The Prose Brut and Other Late Medieval Chronicles: Books Have Their Histories. Essays in Honour of Lister M. Matheson 1903153662, 9781903153666

Citation preview

THE PROSE BRUT AND OTHER LATE MEDIEVAL CHRONICLES Books Have Their Histories: Essays in Honour of Lister M. Matheson Edited by JACLYN RAJSIC, ERIK KOOPER AND DOMINIQUE HOCHE

The Prose Brut and Other Late Medieval Chronicles

YORK MEDIEVA L PR ES S York Medieval Press is published by the University of York’s Centre for Medieval Studies in association with Boydell & Brewer Limited. Our objective is the promotion of innovative scholarship and fresh criticism on medieval culture. We have a special commitment to interdisciplinary study, in line with the Centre’s belief that the future of Medieval Studies lies in those areas in which its major constituent disciplines at once inform and challenge each other.

Editorial B oard (2016) Professor Peter Biller (Dept of History): General Editor Dr T. Ayers (Dept of History of Art) Dr Henry Bainton (Dept of English and Related Literature) Dr J. W. Binns (Dept of English and Related Literature) Dr K. F. Giles (Dept of Archaeology) Professor W. M. Ormrod (Dept of History) Dr Lucy Sackville (Dept of History) Dr Hanna Vorholt (Dept of History of Art) Professor J. G. Wogan-Browne (English Faculty, Fordham University) Consultant on Manuscript Publications Professor Linne Mooney (Dept of English and Related Literature)

All enquiries of an editorial kind, including suggestions for monographs and essay collections, should be addressed to: The Academic Editor, York Medieval Press, University of York, Centre for Medieval Studies, The King’s Manor, York, YO1 7EP (E-mail: [email protected]). Other volumes in the Manuscript Culture in the British Isles series are listed at the back of this volume. Details of other York Medieval Press volumes are available from Boydell & Brewer Ltd.

The Prose Brut and Other Late Medieval Chronicles Books Have Their Histories Essays in Honour of Lister M. Matheson

Edited by Jaclyn Rajsic, Erik Kooper and Dominique Hoche

YORK MEDI EVAL PR ES S

© Contributors 2016 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2016 A York Medieval Press publication in association with The Boydell Press an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com and with the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of York ISBN 978-1-903153-66-6 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate This publication is printed on acid-free paper

For M. Teresa Tavormina

Contents

List of Plates ix List of Contributors xi Acknowledgements xv Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson xvii Introduction 1 Dominique Hoche, Jaclyn Rajsic and Erik Kooper A Memoir: The Whole Haggis: Lessons From the Work of Lister M. Matheson Julia Marvin Part I: Uses of History   1 Piety, Community and Local History: Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre and its Context in Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.7 Krista A. Murchison

7

15

  2

The Seen and the Unseen: Miracles, Marvels and Portents in the Middle English Chronicle of Nicholas Trevet Christine M. Rose

  3

‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’: Portents and Wonders in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle 49 Alexander L. Kaufman

  4

The Lawyer and the Herald Dan Embree

30

64

Part II: The Prose Brut   5 Longleat House MS 55: An Unacknowledged Brut Manuscript? 75 Erik Kooper   6

Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut and Textual Archaeology 94 William Marx

  7

The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 and its History Jaclyn Rajsic

vii

105

viii Contents   8

Re-Printing or Remaking? The Early Printed Editions of the Chronicles of England 125 Neil Weijer

Part III: Receptions and Afterlives of Late Medieval Chronicles  9 Trevet’s Les Cronicles: Manuscripts, Owners and Readers Heather Pagan

149

10

Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut 165 Elizabeth J. Bryan

11

Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles Edward Donald Kennedy

181

12

The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle: Its History and its Scribes Caroline D. Eckhardt

199

13

Bruts for Sale A. S. G. Edwards

218

Index of Manuscripts Cited 233 General Index 237 Tabula in Memoriam 245

Plates

Chapter 5: Erik Kooper Plate 1: Beginning of the Latin Brut chronicle in Longleat House MS 55, fol. 35v, with, in the second paragraph, the story of the founding of Totnes. Reproduced by permission of the Marquess of Bath, Longleat House, Warminster, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. Plate 2: Opening of the Hague Roll showing the Heptarchy diagram and history of England’s kings from Brutus. The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 75 A 2/2. Courtesy of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Special Collections.

76

86

Chapter 8: Neil Weijer Plate 1: The layout of the Fasciculus Temporum, showing the Woodcut of the Tower of Babel. Rolevinct, Werner, Facisul[us] tempo[rum] o[mn]es a[n]tiquoru[m] cronicas [com]plecte[n]s, admissus ab alma vniuersitate Colon. incipit feliciter, (Cologne, Heinrich Quentell, 1481) fol. 4r (sig. a5r). Folger Shelfmark INC R257. Used by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library. Plate 2: The St Albans edition of the Chronicles, with a woodcut modeled on Quentell’s. University of Glasgow Library, special collections Hunterian Bv.2.17, fol. a7v. By permission of University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections. Plate 3: A continuator adds material from the Fruit of Times into his manuscript copy of the Brut. University of Glasgow Library, MS Hunter 83, fol. 4r. By permission of University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections.

140

141

145

Chapter 10: Elizabeth J. Bryan Plate 1: The Parker Reader’s red crayon. Middle English Prose Brut chronicle in London, British Library, MS Harley 24, fol. 81v. © The British Library Board, Harley 24, fol. 81v.

ix

171

x Plates Chapter 11: Edward Donald Kennedy Plate 1: Title page of Edmund Curll’s Impartial Memorials. Courtesy of the Rare Book & Manuscript Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

187

Chapter 12: Caroline D. Eckhardt Plate 1: Conjunction of the work of Scribes A and B. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim., fol. 32v. By permission of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. 205 Plate 2: Marginal annotations by Nathaniel Johnston. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbiliothek MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim., fol. 1v. By permission of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. 211 Plate 3: Bookplate of C. J. Sullow. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbiliothek, MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim., bookplate. By permission of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. 214 Plate 4: C. J. Sullow’s entry in the autograph album of Carl Sievers. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbiliothek, MS 8o Cod. hist. lit. 48w, fol. 104r. By permission of Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. 215

Contributors

Elizabeth J. Bryan is Associate Professor of English at Brown University. She has published The Otho Laȝamon: Collaborative Meaning in Medieval Scribal Culture (1999) and articles on Laȝamon’s Brut and the Middle English Prose Brut, including most recently, ‘Picturing Arthur in English History: Text and Image in the Middle English Prose Brut’, in Arthuriana (2013), and ‘Deciphering the Brut: Lambeth Palace MS 6 and the Perils of Transmission’, in Digital Philology (2014). She is currently at work on a monograph on text and image in the illuminated manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut. Caroline D. Eckhardt is Professor of English and Comparative Literature, and Director of the School of Languages and Literatures, at Pennsylvania State University. She has written journal articles and book chapters on topics in medieval literature, especially Chaucer, romances, including the Occitan romance of Jaufré; and the areas of chronicle studies and the history of the book. Her two-volume edition of Castleford’s Chronicle was published by the Early English Text Society in 1996. She has also edited The Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth: A Fifteenth-Century English Commentary (1982). She continues to work on Castleford’s Chronicle and related texts. A. S. G. Edwards is Professor of Medieval English Manuscripts at the University of Kent. His research interests range from Middle English and early modern literature to bibliography, textual criticism and the history of the book. He has published extensively on major English authors such as Chaucer, Lydgate and Gower, as well as on the production and reception of medieval manuscripts and early printed books. He has edited and co-edited several collections of essays, including most recently A Companion to Fifteenth-Century English Poetry, with Julia Boffey (2013). Also with Julia Boffey, he produced A New Index of Middle English Verse (2005). Dan Embree received his BS in Engineering from West Point in 1963. After infantry duty in Viet Nam, he helped found an anti-war group, Concerned Academy Graduates. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of California at Berkeley in 1981. He retired as a professor from Mississippi State University in 2004. With Lister Matheson, he founded the Medieval Chronicles Series, published by Boydell & Brewer, and is its series editor. He has edited The Chronicles of Rome (1999) and, with Edward Donald Kennedy and Kathleen Daly, Short Scottish Prose Chronicles (2012) in that series. He is the founder and co-director, with Jacek Soszinski, of the Repertorium Chronicarum.

xi

xii Contributors Dominique Hoche holds a Ph.D. from Michigan State University and was one of the last doctoral students whose dissertation was directed by Lister Matheson. She is currently an Associate Professor at West Liberty University, where she teaches courses in Medieval Literature, Graphic Narrative and, when she can manage to schedule it, Latin. Her interests include the writings of Christine de Pizan, chivalry and medieval warfare, Robin Hood, the legend of King Arthur, and medieval gender studies. She has recently published on the connection between medieval wall paintings and contemporary Graphic Novel theory. Alexander L. Kaufman is Professor of English and Coordinator of the Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies Program at Auburn University at Montgomery, USA. His research and teaching interests include medieval outlaws, the Jack Cade Rebellion and the medieval chronicle tradition. He is co-editor of the book series Outlaws in Literature, History, and Culture for Ashgate and is editing a new edition of The Great Chronicle of London. Edward Donald Kennedy is Professor Emeritus of English and Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written, edited or co-edited six books, including Chronicles and Other Historical Writing (vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings of Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. Albert E. Hartung (1989)); King Arthur: A Casebook (1996); and, with Dan Embree and Kathleen Daly, Short Scottish Prose Chronicles (2012). He was subject editor for most English and Scottish chronicles in the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, gen. ed. Graeme Dunphy (2010). He has written over one hundred articles and reviews, primarily on Arthurian literature or chronicles, as well as numerous encyclopedia entries. He was editor of Studies in Philology for twelve years. Erik Kooper received both his MA and Ph.D. degrees from Utrecht University, where he taught Old and Middle English until his retirement in 2007. Since then he has regularly taught courses and given guest lectures both at his own university, the Nijmegen Radboud University, and abroad, in Sofia (Bulgaria) and Ghent (Belgium). His main research interests are in the fields of Middle English literature and culture, and medieval historiography. He is the founder of the Medieval Chronicle Society (of which he was International President until 2008), and its yearbook, The Medieval Chronicle. His other recent publications include an edition of four Middle English romances for the American TEAMS series (2006), an edition of the Middle English poem Arthur (2011), and several articles. Julia Marvin is a Fellow of the Medieval Institute and Associate Professor in the Program of Liberal Studies at the University of Notre Dame. She studies the medieval literature and history of England, with a focus on the  Brut  tradition, manuscript studies and medieval multilingualism, and has a particular interest in the role of vernacular historiography in creating late medieval literate English culture. Her edition and translation of  The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle  (2006) was the first complete scholarly edition of any version of the Prose Brut; her current book, The Construction of Vernacular History in the Prose Brut Tradition, examines

Contributors

xiii

the making and remaking of British history by the chronicle’s writers and readers through its manuscripts. William Marx is Reader in Medieval Literature, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter. He has published in the fields of medieval theology and literature, manuscript studies, devotional literature and medieval vernacular chronicles. He has edited a number of medieval texts including An English Chronicle 1377–1461 for the Medieval Chronicles series and, with Raluca Radulescu, the collection of essays Readers and Writers of the Prose Brut. He is one of the general editors for the series Middle English Texts (Universitätsverlag Winter, Heidelberg). He serves on the Council of the Early English Text Society, and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a Fellow of the Learned Society of Wales. Krista A. Murchison is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of English, University of Ottawa. Her research interests are centered on the popular literature of late medieval England, including chronicles and devotional texts. Her work is particularly focused on the vernacular religious guides that proliferated in England in the wake of the Fourth Lateran Council. Her dissertation is on the evolution of the selfexamination manual in terms of both its material and formal characteristics, and its role in shaping the subjectivity of medieval penitents. Heather Pagan is an editor at the Anglo-Norman Dictionary at Aberystwyth University. Her research focuses on uses of Anglo-Norman in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century England. She is an avid editor of Anglo-Norman historical texts: she published an edition of the Prose Brut to 1332 for the Anglo-Norman Text Society (2011), and is currently co-editing Nicholas Trevet’s Les Cronicles, with Geert De Wilde, as well as the unedited portions of Sir Thomas Gray’s Scalacronica, with Jaclyn Rajsic and Andy King. Jaclyn Rajsic is a Lecturer in Medieval Literature in the School of English and Drama at Queen Mary University of London. Her research focuses on receptions and reshapings of England’s history, especially the mythical British past, in chronicles and genealogies written in Anglo-Norman, Latin and English from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, especially royal genealogical rolls and copies of the Prose Brut chronicle. She is currently writing a monograph on this subject, entitled History Unrolled: Negotiating the British and English Pasts in Genealogies of England’s Kings, c. 1250–c. 1500. She is also working on a project that explores the reception and influence of the Prose Brut across the Channel, in late medieval France and Burgundy, and is co-editing the early sections of the Scalacronica with Heather Pagan and Andy King. Christine M. Rose is Professor of English at Portland State University and author of the forthcoming Nicholas Trevet’s Middle English Chronicle: A Critical Edition of Houghton Library fMS Eng. 938, The Middle English Translation of Trevet’s Les Cronicles, with Brut Continuation. She translated and edited, with Gina Greco, The Good Wife’s Guide (Le Ménagier de Paris): A Medieval Household Book (2009), the first complete English translation of that fourteenth-century French text, and

xiv Contributors she co-edited, with Elizabeth Robertson, Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature (2001). Rose and Greco are currently at work on a translation of Antoine de la Sale’s Jehan le Saintré. Neil Weijer is a Ph.D. candidate in the History Department of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD. His research focuses on the place of origin narratives in medieval and early modern English historical writing and historical thought. His dissertation will examine the ways in which the story of Britain’s legendary foundation by the Trojan exile Brutus was amended, appropriated and contested by writers, printers, readers and scholars between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries. Weijer holds a BA in History from the University of Chicago and an M.Phil. in Medieval History from Cambridge University.

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the editorial boards and staff at York Medieval Press and Boydell & Brewer for all of their support and hard work throughout the publication process. For permission to publish the cover image of this book we kindly thank the Lambeth Palace Library. For permission to publish images of medieval manuscripts and early printed books we thank the British Library, Folger Shakespeare Library, Göttingen State and University Library, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Longleat House Library and University of Glasgow Library. We would like to extend our deepest thanks to M. Teresa Tavormina, without whom the ‘Books Have Their Histories’ conference sessions series would never have taken place. With her help, we began the discussions for this book at the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo and the International Medieval Congress in Leeds in May and July of 2013. Tess has been the driving force of this project from the very beginning. We cannot thank her enough for her constant support, enthusiasm and encouragement, for her invaluable offering of Lister’s Curriculum Vitae and other materials, and for her advice and wisdom in making this book possible. Finally, none of the studies published in this volume would have been possible without the pioneering scholarship of Lister M. Matheson. Lister was an inspiration to all of us, a stimulating teacher and a dear friend. He is sorely missed, but never forgotten.

xv

LISTER M. MATHESON 1948 – 2012 Curriculum Vitae, Publications, Productions and Papers

EDUCATION 1978 Ph.D., Department of English Language, University of Glasgow. Dissertation: ‘The Prose Brut: A Parallel Edition of Glasgow Hunterian MSS T.3.12 and V.5.13’ (3 vols.). Supervisor: Professor M. L. Samuels, University of Glasgow. Examiner: Professor Norman Davis, Merton College, Oxford. 1971 M.A. (Honours) in English Language and Literature, University of Glasgow.

TEACHING POSITIONS 1999–2012 Professor, Department of English, Michigan State University. 1988–1999 Associate Professor, Department of English, Michigan State University. 1986–1988 Assistant Professor, Department of English, Michigan State University. 1984–1986 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Michigan.

ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS 2000–2005 Director, Genre Evolution Project, Michigan State University branch. 1996–2005 Director, Clarion Fantasy and Science Fiction Writers’ Workshop. 1992–1995  Associate Chair for Graduate Programs, Department of English, Michigan State University.

RESEARCH POSITIONS 1978–1986 Associate Editor, Middle English Dictionary, University of Michigan. 1975–1978 Assistant Editor, Middle English Dictionary. 1973–975 Assistant Editor, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford.

MAJOR ACADEMIC HONORS Graduate Faculty, Purdue University, 2006–11. xvii

xviii

Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

International Fellow, Queen’s University, Belfast, 2005–08. Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Glasgow, 1999. Teacher-Scholar Award, Michigan State University, 1991.

PUBLICATIONS A. Books: Staging Salvation: Six Medieval Plays in Modern English, with W. G. Marx and R. L. Kinnunen; music arranged by V. J. Corrigan, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 443 (Tempe AZ, 2014). Early Rymes of Robyn Hood: An Edition of the Texts, ca. 1425 to ca. 1600, with T. H. Ohlgren, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 428 (Tempe AZ, 2013). Editor, Icons of the Middle Ages: Rulers, Writers, Rebels, and Saints, 2 vols. (Westport CT, 2011). Death and Dissent: Two Fifteenth Century Chronicles, Medieval Chronicles 2 (Woodbridge, 1999). The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998). Editor, Popular and Practical Science of Medieval England, Medieval Texts and Studies 4 (East Lansing, 1994). [now an imprint of Michigan State University Press] Associate Editor, Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor, 1975–90). B. Book Chapters and Contributions: ‘National and Civic Chronicles in Late Fifteenth-Century London’, in The Yorkist Age: Proceedings of the 2011 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. C. Steer and H. Kleineke (Donington, Lincs, 2013), pp. 256–74. ‘Chronicles of England and the British Isles’, in Oxford Bibliographies: Medieval Studies, ed. P. Szarmach (New York, 2012). (www.oxfordbibliographies.com) ‘Chronicles and Narrative Sources of History in Medieval England’, in Understanding Medieval Primary Sources: Using Historical Sources to Discover Medieval Europe, ed. J. Rosenthal (London, 2012), pp. 24–42. ‘Constantinus Africanus’ and ‘John of Burgundy’, in The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. R. E. Bjork (Oxford, 2010). ‘Genealogy and Women in the Prose Brut, Especially the Middle English Common Version and Its Continuations’, in Broken Lines: Genealogy in Medieval Britain and France, ed. R. L. Radulescu and E. D. Kennedy, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe 16 (Turnhout, 2009), pp. 221–58. ‘The Chronicle Tradition’, in A Companion to Arthurian Literature, ed. H. Fulton (Oxford, 2009), pp. 58–69. ‘Essex/Suffolk Scribes and Their Language in Fifteenth-Century London’, in English Historical Linguistics 2006. Volume III: Geo-Historical Variation in English, ed. M. Dossena, R. Dury, and M. Gotti (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2008), pp. 45–65.



Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

xix

Preface to D. T. Hoche, The Reception of Christine de Pizan’s Fais d’Armes in Fifteenth-Century England: Chivalric Self-Fashioning (Lewiston, 2007), pp. ix–xi. ‘The Dialects and Language of Selected Robin Hood Poems’, in T. Ohlgren, Robin Hood: The Early Poems 1465–1560 (Newark DE, 2007), pp. 189–210. ‘The Dialect of the Hammond Scribe’ (ch. 4); ‘Constantinus Africanus’s De coitu’ (ch. 8); and ‘John of Burgundy’s De epidemia’ (ch. 12), in Sex, Aging, and Death in a Medieval Medical Compendium: Trinity College Cambridge MS. R.14.52, Its Language, Scribe, and Texts, ed. M. T. Tavormina, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 292 (Tempe AZ, 2006). ‘The Prose Brut’; ‘William Caxton’; ‘Chronicles’; ‘John Hardyng’; ‘“Blind” Harry’; ‘Jacob’s Well’; ‘Peter of Langtoft’; ‘Printing’; and ‘Andrew Wyntoun’, in Medieval England: An Encyclopedia, ed. P. Szarmach, M. T. Tavormina, and J. T. Rosenthal (New York, 1998), pp. 146–7, 165–6, 184–6, 337–8, 342, 379–80, 596, 612–13, 823. ‘English Chronicle Contexts for Shakespeare’s Death of Richard II’, in From Page to Performance: Essays in Early English Drama, ed. J. A. Alford (East Lansing, 1995), pp. 195–219. ‘A Middle English Treatise on the Elections of Times’; and ‘Glossary’, in Popular and Practical Science, ed. Matheson, Medieval Texts and Studies 11 (East Lansing, 1994), pp. 23–59, 369–405. ‘A Great Divide: Historical Principles in Early and Middle Scots Literature’, in Celtic Connections, ed. D. Lampe, ACTA 16 (Binghamton NY), 1993 [for 1989], pp. 73–98. ‘King Arthur and the Medieval English Chronicles’, in King Arthur Through the Ages, ed. V. Lagorio and M. Day (New York, 1990), I, pp. 248–74. Contributor (astrological manuscripts), Insular and AngloSaxon Illuminated Manuscripts: An Iconographic Catalogue c. A.D. 625 to 1100, ed. T. H. Ohlgren (New York, 1986, passim). Also published in Computerized Version (Release 1.0) as Corpus of Insular and Anglo-Saxon Illuminated Manuscripts, ed. T. H. Ohlgren and M. O. Budny (Orem UT, 1992). ‘The Arthurian Stories of Lambeth Palace Library MS 84’, in Arthurian Literature V, ed. R. Barber Cambridge, 1985), pp. 70–91. ‘Historical Prose’, in Middle English Prose: A Critical Guide to Major Authors and Genres, ed. A. S. G. Edwards (New Brunswick NJ, 1984), pp. 209–48. C. Articles and Notes: ‘Contextualizing the Dartmouth Brut: From Professional Manuscripts to “The Worst Little Scribbler in Surrey”’, Digital Philology 3.2 (Fall 2014), 215–39. ‘An Early Jacobite Song on the Battle of Inverurie’, Scottish Studies Review 8.2 (2007), 36–53. ‘Anxious Abbots and Fearful Friars: The Ricardian Conspiracy in Essex, 1403–04’, Modern Studies in English Language and Literature 51 (2007), 393–422. ‘Médecin sans Frontières? The European Dissemination of John of Burgundy’s Plague Treatise’, ANQ 18.3 (2005), 17–28.

xx

Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

Introduction to Sable Jak, Writing the Fantasy Film: Heroes and Journeys in Alternate Realities (Studio City, CA), 2004), pp. xvii–xviii. ‘Dialect Analysis of CUL MS Ff.5.48’, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 48 (2004), 109–15. [Supplement to T. H. Ohlgren, ‘Robin Hood and the Monk and the Manuscript Context of Cambridge University Library MS. Ff.5.48’, 80–108.] ‘The Beryn Scribe and His Texts: Evidence for Multiple-Copy Production of Manuscripts in FifteenthCentury England’ (with L. R. Mooney), The Library: The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 7th s. 4 (2003), 347–70. ‘Dialect Analysis of CUL MS Ee.4.35.1’, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 45 (2001), 229–33. [Supplement to T. H. Ohlgren, ‘Richard Call, the Pastons, and the Manuscript Context of Robin Hood and the Potter (Cambridge, University Library Ee.4.35.1)’, 210–28.] ‘The Peasants’ Revolt through Five Centuries of Rumor and Reporting: Richard Fox, John Stow, and Their Successors’, Studies in Philology 95 (1998), 121–51. ‘Chaucer’s Ancestry: Historical and Philological Re-assessments’, The Chaucer Review 25 (1991), 171–89. ‘Linguistics and Hierarchy: The Demons in the Towneley Judgment Play’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 91 (1990), 209–13. ‘Piers Plowman B.13.331 (330): Some “Shrewed” Observations’, The Yearbook of Langland Studies 1 (1987), 108–16. ‘The House of Fame, 26: A Chaucer Reading Restored’, Notes and Queries 232 (1987), 289–91. ‘Licere: A Ghost Word in the Middle English Dictionary’, Notes and Queries n.s. 33 (1986), 9. ‘Printer and Scribe: Caxton, the Polychronicon, and the Brut’, Speculum 60 (1985), 593–614. ‘The Middle English Verb sane: A Probable Ghost Word’, Notes and Queries n.s. 30 (1983), 199–202. ‘A Fragment of Sir Eglamour of Artois’, English Language Notes 17 (1980), 165–8. ‘The Middle English Prose Brut: A Location List of the Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions’, Analytical & Enumerative Bibliography 3 (1979), 254–66. ‘Troilus and Criseyde, III, 1460, “Pourynge”’, Notes and Queries n.s. 26 (1979), 203. ‘A Middle English Antedating of “protocol”’, Notes and Queries n.s. 25 (1978), 204–5. ‘An Example of Ambiguity and Scribal Confusion in Piers Plowman’, English Language Notes 15 (1978), 263–7. ‘An Unpublished Letter of George Meredith’, Notes and Queries n.s. 23 (1976), 296. D. Reviews: D. Broun and J. Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey: A Stratigraphic Edition. Volume I. Introduction and Facsimile Edition (2007). The Journal of the Early Book Society 12 (2009), 253–6. L. Carruthers, L’anglais médiéval (1996). Speculum 75 (2000), 900–2. M. C. Seymour, gen. ed., English Writers of the Late Middle Ages (Caxton, Pecock,



Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

xxi

Henryson, Dunbar, Capgrave) (1996). Studies in the Age of Chaucer 20 (1998), 329–31. G. Chaucer, The Legend of Good Women, ed. J. Cowen and G. Kane (1995). Notes and Queries n.s. 44 (1997), 382–3. C. Brewer and A. G. Rigg, Piers Plowman: A Facsimile of the Z-Text in Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 851 (1994). Notes and Queries n.s. 43 (1996), 77–8. R. M. Thomson, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library (1990). Envoi: A Review Journal of Medieval Literature 4 (1996), 189–92. R. Hanna III, William Langland (1993). The Yearbook of Langland Studies 8 (1994), 192–4. D. Burnley, The History of the English Language (1992). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 (1993), 532–3. J. A. Burrow and T. Turville-Petre, A Book of Middle English (1992). Studies in the Age of Chaucer 15 (1993), 177–80. Studies in ‘The Vernon Manuscript’, ed. D. Pearsall (1990). Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993), 321–2. J. C. Crick, comp., The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, III: A Summary Catalogue of the Manuscripts (1989). Speculum 67 (1992), 955–6. A. J. Devitt, Standardizing Written English-Diffusion in the Case of Scotland 1520–1659 (1990). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14 (1992), 238–9. B. Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (1990). Medium Ævum 60 (1991), 290–1. E. D. Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (1989). Studies in the Age of Chaucer 13 (1991), 210–13. The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, II: The First Variant Version, ed. N. Wright (1988). Speculum 66 (1991), 413–15. G. Kristensson, A Survey of Middle English Dialects 1290–1350: The West Midland Counties (1987). Speculum 64 (1989), 459–60. S. L. Waugh, The Lordship of England: Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics, 1217–1327 (1988). Manuscripta 33 (1989), 61–3. Ancrene Riwle: Introduction and Part I, ed. R. W. Ackerman and R. Dahood (1984). Studies in the Age of Chaucer 10 (1988), 109–11. The Historia Brittonum: 3. The ‘Vatican’ Recension, ed. D. N. Dumville (1985) and The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth: 1. Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS. 568, ed. N. Wright (1985). Speculum 63 (1988), 147–9. N. F. Onesti, La Lingua delle Ultime Sezione della Cronaca di Peterborough (1983). Speculum 62 (1987), 767–8. J. H. Fisher, M. Richardson, and J. L. Fisher, An Anthology of Chancery English (1984). Speculum 61 (1986), 646–50. English Glosses from British Library Additional Manuscript 37075, ed. T. W. Ross and E. Brooks (1984). Studies in the Age of Chaucer 8 (1986), 237–9. D. C. Fowler, The Bible in Early English Literature (1976). Tennessee Studies in Literature 24 (1979), 134–7.

xxii

Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

E. MEDIEVAL THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS Producer/Translator: ‘The York Play of Pilate’ (a conflated version of those plays in the York Cycle in which Pilate appears). Michigan State University and First Presbyterian Church (Lansing), May 1998. ‘The First Temptations of Christ’ (the N-Town ‘Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness’ and ‘The Woman Taken in Adultery’). Michigan State University, June 1992. ‘The Chester Noah Play’. Michigan State University, June 1990. ‘The Wakefield Last Judgment Play’. Michigan State University, June 1988. Actor: Role: Chorus in ‘The York Play of Pilate’. Lansing MI, May 1998. Role: Conscience in ‘The Vision of William Concerning Piers the Plowman’ (M. Twycross, director). Joculatores Oxonienses. Oxford, May 1974.

