epitome, see Chronica Mitiora, ed. Mommsen, T. II, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq. 11 (Berlin, 1894).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} Hodgkin, R. H., A History of the Anglo-Saxons (Oxford, 1935; rded., 1952), p. 625Google Scholar. Hodgkin does not attempt to distinguish between the Latin and Old English versions of Orosius as the Chronicle's source. For the Latin version (OH), see Pauli Orosii Presbyteri Hispani adversum Paganos Historiarum Libri Septem, ed. Zangemeister, C., Oorpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 5 (Vienna, 1882)Google Scholar; for the Old English version (Or.), see The Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, J., Early Eng. Text Soc. s.s. 6 (forthcoming), and King Alfred's Orosius, ed. H. Sweet, EETS o.s. 79 (1883).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} I am indebted to Professor Peter Clemoes for his most helpful suggestions about the lay-out of this paper.

^{page 178 note 3} See Matthew iv.18–21, Mark 1.16–20, Luke v.10 and (for Philip) John 1.40–3.

^{page 178 note 4} It seems reasonable to assume that this work would have been known in the Latin, not the Greek, version. References are to the edition by Mommsen, T., ‘Die Lateinische Übersetzung des Rufinus's, Eusebius Werke 11, ed. Schwartz, E. (Leipzig, 1903).Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 5} See Rufinus—Eusebius I.X.I and 7, and Bede, , Chronica Maiora, ed. Mommsen, T., Chronica Minora in, MGH, Auct. Antiq. 13 (Berlin, 1898), 282.Google Scholar This material is not found in Orosius.

^{page 178 note 6} For variant readings affecting the numerals see Plummer's edition.

^{page 178 note 7} See Jerome-Eusebius, p. 251; OH vn.ii.14; Or., ed. Bately, 133/25–7 (ed. Sweet, 254/2–4); Bede, ed. Mommsen in, 281–2; and Isidore, ed. Mommsen n, 453. Jerome's translation of Eusebius was highly influential in the Middle Ages and frequently quoted, and no attempt has been made here to identify or cite its derivatives unless these differ significantly from it.

^{page 179 note 1} Other texts merely refer to the crucifixion under Tiberius xvm (OH vn.iv.13, Tiberius xvn, with xvin as a variant reading which is found also in Or.; see ed. Bately, 135/4 (ed. Sweet, 256/15)) and do not give the dating according to Annus Mundi. The difference in AM date between Isidore and theChronicle is easily explained in terms of scribal error; see Isidore, ed. Mommsen 11, 454, where the variants and are cited. See further below, app.

^{page 179 note 2} The entry (in a later hand) in MS is dated 27; however, this replaces an earlier entry relating to 26; see below, p. 180, n. 8.

^{page 179 note 3} Dated 46 as a result of alteration by MS see below, p. 181, n. 3.

^{page 179 note 4} Ed. Mommsen m, 282. Augustus XLII is dated AD I in the Chronicle. For the regnal lengths on which the Chronicle's calculations are apparently based, see below, p. 187, n. 4.

^{page 179 note 5} Prosperi Chronica, ed. Mommsen, T., Chronica Minora I, MGH, Auct. Antiq. 9 (Berlin, 1892), 408.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 6} Hegesippus, , Historiae Libri V, ed. Ussani, V., CSEL 66 (1932), 125/24 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 7} Rufinus-Eusebius i.viii.14. Herod's suicide is referred to also in An Old English Martyrolog), ed. G. Herzfeld, EETS o.s. 116 (1900), 10–11, and in Ælfric's homily on the massacre of the innocents; see Cross, J. E., ‘Ælfric-Memory and Creative Method’, SN 41 (1969), 144–5Google Scholar Ælfric's version, as Cross points out, comes from Rufinus via Haymo of Auxerre, for whom see below, p. i88, n. 3.

^{page 180 note 1} Rufinus-Eusebius i.viii.3.

