Dramatic Literature.—­This must have had a considerable influence on the development of the sacred drama in England, but none of the French plays acted in England in the 12th and 13th centuries has been preserved. Adam, which is generally considered to be an Anglo-Norman mystery of the 12th century, was probably written in France at the beginning of the 13th century (Romania xxxii. 637), and the so-called Anglo-Norman Resurrection belongs also to continental French.  It is necessary to state that the earliest English moralities seem to have been imitations of the French ones.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.—­Apart from the works already mentioned see generally:  Scheibner, “Ueber die Herrschaft der frz.  Sprache in England” (Annaberg, Progr. der Koeniglichen Realschule, 1880, 38 f.); Groeber, Grundr. der romanischen Philologie, ii. iii. (Strassburg, 1902); G. Paris, La Litt. fr. au moyen age (1905); Esquisse historique de la litt. fr. au moyen age (1907); La Litt. norm, avani l’annexion 912-1204 (Paris, 1899); “L’Esprit normand en Angleterre,” La Poesie au moyen age (2nd series 45-74, Paris, 1906); Thomas Wright, Biographia britannica literaria (Anglo-Norman period, London, 1846); Ten Brink, Geschichte der englischen Litteratur (Berlin, 1877, i. 2); J.J.  Jusserand, Hist. litt. du peuple anglais (2nd ed. 1895, vol. i.); W.H.  Schofield, English Literature from the Norman Conquest to Chaucer (London, 1906); Johan Vising, Franska Spraket i England (Goeteborg, 1900, 1901, 1902).

(L.  BR.)

[v.02 p.0035]

ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  It is usual to speak of “the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle”; it would be more correct to say that there are four Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.  It is true that these all grow out of a common stock, that in some even of their later entries two or more of them use common materials; but the same may be said of several groups of medieval chronicles, which no one dreams of treating as single chronicles.  Of this fourfold Chronicle there are seven MSS. in existence; C.C.C.  Cant. 173 (A); Cott.  Tib. A vi. (B); Cott.  Tib. B i. (C); Cott.  Tib. B iv. (D); Bodl.  Laud.  Misc. 636 (E); Cott.  Domitian A viii. (F); Cott.  Otho B xi. (G).  Of these G is now a mere fragment, and it is known to have been a transcript of A. F is bilingual, the entries being given both in Saxon and Latin.  It is interesting as a stage in the transition from the vernacular to the Latin chronicle; but it has little independent value, being a mere epitome, made at Canterbury in the 11th or 12th century, of a chronicle akin to E. B, as far as it goes (to 977), is identical with C, both having been copied from a common original, but A, C, D, E have every right to be treated as independent chronicles.  The relations between the four vary very greatly in different parts, and the neglect of this consideration has led to much error and confusion.