F. PAPERS AND CONFERENCES ‘National and Civic Chronicles in Late Fifteenth-Century London’. Sixth International Medieval Chronicle Conference. Pécs, Hungary, July 2011. ‘National and Civic Chronicles in Late Fifteenth-Century London’. The Harlaxton Medieval Symposium on ‘The Yorkist Age’. Harlaxton Manor, Lincolnshire, July 2011. ‘The Scribe of Glasgow, University Library, Hunterian MS 443: The Worst Little Scribbler in Surrey?’ From Medieval Britain to Dartmouth: Situating the Dartmouth Brut Manuscript. Dartmouth College, May 2011. ‘Script and Print: Caxton’s Chronicles of England and their Manuscript Competitors’. Seventeenth International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, July 2010. ‘Robbing the Poor: “Rymes of Robin Hood” and the Editors’. Robin Hood: Media Creature. Seventh Biennial Conference on Robin Hood, The International Association for Robin Hood Studies. University of Rochester (NY), October 2009. ‘Language and Literacy in Late Medieval England: The Lambeth 84 Scribe’. Keynote Address: Conference on Historical Language and Literacy in the North Sea Area. University of Stavanger, Norway, August 2009. ‘Two New Versions of the Constance Legend’. 1408–2008: The Age of Gower. First International Congress of the International John Gower Society. Queen Mary, University of London, July 2008. ‘The Works and Literary Milieu of the Lambeth 84 Scribe’. Tenth Biennial Conference of the Early Book Society. University of Salford, August 2007. ‘Portents and Predictions: Popular Astrology and the Medieval Mind’. Plenary Address: Borderlines Conference (all-Ireland postgraduate students’ conference). Queen’s University, Belfast, April 2007. ‘Chronicle as Courtesy Book: Appropriate and Inappropriate Female Behaviours



Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

xxiii

in the Prose Brut’. Thirteenth Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 2007. ‘A Proposed Biographical Database of Late Medieval England’. Medieval Cultures Series. Queen’s University, Belfast, 2006. ‘Essex/Suffolk Scribes and Fifteenth-Century London: The Language(s) of the Beryn Scribe, the Hammond Scribe, John Vale, and the Scribes of Glasgow, University Library, MS Hunterian 74’. Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. University of Bergamo, August 2006. ‘Anxious Abbots and Fearful Friars: A Ricardian Conspiracy in Essex, 1403–04’ (revised and updated version). International Conference of the Modern English Society of Korea. Chungnam National University, Daejeon, May 2006. ‘Two Weddings and a Wizard: A New Account of the Wedding of Princess Katharine of Aragon to Prince Arthur of England in 1501’. School of English Research Seminar. Queen’s University, Belfast, December 2005. ‘The Dialect and Background of the Hammond Scribe’. Medieval Cultures Series. Queen’s University, Belfast, November 2005. ‘New Light on William Langland’. Tenth York Manuscripts Conference. University of York, July 2005. ‘The Prose Brut: An Update’. Fortieth International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 2005. ‘The Reception of Katharine of Aragon in 1501: A Previously Undescribed Document’. Feast, Famine, and Fasting: Eleventh Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 2005. ‘“Largeliche a legyon lees þe lyf sone”: Welsh Annals and Biographical Notes in Trinity College, Dublin MS. 212’ (revised and updated version). Queen’s University, Belfast, March 2004. ‘The Joys and Sorrows of Editing a Single-Manuscript Work: The Middle English Translation of Constantinus Africanus’s De Coitu’, Session honoring Robert Raymo, Thirty-Eighth International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 2003. ‘Médecin sans Frontières? The European Dissemination of John of Burgundy’s Plague Treatise’. Multi-Cultural Europe and Cultural Exchange: Ninth Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 2003. ‘The Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English’. Invited talk and workshop. Purdue University, January 2001, November 2002, October 2004. ‘Maps and Manors’. A Gathering Together of Words, Dictionary Society of North America Biennial Conference. Celebratory Meeting for the Completion of The Middle English Dictionary. University of Michigan, May 2001. ‘What’s in a Name? Hanley Castle and Langland’. Thirty-Fifth International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 2001. ‘William Langland and the Circulation and Readership of the C-text Manuscripts’. Imagining the Book. Queen’s University, Belfast, April 2001. ‘John of Burgundy’s De pestilencia in Trinity College Cambridge MS. R.14.52’. Fourth International Congress on the Fifteenth Century. University of Antwerp, July 2000.

xxiv

Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

‘Anxious Abbots and Fearful Friars: A Ricardian Conspiracy in Essex, 1403–4’. Fear and Its Representations in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Sixth Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 2000. ‘History and Fiction: William Caxton as Chronicler and as Reviser of Malory’s Morte Darthur’. Second Medieval Chronicle Conference. Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Utrecht, July 1999. ‘On Spec: Some Evidence for the Mass Production of Manuscripts in FifteenthCentury England’. Material Culture and Cultural Materialisms in the Middle Ages and Renaissance: Fifth Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 1999. ‘Using the Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English: A Workshop’. Thirty-Third International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1998. ‘The Dialects and Audience of the C-Text Manuscripts of Piers Plowman’. Peace, Negotiation, and Reciprocity: Strategies of Co-Existence in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Fourth Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 1998. ‘William Langland: Social, Political, and Geographical Backgrounds’. Thirty-Second International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1997. ‘Fishing Tips in Bodleian MS Rawlinson C.506’. Conference on The Culture of the Book in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. University of Western Ontario, March 1997. ‘Caxton’s Engagement with Malory’s Morte Darthur’. Crossing Boundaries: Issues of Cultural and Individual Identity in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Third Annual ACMRS Conference. Arizona State University, February 1997. ‘A New Chronicle Account of the Outbreak of the Peasants’ Revolt’. First Medieval Chronicle Conference. Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Utrecht, July 1996. ‘The Prose Brut: Future Directions and Problems’. Thirty-First International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1996. ‘The Production and Ownership of John Shirley’s Dethe of the Kynge of Scotis’. Twenty-Second Saint Louis Conference on Manuscript Studies. Saint Louis University, October 1995. ‘The Texts of The Dethe of the Kynge of Scotis’. International Gothic Association Conference. University of Stirling, June 1995. ‘Langland’s Ancestry’. Modern Language Association. Toronto, December 1993. ‘“Largeliche a legyon lees þe lyf sone”: Welsh Annals and Biographical Notes in Trinity College, Dublin MS. D.4.1 (212)’ (with M. T. Tavormina). Twenty-Eighth International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1993. ‘Per ardua ad astra: Chaucer and the Air Forces’. Invited lecture. University of California, Irvine, February 1993. ‘Two Fifteenth-Century Versions of the Tale of Constance’. Twenty-Seventh



Curriculum Vitae of Lister M. Matheson

xxv

International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1992. ‘Medieval Astrology’. Guest speaker, Phi Alpha Theta annual banquet. Cleveland State University, May 1991. ‘Linguistics and Hierarchy: The Demons in the Towneley Judgment Play’. Sixth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. University of Helsinki, May 1990. ‘Medieval English Access to Italian Writings’. Twenty-Fourth International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1989 (also given at the Second Michigan State University Chaucer Colloquium, February 1990). ‘A Great Divide: Historical Principles in Early and Middle Scots Literature’. Plenary address, ACTA Conference on Celtic Connections. Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University College at Buffalo, April 1989. ‘A Dialectal and Lexical Analysis of MS. Bodley 283’. Twenty-Third International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1988. ‘William Caxton and the Compiler of Lambeth MS 84’. Twenty-Third International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1988. ‘Chaucer’s Ancestry: Historical and Philological Reassessments’. Invited lecture. Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University, October 1988 (also given at the First Michigan State University Chaucer Colloquium, January 1988). ‘Hagiography and History: Legends of the Saints in Lambeth MS 84’. Fourteenth Saint Louis Conference on Manuscript Studies. Saint Louis University, October 1987. ‘Piers Plowman B.13.331 (330): Some “Shrewed” Observations’. Twenty-Second International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1987. ‘A Proposal for a Biographical Dictionary of Medieval England’. Conference on English Linguistics. University of Michigan, August 1985. ‘Historicity and Middle English Literature’. Third International Interdisciplinary Conference of the Society for Textual Scholarship. Graduate School of the City University of New York, April 1985. ‘The Arthurian Stories of Lambeth Palace Library MS 84’. Fourteenth International Congress of the International Arthurian Society. Universite de Rennes 2Haute Bretagne, August 1984. [Abstract in Bulletin Bibliographique de la Société Internationale Arthurienne 36 (1984), 317–18.] ‘Printer and Scribe: Caxton, the Polychronicon, and the Brut’. Ninth Conference of the Southeastern Medieval Association. University of Virginia, October 1983. ‘Negative Prefixes in Middle English’. Fourteenth International Congress on Medieval Studies. Western Michigan University, May 1979. ‘A Classification of the Middle English Brut Manuscripts’. Fifth Saint Louis Conference on Manuscript Studies. Saint Louis University, October 1978. ‘A New Text of Warkworth’s Chronicle’. Fourth Saint Louis Conference on Manuscript Studies. Saint Louis University, October 1977. [Abstract in Manuscripta 22 (1978), 15–16.] ‘The Negative Adverb in Middle English’. Twelfth Conference on Medieval Studies. The Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University, May 1977.

INTRODUCTION Dominique Hoche, Jaclyn Rajsic and Erik Kooper

L

ondon, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 84, the first folio of which appears on the cover of this book, was a manuscript very close to Lister Matheson’s heart. Although he described the manuscript with a critical eye as having a ‘poorly drawn half-page frontpiece’, Matheson had been working with great diligence and affection on Lambeth 84 for nearly three decades: he mentioned it many times in his classroom lectures on the Prose Brut and the History of the Book, and had even managed to use it as an example in his course on Chaucer and occasionally in his famed class on Medieval Drama. Indeed, he had been planning to write a monograph about it; thus far he had presented four papers and published an essay on the Arthurian stories in the chronicle.1 He was particularly struck by the physical composition of the chronicle itself: the amount of supplementary material written in the margins was ‘unparalleled’ and there was a noticeably large number of small slips of vellum interspersed in the manuscript. In the classroom, his attention to detail, combined with a thorough knowledge of medieval historical and literary texts and his skill as a thrilling storyteller, made him a fascinating and entertaining teacher: we knew that everything in his lecture would sooner or later connect with everything else, with the clarity and intellectual satisfaction of a Venn diagram. (Matheson drew such diagrams on the board when teaching complex ideas and theories, and used the overlapping circles to illustrate relationships between characters in medieval texts.) We understood that to be proper medievalists, we must grasp the content of a text as well as the material circumstances in which that text was created. One of the most difficult skills Matheson taught his students was how to glean a solid conclusion from what first appeared to be a complete lack of information. No detail was ever insignificant: he showed us how to extrapolate seminal discoveries from the smallest elements. An exploration of the late Professor Lister M. Matheson’s influence as a scholar and a teacher lies at the heart of this collection. The essays included in this book began life as papers presented in a series of conference sessions on the theme of ‘Books Have Their Histories’, organised in memory of Professor Matheson in 2013, and held at the 48th annual International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, MI, and at the 20th annual International Medieval Congress in Leeds, UK. Matheson made important contributions to scholarship not only through his research on the history of the book – in particular through his foundational work For details, see Lister Matheson’s Curriculum Vitae, above.

1

1

2

Dominique Hoche, Jaclyn Rajsic and Erik Kooper

on the manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut, which continues to shape critical studies and debates2 – but also through his role as co-editor of Boydell & Brewer’s Medieval Chronicles series, in which he himself published an edition of two fifteenth-century chronicles. The essays collected in this volume aim to honour Professor Matheson and his work: building on his research, they throw fresh light on the histories of a range of chronicle texts and manuscripts produced in late medieval England. Taken together, these essays contribute to current studies of medieval history writing, manuscript studies and the history of the book, and postmedieval receptions of medieval English texts. They aim to open new doors for further studies of the Prose Brut and other late medieval chronicles. Any question as to the height of the inspiration that Matheson’s work spurred can be answered by the first essay, written by Julia Marvin: drawing on her own use of his scholarship, Marvin reflects on the down-to-earth lessons that may be learnt from Matheson. Her essay can be seen as a personal tribute to Matheson and his work; but, more profoundly, it introduces ideas about scholarly influence, approach and creativity that weave throughout this book. As such, it is the ideal essay with which to begin a volume devoted to the memory of a great medieval scholar and teacher. Following this introductory material, the volume is divided into three parts. Part I focuses on ‘Uses of History’ in late medieval England, particularly within devotional and political contexts. Essays by Murchison, Rose and Kaufman underscore the didactic function of history in the texts they consider. Murchison and Rose offer close textual analyses of their historical texts, which are complemented by examinations of the manuscripts in which these works appear. In Chapter 1, Murchison examines the moral and communitarian value of a short Anglo-Norman chronicle known as Le Livere de Reis de Engletere (c. 1300). She reconsiders the scholarly view that this short chronicle is strictly dynastic in its interests, analysing a range of episodes to demonstrate the history’s emphasis on the religious community. This discussion is complemented by a consideration of the manuscript context of Le Livere de Reis, which Murchison suggests supports a devotional programme for reading this history of England’s kings. In Chapter 2, Rose considers the intersections between miraculous and mundane events in the English translation of Nicholas Trevet’s Anglo-Norman Les Cronicles (the manuscripts of the Anglo-Norman original are discussed by Pagan in Part III), and in its continuation, which is based on a copy of the English Prose Brut. She considers the effect of prodigious events in the English translation’s wider context of world history, arguing that these events, coupled with the less hopeful world of the Prose Brut continuation, register the importance of piety and prayer for the manuscript’s readers. But she also shows that the Brut continuation is darker in tone; as the chronicler reports more recent events, the wonders and miracles of the past disappear, and are replaced by more ominous warnings of events to come. . In Chapter 3, Kaufman explores the use of portents in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, 2 L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998).

Introduction

3

which Matheson edited for the Medieval Chronicles series. Kaufman argues that prophecies and portents are inextricably linked to the political situation of late fifteenth century England, the period in which ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle was written. His analysis complements Rose’s discussion of marvelous events, but then demonstrates different ways in which wonders were read and understood by late medieval audiences. He argues that the extraordinary events reported by the chronicler but left unexplained can be read as signs of political upheaval to come and as comments on the tumultuous situation of the writer’s time. The chronicle itself was a vital element to the beginning of Matheson’s career and his edition of it was groundbreaking. Kaufman builds on Matheson’s authoritative scholarship to offer new insights into the text. This relationship between politics and history writing lies at the core of Embree’s essay (Chapter 4), which reassesses current scholarship about two English chronicles written during the reign of King Edward IV. These two chronicles are commonly thought to have been written by the same author; however, Embree’s close, comparative analysis of the texts reveals that two very different authors can be seen at work: the ‘Lawyer’ and the ‘Herald’, as he characterizes them. His essay explores the different representations of recent events constructed by these distinctive chroniclers. He thereby underscores further uses of history, especially the particular agendas of history’s writers. This issue is investigated further by contributors in Part II of the volume, namely Marx, Rajsic and Weijer. Part II, ‘The Prose Brut’, explores the composition, reshaping and use of individual copies of the Prose Brut chronicle written from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. The essays included in this section are united not only by their shared focus on Prose Brut texts and manuscripts, but also by the questions they pose and the issues they explore. All four authors consider the ways in which English history, as presented by the Prose Brut, was revised and reshaped in individual manuscripts and printed editions. All situate their texts within the wider context of the Prose Brut tradition, and against the historical and/or literary backdrops in which their texts were produced. Kooper’s essay (Chapter 5) examines a manuscript containing a Latin Brut history, which he suggests is a hitherto unidentified text of the Latin Prose Brut. He compares his text to vernacular versions of the chronicle in order to determine how this Latin history fits into the multilingual Prose Brut tradition. Kooper’s comparative analysis ultimately leads him to argue that the Prose Brut is best understood as a genre, rather than a text or collection of texts, and his newly suggested, working definition of ‘Prose Brut’ is picked up by later essays in this volume (for example, Rajsic). Essays by Marx and Rajsic draw further attention to the variation found in Prose Brut manuscripts. Their essays focus on manuscripts belonging to Matheson’s category of ‘Peculiar Texts and Versions’ of the English Prose Brut. In Chapter 6, Marx examines two interpolations in two copies of a ‘peculiar’ Prose Brut text, which draw heavily on Latin sources. He analyses the patterns and techniques of revision and interpolation undertaken by the compiler of this ‘peculiar’ text. He

4

Dominique Hoche, Jaclyn Rajsic and Erik Kooper

argues that the adaptations and additions reveal how the compiler reimagined Prose Brut history, and explores the factors that drove the development of the text in question. Such processes of revision are further explored by Rajsic, who in Chapter 7 discusses a previously unidentified copy of the English Prose Brut chronicle, one written in 1527 and now held by the Parker Library in Cambridge (on Matthew Parker’s own English Prose Brut manuscripts, see Bryan’s essay in Part III of this volume). Unlike the English Prose Brut texts catalogued by Matheson, this copy was written on a roll, not in a codex. Rajsic investigates the history of this Prose Brut roll – evidence of its ownership and the reasons for its production – and then considers the significance of the roll format for our understanding of the Prose Brut’s history. She explores the implications of the author’s compression and reshaping of the Prose Brut, ultimately to argue that the roll format reinforces the imagined succession between kings past and present that lies at the heart of the Prose Brut chronicle. Discussions of textual revision and of experimentation with format are also integral to Weijer’s essay (Chapter 8), which considers two early printed editions of Caxton’s Chronicles of England and their relationship to the English Prose Brut tradition. Weijer examines the ways in which printers modified both the layout and content of their sources, drawing particular attention to added material. He challenges the notion of ‘re-printings’, arguing that editions of the Chronicles of England should be understood instead as individual compositions. He then discusses the importance and implications of subtle changes made by printers to their books for our understanding of sixteenth-century receptions of the Chronicles of England and the Prose Brut’s history more widely. In doing so, his essay looks forward to the contributions in Part III of the volume, which consider late medieval and post-medieval receptions and afterlives of Prose Brut manuscripts and copies of other English chronicles. Part III turns to analyses of the owners, scribes and editors of chronicles written in late medieval England. Pagan’s essay (Chapter 9) offers the first consideration of the owners of manuscripts of Nicholas Trevet’s Anglo-Norman Les Cronicles (c. 1334). It thereby complements Rose’s essay on the English translation of Trevet in Part I of this volume. Pagan explores the range of aristocratic, non-royal and continental readers of Trevet’s work, and considers which manuscript was most likely to have been used by Chaucer and Gower. Her discussion sheds new light on the audience of Trevet’s Anglo-Norman chronicle and on the ways in which this historical text was understood and used by its audience. Pagan’s investigation of ownership leads her to consider some early modern readers of Trevet’s Les Cronicles. Such later receptions form, in turn, the core of Bryan’s essay (Chapter 10). Bryan explores the use of three copies of the English Prose Brut chronicle by sixteenth-century antiquarian Matthew Parker, or a reader in his circle, focusing on a manuscript in the British Library that has yet to be linked with Parker. This manuscript features the red crayon markings that are characteristic of several manuscripts that Parker owned or used; thus, the presence of these markings, Bryan contends, allows us to count the British Library manuscript among those known

Introduction

5

to have belonged to Mathew Parker’s circle. Her careful study of the underlinings and annotations found in the British Library manuscript throws light on Parker’s attitudes towards the English Prose Brut chronicle, and on the status and use of the English Prose Brut by Elizabethan historiographers more widely. Her discussion thus engages with essays in Parts I and II of this volume, which explore different uses of history in late medieval English chronicles. Kennedy’s essay (Chapter 11) investigates the approach taken by antiquarian Thomas Hearne to editing medieval English texts, probing the question of why Hearne valued medieval chronicles so highly at a time when scholars were becoming increasingly scornful of the Middle Ages. His analysis provides new and important insights into the life and work of this renowned antiquarian, bibliophile and editor. Taken together, Bryan’s and Kennedy’s essays trace some of the changing attitudes towards medieval historical texts over time. Both offer new perspectives on the readers and collectors who played a crucial role in the history of many medieval English books. In Chapter 12, Eckhardt adds to the question about attitudes towards the value of medieval manuscripts by bringing discussions of book ownership, transmission and reception together. She explores the history of the sole surviving manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century: its likely Yorkshire provenance, its collective scribal activity, its post-medieval ownership (particularly its use by English antiquarian Nathaniel Johnston in the sixteenth century), and ultimately its movement to Germany through a sale purchase. Her analyses of the English book trade and the development of trans-regional book trades in the later medieval period build on and contribute to current scholarship in this area. At the same time, her discussion introduces the subject of manuscript sales that is developed by Edwards in the final essay. In Chapter 13, Edwards looks to the much more recent past. His contribution considers copies of the English Prose Brut chronicle sold at auction from the twentieth century through to the present day, a period that saw frequent sales of the chronicle. Edwards argues that the commercial activity surrounding the Prose Brut is a crucial but neglected aspect of the chronicle’s reception history. He analyses the shifting patterns of commercial activity from the twentieth century onwards and the factors that lie behind those patterns. His discussion opens doors for future studies of the transmission and sale of Prose Brut manuscripts, and it is complemented by a list of English Prose Brut manuscripts sold in the twentieth century. Read together, the fourteen essays collected in this volume, written by scholars from across North America and Europe, examine the composition, dissemination and reception of historical texts written in Anglo-Norman, Latin and English, including but certainly not limited to the Prose Brut chronicle, which many would see as the cornerstone of Matheson’s career. These essays probe questions of authorship (especially in terms of scribal revisions and annotations), of the nature of the written text and about the processes of writing, rewriting and editing history. All cross traditional boundaries of subject and period, taking multi-disciplinary approaches to their studies in order to underscore the (shifting) historical, social and political contexts in which medieval English chronicles were used and read

6

Dominique Hoche, Jaclyn Rajsic and Erik Kooper

from the fourteenth century up to modern times. And these essays represent, to a great degree, how Lister Matheson inspired us all: they are written by his colleagues, students and friends, each seeking to pay tribute to an eminent scholar and most likeable and charming person whose work and memory we hope to honour with this volume. Finally, the book is dedicated to Tess Tavormina, Lister’s partner and auctor intellectualis of this homage. June 2015 Dominique Hoche, Jaclyn Rajsic and Erik Kooper

a memoir:

THE WHOLE HAGGIS: LESSONS FROM THE WORK OF LISTER M. MATHESON Julia Marvin

W

ithout knowing if Lister worked on the letter h for the Oxford English Dictionary or the Middle English Dictionary, there is no way of knowing if he could have worked on the word haggis. According to the Middle English Dictionary, it is first attested in English around 1400.1 Here is a seventeenth-century definition, from Gervase Markham’s English House-Wife: ‘This smal oat-meale mixed with blood, and the Liver of either Sheepe, Calfe, or Swine maketh that pudding which is called the Haggas or Haggus, of whose goodnesse it is in vaine to boast, because there is hardly to be found a man that doth not affect them.’2 One thing that lovers of haggis and lovers of medieval chronicles or historical linguistics have in common is that they seem to have a hard time understanding why others might not share their enthusiasm. But this is not the only reason to start with haggis. Nor is it just a matter of indulging in Scottish stereotyping – although Lister liked and cooked a fine haggis himself. But to take ingredients that are not as easy to use as others, or might seem bland in isolation, and to make something not just distinctive and nourishing, but really tasty, out of them – that is not a bad description of Lister’s scholarship, although he did not have to render the constituent elements unrecognizable in the process of preparing them for consumption. A first lesson to learn – from haggis and from Lister Matheson – is that nothing from a sheep or a surviving element of medieval literate culture need be dismissed out of hand as useless or valueless.

1 S.v. hagis, in the Femina, the trilingual Anglo-Norman, English and Latin work found in Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.14.40, with reference to Femina, ed. W. A. Wright, Roxburghe Club 152 (Cambridge, 1909), p. 76, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/ med-idx?type=id&id=MED19777; accessed 28 July 2014. For an edition and discussion, which dates the work to the early fifteenth century, see Femina, ed. W. Rothwell, AngloNorman Online Hub (Swansea and Aberystwyth, 2005). 2 G. Markham, The English House-Wife: Containing the Inward and Outward Vertues Which Ought to Be in a Compleat Woman … (London, 1649), p. 241, http://gateway. proquest.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&res_id=xri:eebo&rft_ id=xri:eebo:image:96890:126, accessed 28 July 2014, given in slightly different form s.v. haggis, OED Online, June 2014, Oxford University Press, http://www.oed.com.proxy. library.nd.edu/view/Entry/83228?redirectedFrom=haggis; accessed 28 July 2014.

7

8

Julia Marvin * * *

After working at the Oxford English Dictionary and completing his Ph.D. at Glasgow in 1978, Lister came to the University of Michigan and the Middle English Dictionary, where he cultivated the lexicographer’s habits of attention to detail, a wide sense of the possibilities of usage, alertness to preconceptions and healthy skepticism towards received wisdom. Some of his earliest publications were on ‘ghost words’.3 These habits served him well in his years of work on the huge, motley corpus of manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut, which thanks to him we now know survives in over 180 manuscripts representing over 200 medieval texts in a fabulous variety of versions and subversions.4 When he began to study the Middle English Brut, a middlebrow and derivative work, in prose, in too many copies and without many glamorous manuscripts or an identified author or provenance, the chronicle had successfully resisted inquiry for a long time. F. W. D. Brie’s 1905 German monograph and his 1906–8 Early English Text Society edition effectively represented the state of the field.5 Edward Donald Kennedy’s big entry in the Manual of the Writings in Middle English was still some years away.6 Lister’s sustained attention to both the specific and the general led him to all kinds of insights into broader literate practices among both those who made books like the Prose Brut, and those who read them. A few representative examples: His 1985 article in Speculum, ‘Printer and Scribe: Caxton, the Polychronicon, and the Brut’, makes a convincing case for William Caxton not just as a printer and promoter of vernacular historiography but also as himself an editor and compiler of historical narrative, in the 1419–61 continuation to the Chronicles of England and the Liber Ultimus of Trevisa’s translation of the Polychronicon, which Lister finds to be, ‘within the terms of fifteenth-century historical writing, … as original a compilation as any other English chronicle of its type’.7 As if that were not enough, through its disciplined case studies, the essay also reveals a great deal about the lively interplay of manuscript and print culture, particularly in the case of the late fifteenth century manuscript Lambeth 84, a remarkable historical compilation whose industrious, energetic maker and owner revised and supplemented it with material from Caxton’s 1482 edition of the Polychronicon, written over effaced older material, added in the margins or added on interleaved slips of vellum. Lister’s 2003 collaboration with Linne R. Mooney on the work and milieu of 3 ‘The Middle English Verb sane: A Probable Ghost Word’, Notes and Queries n.s. 30 (1983), 199–202; ‘Licere: A Ghost Word in the Middle English Dictionary’, Notes and Queries n.s. 33 (1986), 9. 4 The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), p. 6. 5 Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik ‘The Brute of England’ oder ‘The Chronicles of England’ (Marburg, 1905), and idem, ed., The Brut or the Chronicles of England, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (1906-8). 6 Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989), pp. 2629–37, 2818–33. 7 Speculum 60 (1985), 593–614 (p. 603).



A Memoir: The Whole Haggis

9

the Beryn scribe offers solid evidence for organized multiple-copy production of manuscripts including the Prose Brut and took well-grounded understanding of fifteenth-century manuscript production to a new level.8 And of course there is Lister’s huge book on the Prose Brut tradition, an invaluable account of its development and description of its Middle English manuscripts, one of very few expensive scholarly works of which I own two copies so that I never have to wait to consult it. It is now available online, but only a real book can be filled with Post-It notes and annotations, as are my copies and, undoubtedly, those of many of the readers of this volume.9 When I first began to use Lister’s book, I was frustrated that it was not a full descriptive manuscript catalogue as well as a textual classification: in his entries on particular manuscripts, Lister generally ‘only’ provided references to existing descriptions. I wondered, why could he not at least provide the dates of the manuscripts? But over time, as I began contending with the fifty or so manuscripts of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, I began to see not just the survival value but the wisdom of Lister’s choosing to let the people who had catalogued the manuscripts speak for themselves, while he neither uncritically reproduced their assessments nor committed himself to rechecking everything and losing focus on the complex issues that he was committed to figuring out. This leads me to the second big lesson I draw from Lister’s work: try to say no more than we actually know. At some conference early in our acquaintance, possibly the 1999 Medieval Chronicle conference in Utrecht, Lister said in response to a question, with a certain glint in his eye, that he wasn’t really sure that owners of Prose Brut manuscripts actually read them, but that they might have just liked to have them around. ‘Impossible!’ I thought. ‘Of course people read them!’ But his remark made me have to ask myself how I really knew people read them, and it reminds me to this day not to take for granted that just because I am interested in the content, early audiences necessarily were, too. I continue to think that people did read the Prose Brut, but the kind of questions Lister raised help to make me more aware, for example, that there is more evidence of people reading the early and late portions than the middle of the text. Lister himself took ample interest in the narrative matter of the works he studied, as exemplified by his study of female characters in the Middle English Prose Brut, which demands mention not least because his typology includes, among such groupings as founders and rulers, the useful category, ready for wide adoption, of ‘participants in sex-driven events’.10 8 ‘The Beryn Scribe and His Texts: Evidence for Multiple-Copy Production of Manuscripts in Fifteenth-Century England’, The Library 4 (2003), 347–70. 9 Matheson, The Prose Brut, online: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL352107M/The_prose_ Brut; accessed 28 July 2014. 10 ‘Genealogy and Women in the Prose Brut, Especially the Middle English Common Version and Its Continuation’, in Broken Lines: Genealogical Literature in Late-Medieval Britain and France, ed. R. L. Radulescu and E. D. Kennedy (Turnhout, 2008), pp. 221–58 (p. 227).

10

Julia Marvin

Of course, someone like Lister, clear on the difference between what he knew and what he didn’t, could do a great deal with all that he knew, built up inductively on many particulars. The range of his interests demonstrates that. Throughout his career, Lister continued his work in historical linguistics, especially dialect studies of individual manuscripts. He was one of the few people I know who could use the Linguistic Atlas of Late Middle English with flair, and in a way that commanded confidence. He also continued with studies of manuscripts and texts of late medieval historical writing, especially Lambeth 84, on which he had a book in progress when he died in early 2012. It is not necessary to launch into an entire narrative curriculum vitae or try to weave his nearly ten years of directing the Clarion science fiction writing workshop into the story: just a glance at Lister’s forthcoming and recently published work at the time of his death gives a sense of the breadth of his competencies, interests, desire to make primary texts available in a variety of forms and sense of reachable audience. On the exacting end is a collection of early Robin Hood material co-edited with Thomas H. Ohlgren: as the publisher’s blurb says, the texts [are] transcribed as closely as possible to correspond to their originals, including spelling and typesetting errors, metrical irregularities, lacunae, and typographical conventions, with extensive notes on significant lexicographic features. By reproducing nearly two centuries of Robin Hood texts with all their ‘faults’, this volume offers a genuine and foundational alternative to the ‘best’-text approach taken by those editions that have attempted to make the Robin Hood tradition more accommodating and accessible for modern readers.11 It is not that Lister disdained being accommodating and accessible. Interest in one end of the spectrum, for him, did not preclude interest in or delegitimize the other end. That is represented by Staging Salvation: Six Medieval Plays in Modern English, a collaborative work that even provides arrangements of medieval music for use in performance, stemming from long experience in producing cycle drama at Michigan State University, Lister’s scholarly home for over twenty-five years.12 The ambition of Lister’s scholarly outreach is even more vividly illustrated by his work as editor of the Greenwood Icons of the Middle Ages volumes, which are specifically designed to be accessible to advanced high school students and include chapters on such varied figures as Geoffrey Chaucer, Genghis Khan, Maimonides, Vlad III

11 Early Rymes of Robyn Hood: An Edition of the Texts, ca. 1425 to ca. 1600, ed. Th. H. Ohlgren and L. M. Matheson, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 428 (Tempe AZ, 2013); see https://acmrs.org/publications/catalog/early-rymes-robyn-hood-edition-textsca-1425-ca-1600; accessed 28 July 2014. 12 Adapted for performance by L. M. Matheson, W. G. Marx and R. L. Kinnunen, music transcribed and arranged by V. J. Corrigan, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 443 (Tempe AZ, 2014). This volume also testifies to the publisher’s range of vision, since these two books and the 1998 Prose Brut volume all appear in the same series, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies.