^{page 180 note 2} I give here the original reading of MS , not the altered version printed (incorrectly) by Plummer. The corresponding entries in Nowell's transcript of MS G and Wheloc's edition agree with this older version, suggesting that MS was as yet unaltered when it was (apparently) copied by the scribe of G or an intermediary. For the transcript by Lawrence Nowell see London, British Library, Add. 43703, and for the edition by Abraham Wheloc see the latter's Vemrabilis Bedae Historia Ecclesiastica (Cambridge, 1644)Google Scholar. For a study of G, see Lutz, A., ‘Zur Rekonstruktion der Version G der Angelsachsischen Chronik’, Anglia 95 (1977), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 180 note 3} Mommsen III, 282.

^{page 180 note 4} Jerome-Eusebius, p. 252. Plummer's suggestion that Luke 111.1 is the ultimate source of this entry is incorrect.

^{page 180 note 5} Rufinus-Eusebius I.ix.I. Since Archelaus's accession is put in AD 3, the tenth year of his reign would be AD 12 in Chronicle dating, and thus the division into tetrarchies might have been expected to be put s.a. 13. However, Archelaus's reign is normally said to last nine years (see, e.g., Prosper, ed. Mommsen 1, 408, and Bede, , Chronica Maiora, ed. Mommsen in, 282Google Scholar), and so, if the Chronicle's date is not merely the result of careless calculation or miscopying, it may be based on an emended reading, ‘post novem annos’.

^{page 180 note 6} See Rufinus-Eusebius I.X.I. Although the standard text of Bede, Chronica Maiora, has the form Lysias, at least one manuscript has the variant reading Lysanias (see Mommsen HI, 282), Bede, while, Expositio actuum Apostolorum et Ketractatio, ed. Laistner, M. L. W. (Cambridge, Mass., 1939Google Scholar; repr., New York, 1970), p. 5, similarly has the correct formLysanias.

^{page 180 note 7} But on phonological grounds surely not the place-name Lycia as suggested by Plummer, , Two Saxon Chronicles 11, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 8} In MS there are indications of an erasure, s.a. 26, and an entry in a later hand, s.a. 27, which reads, ‘Her onfeng Pilatus to gymenne ouer þa Iudeas.’ However, in MSS B, C, D and E the Pilate entry iss.a. 26, while the evidence of Nowell and Wheloc is that the mainly burned G also had an entry s.a. 26 which was identical with that in B and which I have adopted here.

^{page 181 note 1} Rufinus-Eusebius i.ix.2; Bede, ed. Mommsen m, 282; and Jerome-Eusebius, p. 255. Jerome-Eusebius has the date Tiberius xm, i.e. AD 28 in Chronicle dating. The Chronicle's AD 26 for expected 27 must be due either to an error in a Latin source, with Tiberius xi for Tiberius XII, or to an error by the compiler of the Chronicle or a subsequent scribe whose copy underlies all the extant versions; see English Historical Documents 1, ed. Whitelock, D. (London, 1955Google Scholar; forthcoming rev.). The correction in MS is presumably the work of someone familiar with a text referring to Tiberius xn or giving the date as AD 27; see, e.g., the ‘Annales Uticenses’, Ordericus Vitalis, ed. le Prevost, A. (Paris, 1838–1855) v, 139ff.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 2} Rufinus-Eusebius 1.viii.1; see also Matthew II. 1–2 and I6. There is nothing comparable in Bede, Chronica Maiora and Minora or Isidore, , Chronicon; Jerome-Eusebius, p. 251Google Scholar, puts the massacre of the innocents (an event commemorated by the church on 28 December) in Augustus XLV, i.e. AD 4 in Chronicle dating, while Christian of Stavelot, Migne, Patrologia Latina 106, col. 1283, observes that there were two schools of thought about the date of the coming of the magi, some saying that it was after a year and twelve days, some in twelve days. Since we do not know what day the adopter of AD dating used for the beginning of the year, it is impossible to reach any safe conclusions as to which school of thought he was following here.

^{page 181 note 3} In MS this is the second of a series of three annals whose dates have been altered from 44, 45 and 46 to 45, 46 and 47 and which correspond to entries in Latin texts with the regnal dates Claudius 11, in and iv (i.e. 44, 45 and 46 Chronicle dating). The third of these annals is derived from Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, which agrees with the original version in in giving the date as AD 46.

