Talk:Peterborough Chronicle

message: I really resent this being classified as a dubious historical source.  It's first class as a historical source, in fact.  There is 0% chance that the material comes from later than the period it describes, so it is an absolutely invaluable first hand record of the Anarchy.  From the point of view of historicity, it's perfect.  Secondly, it is also an absolutely priceless historical document from the point of view of understanding early Middle English.  For understanding the patterns of literacy, the persistence of Anglo-Saxon in the Norman era, and for figuring out how the language was changing in the midlands, the Peterborough Chronicle is without parallel.  Finally, as a philosophical and intellectual history source, this is unimpeachable.  There is no "doubt" about it whatsoever.  This Chronicle shows, first, ecclesiastic affairs in minutia.  Secondly, it shows the persistence of history itself when it had been brought to a halt elsewhere by the Northmen from France.  Finally, it is a record that shows us the existence of ecclesiastical parties in the court and how the monks felt about bishops who were, in fact, entirely secular.  It is, in short, very, very wrong to label this a source of "doubtful" historical value.  Scholars have to be sane and realize that it's first hand, but that's not the same thing as saying they should be doubtful.  That's why I'm going to revert the category that Neutrality put on this article. Geogre 19:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: Initially, I had not inserted any ashes, thorns, or eths.  Since one editor very properly inserted an ash in "scæ," I have decided to go back and be precise (as I should have been all along).  Therefore, I have gone back to the Bennett and Smithers text, which, although not definitive, is reliable, and followed their text exactly.  If I miss any, please let me know, as there shouldn't be any more.  I.e. at this point, if a th appears instead of an eth, the th is supposed to be the monk's intent and not my laxity (I hope).  Geogre 12:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: I had "dispersal of the monasteries under Henry VIII."  That, to me, is far more precise than "during the Protestant Reformation," because the Reformation had nothing to do with books getting destroyed anywhere else.  Specifically, Henry seized the lands and possessions of the monasteries.  As a result, monastic libraries fell into private hands or were destroyed.  This created an enormous bout of Old English amnesia, and that has everything to do with discussing the sources of the Peterborough Chronicle's accounts of the early 12th century.  The Protestants weren't against early Middle English, but Henry was against the Roman Church owning land, and so he nationalized and broke it up, and that destroyed our hopes of knowing enough about OE and eME literature.  England had a better vernacular literature than any nation in Europe until Henry VIII, and it suddenly had a worse one after him.  Some collectors like Laud would snatch up volumes indiscriminately (because they couldn't read the contents), and that was possible as late as Harley and Percy in the 18th century, but it was the act of closing monasteries that did it.  Geogre 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't catch that it was a person who knew all that who made the change.  Sorry for being pedantic to one who doesn't need it.  My apologies.  I think it would be cool if the Henry VIII article had a section on the effects of closing the monasteries, or if Old English literature or Middle English literature had a section on why specimens are hard to come by, or if there were an article on Loss of medieval English texts (but with a title that could actually be found by someone) so that there would be a concise way of referring to the whole complex of historical events that resulted in English "beginning" with Chaucer and the courtly poets.  We need something that can separate the literary practicalities of anti-Catholicism from the general effects of the Reformation in England.  Geogre 01:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Somebody must have changed it by the time I got there, then, because at that point it read only "The Peterborough copyists probably used multiple sources for their chronicle, but the destruction of many of the chronicles during the reign of Henry VIII makes it impossible to tell." No monasteries. I wouldn't have changed it if the monasteries had been in there, but I thought "during the reign of Henry VIII" demanded a little historical knowledge from the reader, which it would be better if the text supplied. Hence my "Reformation" change. -Bishonen | talk 07:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. But the unlinking and the Reformation weren't meant as reforms; changing them in the article just seemed the simplest way of making suggestions. Changing back is easy. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I only made the addition because there wasn't anything there about the Reformation or the dispersal of the monasteries. Sorry if it caused trouble. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VIII vs. Reformation 