A Memoir: The Whole Haggis

11

Dracula and Hildegard of Bingen.13 These projects represent not heterogeneous and compartmentalized interests, but organic extensions among areas that our disciplinary habits and professional reward structures do not always encourage us to connect. A flow chart of Lister’s work might start with words: the nitty-gritty of how they are used and presented in writing, as manifestations of dialect and as manifestations of scribal activity. And then how the assemblages of words that form texts are transmitted, understood and used, in terms of textual development and clustering and in terms of the physical realities of manuscript production, both generally, in organized production, and particularly, in cases of individual manuscripts and their users. The ideal and the material come together from the start in a complementary rather than oppositional way, and the process of consideration is cumulative – as Linne Mooney noted in conversation about Lister,14 in its paratactic reluctance to subordinate some elements in favor of others, it reflects the prose style of the chronicles he studied. As a colleague, Lister showed the same continuity in his professional and personal life. My fundamental image of him is not standing at a podium lecturing, or bent over a manuscript – but at a table, in lively conversation, with a drink of some sort in hand. At any conference anywhere, he could be relied upon to put his powers of observation and research to good use to find the closest place that had a really good cup of coffee or glass of something or other; once installed at the table, he was as likely to tell about his latest project at his house in Scotland as about his manuscript work. In the spring of 2011, Michelle Warren at Dartmouth organized a weekend conference on the Middle English Prose Brut from the Foyle collection at Beeleigh Abbey, which the college had recently acquired. The attendees had the opportunity to spend a few hours together in a seminar room with the manuscript and the preservationists who had worked on it. One mentioned that the manuscript had been filthy and full of debris when it arrived. ‘Did you save it?’ Lister asked, and gleefully added, ‘Was there cat hair?’ They had, and there was. Lister explained that he had visited Beeleigh Abbey after the death of the manuscript’s previous owner, Christina Foyle: she had been a cat lady, and the cats had done so much damage and created such a stench that her nephew and heir had to replace the plasterwork, among other things.15 Mystery solved! Or take the ‘lost’ Prose Brut manuscript that turned up at the University of Glasgow: when Lister reported it at the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, he gave out a carefully formatted sheet with an entry for it and told Icons of the Middle Ages: Rulers, Writers, Rebels, and Saints, 2 vols. (Westport CT, 2011). Conference session discussion, ‘Books Have Their Histories: Medieval Chronicles and Their Scribes, Manuscripts, and Early Editions: In memory of Lister M. Matheson I: Practices and Portents’, 48th International Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo MI, 11 May 2013. 15 ‘Me and My Home: Christopher Foyle’, The Independent, 1 June 2005, http://www. independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/me-and-my-home-christopherfoyle-6145076.html; accessed 28 July 2014. 13 14

12

Julia Marvin

the audience exactly where to insert it in their now improved copies of the Prose Brut book (just like the owner of Lambeth 84 supplementing his manuscript).16 Lister was very clear about his keen chagrin and even keener appreciation of the humor of the fact that the manuscript now discovered had been sitting a few feet away from him for all the years he had been working as a graduate student on the other Prose Brut manuscripts at Glasgow. I originally met Lister in 1996 at the first Medieval Chronicle conference organized by Erik Kooper of Utrecht University. The same mix of generosity, flexibility, lack of pretension and a certain bracing skepticism that Lister brought to words, texts and manuscripts, he also brought to people. I was a dissertating graduate student giving my first paper to a specialist audience, traveling with my elderly non-academic father, on our way to revisit the places he had served in World War II. Lister was there with his teenaged son, Calum, who has now earned a Ph.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I was nervous enough on my own account, but even more nervous about how my father would be treated, given my own experience at the Modern Language Association of being snubbed by careerist name-tag sharks who swam up just long enough to ascertain whether or not I was worth their time. Lister, and also Don Kennedy, could not have been kinder. They went out of their way to include my father in conversation, listen to his stories and answer his questions. They made him feel welcome. They gave him the chance to see me in my peculiar world, and to see that world at its best. My father had a wonderful time and asked after Lister and Don for the rest of his life. This is another case of Lister’s not deciding in advance what or who was important, interesting or worthwhile. We have benefited individually and collectively from Lister’s generosity: as collaborators, as members of one of the many and varied editorial projects he headed, as contributors to the Boydell series ‘Medieval Chronicles’, which he began with Dan Embree, as his students and graduate advisees, as participants in the Medieval Chronicle Society conferences and sessions at Kalamazoo, and of course as readers of his scholarship, without which much of our own would be scarcely imaginable, much less possible. Much of the power of Lister’s work stemmed from his ability – naturally, rigorously and creatively – to bring together cultural, disciplinary and simply human elements that, whatever our talk of interdisciplinarity, are still too often quarantined in practice. He played a key role in creating and catalyzing the community of scholars and friends represented, although only in part, by the essays here dedicated to his honor and memory.

University of Glasgow Library, MS Gen. 1671, Matheson number 14B; L. M. Matheson, ‘The Prose Brut: An Update’, 40th International Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo MI, May 2005.

16

part i

USES OF HISTORY

chapter one

PIETY, COMMUNITY AND LOCAL HISTORY: LE LIVERE DE REIS DE ENGLETERRE AND ITS CONTEXT IN CAMBRIDGE, TRINITY COLLEGE, MS R.14.71 Krista A. Murchison

Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre (LRE), an early fourteenth century Anglo-Norman prose chronicle,2 has been used by several historians as a valuable source of evidence about England in the three centuries following the Norman Conquest.3 Yet, aside from those who have examined LRE for its historical facts or for its evidence of Anglo-Norman linguistic change,4 most historians and literary scholars have ignored it, and even those who have drawn attention to it lament its derivative nature and cursory length.5 Such neglect is also related to the limited availability of I am grateful to the editors of this volume for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this essay. 2 T. Summerfield, ‘Livere de Reis d’Engleterre’, in The Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle [EMC], gen. ed. G. Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden, 2010), I, 1035. 3 See, for example, T. M. Smallwood, ‘An Unpublished Early Account of Bruce’s Murder of Comyn’, The Scottish Historical Review 54 (1975), 1–10. More recently, Michael Robson takes LRE as a source for the arrival of the Franciscans in England: M. Robson, ‘The Franciscans in the Custody of York: Evidence Drawn from Chronicles and Annals’, in Self-Representation of Medieval Religious Communities, ed. A. Müller and K. Stöber (Berlin, 2009), 341–68 (p. 348). 4 See R. Ingham, ‘Syntactic Change in Anglo-Norman and Continental French Chronicles: was there a ‘Middle’ Anglo-Norman?’, Journal of French Language Studies 16 (2006), 25–49. LRE has also been given cursory treatment by several scholars working on the Livere de Reis de Brittanie (LRB), a related work discussed below; see, for example, S. K. Goetz, ‘Textual Portability and its Uses in England, ca. 1250–1330’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2006), 1–284 (p. 262), and C. Clark, ‘The Anglo-Norman Chronicle’, in The Peterborough Chronicle, ed. D. Whitelock (Copenhagen, 1954), pp. 39–43. 5 The compilers of the catalogue for the 1913 sale of what is now Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS French 64, viewed LRE’s abridged quality as a regrettable – though redeemable – failing: ‘Though an abridgment this MS. contains much interesting detail especially in the early portion’ (Catalogue of the Valuable and Extensive Library formed by George Dunn, Esq., Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge (London, 1913), p. 84). M. Dominica Legge terms the work ‘dull’, but values its poetic sections: ‘This rather dull 1

15

16

Krista A. Murchison

modern editions of LRE. The work has been edited twice: first by John Glover in 1865, a thorough edition but out of date,6 and by Christian Foltys in 1962,7 but the latter can be difficult to obtain.8 The relative lack of interest in LRE is regrettable, because it was composed at a time that saw a flurry of historical writing in AngloNorman prose. This makes it a fruitful point of inquiry. Also, the text’s influence can be seen in other medieval chronicles. As Heather Pagan suggests, it may have been a source for the Prose Brut,9 and Ruth Dean finds traces of it in the lesserknown Scottish Chronicle.10 Moreover, as this essay demonstrates, one of the three manuscripts of LRE – Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.7 (hereafter Trinity) – offers us valuable insights into the interests of the chronicle and its readers, due in part to the unusually vast quantity of information we can gather about the manuscript’s provenance.11 As we shall see, the readers of the Trinity text seem to have been drawn to LRE for its emphasis on events related to the history of the Benedictine order. This community may have used the text to validate its order on historical grounds. The chronicle’s broader social function is harder to determine, but the text can be characterized as having particular interests in the Church, since it prioritizes ecclesiastical affairs over national ones. LRE’s emphasis on the religious community is significant, because it enriches our understanding of the use of Anglo-Norman prose for the writing of national history. Until recently, Anglo-Norman prose chronicles have been relatively neglected compared to English-language and Latin historical works, with the notable exception of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, which has escaped obscurity owing to its striking medieval popularity. Scholars are increasingly recognizing the compilation is precious because amongst its sources were works, chiefly chronicles, in verse, and scattered about in the prose are snatches of the original verse’ (M. D. Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature and its Background (Oxford, 1963), p. 247). Similarly, John Glover asserts that ‘[i]t is through-out little more than a translation from the known Latin historians, generally considerably abridged’ (Le Livere de Reis de Brittanie e Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre, ed. J. Glover, Rolls Series 42 (London, 1865), p. ix). 6 Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 32–301. 7 Kritische Ausgabe der anglonormannischen Chroniken: Brutus, Li Rei de Engleterre, Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre, ed. C. Foltys (Berlin, 1962), pp. 115–219. 8 Also noted by R. J. Dean, with the collaboration of M. B. M. Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series 3 (London, 1999), p. 23. 9 Prose Brut to 1332, ed. H. Pagan, Anglo-Norman Text Society 69 (Manchester, 2011), pp. 15–16. 10 ‘The Scottish Chronicle’, in Three Anglo-Norman Chronicles, ed. P. T. Ricketts, AngloNorman Text Society, Plain Texts Series 16 (Manchester, 2011), pp. 28–36. The relationship between The Scottish Chronicle and LRE is in need of greater study. Dean considers The Scottish Chronicle ‘a particular redaction of LRE’ (Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 21). However, Ricketts does not mention LRE among the chronicle’s sources, tracing much of the text back to a Latin letter of Edward I to Boniface VIII (Three Anglo-Norman Chronicles, p. 4). 11 I am grateful to the librarians at Trinity College’s Wren Library for granting me access to this manuscript.



Piety, Community and Local History

17

value of studying England’s French histories,12 but are only beginning to explore the vast range of ideals that inform them. Scholars see LRE as ‘dynastic’ in its interests.13 However, and importantly, John Spence points out that LRE’s aim in fact goes far beyond this: ‘LRE and Trevet’s Cronicles emphasise the central importance of Christianity and the Church throughout national history.’14 This study seeks to both support and develop Spence’s conclusions about LRE. In particular, it demonstrates that, while LRE and its source texts are all interested in the nation, LRE is more deeply invested in the Church than its sources and Anglo-Norman prose chronicles contemporary with it, such as the Prose Brut and Le Livere de Reis de Brittanie. The chronicle stands as an important reminder of the wider range of interests found in Anglo-Norman prose histories. Before turning to a discussion of LRE’s markedly Christian representation of England’s history, it is first necessary to describe briefly the contents of this short prose work, in order to provide a context for the discussion that follows. LRE begins by delineating the geographical features and dioceses of England. It then gives a brief overview of Brutus’s legendary arrival in Britain before delving into the AngloSaxon migration and the subsequent division of the kingdom under English control. The reigns of kings from the house of Wessex form the next focal point, with each surveyed in brief through its key events. The chronicle is principally occupied with conveying the history of the eleventh and twelfth centuries; it describes this period at greatest length. Most strikingly, LRE offers a detailed account of the Battle of Hastings, with notable emphasis on the aftermath of the battle. The ensuing change in episcopal administration and the new archbishop of Canterbury’s related attempt to depose Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, are recorded in detail. This is especially true of the Trinity manuscript, which alone includes a lengthy poem about these incidents. Other ‘highlights’ reported by LRE include the war of succession between the Empress Matilda and King Stephen, the martyrdom of Thomas Becket, the revolt of 1173 against Henry II, and the Third Crusade (1189–92). Curiously, the majority of the thirteenth century – the most contemporary for the author of LRE – is glossed over, although the Second Barons’ War and the Ninth Crusade (1271–72) both receive some attention. The chronicle ends with the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, when the Franciscan and Dominican orders were given papal approval. On the whole, the author translates material from Latin antecedents, often abbreviating substantially. Glover has identified a number of LRE’s sources. For A recent example is J. Spence, Reimagining History in Anglo-Norman Prose Chronicles (York, 2013). 13 In her entry for LRE in EMC, Summerfield characterizes the text as having ‘[c]onsiderable interest throughout … in dynastic affairs (esp. marriages), but also in relations with France, Ireland, Scotland and the Holy Land’ (‘Livere de Reis d’Engleterre’, I, 1035). Dean also underlines its monarchal history in her description of LRE: ‘This prose account chronicles by reigns from the arrival of Brutus to 1274’ (Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 20). However, Dean also mentions that the beginning of the text, which she terms its ‘prologue’, outlines the ecclesiastical regions of Britain (ibid.). 14 Spence, Reimagining History, p. 163. 12

18

Krista A. Murchison

the early portion of the text, outlining the geography and episcopal divisions of the British Isles and the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the author draws primarily on Geoffrey of Monmouth and Bede. After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, LRE turns to other sources, especially the works of Henry of Huntingdon, Ralph Diceto and ‘Florence’ of Worcester.15 It is possible that the author of LRE copied from these writers directly, since his borrowings are often almost literal translations, but he may have done so instead from intermediary sources. Many sections – especially those pertaining to Norman kings – have parallels in Ralph Niger’s Chronica, but this does not appear to be the result of direct influence; it is more likely that both texts were derived from a shared source.16 Scholars often associate LRE with another short Anglo-Norman prose chronicle, written in the same period, entitled the Livere de Reis de Brittanie (LRB) by Glover, who edited it alongside LRE.17 They tend to link LRB and LRE together in view of their apparently similar length and subject matter, and because the text that precedes LRE in the Trinity manuscript, known as the ‘Brutus’ prologue, often circulated with LRB and was, according to Cecily Clark, likely written for LRB.18 Nevertheless, although the two texts have similar sources, they are substantially different in both phrasing and length, and they are certainly independent compilations.19 Little is known about the origins of LRE, but some information can be gleaned from its surviving manuscripts: Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS French 64; Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Barb. lat. 03528; and Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.7. In the first of these, LRE appears alone. In the Vatican manuscript, however, it is followed by a continuation, and in Trinity it has both a prologue and a continuation, albeit one that is different from that of the Vatican manuscript. The versions of LRE in the Vatican and Manchester manuscripts are similar, while the Trinity text diverges from the other two frequently. The Manchester copy appears to be the earliest of the three, but, since it contains no medieval inscriptions concerning its ownership or institutional affiliations, it unfortunately provides little insight into the question of LRE’s provenance. The two later copies offer some clues. Both manuscripts were produced for monastic institutions: the Vatican copy for the Gilbertine Sempringham priory in Lincolnshire, and Trinity for Norwich Cathedral Priory in Norfolk, a Benedictine Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, p. xvii. Although Glover counts one ‘Florence’ of Worcester among LRE’s influences, it is it is now commonly accepted that the Worcester chronicler was actually named ‘John’. See A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1974–82), I, 143–4. 16 Glover suggests that ‘Niger’s work seems rather to be abridged from [LRE] than it from his’ (Le Livere de Reis, p. xiii). But Niger’s text contains many episodes not found in LRE, which makes it more likely that the two texts borrowed from a common source. 17 Ibid., pp. 8–31. LRB also appears with LRE in Foltys’s edition, where it is entitled Li Rei de Engleterre (Kritische Ausgabe, ed. Foltys, pp. 57–114). 18 Clark, ‘The Anglo-Norman Chronicle’, p. 43. For a comprehensive discussion of the ‘Brutus’ prologue, see Goetz, ‘Textual Portability’, pp. 40–1. 19 Foltys notes the independence of the two texts in Kritische Ausgabe, ed. Foltys, p. 44. See also Goetz, ‘Textual Portability’, p. 262. 15



Piety, Community and Local History

19

house.20 The monastic context of these copies, together with the religious focus of LRE (which will be examined at length below), suggests that the author may have been a monk, but he has not been identified with any greater specificity. Although Glover, in a moment of scholarly overreaching, offers Peter of Ickham as a possible author, this suggestion has been found to be spurious by Dominica Legge.21 Glover’s belief that the text was written at Canterbury, which was based on the attribution to Ickham, should likewise be discarded. Since some variation exists between copies of LRE, we cannot assume that each instantiation of the chronicle had the same emphasis or was read in the same way. For this reason, the analysis that follows is focused on one particular copy: that found in the Trinity manuscript. The unique features of its LRE text enable us to evaluate how this copy was used but also provide some insight into the interests of this short chronicle more widely.

The History of Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.7 N. R. Ker established Trinity’s Norwich provenance by examining a pressmark on its first folio. The manuscript’s link to Norwich sheds further light on the date of its composition, thereby offering a window into the origin of this book. Since a fire destroyed the library at Norwich in 1272, Ker concludes that the manuscript must have been acquired when the monks were replenishing the book collection.22 It is safe to assume that the manuscript was produced specially for the community at Norwich, since Ker notes that all of the manuscripts procured by the library between about 1272 and 1325 were ‘fairly new when given’.23 The bulk of the Trinity manuscript, including its LRE text, appears to be written in one hand. We can narrow down the date at which the primary scribe was working using the donor inscription written beside the pressmark, ‘Galfridi de Wroxham mo[nachi]’.24 This Geoffrey of Wroxham has been identified as a refectorer of Norwich Cathedral Priory. His death, in 1322, thus provides the terminus ad quem for the manuscript’s acquisition.25 The manuscript appears to have been designed as a compilation. Its first text is the Compileison (c. 1300; fols. 1r–154v), an Anglo-Norman confessional manual derived in part from Ancrene Wisse. This guide is followed by a short treatise on the Creed, which contains the Latin formula, a translation and an elucidation in French (fols. 154v–155r). Next is a French exposition on the Pater Noster (fols. 155r–156r), followed by St Edmund Rich’s mid thirteenth century Mirour de Seynte Eglise (fols. For the provenance of these manuscripts, see Kritische Ausgabe, ed. Foltys, pp. 13, 17. Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. x–xiii; Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 278. 22 N. R. Ker, ‘Medieval Manuscripts from Norwich Cathedral Priory’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 1 (1949), 1–28 (pp. 5–6). 23 Ibid., p. 7. 24 Ibid., p. 15. 25 The French Text of the Ancrene Riwle, ed. W. H. Trethewey, EETS OS 240 (London, 1958), p. xii. 20 21

20

Krista A. Murchison

156r–161v). A short Latin list follows, entitled Les Merveilies de Engletere. This text gives thirty-two wonders of Britain, including Stonehenge and a stream that can turn firewood to stone (fols. 161v–162v). The aforementioned ‘Brutus’ prologue appears after these marvels (fols. 163r–163v) and precedes LRE (fols. 163v–196r). LRE is continued by additional material, the ‘first continuation’, covering the years 1274 to 1296 and concentrating on the life of Edward I (fols. 196r–198r), and a ‘second continuation’ from 1296 to 1306, apparently derived from what Jean-Claude Thiolier terms the ‘Rédaction I’ of Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronique, and which has been sewn into the front of the manuscript (fol. v according to the manuscript’s modern foliation).26 Thiolier suggests that the ‘first continuation’ may have been written by a different scribe from the one who copied LRE, and observes that the ‘second continuation’ is in yet another hand.27 It appears that the manuscript remained in the same Cathedral Library for several centuries. The evidence for this comes from an inscription on the verso side of fol. v, written by Robert Talbot, who was prebendary of Norwich Cathedral Library between 1547 and 1548.28 Talbot’s note describes Trinity’s historical material: ‘In þe end off þis pamphilett ys a certen Cronicle . looke wher þer ys a threed fastened vppon a leaffe / ther ytt  begynneth ante cronicam sunt 32 mirabilia anglie.’29 Inscriptions of a similar nature can be found in Talbot’s ‘unusual but attractive’ hand in many manuscripts from Norwich Cathedral Priory.30 Most of these additions are in Latin and many of them summarize the contents of the books in which they appear. It is not clear where the manuscript was held in the decades after Talbot wrote on it, but it may have passed through the hands of the sixteenth-century antiquarian and chronicler of London, John Stow. Glover observes that Stow’s historical writing contains details that resemble LRE, which suggests that Stow may have been familiar with it.31 The antiquarian might once have owned the Trinity copy, since, as Glover points out, it was donated by George Wilmer (1582–1626) to Trinity College along with several works that had definitely belonged to Stow.32 Before he donated the manuscript, Wilmer had it rebound into its current binding, and his crest now appears on the cover.33 Wilmer enrolled at Trinity College in 1601, and we

See the analysis of ‘Rédaction I’ in Edition Critique et Commentée de Pierre de Langtoft: Le Règne d’Edouard Ier, ed. J.-C.Thiolier, 2 vols. (Créteil, 1990), I, 155–8. 27 Edition Critique, ed. Thiolier, I, 91–2. 28 Ker, ‘Medieval Manuscripts’, p. 3. 29 The note refers to Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.7, fols. 163r–198r. 30 For this description of Talbot’s hand, see Ker, ‘Medieval Manuscripts’, p. 3. Ker has identified twenty-one Norwich manuscripts containing inscriptions by Talbot (ibid., p. 3, no. 5). 31 Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, p. xi. 32 Ibid., p. ix. 33 M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1901), II, 289. 26



Piety, Community and Local History

21

can assume he donated the manuscript soon after.34 It has remained in the Trinity College collection from the time of its initial donation to the present day.

The Social Function of Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre The history of the Trinity manuscript can help us appreciate the social function of LRE.35 Despite his tendency to abbreviate, the author of LRE includes some key events in the history of Norwich, and these may help us to understand both why the monks of Norwich Cathedral Priory wanted a copy, and what purpose this text served for them. One of these Norwich details appears in the reign of King Æthelred, which, according to Glover, is translated from Ralph Diceto’s Abbreviationes Chronicorum.36 The LRE writer abbreviates Diceto’s account substantially, and much of what he borrows from Diceto pertains to Æthelred’s encounters with the Danes. Following Diceto, he counts Norwich among the towns ravaged by the Danes, explaining the circumstances surrounding the attack: ‘E kant ceo out oi Sqwein, le rei de Danemarche, revint en Engletere ou muz des nefs e ou grant plente des genz, e ariva pres de Noruuiz, e arst la vile’ (‘And when Sweyn, the king of Denmark, heard it he returned to England with many ships and a great multitude of men, and landed near Norwich, and burnt the city’).37 It may be details such as this one that made LRE an appealing choice for Geoffrey of Wroxham and the other monks at Norwich. There are some especially specific details about Norwich in the later portion of the chronicle, where it relates a conflict at Norwich Cathedral in 1272. The direct antecedent of this section has not been identified.38 Contemporary accounts of the incident hold that the fight started between the townsfolk and some lay residents of the Benedictine cathedral. It quickly escalated to include the wider priory. As See C. W. Foster and J. J. Green, History of the Wilmer Family, Together with Some Account of its Descendants (Leeds, 1888), p. 114. 35 In what follows, ‘LRE’ refers to the text that is shared between all three copies of the chronicle, while ‘the LRE author’ is used to designate the unknown creator of this material. ‘Author’ may seem like an unsuitable descriptor for someone whose work involved a great deal of translating and compiling, but the writer often departs significantly from his sources. Moreover, the chronicle contains, as Glover notes, many unique details, and these suggest that the author was willing to innovate (Le Livere de Reis, p. xiii). Since the text of LRE in the Trinity manuscript was likely adapted specifically for its Norwich audience, I refer to its creator as a ‘reviser’ rather than as an ‘author’. 36 Ibid., pp. 87–99. 37 Edited and translated by Glover (ibid., pp. 92–3). Although Glover’s edition is not as recent as Foltys’s, I have chosen to quote from Glover because he uses the Trinity copy for his base text. For the account of Æthelred’s encounters with the Danes in Diceto’s chronicle, see The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876), I, 160–1. 38 Glover finds parallels for this section in Nicholas Trevet’s Annales Sex Regum Angliae (Le Livere de Reis, p. 299), but this chronicle, written in the early 1320s, could not be a source for LRE. For the dating of Trevet’s Annales, see L. M. Ruch, ‘Trevet, Nicholas’, in EMC, ed. Dunphy, II, 1445–6 (p. 1445). 34

22

Krista A. Murchison

Norman Tanner explains in his study of the cathedral’s history, ‘further acts of provocation were committed by both sides, though chiefly, it seems, by the priory’.39 The conflict culminated in the burning of several buildings, including the library, an attack that was severely punished by the king through the execution of thirty townsmen.40 Although both sides were guilty, the LRE author reserves condemnation for the lay tenants. In the Manchester and Vatican copies of LRE the writer refers to the laymen as ‘malfesours’.41 We cannot conclude from this account that the author of LRE was personally associated with Norwich. As an important diocese of England, Norwich would have been significant to anyone invested in Christian history, and, indeed, the fire is recorded in a number of contemporary histories, including the Opus Chronicorum, which was copied at St Albans, and therefore at some remove from Norwich.42 But the LRE author’s attention to this occurrence, and his sympathy with the brothers caught up in the conflict, may help to explain why the community at Norwich wanted a copy. This suggestion receives further support when we consider that the Trinity copy, which was owned by the monks, is even more critical of those who set fire to the building than the LRE text found in the Manchester and Vatican manuscripts. Uniquely, the Trinity text relates the damage caused to the cathedral with remarkable specificity and labels the setting of the fire a ‘felone’: Anno gratiæ M.CC.lxxii. fust arse la grant eglyse de Norwyz parceus de la vile; e mistrent fut sur le portes del Abbeye, e arderunt totes lur messons de einz lur clos. E donc vint le rey a Norwyz e le conte Gileberd de Glouscestre, e pristerent grant vengement de la felone fete. (A.D. 1272, the great church of Norwich was burnt by the people of the town, and they set fire to the gates of the abbey, and burned all their dwellings within the close. And then the king came to Norwich, with count Gilbert of Gloucester, and took heavy vengeance of that wickedness done.)43 Here the Trinity reviser took the Norwich material, which may have drawn him to LRE in the first place, and expanded it, creating an even stronger endorsement for the religious community at Norwich. We cannot know for certain what, in LRE, appealed to the Norwich monks, but its detail about the fire set to their cathedral, considered alongside this expansion in the Trinity copy, suggests that, for these brothers, the chronicle served the local religious community. Moreover, the monks of Norwich Cathedral were likely attracted to the work’s Benedictine affiliations. At several points, the LRE author appears to purposefully N. P. Tanner, The Church in Late Medieval Norwich: 1370–1532 (Toronto, 1984), p. 141. Ibid. 41 Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, p. 298; Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS French 64, fol. 50v. 42 See the ‘Opus Chronicorum’ in Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde Chronica et annales, ed. H. Thomas Riley (London, 1866), p. 28. 43 Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 298–9. 39 40



Piety, Community and Local History

23

switch source texts in order to include information about the foundation of a religious house. Of all the priories and abbeys mentioned in this context, many are Benedictine. For example, in the entry for 1093, the author departs from his apparent source – ‘Florence’ of Worcester’s Chronicon ex Chronicis – to record that Alan Rufus founded the Benedictine St Mary’s Abbey in York.44 Other Benedictine houses whose origins are recorded include Abingdon Abbey, Battle Abbey, the abbey of St John at Colchester and St Albans Abbey.45 Not all religious houses recorded in LRE belonged to black monks,46 and it would be inaccurate to characterize LRE as a history of Benedictine communities. But the LRE author’s digressions into the foundation of these houses suggest that his view of history is influenced by a fascination with the propagation of this order. If, indeed, the monks of Norwich Cathedral recognized the chronicle’s emphasis on their order, the text would have served to validate and uphold their rule on historical grounds. What function did LRE serve for readers outside of the Norwich community? Without any other information about how the chronicle was read it is hard to say, but we can make some broad observations about its aims. To this end, it is important to note that, although the Benedictine order was clearly important to the LRE writer, his allegiances extend to the Church as a transcendent, timeless organization. This is especially clear in the account of the massacre of Norwich’s Jewish population of 1190. The LRE author describes the devastating persecution experienced by the Jewish population of Norwich at the hands of Christians and laments: ‘Mes de ceo fet ne furunt mie sages genz paez, pur ceo ke Deu nus dist chescon jur par David le prophete el Sauter, Ne occidas eos ne quando obliviscantur populi mei, cest adire, “Ne les tuez nent ke mon pople ne oblie mye le tort ki il mey firent”’ (‘Yet wise people were not pleased by that deed; for God tells us daily, by the prophet David, in the Psalter, Slay them not, lest my people forget the wrong they have done me’).47 Here, LRE is evoking an exegetical tradition that traces its roots back to Augustine, namely, the Doctrine of Jewish Witness.48 Jeffrey Cohen, in his extensive analysis of Augustine’s formulation, notes that it had largely fallen out of favor by the thirteenth century.49 It is thus significant that the author of LRE uses it; its inclusion in the short chronicle suggests that the author was not interested in policing sectarian boundaries, but in condemning Christians who behave contrary to Augustine’s stipulation. A close parallel to LRE’s commentary at

Ibid., p. 160. LRE also records other pious acts related to the Benedictine order, such as Henry I’s elevation of Ely abbey into a bishopric (ibid., p. 180). 45 Ibid., pp. 76, 142, 164, 180. 46 For example, the chronicle notes the foundation of the Cistercian Sibton Abbey, and the Augustinian Cirencester Abbey (ibid., pp. 210, 190). 47 Ibid., pp. 250–1. 48 For the treatment of the Doctrine of Jewish Witness in medieval Christianity, see J. Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley, 1999), pp. 23–66. 49 Ibid., p. 359. 44

24

Krista A. Murchison

this point appears in Diceto’s Ymagines Historiarum,50 but LRE offers a reason for protecting Jewish people not found in Diceto’s chronicle, namely that, according to Isaiah’s prophecy, they will convert to Christianity before Judgement Day: ‘Estre ceo nus sumes certeyn par le prophete Ysaye e lapostle Seint Poel ke avant le jur de jugement il resceverunt nostre fey’ (‘Besides, we are assured by the prophet Isaiah, and the apostle St Paul, that before the day of judgment they shall receive our faith’).51 It is, of course, appalling that in this instance, LRE defends members of the Jewish faith only because they will someday become Christians, but this account is nevertheless helpful to demonstrate that, for the chronicler, the temporal boundaries of the Church are broadly defined.