^{page 181 note 4} See Expositio actuum, pp. 53–4, where Bede argues against Claudius Iv, the date given not only by Jerome—Eusebius, p. 261, but also by Bede himself in Chronica Maiora, ed. Mommsen in, 283. Acts xn gives no date for Herod's death.

^{page 182 note 1} Isidore, Chronicon, ed. Mommsen n, 456. See Rufinus–Eusebius III.V.I and vii.2–3 and Jerome Eusebius, p. 269. According to Jerome, Vespasian II, ‘Titus Iudaea capta et Hierosolymis subuersis sescenta milia uirorum interfecit: Iosephus uero scribit undecies centena milia fame et gladio perisse …’ Or., ed. Bately, 138/15 (ed. Sweet, 262/22–3), here agrees with the Chronicle and Isidore against its primary source in only giving the second set of figures.

^{page 182 note 2} See OH VII.iii.2 and ix.6–7 and Or., ed. Bately, 138/12–15 (ed. Sweet, 262/19–22), both versions undated.

^{page 182 note 3} See Rufinus-Eusebius ii.xiv.5 and xxv.5, II.i.I, II.xxiii.3, III.xxxvi.2–3 and II.i.14.

^{page 182 note 4} Rufinus-Eusebius III.xxxi.3 and xxxii.3–6.

^{page 182 note 5} The ultimate source of this annal is of course the New Testament; see Acts vii.59 and ix.18. However Acts, like Rufinus-Eusebius II.i.i and 14, gives no dates for these two events. Jerome Eusebius, Bede, Chronica Minora and Isidore, Chronicon have nothing to correspond to this annal; Bede, Chronica Maiora refers only to the stoning of Stephen, in an entry which begins with a reference to Tiberius xvin and the crucifixion (i.e. AD 33 in Chronicle dating) but which goes on to cover the events of several years. That the Chronicle puts the stoning of Stephen (an event commemorated by the church on 26 December) in the same year as the conversion of St Paul (25 January in the church's calendar) seems to rule out a beginning of the year on 1 January.

^{page 183 note 1} See MGH, Epist. 1.2 (Berlin, 1891), 485, 34.

^{page 183 note 2} See Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, L. (Paris, 1892; repr., 1955) 1, 50 and xlix–livGoogle Scholar. A few other texts, including Jerome-Eusebius, describe Peter as having come to Rome from Antioch but without further detail.

^{page 183 note 3} See Liber Pontificalis 1, 50. In MS of the Chronicle the annal number 44 has been altered to 45.

^{page 183 note 4} Bede, ed. Mommsen in, 283, and Jerome-Eusebius, p. 261.

^{page 183 note 5} Jerome—Eusebius, pp. 261 and 267, and De Viris Illustribus, PL 23, cols. 638 and 647. The dates given in the Chronicle suggest that the person responsible for the introduction of AD dating either assumed that Peter completed twenty-five years as bishop before being martyred (and Liber Pontificalis says he held the office for twenty-five years, two months and three days) or based his calculations on a second piece of information given in the De Viris, that he held the office ‘usque ad ultimum annum Neronis, id est, decimum quartum;’ see further, below, p. 187. For the Chronicle date AD 44, altered to 45 in , see above, p. 181, n. 3.

^{page 183 note 6} Jerome-Eusebius, pp. 264 and 276, and De Viris, PL 23, cols. 643 and 667. It should be noted that the description of the martyrdom of Ignatius in De Viris, ‘Passus est anno undecimo Trajani’, is closer in wording to the Chronicle, ‘her Ignatus biscep browude’, than is Jerome Eusebius, ‘Romam perductus bestiis traditur.’