message: The word "dearth" appears twice in the article. Is the first one supposed to be "death"? Or if "dearth" is the intended meaning, maybe "famine" would be stronger as well as avoiding the appearance of a typo.
Stephen Turner 14:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And, once it got on the main page, someone decided that "dearth" must have been a typo and changed it to "death."  <sigh>  O tempore O mores!  (Oh, and the links grew positively incontinent.)  So it goes.  Non-ownership of one's words and all that. Geogre 12:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least I asked rather than changing it. :-) I have long thought that featured articles should be protected for the one day they're on the front page. I assume there's some long series of arguments about this somewhere... Stephen Turner 13:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nah.  It's no big deal, really.  I mean I figure that the real work on an FA is the day after it has been on the main page, because that's when you have to determine if any non-vandalism was actually helpful.  I understand the instinct of people who want to link everything in the world, and I don't mind.  I figure it's the thought that counts, but I will put "dearth" back in there.  After all, it's a cool word, but you were right that it's too cool to be there twice.  Geogre 13:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dearth? 

message: Congratulations! Bishonen | talk 17:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured

message: I was dissapointed that there wasn't more discussion of why the chronicle ended, or what happend to it between the time it ceased being updated and the time it ended up in the hands of William Laud. -- 18:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely, we don't know.  We know about Laud's acquisition, but not about why the chronicle ended.  We assume that the new abbot stopped it, but the fact is that there simply are no words beyond that spot to tell us.  The monastic authors wouldn't have said, being obedient monks, and other sources are few, in Latin, and unconcerned with some "trivial" matters.  As for the acquisition by Laud, that had to do with the dissolution of the monasteries.  Henry VIII closed the monasteries.  The program was not completed overnight, and it continued all the way to the time of Laud himself.  Each monastery's holdings were seized, supposedly by the crown, and that meant, often, that local lords and church officials got the documents.  Laud is a good part of this story, because he preserved what he got and gave it to Oxford.  Other people were not so good.  One Anglo-Saxon poem, for example (Waltherus), was discovered as a wadded up padding for a book binding.  Once people ceased being able to read Old English, they started lighting fires with manuscript pages, scraping off text and reusing the paper, and using the paper as wadding.  Geogre 19:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, nor I.  It seems like it's the new abbot (because the last entries are not concurrent), but no one knows.  They wouldn't talk about why they weren't talking, after all, and they wouldn't complain in a Chronicle, if they were good monks.  The supporters of the Abbot-did-it camp argue that the last entries were done during brief abbotcies or in disobedience, surreptitiously or when there was a change in administration.  Other theories...well...no one knows.  However, they come to a grinding halt all around the isle at about the same spot well before Peterborough, so it would seem to be something at least marginally coordinated among the Norman headmen.  Certainly, they had a different view of history, but that's not enough to explain it by itself.  Geogre 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronicles' End 

message: I do not understand this sentence in section Peterborough Chronicle#Unique authorial voice: It does not seem likely that Peterborough was in any sense a lax or secular monastery, as the description of drunkenness causing the fire would not have made the abbey singular in the age. - drunken monks were not unusual then, therefore the monastery was likely to have been strict? I cannot follow the logic here. -Wikibob | Talk 10:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means "the drunkenness doesn't necessarily imply that the monastery was lax". But I agree it's not very well phrased. Stephen Turner 10:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not a lax monastery?

message: I've linked a couple of the specific manuscript redlinks to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle#Surviving manuscripts section of the ASC article.  I haven't done this for the Kentish Chronicle redlink, as there isn't much mention of such a chronicle there, though perhaps there should be.  Mike Christie (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No indeed.  In fact, I would have always preferred that there be no link, but I was trying not to WP:OWN and all that.  During FAC or during its time on the main page, one, someone came along and "helped" by bracketing Kentish Chronicle.  Since the dang thing is purely hypothetical, and not really an hypothesis with any strength to it, we can never have an article there.  What would we say, "A proposed but lost version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that could help explain some of the localisms found in surviving Kentish MSS?"  That would be a definition, and the article that sent them there (this one), would have already explained it.  I didn't want to seem ungrateful for the editing attention or hurt anyone's feelings, so I've left it red all this time, but no longer.  Geogre 11:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS links