foreign information), but it is hard to see in it a political project (despite Kelleher
1963 ).
‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ as it was originally created in 892 (Plummer 1892 / 9 ,
vol. 2 : lxiv, xciv, ci, cii, cxiii, cxiv–cxxii; Sawyer 1962 : 13 – 25 ; Dumville 1992 : 89 – 90 ),
no doubt in the context of the Alfredian revival of learning, caught a moment of grave
crisis for Alfred’s ‘(over)kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons’ (Keynes 1998 ) as a major army
of vikings returned to southern England after thirteen years’ campaigning on the
Continent (Shippey 1982 ; cf. Vogel 1906 : 260 – 372 ). Its narration of approximately a
century of vikings’ activity in England – and notably of previous grave peril for the
West Saxons and the Mercians, first from the mid- 830 s to the mid- 850 s, and again from
865 to 879 when Scandinavian forces brought all the kingdoms of the English tetrarchy
to their knees (Dumville 1993 : IX; cf. Hill 1981 : figs 49 – 64 ) – dominated the record;
to read this was to be offered apocalyptic prospects. Alfred and his politico-literary circle
compared the Viking Age with the Age of Migrations which brought down the
Roman empire of the west (Godden 2004 ; Harris 2001 : 505 – 10 ; cf. Bury 1928 and
Musset 1971 ).
The approach of the author(s) of the original text of ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’
remained partial, however: not only were there political agenda (though by no means
as straightforward as some interpretations of this work as ‘propaganda’ might imply:
Wallace-Hadrill 1950 ; Davis 1971 ; Shippey 1982 : 42 ), but in its ninth-century
coverage much activity by vikings in England was unknown or forgotten or downplayed
or deemed irrelevant (for an example concerning 855 , see Sawyer 1968 : no. 206 ; White-
lock 1979 : no. 90 ). Continuators of the work for the next century had varied concerns,
but we see no effort at a comprehensive treatment of events in England as they occurred
and as news was received.
When we encounter the ‘Chronicle of Æthelred and Cnut’ – which begins with an
annal for 983 and seems to have been written as a whole in the aftermath of the deaths of
King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ and King Edmund II ‘Ironside’ in 1016 with succession
passing to Cnut (it could not have been composed later than the early months of 1023 ) –
we find a text with a strong political (and historical) message, giving detailed con-
sideration to events in the struggle for Scandinavian, and especially Danish, domination
of the kingdom of England (Keynes 1978 ). It is not clear whether this narrative of
some thirty to forty years was intended as a continuation of ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’
of 892 (with its subsequent, varied continuations already attached), or as a continuation
of a derivative revision, or as a freestanding text (Dumville 1983 : 26 – 38 , 52 ). What is
certain is that its author had not only a very clear and hostile view of the Scandinavian
invaders but also (secure in the knowledge of Danish success in 1013 and 1016 ) a
strongly negative perception of the governance of the kingdom of England, and the
failings of those who bore rule, throughout the period. His writing has coloured all
historiography until the present generation (Keynes 1978 ; more generally on Anglo-
Saxon attitudes to vikings, see Ashdown 1919 – 27 ).
Approximately coincident with Danish success in England was the famous battle of
Clontarf, just north of Dublin, in 1014 , which saw heavy and varied Scandinavian
participation (Downham 2007 ). It attracted the lengthiest annals in Irish chronicling
up to that date (Mac Airt and Mac Niocaill 1983 : 446 – 9 , annal 1014. 2 ; cf. Goedheer
1938 ). Although the character and significance of the battle have long been under
scrutiny, what chroniclers report of the kings of Scandinavian Dublin after 1014 has
–– chapter 26: Vikings in Insular chronicling––