^{page 183 note 7} De Viris, PL 23, cols. 654 and 666; cf. Jerome-Eusebius, p. 265, and Rufinus-Eusebius n.xxiv.i, where there are references to the appointment of Annianus, ‘post Marcum;’ also Liber Pontificalis 1, 53 (followed by Ælfric), where Clemens is said to have been martyred (De Viris ‘obiit’). The death of Clemens is put s.a. 101 in MSS B, C, D and E, but the corresponding entry in , also s.a. 101, is in a later hand apparently replacing an original erased entry, s.a. 92. Not only is 92 a more plausible error for 102 than for 101, but also 102 fits the regnal date Trajan 111 and also i Ethelweard's reference to the passing of two years between the year 100 and Clemens's death (which he refers to as martyrdom); see The Chronicle of Mthelweard, ed. Campbell, A. (London, 1962), p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 1} See De Viris, PL 23, col. 655; Jerome-Eusebius, p. 274; and Isidore, ed. Mommsen 11, 457. There are two different manuscript traditions at this point in Isidore's Chronicon: according to the first, ‘apostolus Iohannes in Patmos insula relegatur’, and according to the second, ‘apostolus Iohannes in Patmos insula relegatus apocalypsim scripsit;’ it is the latter that could underlie the entry in the Chronicle. In view of the conflicting manuscript evidence, it is probably futile to speculate as to the source of the Chronicle's date: in an original 84 is altered to 87 (agreeing with D and E); B and C, however, have the entrys.a. 85, while Domitian xiv is AD 97 in Chronicle dating.

^{page 184 note 2} Though De Viris has a reference to the death of John in the sixty-eighth year after the passion, i.e. AD 101 in Chronical edating; see PL 23, col.658.

^{page 184 note 3} I follow here the text of MS D, substituting Effesio (as in Nowell and Wheloc) for D's Effesia. In ; an original entry s.a. 90 has been erased and a new entry inserted in a later hands.a. 99. B, C, D, E have the entry s.a. 100, which corresponds to the regnal year Trajan 1; see below, p. 187, n. 5.Æthelweard's text puts John's death fifteen years after the writing of the Apocalypse: ‘Expleto equidem annorum numero quindecim pace requievit ab Effeso urbe stadia sexdecim; et in ipso anno suspenditur Simon apostolus. Impletusque est annorum numerus a natiuitate saluatoris nostri Iesu Christi bis quinquaginta.’ Æthelweard's editor, assuming that Æthelweard agreed with the uncorrected in dating the writing of the Apocalypse 84 (although as a result of error this entry is combined in the surviving transcript with that for 69), assigns the date 99 to the first sentence and 100 to the second. However, I see no good reason for separating the two and would prefer to take both as referring to 100, with the writing of the Apocalypse in 85 as in B and C.

^{page 184 note 4} Rufinus–Eusebius III.xxxi.3 and xxxii.i; Jerome-Eusebius, pp.275–6; and Bede, ed. Mommsen III, 286.

^{page 184 note 5} Isidore, ed. Mommsen n, 458, and Bede, ed. Mommsen III, 286. Unlike Rufinus-Eusebius and De Viris, neither text names John's death-place as Ephesus, although, in the entry immediately preceding, both refer to John as returning to that city.

^{page 184 note 6} Rufinus-Eusebius in.xxiii.3. Jerome-Eusebius dates Simon's death Trajan x and refers to John's in the entry under Trajan III, i.e. AD 109 and 102 in Chronicle dating.

^{page 184 note 7} See OH VII.vi.2 and Or., ed. Bately, 136/12–13 (ed. Sweet, 258/22–3), referring to the arrival of Peter in Rome (according to Or. in the first year of Claudius's reign, OH ‘exordio regni eius’); OH vn.vii.io and Or., ed. Bately, 137/27 (ed. Sweet, 262/4), referring, without date, to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul; and OH VII.x. 5 and Or., ed. Bately, 139/8-io(ed. Sweet, 264/9–11), referring, again without date, to John's exile.

^{page 185 note 1} S.a. 16, 39, 70, 81 and 83.

^{page 185 note 2} Did the converter to AD dating enter Vespasian's accession under 70 but then carelessly calculate his ten years from the next entry, referring to Titus's capture of Jerusalem, Vespasian II?

^{page 185 note 3} Isidore, ed. Mommsen 11. 457 (Isidore is quoted by Haymo; see further, below, p. 188, n. 3); Or., ed. Bately, 138/23–139/2 (ed. Sweet, 264/2–3).

^{page 185 note 4} Such an epitome could have been the work of the compiler of this part of the Chronicle himself.