The Centrality of the Church in Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre Compared to its sources, LRE generally puts greater emphasis on the Church than the nation, and this creates the illusion of a transnational community of ethics, which deemphasizes national differences. This distinguishes LRE from many of its contemporaries, which focus instead on tracing the history of the nation and the different peoples who rule over Engletere. A particularly strong example of this is LRE’s treatment of the ‘Wassail episode’, which concerns the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in England. In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s version, the Germanic leader, Hengist, secures the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons when his daughter, Rowena, catches the eye of the British leader, Vortigern, with a drink and a particularly well-timed ‘Wassail’. At this point, Vortigern needs a translator to understand Rowena’s Saxon drinking salute. Margaret Elizabeth Lamont argues that ‘the Saxons’ language  … provides a heightened sense of their otherness in Geoffrey’s text’.52 Lamont claims that, by taking the mother tongue of the Anglo-Saxons as the key signifier of their foreignness, Geoffrey ensures that the Anglo-Saxons remain other even after their conversion to Christianity.53 This emphasis on language, and the concomitant emphasis on Anglo-Saxon foreignness, is preserved by Walter of Coventry in his version of the episode, which, judging from its similarities to LRE, was probably the direct source for the AngloNorman chronicle here.54 But LRE’s account, in strong contrast to Walter’s, excises any mention of the linguistic difference between Hengist’s daughter and Vortigern, stating only ‘E la fu fet Waisseyl e Drincheil par Engis, ki fist sa filie beivre au roi e dire Waisseyl, e au prist au roi dire Drincheyl, e se deivunt entre beiser’ (‘At this time was the custom of Wassail and Drincheil begun by Hengist, who caused his The Historical Works, ed. Stubbs, II, 75–6. Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 250-1. 52 M. E. Lamont, ‘Becoming English: Ronwenne’s Wassail, Language, and National Identity in the Middle English Prose Brut’, Studies in Philology 107 (2010), 283–309 (p. 289). 53 Ibid., p. 290. 54 Glover identifies Geoffrey of Monmouth as the source here, but the episode bears a much greater resemblance to Walter’s account than to Geoffrey’s. Compare LRE (Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 39–40) to Walter of Coventry, Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series 58 (London, 1872), I, 9. 50 51



Piety, Community and Local History

25

daughter to drink to the king and say, Wassail, and on receiving the cup from the king to say Drinkhail; and they must kiss one another’).55 By omitting all references to Rowena’s language and to Vortigern’s need for a translator, LRE downplays the cultural divide and the Anglo-Saxons lose all markers of difference when they convert. This is not to suggest that the author of LRE backs the Anglo-Saxons; he disapproves of their behaviour when it harms the Christian community directly, and here it becomes clear that the LRE author is more interested in religious difference than in linguistic categories, in stark contrast to Walter and Geoffrey. LRE casts the Anglo-Saxon attack against the Britons as a condemnable action stemming from the former group’s religious beliefs: ‘les Sessons … pur ceo ke il furunt paens, comencerent tantost a prendre contek a Bretons, ki furent Crestiens, e acuns en occistrent, e acons se mistrent enfuite el pays de Wales’ (‘the Saxons … because they were pagans, soon began to quarrel with the Britons, who were Christians, and some they killed and some took flight into the country of Wales’).56 Conversely, after the Anglo-Saxons convert to Christianity – a process conveyed at length – the author of LRE voices his support for several of their leaders. For example, he props up Ethelbert by noting the king’s canonization: ‘E cesti est seint; si gist en fertre a Seint Austin a Cantorbirie’ (‘He is canonized, and lies enshrined at St. Augustine’s in Canterbury’).57 Religion, not ethnicity, is the focus of the passage of dominion section of the work. The text’s more faith-centered approach to history is reinforced by the conspicuous absence of Arthurian material. In Walter of Coventry’s chronicle, the ‘Wassail episode’ is followed by an overview of key events leading up to, and encompassing, Arthur’s reign.58 Since the LRE writer appears to borrow from Walter for the ‘Wassail episode’, it is surprising that he leaves out Walter’s subsequent Arthurian material. Spence, assuming that the LRE author ignores Arthur entirely, argues that the chronicler omits the majority of Britain’s legendary history because he ‘regarded it as inaccurate’.59 This seems unlikely, however, since the author is, in fact, comfortable mentioning Arthur much later in the chronicle. After relating the death of William the Conqueror in 1087, the LRE author includes a note about Gawain’s sepulchre, describing the knight through his relationship to Arthur. The digression is remarkably brief: ‘A cel tens fust trove en Wales le sepulcre Sire Wauweyn, ki fust le neweu Artur, fiz de sa soer, sur le rival de la meer, a xiiii. peez de long’ (‘At that time was discovered in Wales the sepulchre of Sir Walwyne, Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 38–9. Ibid. 57 Ibid., pp. 44–5. 58 Memoriale Fratris, ed. Stubbs, pp. 9–12. Walter records important elements of Arthurian lore, including the victory of Aurelius over the Saxons, and Merlin’s assistance in building Stonehenge. He also depicts the coronation of Arthur, his subjugation of other kingdoms, his conflicts with Lucius Tiberius and Mordred, and his death. 59 Spence, Reimagining History, p. 47. Spence claims that, aside from Cadwallader, ‘no other British kings, including Arthur, are mentioned’ (ibid.). 55 56

26

Krista A. Murchison

who was Arthur’s nephew, his sister’s son. It was on the sea-coast, fourteen feet in length’).60 This brief nod to Arthur, like the death of William that precedes it, has close parallels in Ralph Niger’s Chronica, where the digression is similarly short.61 Why does the author mention Arthur at this point in his history, but omit the legendary king where he would normally appear? The description of Gawain’s grave is so short that it provides little indication as to why the author included it, but the chronicler’s interest in the sepulchre may have been piqued by its hagiographic resonances. In this chronicle, graves are often sites of saintly activity,62 so it seems possible that the author approached the discovery of Gawain’s fourteen-foot grave as a miraculous affair. In contrast, Walter of Coventry’s Arthurian material does not carry any similar religious intonations, and this may explain why the author omits Arthur where he translates from Walter. This becomes especially likely when we consider that, in the portion of the chronicle covering British history from Brutus to Ethelbert – the section in which Arthur would be expected to appear – the author is principally concerned with either the spread of Christianity in England or the decline of the faith under Saxon rule.63 It seems probable, then, that the LRE author neglected Walter’s lengthy Arthurian material not because he thought it spurious, but because he did not consider it an important chapter in the history of the faith. Much of the chronicle is concerned with monarchal affairs, but even these are often filtered through the interests of the Church. LRE generally extols rulers for benefitting the faith, and vilifies them for damaging the religious community or its edifices. As Antonia Gransden and others have argued, the use of past events as ethical models is a common feature of medieval histories.64 Yet, LRE is distinctive both in the degree of importance it accords to exemplary acts and in its almost exclusive interest in acts that pertain to the Church. This interest is most apparent in the LRE author’s equivocal approach to characterizing Norman kings. He relies heavily on other histories to relate the events that took place in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, and his departures from these texts provide us with valuable insight into his own interests. As Spence points out, England’s French prose chronicles typically justify the switch from Anglo-Saxon to Norman rule by emphasizing the legitimacy of William the Conqueror’s claim to the throne and by celebrating his reign.65 In contrast, LRE distributes praise or blame for William and other Norman rulers based on the way they treat religious individuals and institutions. Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 158–61. See Ralph Niger, Chronica, ed. R. Anstruther (London, 1851), p. 162. 62 See Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 80, 86, 94, 148, 176–8. 63 Ibid., pp. 37–40. The exception is the account of Brutus’s arrival in England, but even this is passed over quickly (ibid., p. 37). 64 See, for example, the analysis of Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum in Gransden, Historical Writing, I, 197. The use of historical figures as moral exempla in medieval chronicles has been discussed at length by G. Spiegel, The Past as Text: The Theory and Practice of Medieval Historiography (Baltimore, 1997); see especially the analysis on p. 91. 65 Spence, Reimagining History, p. 139. 60 61



Piety, Community and Local History

27

A comparison between LRE and its sources reveals that the author condemns William when the king behaves in a way that he considers antagonistic to the Church. This is exemplified by the entry for 1070. It narrates the Council of Winchester, at which William deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, who was appointed by the Antipope Benedict X. The closest source for this episode that has been identified is Ralph Diceto’s Abbreviationes Chronicorum,66 and a comparison between it and LRE is suggestive of LRE’s relatively greater investment in the Christian community. Diceto cites three main reasons that justify William’s decision to depose the archbishop: (1) Stigand held both the bishopric of Winchester and the archbishopric unjustly; (2) the previous archbishop, Robert, was still alive; and (3) Stigand had been given his pallium by Benedict, the antipope, whose grants had since been nullified.67 In marked contrast to Diceto’s account, the author of LRE does not list William’s reasons for deposing the archbishop, which makes the Norman ruler’s decision seem more arbitrary. LRE makes explicit its implied condemnation of William by adding to Diceto’s version a list of religious figures, including Stigand, who were deposed by William without cause, insisting that ‘nekedent ne par lei de seinte eglise, ne par lei de la terre deust il cel aver fet pur nule cause aperte ki il trova en eus’ (‘neither by the law of Holy Church, nor by the law of the land, ought he to have done this for any proved crime he found in them’).68 By adding this reproachful commentary to Diceto’s account, the author of LRE announces his allegiances with the archbishop over the Norman king. LRE is not consistent, however, in either exonerating or condemning William. In a passage borrowed again from Diceto’s Abbreviationes Chronicorum, LRE approves of William on the grounds that he gained the realm of England through the providence of God: ‘Coment cesti rei Willame vint au reaume de Engleterre, non pas par kas ne par aventure, mes par la purveyance Deu jeo le vus conterai’ (‘How it was that this king William came to the throne of England, not by chance, nor by adventure, but by the providence of God, I will now tell you’).69 Yet, a little later, LRE departs from Diceto, turning instead to a text resembling Ralph Niger’s Chronica, to present a less favourable view of William when he antagonizes the Church. LRE claims that William died of heat-related injuries after he burnt down the church of Notre Dame in Mantes in response to a petty taunt by King Philip of France. Moreover, it intensifies its disapproval of William by specifying that a nun in Notre Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, p. 147. ‘Ubi Stigandus Dorobernensis archipiepiscopus degradatur tribus ex causis; quia episcopatum Wintoniæ cum archiepiscopatu injuste possidebat, et quia, vivente archiepiscopo Roberto, non solum archiepiscopatum sumpsit, sed etiam ejus pallio quod Cantuariae remansit, dum injuste pulsus est ab Anglia, in Missarum celebratione usus est, et post a Benedicto, quem Romana ecclesia excommunicavit, eo quod pecuniis sedem apostolicam invasit, pallium suscepit’ (The Historical Works, ed. Stubbs, I, 201). 68 Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 146–7. 69 Ibid., pp. 140–1. Diceto, who, according to Stubbs, borrows in turn from Eadmer’s Historia Novorum, gives the following account: ‘Quod autem rex Willelmus regnum adeptus est non subito eventu, aut incerto casu, sed provido Dei judicio contigit’ (The Historical Works, ed. Stubbs, I, 198). 66 67

28

Krista A. Murchison

Dame was burnt to death as a result of William’s attack.70 In both cases, William is judged by his relationship to the Church. This emphasis on the interests of the religious community is continued for the reigns of his successors.71 This reading of LRE as a history that is deeply concerned with the Church is also supported by material evidence. The texts in the Trinity manuscript, most of which are, with the exception of the continuation of the chronicle, copied in one hand, are linked by a shared religious focus. In the Trinity manuscript, LRE is placed after several devotional texts, mentioned above, that are deeply concerned with exemplary behaviour. The first, the Compileison, is a manual designed to help penitents identify their sinful acts in preparation for confession. The next tracts – one on the Creed and one on the Pater Noster – aim to guide the reader toward correct observance of the Christian faith. The fourth, which bespeaks an interest in models of behaviour, is Saint Edmund Rich’s mid thirteenth century Mirour de Seynte Eglise, a widely popular devotional compendium. Trinity’s version of the Mirour is substantially shorter than the original, and the sections it preserves are typically those that explore proper Christian behaviour. In this collection of texts, devotional practices and reverent behaviour toward the Church emerge as central themes.

Conclusion The compiler of the Trinity manuscript must have thought that LRE would complement the religious interests of the other texts in the manuscript. As we have seen, the monastic community in Norwich that likely commissioned this manuscript may have valued LRE for its emphasis on their particular order. We have limited information about how the chronicle operated for readers outside of this group, but the work must have served to underscore the importance of the Church throughout history. Although the author of LRE relates the actions of England’s kings, his aim is not strictly dynastic, as many scholars have suggested; the material that he selects from other works indicates that he had a particular interest in the way that these monarchs supported the Christian faith. By celebrating those who benefitted his religion, he understood the past not simply as a political tool but as a series of models of good behaviour toward the ecclesiastical community. The author’s prioritization of his faith is especially interesting when we consider that, in the period in which he worked, historical writing carried powerful dynastic associations. As John Taylor reminds us, in 1291 Edward I asked monasteries throughout England to check their chronicles for evidence to support his claim to Scotland.72 Edward’s attempts to validate his territorial assertions had a direct influence on at least one contemporary chronicler. According to Taylor, Pierre Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, p. 159. For example, compare William Rufus’s reign in LRE to its probable source, ‘Florence’ of Worcester’s Chronicon ex Chronicis (cf. Le Livere de Reis, ed. Glover, pp. 157–64, and The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, ed. T. Forester (London, 1854), pp. 184–93). 72 J. Taylor, English Historical Literature in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1987), p. 47.

70 71



Piety, Community and Local History

29

de Langtoft’s fourteenth-century Chronique ‘uses the legendary history to justify Edward’s policy in Scotland’.73 The author of LRE must have been keenly aware of Edward’s strategic use of the past, and it is thus even more notable that he put emphasis on the Church rather than the nation. The LRE author’s interests, which stretch beyond the political uses of history, call for a re-evaluation of a related text: the so-called Scottish Chronicle. This short Anglo-Norman text summarizes traditional British history from the arrival of Brutus in England to 1296. Its editor, Peter T. Ricketts, observes that it is primarily concerned with asserting England’s suzerainty over Scotland.74 If, as Dean suggests, the author of the Scottish Chronicle borrowed from LRE, then we must ask ourselves why someone with such obviously nationalist motivations chose to make use of a text that had, at least compared to its antecedents, less interest in England’s national conflicts. The link between LRE and the Scottish Chronicle is currently poorly understood, but an examination into this relationship would almost certainly yield further insight into the uses of history during Edward’s reign. In recent years scholars have been drawn to Anglo-Norman historical prose, but much remains to be done to illuminate the values that lie behind these works. As we come to better understand the interests of Anglo-Norman chronicles, we gain a deeper awareness of the ways that historical texts operated in medieval society. As a religiously oriented chronicle lying at the heart of a period that produced many politically motivated histories, such as Langtoft’s Chronique, LRE is a testament to the wide range of uses of Anglo-Norman history, and, more generally, to the richness of England’s historical tradition at the close of the thirteenth century.

73 74

Ibid., p. 170. Three Anglo-Norman Chronicles, ed. Ricketts, p. 4.

chapter two

THE SEEN AND THE UNSEEN: MIRACLES, MARVELS AND PORTENTS IN THE MIDDLE ENGLISH CHRONICLE OF NICHOLAS TREVET Christine M. Rose

A

nd in that same tyme whan thys Kyng Iohn of Ynglond entred into Yrelond, at a toune than in Hampshyre the whyche ys called Andeuer, was sleyn than with thonder a preeste abought mydnyght in the syght of all the pepull in the churche, and there was none other body hurte. And a grete hog was sent rennyng in the churche among all the pepull.1 (for year 1171)

And in the tyme of Lowes, the emperour abouesayde, Bristan, bysshop of Wynchestre was full famous, the whyche sayde masse euery day for all Cristen soules. And opon a tyme as he walked as his custom was in a churche yorde. And prayed for all Cristen soules. And whan he sayde Requiescant in pace, he herde answere to hym as hit had be a grete ooste of pepull oute of her tombes: Amen.2 (c. 931) But than the chamburlayne, by the commaundement of hys lorde, caste ageyne the knyfe the whyche he toke in a full grete haste. And than the carbuncle recouered hys clerenesse. And the images returned ageyne echone into hys place. And than thys Gereberd, so called Syluester, wente home ageyne with hys chamburleyn by the same wey that they come, and brought ryght naught. And after when they were go oute, the ymage in the felde of Martius appered no more. And the erthe closed withoute any apperaunce where hit was opened. And the chamburleyne bare with hym but onely hys lanterne. And som folk seyen that thys meruayle was done by Merlyn.3 (c. 999)4 Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, fMS Eng 938, fol. 81r. ‘Iohn’ is in error for ‘Harry’. 2 Ibid., fol. 69v. 3 Ibid., fol. 73v. 4 Quotations from the Middle English version of the Trevet chronicle are from my forthcoming edition (Brepols, ‘Textes Vernaculaires du Moyen Âge’ series). Abbreviations have been silently expanded and modern punctuation added for clarity. Folio numbers of the chronicle manuscript are noted, and, where necessary, the date is assigned to the event. 1

30



The Seen and the Unseen

31

* * * When Nicholas Trevet’s fourteenth-century Anglo-Norman universal chronicle, Les Cronicles, was translated into Middle English nearly a century after its composition, the anonymous fifteenth-century translator must have counted on an audience still as fascinated by stories of miracles and portents in world history as were Trevet’s first readers. This later compiler appended to Trevet’s work a version of the Prose Brut chronicle to continue the history from 1334 to c. 1417 – a narrative also containing accounts of extraordinary and wondrous events scattered among its historical reportage, but focusing on England.5 It was part of a chronicler’s duty to provide a record of history that included the supernatural and unexplained phenomena.6 These marvels on the page, unseen except in the mind’s eye – while also adding to the work’s affective value – act as a prompt for memory and an aid to salvation. This essay focuses on the wondrous events woven into Trevet’s Middle English chronicle and that persist into the conjoined Brut section. Where Trevet’s work showcases world history as a vivid space of Bible stories, war and peace, holiness and evil, inventions, heroes and outstanding battles, cosmological portents and saintly miracles, the addition of the Brut continuation concludes the entire new Middle English chronicle with a decidedly darker tone. Because the Brut section also includes marvels among its records of historical events, the chronicle feels generally unified. Yet, the Brut’s marvels, while certainly weird, diverge from those included by Trevet that are eccentric, saintly or grisly and every so often delightful. Instead, the Brut’s compiler primarily records unnatural phenomena that seem to portend earthly disaster. In the end, when the Middle English translator puts the two chronicles together, the reader of this entire revamped text may be amazed at the wonders presented by Trevet in the chronicle’s history of the world to 1334, but also troubled by the multifarious omens of ill and accounts of actual disasters and political upheaval assembled in the Brut account of the recent past of the English nation, with which the work concludes. The new hybrid, translated chronicle, therefore, reads less as an enjoyable rendering of a vast expanse of history, and more as a forfeiture of the vivid wonders of the old and Biblical world, to expose a contemporary English era fraught with strife and disorder.

Trevet’s Anglo-Norman Chronicle Trevet, a scholar with a close relationship to the royal family, wrote learned treatises on a variety of religious and secular matters. He compiled two Latin histories: The Brut version coupled with the Trevet chronicle is characterized by Lister Matheson as belonging to the ‘Peculiar Version to 1419’ subset of Brut manuscripts. See L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), pp. 324–6 (PV–1419: E, no. 192). The only edition of the Prose Brut is The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (London, 1906–8). 6 C. Given-Wilson, Chronicles: The Writing of History in Medieval England (London, 2004), p. 21. 5

32

Christine M. Rose

Annales Sex Regum Angliae (Annals of Six Kings of England) and Historia ab orbe condito ad Christi Nativitatem (History from the Creation of the World to the Birth of Christ). But Les Cronicles, an encyclopedic universal history written c. 1334, constitutes his only work in the Anglo-Norman vernacular – the language of the court, devotional works and of several romance and historical texts – thus marking this work as designed for a non-scholarly audience.7 Les Cronicles is, in fact, the first universal history written in the Anglo-Norman language.8 It was ostensibly dedicated to the daughter of Edward I, Princess Mary of Woodstock (1279–1332), a nun at Amesbury from the time she was seven years old.9 The work is best known as the source of Chaucer’s ‘Man of Law’s Tale’ from the Canterbury Tales, the story of the much-travelled and troubled queen Constance, who, the chronicle tells us, died in 584. In Les Cronicles, Trevet recounts a version of history from Creation to the time of Edward III, not intending his book as a clerkly tome in the manner of his Annales or Historia, although he has borrowed from those works in composing Les Cronicles, but rather, as he implies in his prologue, meant for those who seek historical knowledge for pious reading and amusement; who have the desire for learning, but little spare time, and few books. And, no doubt, little Latin: For that cause that we be auysed of hem that be slowe to study, hyt noyeth hem sore the lengthe of storyes, and that muche folke haue defaute of bookes, hyt hathe pleased vs to gadre shortely the counte of lyues whyche descended frome the furste fadere Adam, ryght extendyng vnto the byrthe of Oure Lorde Ihesu Cryste, so that by thys descripcioun the whyche ys heere sette, the hertes wyll be more drawen for to looke and shortenesse to be do, that these thynges maye lyghtlyer be vndrestande and wythholde

See R. J. Dean, ‘Nicholas Trevet, Historian’, in Medieval Learning and Literature, ed. J. J. G. Alexander and M. T. Gibson (Oxford, 1976), pp. 339–46. See also R. J. Dean, with the collaboration of M. B. M. Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series 3 (London, 1999), pp. 47–8. 8 A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1974–82), I, 504. 9 The dedication to Mary is attested in four of the nine extant Anglo-Norman manuscripts: ‘Ci comencent les Cronicles qe frere Nichol Trivet escrit a ma dame Marie la fillie mon seignur le Roi Dengleterre Edward le filtz Henri’ (London, British Library, MS Arundel 56). It is repeated in the Middle English version, found in the unique manuscript at Harvard University, Houghton Library, fMS 938: ‘Here begynneth the cronicles that Ffrere Nicholas Tryuet wrote to Dame Mary, the doughter of Kyng Edwarde, the Sone of Harry’ (fol. 9r). Yet, because of its survival in so many manuscripts, the Anglo-Norman chronicle must have had a wider audience than just the royal family. See further Heather Pagan’s essay in this volume. Pagan is undertaking an edition of Les Cronicles, with Geert De Wilde. For Mary’s life, see M. A. Green, Lives of the Princesses of England (London, 1849), II, 404–22; and E. Power, Medieval English Nunneries (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 346–60. A list of manuscripts of Trevet’s chronicle is in R. J. Dean’s ‘The Manuscripts of Nicholas Trevet’s Anglo-Norman Cronicles’, Medievalia et Humanistica 14 (1962), 95–105. 7



The Seen and the Unseen

33

in more quycke mynde. And we woll nat make shorte the trouthe of the story…10 In this prologue, Trevet indicates his clerkly duty to provide authorized and orthodox reading matter for his non-Latinate audience, who he believes will be more eager to read and engage with concise material written in the vernacular. Readers may thus be more receptive to understanding and remembering these matters. This statement represents a dutiful medieval historian’s preamble, pledging to retell history ‘lite’ but truthfully, for an audience without scholarly resources. Petrus Comestor similarly begins his Historia Scholastica, one of Trevet’s sources.11 It is intriguing to consider Princess Mary and her fellow nuns as the first intended audience of Les Cronicles. Such religious women may have had little access to (or desire for) the reference books Trevet had, or any significant Latin learning, and, indeed, may have wanted their history delivered with some ‘shortnesse’. Nuns, nevertheless, had need of edifying reading in the vernacular.12 Clearly, Trevet thought his patroness should be familiar with aspects of the history of civilization, the world of the Bible (especially the Maccabees), the empires of the known world, and the development of the Church – including threats posed by heresy. Significantly, he provided accounts of miracles, portents, odd meteorological manifestations, and sometimes gruesome martyrdoms to consider, which render the chronicle memorable. Such anecdotes make the reading, if not always easy, then at least worth doing in order to discover the next entertaining bit in the journey through history. The greatest ‘miracle’ in Biblical terms, the Incarnation of Christ, rates only a brief mention, probably because of its familiarity to his audience. Instead, Trevet focuses on what might be new to his readers, gleaning his sources for events of note that might augment his audience’s education. Implicit in Trevet’s prefatory material, and carried out in the chronicle, is the medieval attitude that works of literature must delight as well as instruct. In his commentary on Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, Trevet considers that not everyone acquires the truth in the same way (‘non omnes recipiunt veritatem eodem modo’); diverse human natures and diverse educations lead to some individuals learning through logical demonstration, some through authoritative proof, and some through veils of fabulous narratives (‘per integumentum fabularum’).13 Thus, Trevet might justify sensational matter such as the marvels in his chronicle within the context of education keyed to an individual’s circumstances and character, and they surely provide pleasure for readers. Miracles within the chronicle text often become the vehicles for conversion either to the faith or to more fervent belief. In the incredible events in the story of Constance, for example, Constance’s trust in fMS Eng 938, fol. 9r. P. Comestor, Historia Scholastica, in Patrologia Cursus Completus. Series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1844–91), CXCVIII, 1054. 12 See D. Bell, What Nuns Read: Books and Libraries in Medieval English Nunneries (Kalamazoo, 1995). 13 Both quotations from Trevet are from J. Rosenfeld, Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry (Cambridge, 2011), p. 144. 10

11

34

Christine M. Rose

God cures a blind man, and the knight who accuses her of murder is struck by the hand of God in the presence of her husband Alla’s courtiers, confirming their faith in her innocence and attesting to the provenance of God for those who are constant in belief.

The Middle English Translation, Plus Brut Continuation In the mid fifteenth century, Trevet’s work was translated into English by, or commissioned for, someone who admired it.14 It may be that the Middle English translator knew his own audience resembled that non-scholarly group for whom Trevet wrote, even though the later translator’s audience might not have been courtly, but rather, composed of bourgeois Londoners.15 The Middle English chronicle occupies fols. 9r–101v of a handsome fifteenth-century English household miscellany, Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, fMS Eng 938.16 The English translator adapts, and in places slightly abridges, the French materials.17 He retains Trevet’s prologue on the purposes and aims of the history. Moreover, he incorporates at the end of Trevet’s chronicle narrative, without a break in the narrative or mis-en-page, a version of the Brut chronicle of England. That is, the Trevet part of the chronicle ends in mid-column on folio 91r, and a version of the Middle English Prose Brut continues the work, on the very next line, from the death of Edward II in 1327 to 1417.18 Thus, the compiler reshapes the text into a hybrid chronicle, wherein the wide scope of the universal chronicle terminates in a narrower local history of the early fifteenth century English realm. The Brut section is rife with internal conflicts such as the Rising of 1381, unrest in the North and the ongoing battles with France during the Hundred Years War. The Bible, the Church and the rest of the world consequently fade into the background as the Middle English chronicle draws to a close. This reshaping and focus on England has, as we will see, a consequence for the reading of the text as a whole, particularly when one focuses on the wonders and marvels occurring throughout.

