A chronicle is the simplest form of history. The old chronicles
did not weave their history into stories, they simply put down a
date and something that happened on that date. They gave no
reasons for things, they expressed no feelings, no thoughts. So
the chronicles can hardly be called literature. They were not
meant to be looked upon as literature. The writers of them used
them rather as keys to memory. They kept all the stories in
their memories, and the sight of the name of a king or of a
battle was enough to unlock their store of words. And as they
told their tales, if they forgot a part they made something up,
just as the minstrels did.

Alfred caused the Chronicle to be written up from such books and
records as he had from the coming of the Romans until the time in
which he himself reigned. And from then onwards to the time of
the death of King Stephen the Saxon Chronicle was kept. It is
now one of the most useful books from which we can learn the
history of those times.

Sometimes, especially at the beginning, the record is very scant.
As a rule, there is not more than one short sentence for a year,
sometimes not even that, but merely a date. It is like this:--

"Year 189. In this year Severus succeeded to the empire and
reigned seventeen winters. He begirt Britain with a dike from
sea to sea.

"Year 190.

"Year 199.