^{page 185 note 5} See Poole, R. L., Studies in Chronology and History (Oxford, 1934), p. 34Google Scholar, and Harrison, K., The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. poo (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 4.

^{page 185 note 6} See Harrison, , Framework, p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 7} Freculpbus Lexoviensis Episcopus, Chronicorum tom i duo, PL 106, cols. 912–1258.

^{page 186 note 1} Annales Hildesbeimenses, ed. Waitz, G. (Hanover, 1878).Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Paulus Diaconus,Historia Romana; see Eutropi Breviarium, ed. Droysen, H., MGH, Auct. Antiq. 2 (Berlin, 1879; repr., 1961), 207 and 216.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} Adonis Vienmnsis Chronicon, PL 123, cols. 23–138. Ado is one of the sources used by Regino of Prüm.

^{page 186 note 4} Reginonis Abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, ed. Kurze, F., (Hanover, 1890)Google Scholar. Regino died in 915. AD dating is also found in the Annals of Rouen (see Plummer, , Two Saxon Chronicles 11, xlviGoogle Scholar, n. 3) and the Annals of St Evroul, or Annales Uticenses (see above, p.181, n.1). A number of annals apparently taken from the Annals of Rouen or a related text are included in MS E of the Chronicle.

^{page 186 note 5} See further, Harrison, , Framework, esp. pp. 76–7.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 6} This error is found in a number of manuscripts of the Chronica Maiora; see ed. Mommsenin, 283.

^{page 187 note 7} Isidore, ed. Mommsen III, 454, and Bede, ed. Mommsen in, 283; cf. Jerome-Eusebius, p. 259.

^{page 187 note 1} See Reginonis Chronicon, ed. Kurze, p. 4.

^{page 187 note 2} See ibid. p. 4, n. 2.

^{page 187 note 3} In these six I include Octavianus (whose regnal length is given, s.a. I). The figure eleven includes Galba but not the latter's associates, Otho and Vitellius; cf. OH vn.ix.13, ‘segregatis a numero principum Othone et Vitellio’.

^{page 187 note 4} The accession dates of Claudius, Nero and Nerva thus being AD 43,56 and 99 in Chronicle dating. These regnal lengths agree with the ones given by Isidore, except for Claudius's thirteen years, for which Isidore has the figure fourteen; see Mommsen 11,454.

^{page 187 note 5} AD 100 in Chronicle dating; see the comments on the annals s.a. 100, 102 and 110, above, pp. 183–4.

^{page 187 note 6} Isidore, Chronicon, ed. Mommsen 11, 456, and Bede, Chronica Maiora, ed. Mommsen in, 284. Jerome-Eusebius, p. 268, gives Galba seven months and Otho three.

^{page 188 note 1} See, e.g., the comments on the annals s.a. 3,12, 81 and 84.

^{page 188 note 2} Rufinus gives Augustus a reign of fifty-seven not fifty-six years, Nero thirteen not fourteen years and Domitian fifteen not sixteen; see Rufinus-Eusebius I.ix.2 and III.v. 1 and xx.8.

^{page 188 note 3} The dates for the annals s.a. 2, 3 and 34 being presumably provided by the compiler himself; see above, p. 181, n.2, and p. 182, n. 5. It should be noted that much of this material is taken over by Haymo of Auxerre (earlier wrongly identified with Haymo of Halberstadt) in his Historiae Sacrat Epitome, PL 118, cols. 817–74. However, although this epitome includes information found in the Chronicle but not in Rufinus (e.g. the references to John's writing of the Apocalypse, and Titus's saying, which are derived from Isidore), it also either omits information apparently derived by the Chronicle from Rufinus (e.g.s.a. 26) or gives it in a form less close than that in Rufinus (as, e.g., s.a. 12), and thus cannot be said to have been an intermediary – at least on the evidence of the published text.

^{page 188 note 4} The Annales Hildesbeimenses, however, like the Chronicle, do record Titus's saying, although (again like the Chronicle) without the accompanying generalization.

^{page 189 note 1} Isidore, Chronicon, ed. Mommsen 11, 456.