On the late medieval demand for English history in English, see L. M. Matheson, ‘Historical Prose’, in Middle English Prose, ed. A. S. G. Edwards (New Brunswick NJ, 1984), pp. 209–48. 15 The introduction to my edition discusses the provenance and audience of the chronicle codex. 16 The unique copy of the Middle English chronicle is accompanied in the codex by a calendar and a fragment of a treatise on arboriculture by Nicholas Bollard. 17 Because of the lack of a published critical edition of any of the Anglo-Norman manuscripts of Trevet’s Les Cronicles, no absolute pronouncements on a programme of abridgement or expansion can be made. I have consulted London, British Library, MS Arundel 56 (c. 1375), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds français 9687 (c. 1340–50), and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.178 (XIV ¾) for my edition. 18 At fol. 91rb, line 13, to fol. 101vb. 14



The Seen and the Unseen

35

Reading the Miracles and Portents in Trevet’s Middle English Chronicle In its form as a universal chronicle, Trevet’s work is divided into ages, biblical books, and reigns of monarchs, popes and emperors. Events are organized chronologically, using ‘The yere after that God made Adam’, or ‘The yere from the Incarnacion’. The chronicle narrative itself rarely seems profound, and it can be tedious going through lists of ‘The yere after oure lorde made Adam MMMDCCCC, Ptolomew Philodelphus regnyd opon Egypte xxxviij yere…’.19 The chronicle re-collects history in a storehouse like a florilegium, with anecdotes punctuating the names, numbers and annals that fill its pages. The author presents his material primarily in narrative form, rather than annalistically, and takes time occasionally to spin out an anecdote over many lines, as he does in the tale of Constance, or that of the pope-necromancer Gereberd, a story he borrows from William of Malmesbury.20 Still, the work includes a large dose of disquieting matters for readers to consider – such as the punishments of evildoers, the killing of kings, political vendettas, papal scandals (e.g., rivalries, antipopes, the female Pope Joan) and the gruesome martyrdoms of the saintly. Moreover, the chronicle text surprised me and must have delighted its medieval readers with its richness in oddities. Thus, it is worthwhile to consider what sorts of supernatural events the author recounts, gleaned from his various sources. For the world history presented in the text vibrates with the supernatural and the eerie, vividly demonstrating God’s hand in human events, and especially, as it turns out, those in England.21 Three categories of wonders might be distinguished in the fMS Eng 938, fol. 26v. William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, completed by R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols., Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1998–9), I, 279–95. Cited hereafter as GRA. 21 Trevet’s sources, as far as can be reckoned, are myriad, and his primary authorities include Sigebert of Gembloux’s Chronica, Vincent of Beauvais’ Speculum Historiale and Speculum Naturale, Petrus Comestor’s Historial Scholastica, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, Flavius Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews, Eusebius’s Church History, The Golden Legend of Jacob de Voragine, William of Malmesbury’s History of the English Kings, Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards, some version of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain. Trevet also used William of Malmesbury’s Antiquities of Glastonbury, Lives of SS. Wulfstan, Dunstan, Patrick, Benignus and Indract, and his Deeds of the English Popes. One of his most consulted sources was the twelfth-century universal chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux, a Benedictine monk whose chronicle was continued beyond his own death in 1112 by several writers. Sigebert seemed avidly to collect odd and miraculous events that he listed in a laconic style mingled in with ‘facts’ about bishops or popes or earthquakes and ice storms. In fact, most wonders (for those years of world history Sigebert covers) in Trevet’s chronicle turn out to be mentioned in Sigebert’s chronicle, sometimes transferred nearly verbatim to Trevet’s work. Sigebert’s annalistic design makes for some dull going, yet he incorporates fountains of blood, for example, or stars shining during the daytime, or the birth of conjugate twins, into his narrative of the various cities the Crusaders fought for and the ecclesiastical documents he includes as evidence. See Sigebertus of Gembloux, Chronica Sigeberti Gemblacensis monarchi, ed. L. C. Bethmann, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 6 (Hanover, 1844), pp. 300–74. 19 20

36

Christine M. Rose

chronicle narrative, represented by the three events quoted at the beginning of this essay: the portent, the saintly miracle and the inexplicable event. The taxonomy ‘miracle’, ‘wonder’ or ‘portent’ could be used to label various extra-normal events. I use the term ‘miracle’ to denote those events that the chronicler connected with saints, involving healing or other intervention in human life that just might have an unexplained, unscientific origin, although I also include events with a seemingly religious or Christian significance, even if they are not associated with saints. I take ‘wonder’ quite broadly, to encompass examples from all three categories noted above, both religious and secular. The portent, my first category of wonders, may be understood as an omen or warning of the future, such as the abundant celestial omens of eclipses, bloody suns or comets. Portents such as these abound in Trevet’s chronicle. Moreover, the phrase Stella Comata is written numerous times to mark momentous events. Some of the comets mentioned in the chronicle coincide with known comets, such as Halley’s, or those comets recorded by twelfth-century chronicler Sigebert of Gembloux, for example. Prognostication based upon movement of celestial bodies was not a quack science, and from the twelfth century onwards the study of astral science – while not without its detractors – was a legitimate enterprise, which might reveal meaning to the learned.22 So, these astral phenomena were frightening and remarkable, and possibly meaningful, although typically, Trevet does not always assign them a significance, such as when he reports giant hailstones fell at Constantinople large enough to slay men, and wool rained down, c. 397 (fol. 46v). Or, an ominous rainbow appeared in 671, and everyone thought the world was at an end (fol. 62v). The religious or saintly miracle constitutes another category of wondrous event Trevet includes: for instance, miracles of the Blessed Virgin. In one such tale, a Jewish child is thrown into an oven by his own father for worshipping at a Christian church. When he is saved by the Virgin, the Christians then cast the father himself into the oven (fol. 52r).23 The Virgin miraculously appears to Bishop Fulbert and cures him with drops of her milk (fol. 72r). Through the Virgin’s intercession, Viking invaders of Chartres are blinded. When dice players throw stones at a statue of the Virgin, the arm of the child she holds breaks and bleeds. Trevet records miracles of saints who intervene in earthly events after their death. At the See E. R. Truitt, ‘Celestial Divination and Arabic Science in Twelfth-Century England: The History of Gerbert of Aurillac’s Talking Head’, Journal of the History of Ideas 73 (April, 2012), 201–22. 23 Gregory of Tours records that in the time of Pelagius (pope 556–61), a Jewish child in Bourges was saved from the burning oven. The same tale is noted by Sigebert for 552. William of Malmesbury has a version of the tale for the year 1087 (GRA, ed. Mynors, I, 314). The Golden Legend tells of the miracle in more detail in ‘The Assumption of the Virgin’ section, and Jacobus says it occurred in about the year 527 (Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, trans. W. G. Ryan, introd. E. Duffy, 2 vols. (Princeton, 2012), II, 87–8). (Hereafter GL.) Since Trevet relies heavily on the Golden Legend, that may be his source for this account, but he would probably have known that it did not occur in Pelagius’s time as pope. 22



The Seen and the Unseen

37

disinterment of King Edgar, his corpse is found incorrupt, and a blind man receives his sight (fol. 71v). In a few other such miracles, a voice from heaven prophesies the death of King Odred to Saint Dunstan and a miracle occurs upon his burial – a man’s severed left arm is restored (fol. 71r); at the opening of King Edgar’s sepulcher his corpse was found incorrupt, and began to bleed anew while the ‘unwise’ Abbot Ailward of Glastonbury went mad (fol. 71v).24 Not all miracles need to involve saints. Some are events that would seem to have a Christian context or significance: King Edward the Confessor foresees the future, Bishop Wulfstan sticks his crozier into a rock and no one can remove it, Robert Curthose is chosen King of Jerusalem by the miraculous sign of an unlit candle lighting, and at the death of Emperor Otto I, Christ enters his body through a hole in his heart. Some final examples illustrate the range of religious and saintly wonders in Trevet’s work: fiends are cast into water jars, which are then overturned (fol. 18v), and a dead bull is raised to life, proving to a crowd of Jews and pagans in front of Constantine that the Christian God is the supreme god (fols. 43v, 44r). This is one of many conversion miracles in the chronicle, the most elaborate of which is Trevet’s centerpiece saga of Constance (fols. 53v–59r). The third type of wonder consists of the inexplicable event, prodigy or ‘merueyle’. For example, a giant is born to normal-sized parents in Rome one day, c. 415: ‘And in her tyme there was a full grete Geaunt and was bore and begate at Rome of the ffader and moder of lytell stature’.25 Earlier, Virgil helps Julius Caesar to provide fresh water for the city of Chichester by using a magic snake, but the messenger from Virgil to Caesar rashly releases the snake before time, and the Lavant River arises too far from the city (fol. 33r). During the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, a dragon and serpents filled the streets of Rome as they roamed towards the sea, and a pestilence arose from a corruption of the air (fol. 59v). People in Northumberland die in the evening and are reborn in the morning (fol. 62v). Marvelous beasts swim in the Nile during the time of the sixth-century Pope Pelagius: ‘And in that tyme in the riuer of Nil, the whyche ys in Egipt, appered wonderfull diuerse beestes in shap and lykenesse of man, that ys to say bothe male and female, beyng opon the water vnto her reynis of theyre bakkes. And so they shewed hem morow vnto noone.’26 A magical onyx cup is received as a gift from a prince to King Aethelstan (fol. 70r), Queen Elfred’s horse will not let her ride after her involvement in the murder of King Edward in 976, and she later repents of her deed and enters a convent (fol. 72v). Later, a maiden miraculously defeats a giant as Empress Gunyld’s champion when the empress is accused of adultery in the court of Emperor Henry III.27 Trevet participates in the fashion for stories about ghosts and the living dead: a zombie

GRA, ed. Mynors, I, 261–3. fMS Eng 938, fol. 47r. 26 Ibid., fol. 52r. This marvel is recorded by Sigebert for the year 601. 27 William of Malmesbury, though, says it was ‘a young lad of her brother’s establishment’, not a maid (GRA, ed. Mynors, I, 208). 24 25

38

Christine M. Rose

menaces Richard I, duke of Normandy, as he passes by a church where it lies waked (fol. 71v).28 The examples in the preceding paragraphs provide a sense of the range of Trevet’s selection of wonders, and the world of his chronicle is alive with intersections between the earthly and unearthly. Trevet’s motives in incorporating into his work tales of the supernatural were, of course, his desire to instruct and entertain, and also to emulate those authorities from whom he borrowed his materials, such as William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of Monmouth or Sigebert of Gembloux. Steven Justice has thoughtfully examined medieval miracles and what ‘belief ’ was involved in recording and reading such accounts.29 Justice questions why medieval authors recounted miracles, and how we are to perceive such episodes. They were not swallowed whole by medieval authors or their early readers, he explains, for ‘doubt and controversy not only attended miracles, but were actively cultivated in defining them’.30 It is a complex business explaining how miracles came to be passed on by rational historians like Trevet, and Justice notes that ‘belief concerned what was uncertain, difficult, inaccessible’.31 The inexplicable events imparted by reputable writers reminded the faithful of that dimension beyond the earthly, which defied understanding. An analysis of Trevet’s approach to documenting portents, miracles and inexplicable events reveals that although Trevet typically reserves comment on the wonders he reports, he nevertheless offers explicit interpretations in some cases, thereby directing his readers’ understanding of the marvelous yet instructive events that the chronicle relates. As a responsible chronicler should, Trevet intersperses among his biblical summary and historical matter (gleaned from his many Latin sources) prodigious events that demonstrate the guidance of Providence in world affairs, occurrences that Chris Given-Wilson calls ‘God-witness testimony’.32 A chronicler must emphasize the importance of the unseen – those matters of a Christian’s faith that must simply be believed.33 Terrestrial manifestations of God’s will were ignored at one’s peril.34 On occasion, such meaningful markers of the invisible might of God required explanation or decoding. Some of Trevet’s marvels are coupled with his explanation of their significance as heavenly signs of approbation or punishment, as in the tale of Pope Sylvester’s (Gereberd’s) pact with demons, or the tale of the shipmen whose cargo turned to stones when they refused alms to a beggar (fol. 60v). Nonetheless, readers are not always provided the significance of each event. That is, the wonder is reported, but neither the cause nor the meaning of the matter is From Wace, The History of the Norman People: Wace’s Roman de Rou, trans. G. S. Burgess, with notes by G. S. Burgess and E. van Houts (Woodbridge, 2004), p. 94. 29 Steven Justice, ‘Did the Middle Ages Believe in Their Miracles?’, Representations 103 (Summer 2008), 1–29. 30 Ibid., p. 6. 31 Ibid., p. 12. 32 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, p. 21. 33 Cf. Hebrews 11.1. 34 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, p. 21. 28



The Seen and the Unseen

39

elucidated. Instead, Trevet characteristically employs the paratactic chronicle style of ‘And then X happened, and then Y…’. Yet, as Gabrielle Spiegel observes, ‘because the writer does not explain the connections, we need not suppose that the reader could not supply them’.35 Spiegel calls the text of a chronicle ‘transparent’, a space the faithful move through. Such works create a place that is not telling and not exactly showing, acting as an invitation to readers to form a vivid memory, thereby adding history and the instructions on salvation in the chronicle to one’s own memories. In reading or hearing such miraculous events, one is not, as Doubting Thomas, insisting on ocular proof before one may believe. But the miraculous happenings interpenetrating and occurring simultaneously with the ordinary political and ecclesiastical events suggests that readers consider the world as a cornucopia of the unexpected (in human terms), the ‘God-witness testimony’ of Providence. The twelfth-century chronicler William of Newburgh, for example, enacting Justice’s notion about cultivating the doubt and controversy surrounding miracles, remarks on events he is unsure how to interpret, or does not want to judge, such as the awe-inspiring appearance in 1188 of a white banner in the sky at Dunstable (Bedfordshire) with an image of the crucified Christ. William cautions: ‘Let everyone interpret this wonderful sight as he pleases; for I am but a simple narrator of it, and not a presaging interpreter. What the Divinity may have intended to signify by it, I know not.’36 Interestingly, Trevet does not interpret this marvel (nor does the Middle English translator, who adds no commentary whatsoever to Trevet’s work), setting the apparition, without remarks, between King Henry II’s death at Chinon in 1189 and the crowning of Richard I: And in the tyme of thys Harry the emperour and Harry the ijde, here before sayde kyng of Ynglond, that ys to sey the yere of grace MClxxxx, Ihesus Cryst appered vysybly in the eyre hangyng vppon the crosse in Ynglond at Dunstaple in the seyng of moche pepull from none vnto nyght. The yere of grace MClxxxx, Richard kyng of Ynglond, the son of Harry the secunde, after the dethe of hys ffader was crowned at Westmynster the thryd day of Septembre.37 This failure or deliberate resistance to gloss the meaning of the miraculous is typical of Trevet’s composition style, and certainly he takes William’s point about not penetrating the mind of God regarding the apparition. The crucified Christ suspended in mid-air in this context might be interpreted by medieval readers knowledgeable about history as portending the strife between Henry II and his son Richard or Phillip of France, simply betokening Henry’s death, or as a chastisement that the True Cross had not yet been reclaimed by a crusade to the Holy Land. G. M. Spiegel, ‘Genealogy: Form and Function in Medieval Historical Narrative’, History and Theory 22.1 (1983), 43–53 (p. 52). 36 William of Newburgh, History of English Affairs, Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Book IV, Chaps. 5–10: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/williamofnewburgh-four.asp. The apparition of the cross is from Chap. 6. 37 fMS Eng 938, fol. 82r. 35

40

Christine M. Rose

While William of Newburgh emphatically refuses to expound upon the message of this prodigy, he nonetheless records, just beforehand, the departure of Richard I for Normandy, and the rage of the people at his exit, an event Trevet disregards. Without consulting the nobles, Richard left as his proxy the bishop of Ely, his chancellor, leading to distressing results, including, it seems, persecution of the Jews. Trevet briskly moves from the death of Henry II to the Dunstable Cross sighting during Henry’s lifetime to Richard I’s coronation. Thus, the two chroniclers do not provide the same context for the Cross apparition, and readers have to construe the event for themselves, with the historical context changing possible notions about what the event portended. Certainly, Trevet’s briefer version does not enrich his audience’s sense of the complex events of the reigns of Henry II and Richard I as much as does William’s account, but it does inform them of this wondrous vision of the Cross. I find this gesture characteristic of Trevet’s composition, and suggest that the matter he ascertained his (royal, convent?) audience needed to know at this historical moment was the occurrence of the fabulous aerial display of the Cross, not the injudicious actions of monarchs. Even when his source does take the time to decode a phenomenal event, Trevet often omits the gloss. For example, a fountain of blood arises in Genoa after an eclipse: ‘And in the tyme of thys Pope Iohn, the son became all derke and the sky beyng all clere. And withyn mennys houses the bemes of the son appered all blody. And in the tyme of thys Pope Iohn, in the cyte of Gene arose a fountayne full of bloode.’38 Pope John X had been murdered in a political coup in 928. Sigebert, Trevet’s probable source, notes that in 935 the bloody fountain in Genoa flowed copiously, foretokening the imminent destruction of the city.39 In 935 Genoa was sacked by a Fatimid fleet, which could account for the presence of a fountain flowing with the blood of dead Genoese.40 Of course, any account of blood in water might remind readers of the Biblical first plague of Egypt, where the Nile ran bloody, but Trevet does not include this event in his biblical summary.41 Bodies of water filled with gore signal trouble in the land, such as that brook ‘all of bloode’ that Trevet says augurs the ills of the reign of William Rufus (c. 1087–1100). Here the scholarly Trevet, who was optimally qualified to assess the significance of abnormal happenings, to weigh them as clues and pass them on knowledgeably from his source (in this instance William of Malmesbury), does exactly that. In the William Rufus entry he describes certain tokens as ‘heuy’ (ominous) and points to Rufus’s debased reputation: Thys kyng neuer in hys lyfe tyme ded anythyng wherethorough hys name shulde be encreased to worshyp. And in hys tyme appered many dyuerse Ibid., fol. 70v. Chronica, ed. Bethmann, VI, 347. 40 Personal correspondence with Prof. J. Dotson, 28 October 2014. See also J. Dotson, ‘The Genoese Civic Annals: Caffaro and His Continuators’, in Chronicling History: Chroniclers and Historians in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, ed. S. Dale, A. W. Lewin, and D. J. Osheim (Philadelphia, 2007), pp. 55–86. 41 Exodus 7. 38 39



The Seen and the Unseen

41

and heuy tokenes, for in a toune the whyche ys called Hampstede roune and spronge a broke all of bloode xv dayes. And hit was so moche and superhabundent that hit coloured all red the ryuer that was next that broke. Then another tyme after the skye appered as in a brennyng flame of fyre.42 A marvelous chunk of ice fell to earth in France (c. 802), one more ‘heuy’ portent of the death of Charlemagne in 814, and another instance of Trevet’s proffering the significance of the event: And in that tyme fylle doune in ffraunce a stoone of yse from heuen to merueylously grete with a grete hayle. Thys stoone of yse had of lengthe .xv. feete and of breede .vj. feete and was .ij. feete thycke. And hit was an heuy tokenyng of the dethe of that nobull emperour Charles the graunte.43 Another illustration of a clear connection made by Trevet between portentous event and historical incident is the comet that indicated the persecution of Thomas Becket by Henry II in 1160: The yere of grace MC and lx appered opon Ynglond a sterre the whyche was called Stella Comata, betokenyng the persecucion of Holy Churche in the reame of Ynglond by Kyng Harry the secund ageynst the Archebysshop Seynt Thomas of Caunterbury. ffor thys Kyng Harry the secund made for to be arered newe customes and full perylous ayenst Holy Churche, the whyche Seynt Thomas the Archebysshop wold nat suffer, neyther wolde assent therto be no meane. But vtterly and opynly seyde ageynst hem.44 In these last three instances, Trevet makes sure his audience knows the significance attached by his sources to the portents predicting historical incidents, all of which are negative, whereas in other places, as noted above, he leaves the event’s meaning open. His sources did not always explicate each marvelous occurrence he borrowed from them, but, as we saw with the bloody fountain in Sigebert’s chronicle, Trevet does not necessarily include the interpretation of the material when appropriating a portent or marvel for his book. Whether or not he added an explanation for an fMS Eng 938, fol. 77v. Mentioned in GRA, ed. Mynors, I, 571. William says that in the year of William Rufus’s death, 1100, besides the bloody spring, the Devil appeared and spoke to men in woods and byways. He also notes that Rufus scoffed at others’ dire interpretation of these events. The comet (‘brennyng flame of fyre’) is remarked for the year 1097 in GRA and in Sigebert. 43 fMS Eng 938, fol. 66r. While this stone of ice from heaven resembles just the sort of wonder Sigebert of Gembloux would note, he does not record this legend. I have been unable to locate Trevet’s source. Einhard reports many omens of Charlemagne’s death in his ninth-century life of Charlemagne, but not this rock of ice, probably a meteorite. The dimensions of the ice-stone (180 cu. feet?) make it memorable. Various modern books on climate history record such an ice mass falling c. 21 June 824 and its dimensions as 15’x7’x2’ (210 cu. feet). See, for example, R. R. Newton, who cites Annales Laurissenses, which indeed notes a ‘huge piece of ice’ falling in 824: R. R. Newton, Medieval Chronicles and the Rotation of the Earth (Baltimore, 1972), pp. 166–7. 44 fMS Eng 938, fol. 81v. 42

42

Christine M. Rose

event seems random, as he sometimes must have had an evaluation of it in his source, and he elided the matter. I can find no overarching pattern to his inclusion or exclusion of such commentary, but often his audience has to work, as explained by Spiegel, on making the connections for themselves. Some of the connections, or indeed, his sources’ comments or biases, might have been too sophisticated for his target audience (or too inflammatory for a royal nun), so Trevet may have let the matter rest. And, since not all of Trevet’s sources are known, and in some cases the specific version of the source Trevet might have used is unclear, it can be difficult to make a judgment on why Trevet ties some events to their meanings, and leaves some ambiguous. Nonetheless, listing such events without remark is characteristic of universal chronicles. Certainly, Sigebert frequently indulges in this kind of composition, and this may, in fact, be part of the way a chronicle should be composed, as Trevet saw it. His Middle English translator seemed to find it an authoritative and satisfactory method, as he did not make emendations to this stylistic mode, or to any other of Trevet’s choices. The chronicle, of course, includes some miracles from the Bible of the Partingof-the-Red-Sea variety. But the author also mined his reference works and added non-canonical matter to his history, as in the much-embroidered story of Assuerus’s marvelous house party from the Book of Esther.45 Trevet had his choice of many sorts of uncanny events to recount from his informants. But his selection is unique among chroniclers, and the arc of those choices through his narrative and its later translation and continuation bears scrutiny, although it can be hard to ascertain why he prefers this or that marvel from his sources, and eschews others. Like the fantastic babewyns (‘grotesques’) of medieval marginalia, marvels function in this chronicle and others to etch the history in the mind, and offer themselves as riddles to be decoded. And, like those curious marginal illustrations, often these enigmas sidle into the sequence of the historical narrative as a commentary underscoring the significance of events, or indeed become disruptive elements – having no apparent connection to the history they inhabit and which surrounds them. I have provided here only a representative selection of the wonders Trevet collects, to illustrate the range of his offerings, and to demonstrate part of the inherent interest of the reading of the chronicle text for his audience, and for modern readers too. But such occurrences point to the larger context of God’s constant mediation in human history, whether the readers and writers at first agree about how to judge this intervention or not: Saint Machary speaks to the head of a dead man in the desert and learns of the pains of purgatory (fol. 45r), conjugate twins are born at Emmaus who fight with each other (fol. 45v), and people whose tongues had been cut out by the Vandals were able to speak again, at least the ones who were not sinful (fol. 50r). Several marvels Trevet includes in his work entail journeys to a fairy world, such as this dream of ‘Guntraunde:’

45

Esther 1. Trevet has taken his version of the story from Petrus Comestor’s Historia Scholastica.



The Seen and the Unseen

43

And in the yere of grace DCxv, Dagobert regnyd in ffraunce xiiij yere. After hym regned Guntraunde. Thys Guntraunde vppon a tyme was passyng weery of huntyng. And hit happed that he slept, and than a squyer of hys sawe a litel beste lyke a wesel. And hit wolde passe a litel broke and hit myght nat. And the squyer, seyng that, made a brege to that lytell beste of hys swerde both in goyng and commyng. And at the laste whan the beste come agene he wolde haue entred in to the kynges mouthe. And therewith all, the kyng awoke. And than, he hauyng grete merueyle, sayde that he dremed that he had passed a lytell brege of yron. And that he had seen grete tresoures withyn a mountayne there ageynst hym, in the whyche the squyer had seen that litel beste go in and oughte. And than thys kyng Guntrand sought and digged in the hylle, and they founde there grete tresoures as he dremed. And all tho tresoures the kyng gaue hem to Hooly Churche.46 The dream-vision’s disclosure of the underground enchanted treasure, with the subsequent finding and bestowal of those riches on the Church, seems a fitting pious point to this tale of the uniting of the earthly and supernatural realms, since it reinforces one of the chronicle’s themes. Gereberd (Pope Sylvester II), too, finds an underground fairy realm, quoted at the beginning of this essay, where gems and gold are guarded by a curse that renders them defunct if anyone handles them or removes them from the chamber, a story borrowed from William of Malmesbury, for 1002 – although William does not associate the marvel of the Campus Martius statue with Merlin, as Trevet does, an odd connection and unexplained. Indeed, overall Trevet’s chronicle demonstrates the world as prone to fissures where the angelic, fairy or demonic might be glimpsed, and the earthly and unearthy realms coexist. Marvels punctuate history with the enigmatic. The Middle English translator retains the marvels recorded by Trevet, although he did jettison some sections of the drier historical names and dates, particularly those not concerning England.47 So, both chroniclers mix reading pleasure and an awareness of the miraculousness that surrounded them with the acquisition fMS Eng 938, fol. 61r. The story of Guntraunus, or Gunthram, the king of the Franks, is from the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon. Guntraunus is also mentioned by Gregory of Tours in his History of the Franks. Paul’s, and later, Ranulph Higden’s, account is longer, especially about the disposition of the gold. Trevet does not mention a source for his account, as Higden does. The account in the Middle English version is, however, fuller than in the Anglo-Norman of MS Arundel 56, as reported by the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London, 1877), p. 345. Gunthram was king of Burgundy 561–92, and was sainted for his piety. His feast day is 28 March. Paul the Deacon says this story is not contained in any history of the Franks, and he notes the squire saw a beast like a reptile – more in line with the traditional stories of reptilian guardians of gold hoards. So, while the reptile seems the better choice of animal, the Anglo-Norman has ‘une belette’, weasel. See Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum (The History of the Lombards), trans. W. D. Foulke, introd. E. Peters (Philadelphia, 1974), pp. 147–8. 47 The lack of an edition of all of Trevet’s Les Cronicles manuscripts hinders any definite assessment of the changes the Middle English translator made, or indeed even what exemplar he used. 46

44

Christine M. Rose

of historical information. Because all roads in the chronicle are meant to lead to salvation, how did readers interpret this collection of enigmatic events occurring amid the panoply of chronicle ‘facts’ of reigns of kings and popes? The visual quality of the marvels included makes the work at times titillating, awe-inspiring, grotesque – and memorable. Although a modern reader might imagine a medieval book-owner would commission an illustration of one of the chronicle’s vivid marvels, none of the manuscripts – the nine Anglo-Norman manuscripts or the unique Middle English codex – have a programme of illustration, although most are handsome and professional scribal productions.48 The original readers were asked instead to fashion the textual pictures in their minds, as a part of memoria, remembering the text.49 This point is well-exemplified by the last miracle that Trevet includes in his chronicle, and recorded by the Middle English translator: the appearance of Saint Thomas Aquinas to his brother on the evening of Thomas’s death in 1274. Saint Thomas, a celebrated Dominican, no doubt of special interest to Trevet: fell seke in an abbey of Grey Monkes the whyche ys called the Newe Dyche, and there he dyed. And vppon the same nyght whan that he dyed, he appered in hys habyte to the erle of Alquine hys brother, and he toke hym a letter in hys hande. And anone, the erle commaunded to hys chamburlayne to brynge hym lyght and candell. And anone, he vnded and opened that letter and there he found wryten withyn with letteres of golde, full fayre and ryally wreten these wordes: Hodie factus sum doctor in Ierusalem. And anone, as the erle hys brother had red that, the whyche ys as moche to say: ‘I am today made a doctour in Ierusalem.’ Anon, the erle sent for to knowe the state and how hit stode with hys brother. And he founde howe that he dyed and disseased that same nyght and the same houre that he apered to the erle hys brother. And many miracles God shewed for hym bothe in hys lyfe and in hys dethe.50 Fittingly, this miracle features the written word and translated Latin which, similar to the chronicle document itself, becomes the vehicle for showing God’s will, the translatio of the ways of God to man. Yet, the closer Trevet’s chronicle approaches his own era, the more that epoch appears tarnished and past its former glories: no A genealogical table of the family of Edward I appears in one Anglo-Norman manuscript, while the Middle English manuscript has a folio missing at a similar point in the text, suggesting that there may also have been a family tree of Princess Mary’s lineage in that codex. 49 M. Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 2008), p. 30. 50 fMS Eng 938, fol. 87r (my emphasis). This narrative of the death of Saint Thomas Aquinas at Fossanova (‘Newe Dyche’) Abbey in Italy, including the miracle of his appearance to his brother, appears to be taken from a longer life and works section on Thomas in Trevet’s Annales, the quotation Hodie factus sum doctor in Ierusalem. See Annales Sex Regum Angliae, qui a Comitibus Andegavensibus Originem Traxerunt, A.D. MCXXXI–MCCCVII, ed. T. Hog, English Historical Society (London, 1845), pp. 290–1. The origin of this legend of Thomas’s apparition is not yet known. 48



The Seen and the Unseen

45

more bejeweled underground rooms, magic cups of onyx, maidens defeating giants, or talking brass heads. The contemporary world, inhabited by Princess Mary’s family and that of the later commissioners of the Middle English translation, seems meager, dimmer and more perilous. The shift in tone to a more sobering view of history at the termination of the Trevet section of the chronicle is extended by the addition of the Brut continuation, presenting a decidedly more secular and darker reading of events in England from about 1334 to 1417.

The Brut Continuation and the Forfeiture of the Miraculous After the account of Saint Thomas Aquinas’s miracle of the Les Cronicles section, several folios contain historical accounts of the doings of popes and monarchs, plus a lengthy genealogical discussion of the family of Edward I, including some compliments for Princess Mary. The tale of the misdeeds and later execution of Edward II’s friend Piers Gaveston continues the trajectory of the chronicle into Trevet’s own time. Then, the English translator switches in mid-column to a version of the Prose Brut. The Brut entry, a shocking account of the deposition of Edward II – Princess Mary’s brother – through the conspiracy of Isabella, his wife, and his subsequent murder in 1327, contrasts markedly with the uplifting message of Saint Thomas’s words to his brother: Now speke we of the dethe of Kyng Edwarde the secunde, the whyche was put doun by the assent of Quene Isbell hys wyfe, and Edwarde her son, and all the states of the londe, and put in prysoun in the castell of Kenelworth, in kepyng vnder the warde of Syr Iohn Hathym that was the bysshop of Ely and of Syr Iohn of Percy, a baron, and in the kepyng of Syr Henry, erle of Lancaster. And after, by the commaundement of Edward the kynges son, hys fader was delyuered by endenture to Syr Morys of Berklee and to Syr Iohn Mantrauars. And they lad hym from the castell of Kenelworth vnto the castell of Berklee and kepte hym there saufly. And after, the kyng was put into the castell of Corff. And on Seynt Mathews Day in Septembre, the yere of grace a thowsand CCCxxvij, there by treason he was sleyn wyth a brynnyng spytte of coper put into hys foundement. And after brought to Glouceter, and there ys buryed.51 Certainly, Trevet’s chronicle recounted a plethora of murders, tortures and killing of popes and monarchs, but none so close in time and space – and familial relations – for his audience. Furthermore, in marked contrast to Trevet’s work, the marvels the compiler transcribes from the Brut, while still puzzling, tend to be laden with adverse moral meaning, and forecasts of doom, rather than marking saintly deeds. The presentation of these stories turns away from the affective visual and visceral entertainment as salvific and confirming of the faith typical of the earlier universal chronicle, towards recording marvels that almost exclusively have moral and dire predictive significance. The aggregation of enigmatic prognostications towards the 51

fMS Eng 938, fol. 91r.

46

Christine M. Rose

end of the work accentuates a gloomier, more strictly encoded moral universe, where the fanciful now decorates less and presages more, and the English find warnings of impending doom and their own sinfulness in sparrows or eagles fighting in the sky, or in comets, outbreaks of the plague, famine, great tempests blowing down houses, serious frosts and droughts. The devil appears in the countryside and bloody rains fall. These unnatural occurrences heighten the sense of a world out-of-order that the political events reveal. While the audience of the chronicle might be delighted by the Technicolor wonders of its early pages, strengthened in faith by the number of miracles that occurred all around them throughout history – attesting to God’s wonders, or at least reminding them of that other realm – and intrigued by mulling over the book’s diverse signs of the unseen world, the final pages of the chronicle drawn from the Brut might be construed as an exhortation to pray for this world. Still vibrant with remarkable episodes, the world of fifteenth-century England at the close of the chronicle is tinged with grim omens of its conflicts, afflictions and sinfulness: In thys yere there fell so moche rayne in hay tyme that hit destroyed bothe corne and hay. And that yere was a grete debate and fyghtyng amonge sparowes by dyuerse places in tho dayes, that men founde vnnumerable multitudes of them in feldes dede as they wenten. And there fell suche pestilence also that neuer none suche was seene in mannys tyme alyue. For many men that wente to bedde in goode hele, sodeynly they dyed. Also that tyme a sekenes that men call the pox slew bothe men and wemmen thorough enfectyng thereof.52 (c. 1367) The reported strife among sparrows with the birds dying en masse may not necessarily testify to a supernatural phenomenon, but rather to widespread illness, a plague in 1366 that affected birds and humans.53 Moreover, ‘a grete erthequaue thorought all the worlde the Wennesday after Wyttesonday…’,54 marks the quake of 21 May 1382 that occurred during the synod convened by Archbishop of Canterbury, William Courtenay, responding to the threat posed by Wycliffe and his followers. Courtenay himself interpreted the earthquake as a sign of the earth trying to cleanse itself of impurities such as heresies like Wycliffe’s.55 The Brut chronicle version in fMS Eng 938 leaves the quake recorded, but uninterpreted, reminding us of Trevet’s (and other chroniclers’) tendency to reserve comment on many of the marvels. Such marvels in the Brut, though, have real and observable consequences for the people of England, representing clear signs of how dangerous the presentday world has become. At the close of the chronicle in the Brut section, the old world of saints and Ibid., fol. 93v. See Epitome of the Reports of the Medical Officers to the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs Service from 1871–1882, ed. Surgeon-General C. A. Gordon, M.D., C. B. (London, 1884), p. 343, for one such record of the 1366 plague of men and birds in England. 54 fMS Eng 938, fol. 95r. 55 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, p. 27.

52 53



The Seen and the Unseen

47

marvels seems bygone. Countries wage war, but few heroes accomplish amazing deeds. No enchantment remains, saintly miracles reinforcing the faith are not recorded. Instead, a concatenation of battling eagles, stars falling and igniting men’s clothing and hair, multiple severe and destructive meteorological conditions  – ‘lyghtnynges, thonderynges, snow and hayle’ – and the appearance of a comet, provide ominous ciphers to be read. Such phenomena mark the birth of Richard II in 1367: And in the xlj yere of Kyng Edwarde was borne at Burdeux Richarde, the secunde son of Prince Edwarde. [And] was in the Scotyssh see iij dayes togeder were sene on the see sondes ij eglys of the whyche that one come oute of the southe and that other oute of the northe, and strongly fought togeder. And the southe egle ouercome the northe egle and all totore hym with hys byll and hys clawes, that he myght nat reste nor take hys brethe. And whan they had fought, the southe egle flewe home to hys oune costes. And afore the son rysyng and after the last day of Octobre, was sene in the eyre [sterres] gadered togeder on an hepe and fell doune into the erthe, leuyng behynde them fyry bemys in maner of lyghtenyng whos flames and hete brente and consumed mennys clothys and mennys heere walkyng on the erthe. And hit was seen and knowen of many a man. And that tyme the wynde was grete from Seynt Kateryns eue tyll iij dayes after, loste good withoute nomber. And in tho dayes was suche lyghtnynges, thonderynges, snow and hayle that hyt wasted and destroyed men, bestes, howses and trees. In the xlij yere, appered the sterre whyche was called Stella Comata in Marche, betwene the Northe coste and the Weste, whos bemes streched towardes ffraunce.56 The dire purport of these events, signifying present and possible future troubles for the English, does not seem in question.

Conclusion Like the fairies in the tale Chaucer’s Wife of Bath tells, who have disappeared only to be replaced by the friar-as-incubus, the magic has leached out of the chronicle by the closing pages of the Brut addition, where the Hundred Years’ War battles and internecine English baronial squabbles of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century dominate the text with a sobering reality. Here, we are faced with an array of portents, which signal the inevitability of conflicts and destruction to come, and imbue the Brut continuation with its darker tone, but one that follows suit with the less hopeful view of the world presented at the end of Trevet’s chronicle. The portents, miracles and inexplicable events found in Trevet’s and the Brut continuation author’s chronicles are therefore integral to their representations of England’s history, and bring the differences between the two histories to the fore. Nevertheless, even after nearly one hundred event-packed folios, the vivid wonders of the old world Trevet presents in his Anglo-Norman text to teach and delight linger in the 56

fMS Eng 938, fol. 93v. Bracketed words inserted for clarity from The Brut, ed. Brie, II, 319.

48

Christine M. Rose

memory. That surely represents its own kind of marvel, and serves as a reason to read this most intriguing work, to experience what one late medieval textual community got as its witness of history from old authorities, marshalled by the learned Trevet and his later Brut continuator for English audiences.

chapter three

‘AND MANY OÞER DIUERSE TOKENS …’ PORTENTS AND WONDERS IN ‘WARKWORTH’S’ CHRONICLE* Alexander L. Kaufman

P

ortents are omens, signs of the future. They warn oftentimes of dangers that will come – sometimes momentous in scale – and the devastation that will be wrought. Portents can also exist as marvels, miracles and wonders of an unusual nature that could signify a future event.1 Portents are found in different types of medieval historical writings: versions of the Middle English Prose Brut, several fifteenth-century chronicles of London, genealogical texts and other medieval histories. For example, Thomas Walsingham, in his Chronica Majora, describes how in 1385 the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was followed ‘by the greatest of upheavals in the kingdom’, and that the appearance of a dolphin on Christmas Day in the Thames in London was an omen for trouble between Londoners and Richard II.2 In this essay I will examine a number of such portents and wonders found in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, which spans the years 1461 to 1474, and discuss how these phenomena can serve as a means by which its author came to terms with the unthinkable yet real: murder, treason, war and other-worldly phenomena. The unnamed author uses the term ‘tokens’ twice to denote events in the chronicle that are of a portentous nature: extreme floods and ‘wo-water’, and the sighting of

I would like to thank the editors for their very helpful comments as well as Richard Firth Green’s and M. Teresa Tavormina’s suggestions for improvement during the 48th ICMS at Western Michigan University, where a version of this essay was presented. Research for this essay was made possible through an Auburn University at Montgomery School of Liberal Arts Faculty Scholarship Fund Grant, and for this I would like to thank Dean Michael Burger. 1 In the biblical tradition, ‘wonders’, ‘marvels’, ‘portents’ and ‘signs’ are used somewhat interchangeably. Wonders and marvels usually refer to God’s power, while portents and signs denote future (usually calamitous) events. 2 The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, trans. D. Preest (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 226, 283–4, 288. Walsingham’s chronicle spans the years 1376 to 1422. See A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1974–82), II, 130–1, for other portents that Walsingham notes.

*

49

50

Alexander L. Kaufman

a headless revenant.3 Moreover, he describes several events that are not necessarily portents, for they do not attempt to predict a future event. Nevertheless, they invite readers to interpret them as political commentary, especially when read in context with the naturally occurring portents and the author’s direct, at times politicized, interpretation of them. Some of these unexplained wonders are associated with Henry VI, while another relates the sighting of the headless being noted above. The author of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle reserves comment on the outcome and explicit meaning of the more ambiguous wonders such as these, for his vagueness and oblique strategies of narrative suggest a political climate too caustic and dangerous to report and explain them in a direct and critical manner. Yet, this text is a chronicle, and as is the case with some chroniclers, commentary, brief though it is, is occasionally given on these matters. Sarah Foot’s remarks on the meaning of form in medieval annals and historical texts are significant here, since they relate to the placement of these portents in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle and their function: If sets of annals are read [in their] entire[ty], rather than as random assortments of variously collected (and unedited) notes, they convey significant narratives. Annals are not mere recitations of everything that happened within a given timespan, but the self-conscious construction (employment) of cogent stories, made meaningful by selection, omission and careful interpretation.4 I contend that at the heart of the narrative of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle are these tokens, marvels and portents. These ‘tokens’ constitute the salient feature of the chronicle, and the author’s decision to form his history around these noteworthy, other-worldly moments gives greater meaning to their prominence in this text.

‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle: Its Manuscripts and History For a century and a half, scholars relied on James O. Halliwell’s 1839 Camden Society edition of the chronicle, which was based on its only known manuscript, Cambridge, Peterhouse, MS 190, fols. 214v to 225r.5 In 1972, Lister M. Matheson Middle English Dictionary [MED], ‘s.v. tōken (n.)’: ‘2 (a) An omen, a portent; also, that which presages, a foreshadowing of a future action or event; (b) an occurrence assumed indicative of the divine will; also, a marvel or an event assumed to signify the favor of a supernatural power; (c) significance, meaning, import.’ See MED online, http://quod.lib. umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED46216; accessed 24 April 2013. 4 S. Foot, ‘Finding the Meaning of Form: Narrative in Annals and Chronicles’, in Writing Medieval History, ed. N. Partner (London, 2005), pp. 88–108 (p. 102). Foot presents a cogent overview of the differences between and similarities of annales, chronicae and historia. See also D. Dumville, ‘What is a Chronicle?’, in The Medieval Chronicle II, ed. E. S. Kooper, Costerus n.s. 144 (Amsterdam, 2002), pp. 1–27. 5 A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of King Edward the Fourth, by John Warkworth, D. D. Master of St. Peter’s College, Cambridge, ed. J. O. Halliwell, Camden Society 10 (London, 1839). Peterhouse 190 is no longer housed in the Peterhouse Library; it has been transferred to and is on permanent loan at the Cambridge University Library. For a complete description of the manuscript and its contents, see Death and Dissent: The 3



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

51

discovered a copy of the chronicle in University of Glasgow Library, MS Hunterian 83 (formerly T.3.21), on fols. 141r to 148v, the fifth item in the manuscript. In 1977, Matheson presented a paper that described his research on this new copy of the chronicle at the Fourth Saint Louis Conference on Manuscript Studies and published his findings in an abstract.6 In what is now the standard scholarly edition of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, Matheson noted that the contents of the manuscript had been described incorrectly in A Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of the Hunterian Museum in the University of Glasgow as ‘John of Trevisa, Translation of Ralph Higden’s Polychronicon’.7 As a result of Matheson’s discovery, a handDethe of the Kynge of Scotis and ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle: The Chronicle Attributed to John Warkworth, Master of Peterborough, Cambridge, ed. L. M. Matheson, Medieval Chronicles 2 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 74–7. Briefly, here are the contents of Peterhouse 190, as described by Matheson: (1) fols. 1–196v, a Prose Brut text that ends during the siege of Rouen in 1419; (2) fols. 196v–214v, in a different hand, the continuation and completion of the Rouen narrative, and then a continuation of the Prose Brut to 1461; (3) fols. 214–24, ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle. Matheson classifies item 1 as No. 24, one of a small group of Prose Brut texts that conclude at that point, ‘The Common Version to 1419, ending “and manfully countered with our English men”: Group A (CV–1419[men]:A)’, Subgroup (a); see L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), pp. 98–9. Matheson classifies item 2 as No. 95, ‘Manuscripts containing the Polychronicon 1461 continuation and associated with “Warkworth’s” Chronicle (Poly. 1461 W. C.)’ (ibid., pp. 166–72 (p. 166)). 6 L. M. Matheson, ‘A New Text of “Warkworth’s” Chronicle’, Manuscripta 22 (1978), 15–16. In this article, Matheson initiates his investigation into the authorship and ownership of the chronicle. For decades, scholars believed that John Warkworth, master of Peterhouse, Cambridge (1473–1500), wrote the chronicle because he owned the Peterhouse 190 Brut, which he presented to the College in 1481 before the continuations were added to it. Matheson’s discovery of a new text of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, Hunterian MS 83, allowed him to conclude that its owner composed and added both continuations (1419–61 and 1461–74, respectively) around 1484. The latter continuation, Matheson concluded, was copied directly from Hunterian 83 into Peterhouse 190, more than likely with Warkworth’s knowledge and approval. When titling the chronicle, Matheson chose to remove the italics from Warkworth and place the name instead in quotation marks to signify John Warkworth’s involvement with the manuscript that contained the chronicle that was, at one time, attributed to him. 7 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 68. The initial, and incorrect, description of the manuscript is in J. Young and P. H. Aitken, A Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of the Hunterian Museum in the University of Glasgow (Glasgow, 1908), p. 88. Briefly, here are the contents of University of Glasgow Library, MS Hunterian 83, as described by Matheson: (1) fols. iii–iv, a list of monarchs of the world; (2) fols. 1–9, a prologue and ‘Fructus Temporum’, which was adapted from the St Albans edition of the Chronicles of England; (3) fols. 15–127v, a Prose Brut text, which ends abruptly in a narrative that recounts the siege of Rouen in 1418–19; (4) fols. 128–140v, a continuation of the Prose Brut text to the year 1461; (5) fols. 141–148v, ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle; (6a) fol. iv V, a carol, ‘Nova, nova: Gabriell off hye degre’, with music; (6b) fol. 12, one of three otherwise blank paper leaves between items 2 and 3, two lyrics with music (the first was previously unpublished and is apparently unique, the second is the carol ‘Salve, sancta parens: All heyle Mary and well þou be’). For the edition of the unpublished lyric in 6b, see Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, pp. 72–4. For item 3, Matheson classifies this Prose Brut as

52

Alexander L. Kaufman

written correction was entered into the catalogue of Hunterian manuscripts in the Department of Special Collections at the University of Glasgow Library. While we would expect nothing less than a precise and faithful edition of the chronicle from Matheson, which we have, it is his introduction to the chronicle, his description of the manuscripts that contain it, and his overview of the literary and reception history of the text that bears the hallmarks of his erudite scholarship. When one reads Matheson’s introduction, his intellectual and professional drive to ‘set the record straight’ regarding the textual history and the dating of the chronicle is evident, authoritative and welcome. Here, Matheson surveys previous studies of the chronicle from many noted philologists, historians and literary scholars – Halliwell, J. A. Giles, M. R. James, Friedrich W. D. Brie, Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, J. R. Lander, Charles Ross, M. A. Hicks, J. Gillingham, A. Goodman, and Antonia Gransden. Matheson dissects their suppositions, false claims and perhaps even honest mistakes; he duly, but graciously, notes the scholars’ faults and systematically corrects their errors.8 Matheson, like many scholars of medieval literature and history, knew the historical value of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle. Specifically, scholars frequently cite it for studies of events from 1461 to 1474. And while the content during the first eight years of the chronicle’s record can be sparse, nevertheless the events that describe Edward IV’s subjugation of Northumberland9 and Henry VI’s capture in Lancaster in 1465,10 as well as the author’s description of the rebellion in Lincolnshire in 1470, are all noteworthy. As Matheson commented, these (and other) historical entries in the chronicle are important ‘partly on account of the paucity of source materials in general for this period, and partly because of [the history’s] more provincial viewpoint as compared to that of the London chronicle’.11 And, if we look to an even more narrow space of time, the account of the turbulent years from 1469 to 1471 No. 123, in the ‘Abbreviated Version to 1419: Group A, Subgroup (a) (AV–1419:A(a))’ (Matheson, The Prose Brut, p. 205). For item 4, Matheson classifies this Prose Brut text No. 94, one of the ‘Manuscripts containing the Polychronicon 1461 continuation and associated with “Warkworth’s” Chronicle (Poly. 1461 W. C.)’ (ibid., pp. 166–8 (p. 166)). There is a third manuscript for which the Prose Brut text is related to Peterhouse 190 and Hunterian 83: London, British Library, MS Harley 3730. It does not contain ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, but the contents of the manuscript are similar to the corresponding parts in Peterhouse 190 and Hunterian 83. Harley 3730 also has two other Prose Brut texts. Matheson classifies one as ‘the Abbreviated Version to 1419, Group A (AV–1419:A)’ and the other as another of the aforementioned manuscripts with the Polychronicon continuation to 1461 and linked to ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle (see ibid., pp. 204–5 No. 124, 170–2 No. 96, respectively). For a full account of the development of these three manuscripts, and the argument that all three had one central figure (who served as the compiler-owner of Hunterian 83 and author of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, and who also initiated the copying of the Harley 3730 text and the additions to the Peterhouse manuscript) see Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, pp. 77–80. 8 See ibid., pp. 62–7, for Matheson’s repudiation of the scholarship. 9 Ibid., p. 94.1-29. 10 Ibid., pp. 95–6. 11 Ibid., p. 61.



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

53

is especially valuable. Here, ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle provides much detail about Robin of Redesdale’s Rebellion of 1469 and events surrounding Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg, and his unsuccessful Kent rebellion of 1471, which began around the Battle of Tewkesbury (4 May) and culminated in an assault on the eastern suburbs of London. The chronicler speaks these words about the assault, which seem to come from the mouth of Shakespeare’s Henry IV: ‘Lo, what myschef grouth of insurreccioun.’12 In truth, such a comment is in keeping with other chroniclers’ sentiments about the nature of rebellion; such restrained sentiments can be read in a number of late medieval histories that describe rebellions and their propensity to create much more harm than good.13 ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle was written under a Yorkist king, Richard III, around 1484; Hunterian 83, Matheson states, ‘[i]n its present form … must have been assembled soon after 1483’.14 Edward Donald Kennedy notes how the chronicle does contain some pro-Lancastrian bias, such as sympathy for the deposed Henry VI and criticism of Edward IV for failing to establish peace and prosperity, for levying heavy taxes, and for demanding military service. Nevertheless, the tone is generally moderate, and it was not written for political propaganda, as were [John] Hardyng’s Chronicle or the Historie of the Arrival of King Edward IV.15 Kennedy’s assessment of the chronicler’s ‘moderate’ tone is accurate. Indeed, when one reads the passages of the chronicle that describe the capture of Henry VI, his imprisonment in the Tower of London and his death, one may recognize his balanced and at times unbiased reflection. The author’s treatment of Edward IV, and specifically the king’s methods when dealing with treason, are straightforward and lack any condemnation or praise: And in the sext yer off Kyng Edwardes regne þe Lord Hungerford was taken & beheded for hight tresoun at Salesbury. And in the vij yer of Kyng Edwarde Sir Thomas Cooke, Sir John Plummer, knyghtes & aldermen of London, and Humfray Haywarde & oþer aldermen Ibid., p. 117.11-12. See Henry IV’s comments in William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 1, Act V, Sc. 5, in The Riverside Shakespeare, gen. ed. G. B. Evans and J. J. M. Tobin, 2nd edn (Boston MA, 1997), p. 923. 13 For example, a number of the fifteenth-century London chronicles speak ill of the 1450 Jack Cade Rebellion, its leader, and the individuals who take part in it. See the Chronicle of William Gregory, Skinner, in Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. J. Gairdner, Camden Society n.s. 17 (Westminster, 1876), pp. 55–239 (pp. 190–4); An English Chronicle 1377–1461: A New Edition. Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales MS 21608, and Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Lyell 34, ed. W. Marx, Medieval Chronicles 3 (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 67.26–70.13 and The Chronicles of London, ed. C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1905), pp. 158–62. 14 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 68 and n. 14. 15 E. D. Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989), pp. 2642–3.

12

54

Alexander L. Kaufman wer arested and tresoun surmysed vppon them, wheroff they wer acquyte; but the loste gret goodes to þe kyng, to the valow off xlM1 marke or mor; and diuerse tymes in diuerse places of Englond many men wer arested for treson, and som wer put to deth and some scaped, &c.16

The tone of the chronicle is almost universally restrained and straightforward, yet when a number of the portents and wonders are described the author’s voice is more sober and at times cautionary. As noted above, such discretion on the author’s part was perhaps a result of the fast-changing political climate of the fifteenth century, especially during the years of the Wars of the Roses. The political climate of England certainly affected what material the author of the chronicle chose to include in it. Moreover, the writer himself was one who was interested in both national and regional events – those that were commonplace, but also ones that were unique. Matheson did not completely reject the hypothesis that John Warkworth was the compiler-owner of the Hunterian manuscript and author of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, but he did advance two likelier candidates for its authorship, both of whom, like Warkworth, were members of the Society of Peterhouse: Roger Lancaster (b. 1456–1460, d. 1502), who is the stronger candidate, and Thomas Metcalf (b. 1458–62, d. 1503).17 Both were northerners from Yorkshire. Lancaster was the stationer of the chest at Peterhouse for a number of years, and in 1490 he was admitted as vicar of Portisham in Dorset.18 Metcalf was also chestkeeper at Peterhouse, was ordained a deacon and then a priest, and he also served in a number of rectories.19 The educational, religious and geographical backgrounds of these two men are noteworthy, especially when we look at the portents of the chronicle. These portents were written by an educated individual for an audience who connected with and took note of these events and their implicit or explicit meanings. As Keith Thomas has demonstrated, many of these written portents, those recorded from the Middle Ages through to the seventeenth century, ‘were propagandistic in intention and designed for an unsophisticated audience. But it would be wrong to assume that men of education necessarily despised them. Very often they were publicly upheld by the leaders of Church and State.’20 The author of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle does not engage in political propaganda. Although the Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 97.11-18. The Society of Peterhouse, in 1484, ‘consisted of the master and fourteen fellows’ (ibid., p. 82). 18 C. P. Hall states that the ‘post of University stationer (alternatively titled appraiser) involved the valuation of books and other articles placed as pledges in the loan chests, as well as of the chattels of persons whose wills were provided to the university courts. He dealt with the disposal or conversion to cash of such articles …’. See ‘The Gild of Corpus Christi and the Foundation of Corpus Christi College: An Investigation of the Documents’, in Medieval Cambridge: Essays on the Pre-Reformation University, ed. P. Zutshi, The History of the University of Cambridge Texts and Studies 2 (Woodbridge, 1993), pp. 65–91 (p. 75). 19 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, pp. 80–7. 20 K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Belief in Sixteenth- and Seventheenth-Century England (London, 1971; repr. London, 1991), p. 104. 16 17



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

55

prose is not overly intricate and elaborate, the content of the chronicle focuses on wondrous and portentous events that address the precarious political climate of late medieval England. Both lay and learned readers of the chronicle would have taken note of these portents and wonders, especially those that connected a place or an area with a portentous event. In ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, ‘place’ can be diffuse (such as the wonder associated with the bleeding of Henry VI’s corpse and the broad reach of the consequences of his death), or it can be specific (as in the wonder of the headless man, a barghest with northern associations, discussed below). As we will see, the author of the chronicle describes and contextualizes these enigmatic wonders and naturally occurring portentous events in deliberate ways so that the reader can connect them to contemporary, political affairs.

Portents and Wonders in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle When we move into the passages of the chronicle that describe Edward IV’s arrival in London and Henry VI’s death in 1471, we begin to observe the writer departing in a significant manner from the reportage of strictly political events to include detailed discussions of a number of different types of portents. And here his tone can shift from ‘moderate’ to ‘ponderous’ as he attempts to explain the implications of the portents that are of a natural origin. Keith Dockray, in his introduction to Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV, comments thus on the ‘Warkworth’ author’s inclusion of portents: ‘The chronicler certainly has a penchant for portents and astronomical phenomena (although in this respect he is not untypical of later medieval annalists and his occasional flights of fancy need not necessarily discredit his more serious down-to-earth material).’21 The ‘Warkworth’ author is indeed like other late medieval chroniclers in that he includes portents and wonders in his narrative. However, they are more than just ‘occasional flights of fancy’: they play an important role in the author’s construction of English history, and might be seen as ‘real’ events that the chronicler witnessed or as events that were reported to him. It is significant that every portent and wonder in this chronicle is written immediately after a national event of some note. For example, between fols. 146v and 147v of Hunterian 83, which covers Edward IV’s arrival in London and Henry VI’s murder, seven distinct portents and wonders are recorded.22 Some of these portents K. Dockray, introd., Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV (Gloucester, 1988), p. viii. This edition reprints three chronicles from the Camden Society: Halliwell’s edition of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle (pp. 1–101); the Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire, 1470, ed. J. G. Nichols, Camden Miscellany 1 (London, 1847), pp. 103–30; and the Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV. in England and the Finall Recouerye of his Kingdomes from Henry VI. A. D. M. CCCC. LXXI, Camden o.s. 1 (London, 1838), pp. 131–98. 22 The chronicle does contain portents that are recorded before 1471. For example, in 1463 (in Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 94.30-5), this is written: ‘And in the thyrd yer of the reygne of Kyng Edward, & anno domini Mº CCCC lxiij, ther was an feruent froste thrugh Englond, and snowe, that men myght goo ouer the yise, and a feruent cold. And also ther was hold a parleamente at Westmynster, in the whiche was graunted to the kynge an ayd, whiche was as moche money as the xv parte of mennys goodes and an halff so myche mor, wherof the peple grocched sore.’ 21

56

Alexander L. Kaufman

are weather-related phenomena, while another one could be classified as spectral, monstrous and perhaps even metaphysical; the wonders are of a celestial nature, while still others could be classified as religious. The high frequency of portents and wonders that the author included in a small yet historically important section of the chronicle caused me to pause and to reflect on Dockray’s assessment, and here I offer a reassessment. It is my argument in this essay that the portents and wonders in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, especially those that the author leaves unexplained, are best appreciated when read with a political significance, that is, as comments on the woes and/or wrongdoings experienced by the nation in the recent past or as warnings of wars and battles to come. In this sense they are very ‘real’. There are two such wonders that the ‘Warkworth’ author relates without comment, and which will be the focus of my discussion here: the bleeding of Henry VI’s corpse (which I take as one example but it comprises two related marvels); and a talking headless man in 1474, the final portent recorded in the narrative. These ambiguous wonders invite speculation as to their possible political significance, I believe, because the wonders that are explained, mostly natural phenomena, are explicitly linked to civic events. An analysis first of these natural wonders can help us to read the strange, ambiguous occurrences that the author leaves unexplained, inviting us to read them politically. Beginning on fol. 147r of the Hunterian manuscript, the chronicle has lengthy descriptions of several portents that are best described as natural phenomena, all of which are interpreted for us by the author. These are not the only such phenomena to be described in the chronicle, but are apt examples and are close in proximity to a comet that was seen in 1472 and subsequently described in the chronicle.23 First, there is a heat wave in 1473 that damaged crops and caused much death.24 Second, also in 1473, ‘Wemere water ranne hugely with such abundaunce of water þat neuer man sawe it renne so mych afor þis tym’.25 The author of the chronicle presents a detailed explanation of the origin of the word ‘Wemere’ and uses the word ‘token’ to describe the unusual event: (Wemere is called þe ‘woo water,’ ffor Englischmen, when þei first did inhabite þis lond, also sone as they sawe þis water renne, they knewe well hit was a token of derth or of pestelence or of gret bataiell, wherfor þei called it Wemere, for we is in Englisch tong ‘wo,’ and mer is called ‘water,’ which signifith ‘wo-water,’ ffor all þat tyme þei sawe yt renne, þei knewe well þat wo was comyng to Englond.) … And þis Wemer ranne at euery fild afor specified and neuer so hugely as it dide þis yer, for he beganne to renne þe xix day of Feueryer þis same yer and ranne styll to þe xiij day of June next yer folowyng.26 The author of the chronicle describes this comet and its trajectory at length. Unlike the other natural phenomena that are earthy, the chronicler does not interpret the comet, a celestial object, as a portent. 24 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 119.7-15. 25 Ibid., pp. 119.16–17–120.2. 26 Ibid., pp. 119.17–120.2. 23



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

57

This token especially seems to invite readers to link it to political events, unlike others (which can be more elusive). Here, the author is using the token to foreshadow the destruction that will come and to reflect on England’s tumultuous political situation, namely civil war and battles. If portents and wonders lie at the heart of the chronicle, as I am arguing, then this is a significant example of how the portent is written into the history and seen, by the author, to be bound up with (forthcoming) political events. Third, again in the same year, there are more portentous weather events: floods occur in Kent, Canterbury, and six miles from Dudley Castle in a ‘place called Hungervale, þat when it betokeneth bateyll it renneth foule and trouble water, and when it betokeneth derth or pestilence it renneth as cler as any water, but þis yer it ranne ryȝt troble & foull water, &c’.27 Since ancient times, water, and vessels that hold water, have been used to foretell events.28 Unlike the ambiguous wonders that do not elicit the author’s commentary on their meaning(s), the chronicler is here linking these floods and the foul water to politics. And lastly, the chronicler mentions a pit in Kent at Langley Park where, if the pit is dry, there will be war, and if it is wet, nothing bad will happen; of course, the chronicler writes ‘þis yer he is dry’.29 These portents, and many other natural phenomena recorded in the chronicle, all seem to be ill omens. What is more, the meanings of these natural wonders of the world are made more explicit, and are used to reflect England’s situation in the late fifteenth century, which saw constant battles and wars fought on English soil. The tone of the descriptions of these natural wonders, placed within the context of fifteenth-century English politics is, thus, matter-of-fact and austere. This suggests that unexplained wonders could also be read politically, but Ibid., p. 120.6-8. There seem to be at least two possible pits that produce such water. ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle notes the one pit near Langley Park, Kent. In John Collier’s 1633 commonplace book, we read the following passage: ‘There is in the parish of North Taunton, near an house called Bath, a pit, but in the winter a pool, not maintained by any spring, but the fall of rain water, and in summer it is commonly dry. Of this pool it hath been observed that before the death or change of any prince, or some other strange accident of great importance, or any invasion or insurrection, though in an hot and dry season, it will without any rain overflow its banks, and so continue till that bee [sic] past which it prognosticated. It overflowed four times between 1618 and 1648’ (Anecdotes and Traditions Illustrative of Early English History and Literature, Derived from Ms. Sources, ed. W. J. Thoms, Camden Society 5 (London, 1839), p. 122). Here, ‘North Taunton’ is almost certainly North Tawton, Devon. 28 Generally speaking this practice is called scrying. One such area of this pseudo-science is hydromancy, where ‘rivers, lakes, [and] wells’, are used ‘like a speculum’ to try and predict or interpret future events; see T. Besterman, Crystal Gazing: A Study in the History, Distribution, Theory and Practice of Scrying (London, 1924), pp. 1–5 (p. 5). For a thorough survey of primary and secondary sources on scrying, see M. Nelson, ‘Narcissus: Myth and Magic’, The Classical Journal 95 (2000), 363–89, esp. pp. 365–9. The origins of scrying, and especially hydromancy, are uncertain. The first-century BCE writer Varro believed that scrying began in Persia; however, Nelson notes how there is a ‘lack of any evidence for scrying in the ancient Near East’, and concludes that the complex, ritualistic nature of scrying more than likely ‘sprung up independently in various places at various times’ around the world (ibid., pp. 368–9). 29 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, pp. 119.7–120.11 (p. 120.11). 27

58

Alexander L. Kaufman

must have been left ambiguous so as not to create a potentially dangerous situation for the chronicler. As such, the somewhat speculative analysis of these wonders that follows is justified, for an oblique historical record and an event requires, at times, a nuanced reading. Two wonders occur in 1471. Neither is explained, and both involve the bleeding of the corpse of Henry VI. The way in which these wonders are described is unadorned; there is nothing stylized about these events. The two wonders are preceded by two events. In the first, the chronicler records how King Edward sent out ‘commissions to many schires of Englond’ and how, in ten days, 30,000 individuals ‘cam with the kyng to Londoun, and þer he was worchipfully receyued’.30 Note that the masses ‘worchipfully’ received Edward. This adverb is defined by the MED as having a number of secular and religious meanings: ‘(a) With due honor, honorably; with dignity, with courtesy; respectfully; also iron[ically]; also, respectably; (b) reverently, with reverence; devoutly; (c) sumptuously, splendidly, elaborately; [and] (d) magnificently, gloriously.’31 I would posit that this is a wellchosen word that the chronicler selected to describe Edward’s welcome entrance into London. The fealty and respect that this group of some 30,000 show toward Edward is contrasted with events in the paragraph that immediately follows. And so, while one could read ‘worchipfully’ as a marker of benevolence, there is also the indication that perhaps it is used in an ironic manner, for the next passage is devoted to the death of Henry, his public viewing, and finally his burial: And þe sam nyght þat Kyng Edward cam to Londoun, Kyng Harry, beyng in warde in prisoun in þe Tour off Londoun, was put to deth, þe xxj day of Maij, on a Tywesday nyȝt betwix xj & xij of þe cloke, beyng then at þe Tour þe duke of Glowcetre, broþer to Kyng Edward, and many oþer. And on the morowe he was chested and brought to Powlys, and his face was open, þat euery man myȝt se hym, and in hys lyying he bled on the pament þer, and afterward at the Blake Freers was brought & þer he bled newe & fresch, & from thens he was caryed to Chyrchesey Abbay in a bote & was buryed þer in our Lady chapell.32 Charles Ross comments that the death of Henry in the Tower of London ‘on the very night of Edward’s return to London took place in circumstances altogether too convenient for Edward for anyone to believe that he died a natural death’.33 As was written in the pro-Yorkist Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV, the cause of death was that Henry took all that had happened to him with ‘so great dispite, ire, and indignation, that of pure displeasure, and melencoly, he dyed’.34 J. R. Lander states that there is little doubt of Edward’s involvement, and that the king ‘decided upon Ibid., p. 116.5-8. See MED online, ‘worshipfulli (adv.)’, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/ med-idx?type=id&id=MED53457; accessed 24 April 2013. 32 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 116.9-17. 33 C. Ross, Edward IV, Yale English Monarchs (London, 1997), p. 175. 34 Dockray, Three Chronicles, p. 184. 30 31



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

59

his murder, and many believed that the deed was done in the presence of, if not by the hand of, the duke of Gloucester’.35 This unnatural death of Henry VI – a murder, an assassination – elicited two wonders that the ‘Warkworth’ chronicler noted, both of which involve the bleeding corpse. In the first wonder, on the morning after his death, Henry is brought to Saint Paul’s in London. He is in the cathedral in a casket, and his face is uncovered. There, the body miraculously begins to bleed on the church’s pavement. Following this wonder is a second one, very much related to the first. The king’s body was transported to the church of the Blackfriars in a boat; here the final requiems were chanted, and his body, again, miraculously bled. Finally, he is then taken to Chertsey Abbey for his burial. How might one read these two wonders, where the corpse of the king bleeds, miraculously, on two separate occasions? In the Middle Ages, the cruentation (the bleeding of a corpse in the presence of his or her murderer) was one such way criminals were identified.36 The location where the corpse bled is important, for we have two houses of worship, Saint Paul’s and the Blackfriars. One way to read these two wonders could be as a heavenly acknowledgement of Henry’s religious life. He built new libraries, such as one at Salisbury Cathedral in 1445, and founded the new colleges of Eton and King’s (Cambridge), the latter of which honored the Virgin Mary.37 Moreover, Henry is often described as one who was ‘compassionate, humane, and sensitive’, and contemporaries of the king noted how he, throughout his adulthood, pardoned those who were traitors and murderers. Ralph Griffiths argues that the reasons for his leniency, which caused a number of violent criminals to be released back into society and with dire consequences, were ‘humane, merciful, and religious’.38 These wonders, therefore, may be interpreted as a sign of his past religious piety. The chronicler reports this event in much the same manner as he notes the other wonders in the chronicle, as real and not symbolic moments in time. We can, of course, speculate as to how to interpret the double bleeding of the king’s body. One possible interpretation could be that it is meant to suggest the battles of the Wars of the Roses that will continue well after Henry VI’s death. Another interpretation could be that the double bleeding represents the apparent murders of the two princes in the Tower, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, duke of York, so that one unnatural death forecasts more unnatural deaths, in this case, the two innocents, aged twelve and nine respectively. The princes disappeared and were believed to have been murdered (perhaps by Richard III) sometime in the second half of 1483, a time that would coincide with the completion of J. R. Lander, Government and Community, England, 1450–1509 (Cambridge MA, 1980), p. 276. 36 For a general survey of cruentation in the Middle Ages, see R. P. Brittain, ‘Cruentation in Legal Medicine and in Literature’, Medical History 9 (1965), 82–8. 37 R. A. Griffiths, The Reign of Henry VI (Gloucestershire, 1998), pp. 242–4. 38 Ibid., p. 249. Regarding bleeding in Shakespeare’s Richard III, Grace Tiffany comments on how the miraculous bleeding is proof not of Henry’s saintly nature but rather ‘of Richard’s warlike diabolism’, and in ‘3 Henry VI, Henry VI’s healing powers are symbolic rather than literal’ (G. Tiffany, Love’s Pilgrimage: The Holy Journey in English Renaissance Literature (Newark DE, 2006), p. 75).