^{page 189 note 2} Rufinus-Eusebius II.xxiv, III.xiii and xv and III.xiv and xxi. Rufinus refers to Annianus as succeeding Mark but makes no reference to the latter's death.

^{page 189 note 3} Rufinus-Eusebius II.xxvi.I and III.xviii.4.

^{page 189 note 4} De Viris, PL 23, cols. 646 and 662.

^{page 189 note 5} See above, pp. 178, II. 7, 179, n. 1, 182, n. 1 and 2 and 184, n. 7.

^{page 189 note 6} The annals s.a. 1, 16, 33, 39, 44(Or, only), 70, 81 and 83.

^{page 189 note 7} Vespasian, for instance, is said by the Old English and Latin versions of Orosius to have reigned for nine years (OH vII.ix.12 and Or., ed. Bately, 138/20–1 (ed. Sweet, 262/28–9)), but in the Chronicle is given a reign of eleven years.

^{page 190 note 1} The verbal resemblances need be no more than coincidental, since forleosan is the only word for ‘lose’ in the two texts, while the collocation to gode gedon is apparently not uncommon. For supposed verbal resemblances between the Old English Orosius and other parts of the Chronicle, see J. Bately, ‘The Compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle bc 60 to ad 890: Vocabulary as Evidence’, Proc. of the Brit. Acad. (forthcoming).

^{page 190 note 2} Eutropi Breviarium, ed. Droysen, p. 132, and Bede, ed. Mommsen III, 285.

^{page 190 note 3} Isidore, ed. Mommsen 11, 456–7.

^{page 190 note 4} Jerome-Eusebius, p. 271. See also Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, PL 26, col. 433.

^{page 190 note 5} Or., ed. Bately, 138/23–139/2 (ed. Sweet, 264/2–3).

^{page 191 note 1} Also presumably that of Wulfstan, although there is no reference to King Alfred in the account of Wulfstan's voyage; see The Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, introduction, sect. v.iv. For the evidence against Alfred's authorship of Or., see Liggins, Elizabeth M., ‘The Authorship of the Old English Orosius’, Anglia 88 (1970), 289–322Google Scholar, and Janet M. Bately, ‘King Alfred and the Old English Orosius’, ibid. 433–60. To my knowledge the only attempt to produce internal evidence in support of William of Malmesbury's statement that Or. (along with the longdiscredited Old English Bede) was the work of Alfred is that of Schilling, Hugo, König Alfred's angelsächsische Bearbeitung der Weltgeschichte des Orosius (Halle, 1886)Google Scholar; his ‘evidence’ is worthless, depending on the assumption that interests apparently attributable to the translator were also those of the king. However, William of Malmesbury's attribution continues to gain acceptance, and some scholars, finding linguistic evidence that might be taken to cast doubts on Alfred's authorship, have attempted to explain it away. Thus, although Raith, Josef, Untersuchungen Zum englischen Aspekt. I. Grundsätzliches, Altenglisch (Munich, 1951), pp. 54–61Google Scholar, takes differences between Or. and indisputable works by Alfred in the use of the expanded verb form as evidence of different authors at work, Gerhard Nickel, working on precisely the same material, dismisses these differences as not necessarily significant, suggesting that they are explicable on the grounds that Alfred could have had helpers; see Nickel, G., Die ‘Expanded Form’ im Altenglischen (Neumünster, 1966), esp. pp. 108 and 115Google Scholar, and also Mitchell, Bruce, ‘Some Problems Involving OE Periphrases with Beon/Wesan and the Present Participle’, NM 77 (1976), 479Google Scholar, n. However, that certain pieces of evidence seemingly incompatible with a theory of Alfred's participation in Or. can be explained away is by no means proof of such participation, at least while William of Malmesbury remains our only authority for it.

^{page 191 note 2} ‘The Prose of Alfred's Reign’, Continuations and Beginnings, ed. Stanley, E. G. (London, 1966), p. 82, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1} See The Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, introduction, sect, v.2, and Bately, J., ‘The Classical Additions in the Old English Orosius’, England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Clemoes, Peter and Hughes, Kathleen (Cambridge, 1971), PP. 237–51.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 2} Except in the case of annal 616 (discussed below) manuscript variants are of no help here. C, for instance, puts am 5 200 s.a. 7, but the previous entries are also one year out and the gap of two years between the annal s.a. 7 and the preceding entry is maintained. E puts am 5850 s.a. 654, but 655 as the original date is confirmed by the presence in the same annal of material from Bede which relates to that year.