35

60

Alexander L. Kaufman

‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle.39 The circumstances that surrounded the death of Henry VI were nefarious and almost certainly criminal, and the double bleeding of the king’s corpse not only reminds the reader of the probable crime that occurred but also that this was a momentous event that would usher in several more years of rebellion and upheaval. The extraordinary events of Henry VI’s post-mortem bleeding that the chronicler records do not elicit authorial commentary, for they are too politically sensitive (and also too astonishing, perhaps) to invite an explanation from the chronicler. Nevertheless, Henry’s death was a political event – an authorized assassination, perhaps – and the double bleeding that followed was striking and, we may infer, a sign of political upheaval to come. The final, unexplained wonder is also perhaps the most unusual one of the chronicle: a headless man, conceivably a barghest, who is seen and heard screaming. The event is recorded as having happened in 1474 (the year in which the history ends). A paragraph written immediately before this wonder contains a description of running water, and like the natural phenomena discussed above, water is explicitly said to forecast peril. The foul water is said to ‘betokeneth bateyll’, and when it runs ‘cler’ it ‘betokeneth derth and pestilence’, which suggests that bad times are inevitable no matter what kind of water runs.40 Thus, we read about a succession of nasty portents: the strange water primes the reader to interpret the portent that follows it in a negative light. Indeed, it is proceeded by an account of a headless revenant: Also þis same yer þer was a voise cryyng in the eyr betwixt Laycetre & Bambury, vppon Dunmowheth, and in diuerse oþer places herd, & long tym cryyng “Bowes, bowes, bowes,” which was harde of xl men, and some men saw þat he þat cryed soo was a hedeles man; and many oþer diuerse tokens have be schewed in England þis yer for amendyng off mennys lyvyng.41 Dunsmore Heath, Warwickshire, where the headless man was seen and heard, is around halfway between Banbury (to the south) and Leicester (to the north); around fifty miles separates Banbury and Leicester. We have two central questions: (1) What is it, and (2) Why is it crying ‘Bowes, bowes, bowes’? To answer the first, martyrs may provide some clues as to the identity of the headless man. There are a number of religious figures who this man could be, such as Saint Denis. The latter was martyred around 250 CE, and ‘is usually represented with his head in his hands because, according to the legend, after his execution’ at the hands of non-Christian priests on an island in the Seine, where he preached and converted many, ‘the

See A. J. Pollard, Richard III and the Princes of the Tower (New York, 1991). Alison Weir has suggested that the date of the murder is 3 September 1483; however, this date has found little support from scholars. See A. Weir, The Princes in the Tower (New York, 1994), p. 157. 40 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 120.6-7. 41 Ibid., p. 120.12-16.

39



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

61

corpse rose again and carried the head for some distance’.42 However, the headless man in the portent of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle does not carry his head.43 Yet another possibility is that the headless man is a barghest, sometimes referred to and spelled as ‘barguest’, ‘bahrgeist’ or ‘boguest’.44 These are creatures primarily associated with the north of England – Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire and Lancashire. They assume at will the form of a headless man, a headless lady, a white cat, a rabbit, or dog, or a black dog. The barghest is a fiend that is attached to a particular place, more often than not an isolated piece of land, a wooded area, cloughs or wasteland. The barghest is known as a portent of disaster or death for those who see it; it is also said that death may not visit the person who sees the barghest but could kill a family member instead. Medieval and post-medieval northern folklore records show that if one approaches or touches a barghest, a wound is inflicted on the person, and it will never heal.45 The northern terrain that the barghest normally haunts is not present in this entry in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle. Instead, the author records how the headless creature appeared at ‘Dunmowheth’, not one of the northern counties. According to Matheson, the two likeliest candidates to be the compiler-owner of the J. Stiglmayer, ‘St. Denis’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4 (New York, 1908): http:// www.newadvent.org/cathen/04721a.htm; accessed 5 March 2013. 43 There is also Saint James the Greater, the son of Zebedee and Salome, who was beheaded in 44 CE, and who appears in the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle as a headless revenant, which may serve as an analogue to this event in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle. The episode in the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle describes a vision Turpin had of devils who say they are going to fetch the soul of Charlemagne; they soon return empty-handed and explain that when they were on the point of success a certain headless man from Galicia had appeared and thrown so much stone and timber into the scales against them that they had to give up. The headless man is of course Saint James and the stone and timber represent the churches Charlemagne had built in his honor; see P. G. Foote, The Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle: A Contribution to the Study of the Karlamagnús Saga, London Mediæval Studies, Monograph 4 (London, 1959), p. 2; and The Pseudo-Turpin, Edited from Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin, MS. 17656 with an Annotated Synopsis, ed. H. M. Smyser, Medieval Academy of America Publication 30 (Cambridge MA, 1937), pp. 47–8. 44 For a discussion of the possible literary, folkloric and linguistic origins of ‘barghest’, see the following: A. Smyth Palmer, ‘The “Barghest”’, Notes & Queries, 8th s. 11 (1897), 185; J. Nicholson, ‘The “Bargest”’, Notes & Queries, 8th s. 11 (1897), 334–5; E. Yardley, ‘The “Bargest”’, Notes & Queries, 8th s. 11 (1897), 335; E. Yardley, ‘The “Barghest”’, Notes & Queries, 8th s. 11 (1897), 395; W. C. B., ‘The “Bargest”’, Notes & Queries, 8th s. 11 (1897), 518; W. M., ‘A Cornish Apparition’, Notes & Queries, 10th s. 9 (1908), 392–3; E. Yardley, ‘A Cornish Apparition’, Notes & Queries, 10th s. 9 (1908), 393; and H. S. Cowper, ‘Hawkshead Folk-lore: Charms, Superstition, Witchcraft, and Traditional Customs’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 14 (1866), 371–89. The term barghest was probably not used or known to medieval people, as it is not attested until 1732; see n. barghest, OED Online, June 2015, Oxford University Press, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/15552?redirectedFrom=barghest; accessed 24 April 2013. 45 W. Henderson, Notes on the Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties of England, 2nd edn, Publications of the Folklore Society 2 (London, 1879), pp. 274–5; C. Rose, ‘Barguest’, s. v., in Spirits, Fairies, Gnomes, and Goblins: An Encyclopedia of the Little People (Santa Barbara CA, 1996), p. 35. 42

62

Alexander L. Kaufman

Hunterian manuscript and author of ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, and the person who subsequently copied the Harley 3730 text and made the additions to the Peterhouse manuscript, are two northerners: Roger Lancaster and Thomas Metcalf were both born in Yorkshire.46 While the term ‘barghest’ or any of its derivations is not used in the chronicle, the peculiar nature of this event – of a headless creature crying ‘Bowes, bowes, bowes’ around Dunsmore Heath and many other places – suggests that the author, more than likely a northerner, had a barghest in mind. But how do we interpret the cry ‘Bowes, bowes, bowes’? Because of the non-standard spelling of Middle English, the MED does not provide any firm example of this word as it is spelled in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle. It may refer to the bowels, and in this plural form in particular, ‘the seat of emotions; compassion, mercy, tenderness; feelings, heart’.47 Here, the being may be a portent who orders those who hear its call to look deep into themselves and show compassion and mercy for others in this time of war, pestilence and death. However, the word bowes lacks an l, so alternative interpretations must be advanced. The noun bowes immediately conjures up images of archery bows, in which case the figure’s cry could be a lament for the battles and wars that plague England in the fifteenth century. However, in this context I suggest taking bowes as a verb. It is most likely that the creature is commanding those who hear its call to ‘bow’, that is, to bend down in reverence, to be obedient and submit to God’s will, and to lead a life of devotion and humility.48 Jeremy Harte argues that the ‘headlessness’ of this figure is purely a ‘signifier for the marvellous’, and that its form and actions ‘are on record as monstra, showings’.49 The headless man is the last detailed and concrete portent in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle, though it is not the chronicle’s final statement on portents. Immediately after the description of the headless being, the chronicler also explains, as noted above, how ‘many oþer diuerse tokens have be schewed in England þis yer for amendyng off mennys lyvyng’; in other words, these portents have occurred so that persons could J. A. F. Thomson challenges the provenance of the chronicle as a northern one: ‘In general, if one is trying to place the provenance of a chronicle, the peculiar features which provide the best indication of this are not accounts of major events, news of which would be widely circulated, and sometimes perhaps garbled, but allusions to trivial ones with a predominantly local interest … These indications therefore suggest that a likely location for the author would be in the southeast midlands or Hertfordshire, and a probable place might well be St Albans, a monastery with a long-standing tradition of historical writing’ (‘“Warkworth’s Chronicle” Reconsidered’, English Historical Review 116 (2001), 657–64 (p. 663)). Thompson’s point should be taken into account; however, both Lancaster and Metcalf had northern origins and were Yorkshiremen. Also, the most peculiar of the chronicle’s portents is the barghest, which, as noted above, is associated with the north of England. 47 See MED online, ‘s. v. bŏuel (n.), 3’, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/ med-idx?type=id&id=MED5678; accessed 24 April 2013. 48 See MED online, ‘s. v. bŏuen (v.(1)), 1 and 2’, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/ med-idx?type=id&id=MED5682; accessed 24 April 2013. 49 J. Hart, ‘Hell on Earth: Escaping Devils in the Medieval Landscape’, in The Monstrous Middle Ages, ed. B. Bildhauer and R. Mills (Toronto, 2003), pp. 177–95 (p. 183).

46



‘And Many Oþer Diuerse Tokens …’

63

amend or right the wrongs they have done. In this regard, then, ‘bowes’ could also mean literally and/or figuratively ‘to change one’s direction or position’.50 Such a message would be in keeping with what Matheson has characterized as the welleducated author’s ‘sense of proportion and discrimination’.51 I think the location of the chronicler’s final statement on portents (right after the headless man) is significant, since it suggests that we do read the headless man portent precisely as he says: for people to set forth their lives on a corrected path. Moreover, whereas the author names Dunsmore Heath as the primary location where the headless creature was seen and heard, it was also ‘in diuerse oþer places herd’. While the author-compiler of the chronicle was more than likely a northerner, the tokens that are described exist in a number of topographical locations throughout and above England, suggesting perhaps that these upheavals (the wars and battles of the fifteenth century) were a national concern. All of this bespeaks of an author who is communicating a moral message to his audience. The creature’s crying, and the author’s explanation as to why other such tokens took place, conveys a chronicler who is appealing, perhaps to an entire nation, to correct its wrongs.

Conclusion These tokens in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle – the portents and wonders – are unusual and striking; to modern readers, some of them may seem like science fiction. In a significant essay, Stephen Justice examines whether or not those living in the Middle Ages actually believed in the saints’ lives, the prophetic visions, the portents and the miracle stories they heard or read about.52 At face value, nothing in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle suggests that these miraculous portents did not happen. While modern science could perhaps explain the floods, the foul water and the drought, their connections to contemporary events, made by the author, should not be dismissed as mere fabulations; after all, the chronicler does not treat these portents and the events that surround them as random or incongruous. The portents that are used in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle may appear at first glance to be flights of fancy that distract the reader from the important textual moments that are of a political nature. Yet, when we read the ‘diuerse tokens’ in ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle in the context of the tumultuous fifteenth century, we can begin to understand the purpose of these unusual portents: they seek to make sense out of the incomprehensibility of murder, civil war and other-worldly earthly phenomena. As such, these tokens are integral to the chronicle and important for our understanding of it. The final portent, the yelling, headless body, perhaps signifies the suffering that England and its compiler had witnessed and what would lie ahead for the nation if the deep wounds of war and the immoral and unethical acts of some of its people were not amended. See MED online, ‘s. v. bŏuen (v.(1)), 5a (a)’, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/ med-idx?type=id&id=MED5682; accessed 24 April 2013. 51 Death and Dissent, ed. Matheson, p. 81. 52 Stephen Justice, ‘Did the Middle Ages Believe in Their Miracles?’, Representations 103 (2008), 1–29. 50

chapter four

THE LAWYER AND THE HERALD Dan Embree

A

mong fifteenth-century English chronicles, perhaps the most fascinatingly circumstantial are two that convincingly narrate events during the political and military struggles of King Edward IV from the point of view of eye-witnesses. The first, The Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire (in London, College of Arms, MS Vincent 435), is an account of Edward’s three-week campaign in March of 1470 against local rebels, but, more interestingly, an account of his game of political chess against his cousin, the earl of Warwick, and his brother, the duke of Clarence, for whom the rebels are unwitting pawns. The second, The Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England (in London, British Library, MS Harley 543), is an account of Edward’s three-month campaign from March to May the next year against those same kinsmen (and their new ally, Queen Margaret) to regain his crown after exile in Flanders.1 The texts have much in common: they are apparently official, ostensibly eye-witness, blatantly Yorkist, substantially accurate and surprisingly detailed histories; they are narrowly focused on immediate events – battles, marches, the sending of messages and the gathering of intelligence – without long-term political or historical context, which the intended readers are presumed to know. Such similarities in two texts emanating originally from the same court within little more than a year might naturally lead scholars to speculate that a single chronicler was responsible for both. This possibility is tentatively suggested by, among others, Antonia Gransden, who, in her 1982 Historical Writing in England, writes that ‘the evidence on the authorship of the two works does not preclude the possibility, which is supported by their style, that they were by the same author’.2 But as a result of the detailed and persuasive investigations of Livia Visser-Fuchs, building on the earlier work of J. A. F. Thomson and Richard Firth Green,3 we The Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire, 1470 was edited by J. G. Nichols in 1847 (Camden Miscellany 1), and The Historie of the Arrivall of King Edward IV in England and the finall Recoverie of his Kingdomes from Henry VI, A.D. 1471, by J. Bruce in 1838 (Camden Society OS 1). But my quotations are from an edition of chronicles of the Wars of the Roses that I am preparing. 2 A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1974–82), II, 262. 3 J. A. F. Thomson, ‘“The Arrival of Edward IV” – The Development of the Text’, Speculum 1

64



The Lawyer and The Herald

65

now know enough about the textual histories of these chronicles to complicate, though perhaps not to obviate, the question. It now seems likely that both texts are descended from official diaries, no longer extant, kept on the march by clerks in Edward’s household.4 As soon as the campaigns were concluded, the diaries were mined for the composition of short ‘newsletters’, written in French, to be sent to supporters in Flanders – in the first case to Edward’s brother-in-law and sometime ally, Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, in the second, to the citizens of Bruges, who had sheltered Edward during his exile. Copies of these newsletters survive. The Rebellion newsletter survives in three French texts and one English translation, and that translation, found only in a late sixteenth or early seventeenth century copy, is the text that we call The Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire. It does not seem to have attracted much interest at the time and was not incorporated into later chronicles. The Arrivall newsletter, on the other hand, was widely circulated in French, Flemish, Latin and English versions; thirteen of these survive. The longer Historie of the Arrivall (eight times as long as the newsletter) may have been derived from any of these – not necessarily from the English translations, now usually called the Short Version of the Arrival. Like the Rebellion, the Arrivall survives in a late manuscript – a copy made by the antiquarian John Stow from a book of William Fleetwood, the Recorder of London almost a century after the events. What is clear is that by the time Stow’s copy of the Arrivall appears a century on, the account of Edward’s campaign of 1471 has been wholly transformed from the plodding summary of the newsletter, intended for immediate consumption by a small, foreign audience, into a vigorous and reflective narrative – a proper chronicle, intended for a proper English audience. This complicated textual history, developing through several stages over separate paths during the course of a century, provides us with plausible reasons for doubting that the Rebellion and the Arrivall share a common author. Yet it is true that nothing precludes that possibility. A clerk who accompanied Edward to Lincolnshire in 1470 might have accompanied him back from Flanders in 1471, writing the campaign diaries in both cases. And the same clerk or a different one, chosen for his facility in French, might have composed both newsletters. And the same clerk or a different one might have, at some later point, composed English versions of the campaigns, the Rebellion account based closely on its newsletter, and the Arrivall account greatly expanded for home consumption. These things might have happened, but I do not think they did. 46 (1971), 84–93; R. F. Green, ‘The Short Version of The Arrival of Edward IV’, Speculum 56 (1981), 324–36; L. Visser-Fuchs, ‘Edward IV’s “memoir on paper” to Charles, Duke of Burgundy: the so-called “Short Version of the Arrivall”’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 36 (1992), 167–227; L. Visser-Fuchs, ‘Jean de Wavrin and the English Newsletters: the Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 47 (2003), 217–35. 4 An identity has been tentatively proposed for the author of The Arrivall – Nicholas Harpisfeld, one of Edward’s clerks of the privy seal. But I do not wish to take up that question in this essay, which concerns the chroniclers’ habits of mind, rather than their identities.

66

Dan Embree

It is probably only the two chroniclers’ focus on detail that makes them seem identical. But I am going to suggest that when we take account of the sorts of details they focus on, we can see two very different chroniclers at work – chroniclers who might be called the Lawyer (the writer of the Rebellion) and the Herald (the writer of the Arrivall).5 They are distinguished principally by the way they look at events. The Lawyer looks at events as evidence of motive. He is interested only in preparing an indictment – piling up evidence of the false statements and treacherous actions of Warwick and Clarence. He begins his indictment in a very lawyerly way – with a 254-word sentence that betrays all the tics of legalistic rhetoric and that forecasts the tone and contents of the paragraphs that follow it: First, how be it that our saide souveraigne lorde as a prince, enclined to shew his mercy and pite to his subgettes raither then rigure and straitenesse of his laweȝ, pardonned of late to his saide rebelles all tresons and feloneȝ, trespasseȝ and offenceȝ committed and doon by theym ayeinst his highenese afore the fest of Cristenmes last past, trusting that therby he shuld have coraged [encouraged], caused, and induced theym from that tyme furthe to have been of good, kynd, and lovyng demeanyng [behavior] ayeinst his highenesse; yit they unnaturally and unkyndly withoute cause or occacion yeven to theym by our saide soveraigne lorde, falsly compassed [plotted], conspired, and ymagened [planned] the final destruccion of his most roiall personne and of his true subgettes taking parte with him in assisting his highnesse, in so moche as whan he was commen unto Waltham the vi day of Marche – on the morue after, the vii day of Marche – there was brought unto him worde that Robert Welleȝ, calling hym self grete capteyn of the comons of Lincolneshire, had doo made [caused to be made] proclamacion in all the churcheȝ of that shire the Sonday, the iiii daye of Marche, in the kinges name, the duc, erle, and his owne name – everye man to come to Ranby Hawe upon the Tuesday, the vi day of Marche, upon payne of dethe to resist the king in comyng down into the saide shire, saying that his comyng thidre [thither] was to destroie the comons of the same shire, as apperethe by the copie of the same.6 The vocabulary here is distinctly legal (laweȝ, pardonned, tresons, feloneȝ, trespasseȝ, offenceȝ, conspired). The nine proper clauses of this sentence are interrupted by ten participial and infinitive phrases, suggesting a writer who thinks easily in Latin – especially in ablative absolutes. Documentary evidence is alluded to (‘as apperethe by the copie of the same’), thus assuring the reader that proof is available – just not right here, right now. The obvious is compulsively clarified (‘Cristenmes last past’; ‘his saide rebelles’; ‘the saide shire’, and twice ‘our saide souveraigne lorde’ – as if In calling the author of the Arrivall the Herald, I am following the speculation of Green, ‘The Short Version’, p. 335, though he applied it only to the author of the original, Short Version, and I am applying it to the author of the longer version. They may, of course, be the same. 6 MS Vincent 435, fol. 1r. 5



The Lawyer and The Herald

67

some other sovereign lord might be mistakenly inferred by the reader). Above all, the passage relies on the doublets and triplets of multi-lingual legalese (mercy and pite; rigure and straitenesse; tresons and feloneȝ; trespasseȝ and offenceȝ; committed and doon; coraged, caused, and induced; good, kynd, and lovyng; unnaturally and unkyndly; cause or occacion; compassed, conspired, and ymagened) – a technique employed in Anglo-Norman England to convey meaning to French-speaking gentry and English-speaking peasants as well as Latin-reading lawyers, but in the late fifteenth century (and in the early twenty-first) just a lawyer’s tic. Overall, the sentence is an attempt to bind, imprison and confine meaning (and the conspirators) in an inescapable mesh of words. And words are the Lawyer’s thing. He is comfortable in a world of words – of messages, orders, intelligence reports, negotiations, oaths, commissions, deliberations, conspiracies, proclamations, speeches, charges, summonses, pardons, confessions. His characters are the men who speak the words, or the men who write the words, or surprisingly, the men who simply carry the words. In the latter category, six couriers are mentioned by name, two others by title, and several more by some vaguer description – priest, servant, child. In the 377-line edition of the chronicle I am preparing, the words message, letre, writting, tidinges, billeȝ and communicacions appear forty-one times, and words for specific types of documents (pardonneȝ, summons, commissions, etc.) another eighteen times. The texts of several letters are summarized or quoted. The Lawyer is less at home in a world of things – at least things that do not directly support his brief. He is obliged, of course, since he is chronicling a military campaign, to deal with things occasionally, but when obliged, he deals with them as lightly and as briefly as possible. Smack in the middle of this military campaign, there is – unavoidably – a battle! The Lawyer devotes the second half of one (admittedly lengthy) sentence to his description of the battle of Empingham, and manages to tell us exactly three things about its conduct: that Edward executed two rebel leaders on the field before the fighting started, that he won and that he ordered the commons to be spared. We know very little about this battle, and almost nothing that we do know comes from the Lawyer. We think that artillery was used, but he does not say. As a member of Edward’s household, he surely knew who commanded the wings of Edward’s army, but he does not think their identities are important – not as important as the identities of couriers. It is tempting to accuse the Lawyer of sloth or cowardice, surmising that he stayed back at headquarters in Stamford and missed the battle altogether, or of ignorance, guessing that even if he witnessed it, he did not understand what he was looking at. Either charge may well be true, but they are beside the point. The author knows what he needs for the kind of document he is writing. Artillery and commanders’ identities would be superfluous in his indictment. But the identities of couriers are part of the chain of evidence: that a courier named Master Richard who was a chaplain of the earl of Warwick delivered a specific and demonstrably false message to the king at Doncaster on 18 March 1470 nails down one of his charges. This principle of selection explains two details that the Lawyer appends to his description of the battle – details, not surprisingly, involving words. One is that the

68

Dan Embree

rebels had shouted Warwick’s name as their battle-cry, and the other is that, after the battle, a small box containing letters from Clarence was found on the field. Together, these details make a prima facie case for the Lawyer’s main charge in the text: that the Lincolnshire rebels opposing the king to his front have been secretly directed and supported by the ‘grete rebelleȝ’ (Clarence and Warwick), pretending to march to the king’s aid behind him. The Herald, on the other hand, provides a narrative that is at once historical and literary. Though his chronicle has stood up well to modern historians’ examinations in the light of other sources, it makes extensive use of narrative techniques that are essentially literary: dramatic tension, conflict, ambiguity, uncertainty and human interest. That he manages this without falling into the conventions of romance or a vita regis is a testimony to his skill. The chronicler’s description of the Battle of Barnet (fols. 39r–39v) is classic military history – clear, economical, dramatic. In contrast to the Lawyer’s narrative point of view, which never strays from headquarters, reporting facts only as they come in and always accounting for how they came – sound policy for someone preparing testimony – the Herald grants himself license to shift his point of view from place to place and from mind to mind from Warwick: … weninge [thinking] gretly to have anoyed the kinge, & his hooste, with shot of gonnes, th’erls fielde [army] shotte gunes almoste all the nyght … to Edward: … undarstandinge that the day approched nere, betwyxt iiij & v of þe cloke, natwithstandynge there was a great myste & letted [hindered] the syght of eithar othar, yet he comyttyd his cawse and qwarell to Allmyghty God, avancyd bannars, dyd blowe vp trumpets, and set vpon them … to Warwick’s troops: … manly and coragiowsly receyved them, as well in shotte as in hand-stroks whan they joyned … to Edward’s troops: … therby in nothing discoragyd, for, save only a fewe that were nere vnto them, no man wiste thereof … to the public back in London: … anon ranne to Westmynstar, & to London, & so forthe furthar to othar contries, that the kynge was distressed [defeated], & his fielde [battle] loste, … He is conventional in portraying the adversaries in moral terms: Warwick had an ‘yvell and malicious purpos’; Edward fought ‘mannly, vigorowsly and valliantly’. But after Edward gave the order to attack, the chronicler avoids the conventional fiction that the commander sees and controls all subsequent actions. Instead, he acknowledges that the battle developed as it did, partly from deliberate tactics:



The Lawyer and The Herald

69

… the kyng, and his hoste, kept passinge greate silence … and made, as who saythe, no noyse, whereby they might nat know the very place where they lay … but partly from atmospheric conditions: … for it was right derke, and he myght not well se where his enemyes were enbataylled [deployed] afore hym, he lodged hym, & all his hoste, afore them, moche nere then [nearer than] he had supposed, … … the myste, whiche suffred neythar party to se othar, but for a litle space, and that of lyklyhod cawsed the bataile to be the more crewell & mortall … and largely from chance and confusion: For, so it was, that the one ende of theyr batayle [army] ovarrechyd [extended past] th’end of the kyngs battayle, and so, at that end, they were myche myghtyar than was the kyngs bataile … that joyned with them, … The Herald stays close to the concrete particularity of the campaign, not only to big-picture facts like dates and routes of march and enemy order of battle, and the names of important casualties, but to details of fighting (the lay of the battlefield, the range of weapons, the relative armaments of the opposing forces) and to details of marching (exhaustion, the drinking of muddy water, the reactions of the local people). It is his command of detail that suggests to me that the author of this latter, longer version of The Arrivall was an eye-witness – perhaps not the same eye-witness who authored the Short Version, but someone who observed much of the campaign directly, as he claims, and who filled in gaps with what he heard from others afterward. The Herald delights in the play of chance – in the darkness that allows Edward to place his troops nearer to Warwick’s than he realizes (and nearer than Warwick realizes, so that Warwick’s artillery passes harmlessly over the heads of Edward’s men), and in the fog that prevents each army from realizing that its right wing has out-flanked the other’s left wing. The Herald’s Edward is heroic, of course, but not too heroic to be interesting. He fights bravely at Barnet, but once the battle is underway, he seems to have little effect on its conduct. He is by turns tricky and tricked – deceiving the citizens of York into thinking he has returned to claim only his title as duke of York, but later being outsmarted by Margaret, who pretends to offer battle at Sudbury and then stands him up to steal a march in the race to the Severn crossings. He is pious on Palm Sunday (when he delays his departure from Daventry to hear services and is rewarded by the miraculous opening of a reliquary), but a week later skips Easter services to march off to fight at Barnet. The Lawyer works always toward closure, conclusion, conviction. Though his day-by-day account of events acknowledges temporary uncertainty produced by the duplicitous statements and actions of Clarence and Warwick, his final account admits of no ambiguity: treason was ‘certeinly’ intended, ‘apered clerely’, was proved ‘by the warkeȝ aftre’, ‘was knowleged’, ‘was aftre clerely confessed’, was ‘affermed to be true by theire otheȝ’, was proved in documents that are ‘redy to be shewed’

70

Dan Embree

(documents that are mostly not included and have not come to light since), and was ‘confessed of ther fre willeȝ, unconstreyned and undesired’ – that is, one suspects, extracted under torture. The Herald, in contrast, though providing a narrative that moves steadily forward with clarity and confidence, is nevertheless open to a certain level of uncertainty: some things were ‘lykly … to be trewe’; others ‘may be resonably judged’ to have a particular meaning; other questions ‘men may iuge at theyr pleaswre’. And there are some matters that he admits remain open to various and contradictory explanations: the failure of local forces to oppose Edward upon his landing in Yorkshire might have resulted because of his pretense that he was only seeking his rights as Duke of York, or because his men were better armed and looked like they meant business, or even, perhaps, because he had bribed the local leaders; Warwick refuses to accept Edward’s pardon perhaps because he thought his offenses against the king were too great to be pardoned, or because he did not dare to break the oaths he had sworn to Queen Margaret, or else because he had planned a good escape from England if events went against him, or even because his fellow rebels, such as the earl of Oxford, would not let him. Even events that the Herald regards as definite, he understands as complex. In contrast to the Lawyer, who is interested only in results, in ultimate, indictable offenses, and who sees all hostile acts as proceeding from a single, prearranged, monolithic malevolence, the Herald is interested in causes, competing influences, the interaction of forces that have produced a result. His instinct is to open up an action to examination, pausing the forward movement of his narrative for fifty or sixty lines to work out what brought it about. The astounding failure of the Marquis Montagu, Warwick’s brother, to confront Edward as he slipped his still small army past Montagu’s castle is partly attributable to Edward’s popularity in the neighborhood, but partly also to Edward’s putative, tacit understanding with the earl of Northumberland, whom the locals held in higher regard than Montagu, and partly also to the fierceness of Edward’s Flemish mercenaries, and even partly to the fact that no other forces had opposed Edward in the territory through which he had already past. The fourth reversal of position by false, fleeting Clarence, when he abandoned his alliance with Warwick and Queen Margaret, was perhaps provoked partly by his recognition that he had given up any chance of succession, partly by his second thoughts about being at war with his brother, partly by his perception that no matter which side won, his wealth and status were unlikely to be increased, and partly by his belated perception that changing sides had not made Queen Margaret and her supporters love him. The Herald is, of course, not without purpose or bias – he misses no chance to present Edward in a favorable light and even, on the tricky matter of Henry VI’s murder, is willing to fiddle the dates to put Edward out of town at the moment that Henry dies ‘of pure melancholy and displeasure’.7 But his recognition that history is a process and a mystery – complex, susceptible to analysis, but finally This point has been made by C. L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913), p. 175, and by Green, ‘The Short Version’, p. 336.