^{page 192 note 3} Of the usage in the Chronicle of Æthelweard its editor writes (p. xxxviii), ‘The estimates of the age of the world … vary considerably. Æthelweard states that the birth of Christ was in the year of the world 5495, but the periods which he allows for the five preceding world-ages add up to 5189. When he gives the year of the world to confirm dates … he uses a third figure, 5195 … While hardly any two authorities agree on this matter, Æthelweard is exceptional in having three figures, and not pointing out the difference between them.’ Campbell does not make any allowance for the possibility of scribal error.

^{page 193 note 1} Bede, ed. Mommsen III, 282; see also Jerome-Eusebius, pp. 255–6.

^{page 193 note 2} Bede, ed. Mommsen III, 281, and OH 1, Prol.i.5–6. 5199 is also the am date for the birth of Christ given by the Old English Martyrology (ed. Herzfeld, p. 2, 8–10) but not Or., which incorporates at the end of bk 1 a chronological note occurring as an interpolation in a number of manuscripts of the Latin version and giving the figures 4482 (for 4487) and 715, that is, a total of 5197 for the am date of Christ's birth. See The Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, 35/23–6 and commentary. For am figures in other texts of Anglo-Saxon provenance see Förster, M., ‘Die Weltzeitalter bei den Angelsachsen’, Neusprachliche Studien: Festgabe K. Luick (Marburg, 1925), pp. 183–203.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} See above, p. 179 and n. 1. The year of the crucifixion features in another method of dating current in the early Middle Ages, dating Anno Passionis; see Harrison, Framework, pp. 33 ands 53.

^{page 193 note 4} In terms of ad i = am 5199, ad 33 would be am 5231; am 5200, 5800 and 5850 would be ad 2, 602 and 652 respectively.

^{page 193 note 5} On the basis of ad 33 = am 5226, am 5200, 5800 and 5850 would be ad 7, 607 and 657 respectively.

^{page 193 note 6} See below, p. 194 and n. 2.

^{page 194 note 1} In which case the ad 6 date for am 5 200 could conceivably have been derived from it.

^{page 194 note 2} The entry is now confined to B and C; on the evidence of Nowell's transcript of G, a version of it seems once to have been present in , and, although it does not have the support of the Annals of St Neots, which preserve the other seventh-century entry, its presence in the Chronicle at a very early stage may be attested by a reference in the Chronicle of Æthelweard. In the body of his Chronicle Æthelweard gives four am dates. The second and fourth of these are in entries which may be dated ad 705 and 905 and involve the round figures 5900 and 6100 respectively and the third relates to ad 800 and involves the figure ‘6000 less 5’; the first follows an entry dateable as ad 606 and involves the figure 5800 ‘supra’. Æthelweard's editor assumes that this entry forms part of the ad 606 entry and comments in a note that the am figure is ‘above by one year’. However, since this most peculiar am reference occurs in a section which not only shows heavy cutting (the ad 616 material from Bede being removed in the process) but also has an exceptional break in the series of year-lengths that normally link Æthelweard's annals, it is not possible to determine its original position in Æthelweard's source. The ad dates in the edition are provided by the editor.

^{page 194 note 3} For a warning against excessive use of the Easter Table theory, see Harrison, Framework, pp. 45–6. The am entries for ad 616 and 656 need not have been made in the seventh century any more than those for ad 6 and 33 were made in the first century.

^{page 194 note 4} For the Chronicle's possible use of an interpolated manuscript of Bede's chronological survey, see Dorothy Whitelock, quoted by Harrison, , Framework, p. 135Google Scholar. For Bedan material in the Chronicle, see my ‘Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, Literature, Liturgy and Legend, ed. Stevens, W. M. and King, M. H. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 5} For the arrangement of entries in Bede's chronological summary, see my ‘Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’.