7



The Lawyer and The Herald

71

not perfectly knowable – shows him to be the more modern historian as well as the better writer. In sum, the differences between these writers are so stark and so fundamental that I cannot think that the suggestion of their identity was ever really derived from a close analysis of their styles. Instead, the emergence of two chronicles from the same court dealing with events separated by less than a year and both built upon detailed and apparently first-hand observation seemed too great a coincidence to be otherwise explained. But a clearer understanding of the bureaucratic process by which the chronicles came to be written and a closer look at the styles in which they were written should put this suggestion to rest.

part ii

THE PROSE BRUT

chapter five

LONGLEAT HOUSE MS 55: AN UNACKNOWLEDGED BRUT MANUSCRIPT? Erik Kooper

I

n his unsurpassed standard work on the Prose Brut chronicles, published in 1998, Lister Matheson discusses, or at least mentions, every manuscript then known to contain an Anglo-Norman, Latin or Middle English version of the text.1 Due to his thoroughness only a few manuscripts have since then been added to his list, for example by Lister himself and by Edward Donald Kennedy.2 But exactly because of that thoroughness we must assume that Matheson did in fact see the manuscript that is the subject of this essay: Longleat House MS 55; after all, he discusses Longleat 183A, a manuscript of the Common Version to 1419. Then why did he not include Longleat 55? It is the purpose of the present essay to try and shed some light on this.

MS Longleat 55 MS Longleat 55 is a parchment manuscript of sixty-eight folios generally known as Liber Rubeus Bathoniae (the Red Book of Bath), kept in the library of Longleat House in Wiltshire, the ancestral home of the marquesses of Bath. It contains thirtyeight texts mostly of historical, legal and ecclesiastical content, in Latin prose (the vast majority), Middle English and Anglo-Norman. From the contents of the manuscript both its place of origin and the date of its production can be deduced with a fair amount of certainty: it was probably compiled

L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998). 2 In an Appendix to his paper read at the 2011 conference at Dartmouth College on the rediscovered and digitized ‘Dartmouth Brut’ (formerly MS Foyle, Beeleigh Abbey, Maldon, Suffolk, one of the ‘Unlocated Manuscripts’), Matheson describes one new manuscript, some fragments and three so-called ‘king-lists’; see his ‘Contextualizing the Dartmouth Brut: From Professional Manuscripts to “The Worst Little Scribbler in Surrey”’, Journal of Digital Philology 3 (2014), 215–39; E. D. Kennedy, ‘Glastonbury’, in The Arthur of Medieval Latin Literature, ed. S. Echard (Cardiff, 2011), pp. 109–31. The genealogical roll discussed by Jaclyn Rajsic in this volume should be added to the list as well. 1

75

76

Erik Kooper

Plate 1 Beginning of the Latin Brut chronicle in Longleat House MS 55, fol. 35v, with, in the second paragraph, the story of the founding of Totnes



Longleat House MS 55

77

in Bath for use by the town’s magistrates between 1412 and 1430,3 and written almost in its entirety by one copyist, in a clear cursiva anglicana with Secretary admixtures.4 According to the Linguistic Atlas of Late Middle English the language of the Middle English pieces is predominantly southwestern, more precisely Somerset.5 The text from this manuscript with which this essay is concerned is a Latin Prose Brut chronicle; it is preceded by a Latin genealogy of Mary and Christ, and followed by a Latin genealogical tree supporting the English claim to the French crown, with, on the same page, the three prerequisites for the just cause of war (Tria requirimenta ad iustum bellum).6 The main body of the manuscript consists of eight quires.7 The text of the Latin chronicle runs from the middle of the fourth quire to the middle of quire six (fols. 35v–53v). It is interrupted by a poem in Middle English, known as Arthur, which tells the life and death of King Arthur, straddling quires five and six (fols. 42v–46r), after which the Latin chronicle is resumed. In 2011 Marije Pots and I published an edition of this poem,8 which in 2012 was followed by an article by Julia Marvin and me in which we presented evidence that the Oldest Version of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut was its most important source.9 While attention in these two essays was directed at the English text, this time the focus will be on the Latin one, although the poem cannot, of course, be completely ignored.

See M. W. Bryan, ed., ‘A Critical Edition and Verse Translation of Arthur’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1978), p. 5; R. W. Ackerman, ‘English Rimed and Prose Romances’, in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, ed. R. S. Loomis (Oxford, 1959), pp. 480–519 (p. 484); B. Schmolke-Hasselmann, Der arthurische Versroman von Chrestien bis Froissart: Zur Geschichte einer Gattung (Tübingen, 1980), p. 57; M. Pots and E. Kooper, ed., ‘Arthur. A New Critical Edition of the Fifteenth-Century Middle English Verse Chronicle’, The Medieval Chronicle 7 (2011), 239–66. Bryan also discusses the dating proposed by nineteenth-century German scholars. For a more detailed list of the manuscript’s contents, see M. Pots, ‘Re-evaluating King Arthur. A New Critical Edition of the Fifteenth-Century Middle English Chronicle Arthur’ (unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, Utrecht University, 2007), pp. 101–10. 4 Only the first two folios are in a different and probably later hand. 5 See Arthur, ed. F. J. Furnivall, 2nd edn, EETS OS 2 (London, 1869), p. vi; Bryan argues this much more fully and calls the language ‘basically Southern, specifically SouthWestern’ (‘Critical Edition of Arthur’, p. 11). This southwestern nature of the dialect was further defined as ‘Somerset’ in A. McIntosh, M. L. Samuels and M. Benskin, A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, 5 vols. (Aberdeen, 1986), I, 137: ‘Main hand of English items’ LP 5280. It has been suggested that it was compiled in Bath Cathedral Priory, roughly around the time of John Tellesford, Prior of Bath from 1411 to 1425. 6 Pots, ‘Re-evaluating King Arthur’, pp. 107, 108. 7 Ibid., pp. 20–5. 8 Arthur, ed. Pots and Kooper. The text had been edited twice before, in 1869 by Furnivall, and as a Ph.D. thesis in 1978 by Bryan. Furnivall’s edition is now available on the internet as part of the Gutenberg Project (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/16845/16845-h/16845-h. htm; accessed October 2014), but it lacks a satisfactory introduction, explanatory notes and glossary. Bryan’s dissertation was never formally published. 9 E. Kooper and J. Marvin, ‘A Source for the Middle English Poem Arthur’, Arthuriana 22.4 (2012), 25–45. 3

78

Erik Kooper

The Arthur Poem and its Latin Context Unlike most Prose Brut texts, the Latin chronicle opens with the arrival of Brutus in Britain, skipping the often detailed account of his earlier exploits, and the Albina legend.10 The text continues in the traditional manner with a history of the British kings from Brutus and his sons up to the time of Uther Pendragon. Uther’s life and actions are described briefly, ending with the well-known story of the begetting of Arthur. After Uther’s death we learn that Arthur is crowned, and for another page and a half we are given a fairly detailed account of his exploits, ending with the battle with Cheldericus, a Germanic leader who had come over from Germany to side with the Scots and the Irish against Arthur. After defeating their combined forces, Arthur returns to York for the winter. In the concluding lines on fol. 42r we are told that he rewards his men and decides to have the Round Table made. The page breaks off just after the first word of a new sentence, ‘Et’, and at the top of the next page, fol. 42v, the poem Arthur begins. As a look at the manuscript reveals, the poem ends halfway down the second column of fol. 46r with the word ‘Amen’. The remaining space of the page is neatly filled out by the scribe with ten lines of verse containing the promise that he will continue by enumerating all subsequent kings and their names. So, where the change from Latin chronicle to English poem was abrupt and unprepared for, the scribe here takes great care to provide his audience with a smooth return to the Latin chronicle, which resumes on fol. 46v. Its opening sentence reads: Post Arthurum regnauit Constantinus, filius Cador, Comitis Cornubie, nepos Arthuri; iste Constantinus interfecit duos filios Mordredi spurios, qui moverunt bellum contra eum propter patrem eorum. (‘After Arthur reigned Constantine, son of Cador, Earl of Cornwall, nephew of Arthur; this Constantine killed the two illegitimate sons of Mordred who waged war against him for the sake of their father.’)11 In what follows the author duly fulfills his promise, and we are given the names and main events from the reigns of all the usual British, Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Plantagenet kings that one encounters in a Prose Brut, until the death of Richard II.12 The fact that, and the way in which, the scribe incorporated the Arthur poem into the text of the Latin chronicle he was copying shows him to be a versatile person. We shall see that the Latin chronicle bracketing Arthur confirms this impression. Jaclyn Rajsic points out to me that several short chronicles are comparable in this to Longleat 55, i.e., they start when Brutus is already in Britain. Genealogical chronicles like the Hague Roll (for which see below) open by saying that Brutus arrives in Engletere without any account of his journey beforehand. Le Petit Bruit and copies of the Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle do the same. 11 All translations from Longleat 55 and the Hague Roll are my own. 12 As always there are a few differences between the various histories. Thus the last British king given by Longleat 55 is Cadwan. In the Oldest Version of the AN Prose Brut this Cadwan has a son, Cadwalein, while in Geofrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae this Cadwalein/Cadwallo also has a son, Cadwallader. For a more detailed discussion of the differences that may occur, see the essay in this volume by Jaclyn Rajsic. 10



Longleat House MS 55

79

The Longleat Latin Brut Chronicle In his famous work on the Middle English Prose Brut chronicle, Lister Matheson listed nineteen manuscripts containing a Latin version of the text. Edward Donald Kennedy, in a paper published in 2011, mentions a total of twenty-five. Neither of them, however, includes Longleat 55 – unfortunately, for what an interesting text this is. In what follows I will give a general description of the text and discuss a few of its more salient features, which will show the compiler to be someone who is actively engaged in the work he had undertaken, in the sense that he abridges, excises and interpolates material as he sees fit, turning the text into a highly personal variant of the existing, well-known type of Prose Brut chronicle as described by Matheson.13 In his book Matheson gives a general outline of the contents of the original Anglo-Norman Brut chronicle that is at the basis of all other versions. It attributes the discovery of Britain to Brutus, and then covers the history of Britain from Brutus to the death of Henry III in 1272. To this history the majority of the texts have added a preface giving ‘a second foundation story that accounts for the presence of the giants whom Brutus defeats’, based on the Anglo-Norman poem Des Grantz Geanz. Later versions of the Prose Brut, as well as their Middle English and Latin translations, converted the prefatory poem into prose and added continuations to the body of the main text, the longest of these, in Middle English, extending as far as 1479/82.14 The first major difference between Longleat 55 and the Common Version of the Prose Brut chronicle is that it skips all events preceding the arrival of Brutus in Britain: there is no preface on the origin of the giants, and nothing on the ancestry of Brutus, his exile from Lombardy or the liberation of the Trojans held captive by the king of Greece. Nor do we hear about the sacrifice to the goddess Diana, or her reply, which is only hinted at in the opening sentence: Brutus post destruccionem magne Troie veniens in Insulam tunc nominatam Albion iuxta responsum Dyane Anno millesimo centessimo ante incarnacionem …15 (‘After the destruction of great Troy Brutus, coming to the island then called Albion following the reply of Diana, in the year 1100 before the Incarnation …’) In all Brut texts the first thing Brutus does after he has defeated the giants is build Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 49–53. Ibid., pp. 1–3. 15 MS Longleat 55, fol. 35v. It is unusual that the year of the arrival of Brutus in Britain is given. If chronicles have a time reference at all it is to the fall of Troy, dated at 1240 BC. But most manuscripts of Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle have 1130 for Brutus’s arrival, the first of a number of ‘chronological notes’, which, according to the Chronicle’s editor, ‘appear to be added by the compiler’ (The Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, ed. W. A. Wright, 2 vols., Rolls Series 86 (London, 1887), p. xvi). Jaclyn Rajsic informs me that genealogical rolls, like the Hague Roll and its relatives, have 1200 BC, which is the same date as found in, e.g., Robert Mannyng’s Chronicle. 13 14

80

Erik Kooper

a city on the bank of the River Thames: Troia Nova, nowadays known as London. Not in Longleat 55, however: Et inde scrutatus est Brutus loca insule vbi villam edificaret ad quietem ipsius et suorum; et primitus disposuit edificare in Deuonia in quodam loco vbi quando venit ad insulam applicuit vbi ipsem cum suis deliciose fuerant recreati vnde et locum illum nominauit sic Tout en Ese, quod sonat totum in quiete, wlgariter dictum Totenesse in Deuoneschire. Sed fertilierem et situ nobiliorem inueniens locum super Riuum et nobilem Thamesiam; tunc illuc edificauit Ciuitatem .ccc tis lxxxx. annis ante constructionem vrbis Rome, quam ipse appellauit Ciuitatem Noue Troie, in memoriam illius Troie vnde ipse venit cum eius progenia.16 (‘And then Brutus looked for places on the island where he might build a city for the rest and peace of himself and his followers. And he decided to begin by building in Devon at the selfsame place where he had first set foot on the island and where he and his men had felt pleasantly relaxed, for which reason he called the place thus Tout en Ese, which means “Completely at Ease”, or in the vernacular “Totenesse”, in Devonshire. But having found a more fertile and more noble place at the noble river Thames, he built there a city 390 years before the establishment of Rome, which he named the city of New Troy, in memory of that Troy from which he himself and its progeny had come.’)17 To the best of my knowledge this anecdote is unique to Longleat 55: no earlier or later text has Brutus build a city at Totnes, nor do they have this etymology of the city’s name. The only possible reference to the establishment of Totnes by Brutus occurs in a local legend, mentioned in an article by Theo Brown, which has it that when Brutus stepped off his ship at Totness, he stood on a stone, from which he declaimed, in astonishingly good English for a Trojan: ‘Here I am and here I rest And this town shall be called Totness.’18 MS Longleat 55, fol. 35v. A faint echo of this concern to find a place to build a new town where he and his men could be ‘at ease’ is heard in some earlier texts, e.g., in Wace’s Roman de Brut (‘il out quis leu covenable / E aaisiez e delitable’, lines 1219–20), or Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle (‘Brut wende vorþ in to Engelond & espied vp & doun / Vor to seche an eysi place vor to rere an heued toun’, lines 528–9). Similar phrases occur in the chronicles of Thomas Castleford (‘A stabyll sted and of gret ese’, line 2483), and Robert Mannyng (‘[a place] where was eyse wonnyng for men’, line 1888). 17 Again Longleat 55 is unique in giving the date of the foundation of London: 390 + 754 = 1144 BC. This tallies well with the date given for the arrival of Brutus in Britain, 1100 BC. Another remarkable feature of this namegiving is that Brutus apparently speaks French. With Geoffrey of Monmouth, followed by Wace and Laȝamon, the original language of Brutus is referred to as ‘Troiana siue curvum Graecum’ (‘Trojan or crooked Greek’; The History of the Kings of Britain, ed. Michael D. Reeve, trans. Neil Wright, Arthurian Studies LXIX (Woodbridge, 2007), Bk I, 461–2). 18 T. Brown, ‘The Trojans in Devon’, The Devonshire Association 87 (1955), 63–76 (p. 68). 16



Longleat House MS 55

81

According to Brown the stone on which Brutus stood was mentioned by local historian John Prince in 1675 and can still ‘be seen at this day, let into the pavement of Fore Street, outside No. 37’.19 Brut chronicles, like so many other historiographical works, abound with such explanations of the names of cities, castles and rivers, the best known of course being Britain, which Brutus named after himself, and Cornwall, named after Corineus, but there are also Leicester, named after Leir, Ludgate, named after Lud, and many others. Longleat 55 does have these but distinguishes itself by a few which occur nowhere else. One was the account of the founding of Totnes, here follows another. When Hengist has defeated Vortigern’s enemies, he asks the king for a reward: Et Engistus rogauit regem vt daret ei locum de concilio suorum procerum quantum posset circumdare cum coreo vno vbi posset edificare ei et suis mansionem. Et Vortigernus concessit. Empto quia corio vnius tauri, sudit20 ipsum in paruissimas vel minimas corigias et cum eis circumduxit locum sibi desideratum aptum suo preposito, quem locum appellauit ligua sua Saxonia, quia illum cum corio sic tegebat, Doo Ouere, quem locum nominamus ab inde Douerria, vna de quinque portibus in Cancia vbi construxit forte castrum quod ipse nominauit Twhang Castell, quod sonat castrum corrigiarum.21 (‘And Hengist asked the king to give him a plot of land where he could build a mansion for himself and his men, which at the advice of his nobles should be as big as could be encircled by a hide. And Vortigern granted that. Having acquired the hide of a bull he cut it up in very small strips and with these he marked off the desired site which he thought suited his plan, which place he named in his Saxon language, because he had covered it with a hide: Doo Overe, which place we have since then called Doverria, one of the Cinque Ports in Kent, where he erected a strong castle which he called Thwang Castell, which means “Castle of Thongs”.’) Apart from the fact that this story is known from no other Brut-like source,22 the appearance of the verb to do over in the sense ‘to cover’ is also curious. The MED does not have it, and according to the OED its first occurrence in this sense is in 1611 (s.v. to do.VI.50), two centuries later than Longleat 55.23 Numerous additional examples could be adduced to show that the compiler of Ibid. However, when I checked the relevant passage in Prince’s book, Worthies of Devon (1675), p. 710, it appeared that it is correct that Prince describes the stone briefly, but that he does not give the distich. 20 sudit: this verb has not made it to the dictionaries; it was probably based by the translator on the noun sudis, ‘a sharp object’, which could be used for cutting. I owe this explanation to my colleague Arpád Orbán, Professor Em. of Medieval Latin at Utrecht University, who also assisted with the translation of a few other tricky Latin passages. 21 MS Longleat 55, fol. 40r. 22 The story itself is not new: Virgil recounts the legend that Dido bought the land on which she established Carthage with the same ruse (Aeneid I, 366–8). 23 See ‘do, v.’, OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2014, which has an earlier 19

82

Erik Kooper

this Latin Brut chronicle has left quite a personal stamp on his text, not only due to the way he abbreviates, expands or alters it, but especially by his idiosyncratic accretions with descriptions of events, persons or places. His account of the burial place of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury may illustrate this point.

Joseph of Arithmathea in Longleat 55 The story of Joseph of Arimathea, who brought the Grail with the blood of Christ to England, is well known nowadays, but this knowledge mainly derives from romance material. According to Valerie M. Lagorio it is not well attested in chronicles, which makes the following passage in Longleat a rarity.24 It is short but significant: Iste Aruiragus vt scribit Melkynus qui erat ante Merlinum concessit Joseph ab Armathia venienti in hanc insulam vocatam insulam Auilonum, hoc est insulam pomorum iuxta liguam Britonum vel Wallicorum Ynewrytum, vbi vt dicit idem accepit sibi sompnum suum perpetuum, et iacet in meridiano angulo linea bifurcate oratorij adorande virginis. habet enim25 secum duo vascula alba et argentea de cruore et sudore magni prophete Jesus perimpleta. Per multum eciam tempus ante diem iudicij corpus eius integrum et illibatum inuenietur; et erit apertum toti orbi terrarum. Ex tunc ros nec pluuia deficiet in illa insula.26 (‘This Arveragus, as is written by Melkynus, who was before Merlin, conceded the island called Avalon to Joseph of Arimathea when he came to this island. This is the “Island of Apples” according to the British language or Welsh “Ynewrytum”, where, as Melkynus says, he [i.e., Joseph] accepted eternal slumber and lies on a divided line in the southern corner of the oratory for the worship of the Virgin. He has with him two white and silver vessels completely filled with the blood and sweat of the great prophet Jesus. For a long time before the Day of Judgment his body will be discovered, whole and undecayed. And it will be visible to the whole world. Since then neither dew nor rain were lacking on that island.’)27 citation, from 1588: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/56228?redirectedFrom=to+do+over; accessed 16 January 2015. 24 See V. M. Lagorio, ‘The Evolving Legend of St Joseph of Glastonbury’, Speculum 46 (1971), 209–31, who gives Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle and one other example; Kennedy adds a few more (‘Glastonbury’, p. 122). 25 enim: the manuscript has an abbreviation here which is hardly legible, but enim is a possibility that suits the context and is moreover supported by the text in John of Glastonbury’s Chronicle; see The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. J. P. Carley, trans. D. Townsend (Woodbridge, 1985), p. 54. 26 MS Longleat 55, fol. 38v. 27 The translation of this passage leans heavily on David Townsend’s translation of the almost identical passage in John of Glastonbury’s Chronicle (Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. J. P. Carley, pp. 54–5). For the history of the British name of Avalon, Ynys Wydrin, which is used several times by John of Glastonbury, see Ceridwen LloydMorgan, ‘From Ynys Wydrin to Glasynbri: Glastonbury in Welsh Vernacular Tradition’,



Longleat House MS 55

83

Joseph of Arimathea, the Grail, Glastonbury and Arthur became connected around 1200, through on the one hand the French Grail romances, starting with those of Robert de Boron, and on the other the exhumation of Arthur’s remains in the abbey cemetery of Glastonbury in 1191 – which was then identified as Avalon.28 According to James Carley the chronicle of John of Glastonbury, written c. 1340, ‘represents the first organised attempt to update’ the material collected by William of Malmesbury two hundred years earlier in his De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae (a. 1139), and although John’s chronicle is ‘a remarkable piece of eclecticism’, John managed ‘to create a coherent and persuasive narrative of Joseph’s mission to Glastonbury’.29 John of Glastonbury is the first to quote extensively from the alleged writings of the prophet Melkin, from which he includes a brief chapter entitled ‘Ista scriptura inuenitur in libro Melkini qui fuit ante Merlinum’ (‘This passage is found in the Book of Melkin who preceded Merlin’).30 It is on this chapter that the Longleat text about Melkin and Joseph is clearly based.31 Melkin himself is quite an enigmatic figure. John, by connecting Melkin’s name with Glastonbury and the story of Joseph of Arimathea, was the first to draw attention to his prophecies. The next reference to Melkin comes over one hundred years later, by John Hardyng, who in his Chronicle (c. 1450) shows knowledge about Melkin that undoubtedly goes back to John of Glastonbury.32 All further witnesses date from the sixteenth century and after. Thus the well-known antiquarian John Leland, who travelled the country in the service of Henry VIII, ‘reported that he found in Glastonbury’s library an ancient fragment of Melkin’s Historia and that he

in The Archaeology and History of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. L. Abrams and J. P. Carley (Woodbridge, 1985), pp. 301–15. In 1419 the Glastonbury monks made an attempt to find Joseph’s grave in their cemetery, see J. P. Carley, ‘A Grave Event: Henry V, Glastonbury Abbey, and Joseph of Arimathea’s Bones’, in Glastonbury Abbey and the Arthurian Tradition, ed. J. P. Carley (Cambridge, 2001; reprint of 1994), pp. 285–302 (pp. 292–3). Since no mention is made of this in Longleat 55, Carley suggests that the original text may be a little older than the manuscript and date from before 1419 (personal communication). 28 See, e.g., W. A. Nitze, ‘The Exhumation of King Arthur at Glastonbury’, Speculum 9 (1934), 355–61. 29 Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. li. 30 Ibid., pp. 54–5. 31 John of Glastonbury has more references to this Melkinus, e.g., in his chapter on the church of Glastonbury and the famous people buried there (Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, pp. 28–31). 32 Ibid., p. liii; see also F. Riddy, ‘Glastonbury, Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail in John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, in The Archaeology and History of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. L. Abrams and J. P. Carley (Woodbridge, 2001; reprint of 1991), pp. 317–31.

84

Erik Kooper

took notes from it’.33 In later works Melkin is even credited with as many as three books.34 From the passage quoted from the Longleat chronicle we may conclude that the compiler had access either to a version of John of Glastonbury’s chronicle itself, or to material taken from it. Longleat’s text is quite a bit shorter and somewhat garbled in comparison to John’s. Its wording is much closer to a variant form of the prophecy which occurs in the margin of a London continuation of the Flores Historiarum by Matthew of Westminster.35 This passage and others, dating from the fifteenth century and later, demonstrate that versions of Melkin’s prophecy circulated outside the Glastonbury area,36 and that at least one of these was apparently available to the author of the Longleat text. And its presence in Longleat 55 makes that the earliest occurrence after John of Glastonbury’s chronicle.37 All of these unprecedented deviations from the standard Prose Brut text might create the impression that with Longleat 55 we are dealing with a highly personal adaptation which has eased itself away from its source, but nothing could be further from the truth. On the whole it faithfully and in the right chronological order

Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. liv. Leland visited Glastonbury in 1533. A few years later he drew up a select list of works he consulted in Glastonbury’s library, the first of which contained the passages from Melkin from which he took the notes which he later used for the chapter ‘De Melchino’ in his book De uiris illustribus; see English Benedictine Libraries. The Shorter Catalogues, ed. J. P. Carley, R. M. Thomson and A. G. Watson, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 4 (London, 1996), p. 233, and John Leland, De uiris illustribus, ed. J. P. Carley, 2 vols. (Toronto and Oxford, 2010 and forthcoming), I, 66–9, and II, forthcoming. In this chapter Leland makes no secret of his doubts concerning the presence of Joseph’s burial place: ‘To be quite frank, I do not agree with what he writes about the sacred cemetery at Glastonbury, old and venerable though it is, and I reject what he claims, without any authority, about Joseph of Arimathea. For I myself cannot easily believe that Joseph, …, was buried at Glastonbury’ (De uiris illustribus, ed. Carley, I, 68–9). 34 Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, ed. Carley, p. lv. 35 The text is given by Carley (ibid., p. lv): ‘Joseph ab Arimathia nobilis decurio in insula Avaloniæ cum XI sociis somnum cepit perpetuum: et jacet in meridiano angulo lineæ bifurcatæ Oratorii adorandæ Virginis. Habet enim secum duo vascula argentea alba cruore et sudore magni Prophetæ Jesu perimpleta. Et per multum tempus ante diem Judicii ejus corpus integrum et illibatum reperietur; et erit apertum toti Orbi terrarum. Tunc nec ros nec pluvia habitantibus nobilissimam.’ Carley does not identify the manuscript, but Riddy does: London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 1106, fol. 10v (‘Glastonbury, Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail’, p. 325 n. 24). Similar to Longleat’s as this may be, it cannot be its immediate source since the opening lines with the explanation of the name Avalon are lacking. 36 J. P. Carley, ‘Melkin the Bard and Esoteric Tradition at Glastonbury Abbey’, The Downside Review 99 (1981), 1–17 (pp. 2–3). 37 It is a pleasure to acknowledge here my indebtedness to James P. Carley, who generously shared his expert knowledge on the subjects of this section with me, gave me access to the unpublished volume II of his edition of Leland’s De uiris illustribus and provided comments, suggestions and references for further reading. 33



Longleat House MS 55

85

narrates the historical events of the run-of-the-mill Brut chronicle, as summarized above.38 Nevertheless, for his great survey of the Prose Brut chronicles Lister Matheson chose not to include MS Longleat 55. The question is: why not? A look at another Brut-like manuscript may help to answer this question.

The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 75 A 2/2 In 1989 I published an article, again with a former student, on a manuscript in the Dutch Royal Library (Koninklijke Bibliotheek), a roll with an Anglo-Norman text on the front, which looked like a Prose Brut in genealogical form, with roundels containing the names of the kings and their children.39 It has a nodding reference to Brutus and a mere twenty lines on the British kings, after which it concentrates on the English period, ending with the coronation of Edward I.40 Such a combination of traditional historiographical narrative and unique elements is not unusual with Brut chronicles, and especially not with the Latin ones, according to Kennedy: see his Chronicles and Other Historical Writings, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989), p. 2629; ‘Glastonbury’, p. 119; and below. The same treatment is seen with other texts as well, e.g., with MS ‘J’ of Wace’s Brut, as was shown by Jane Bliss and Judith Weiss (‘The “J” Manuscript of Wace’s Brut’, Medium Ævum 81 (2013), 222–48), or with London, British Library, MS Royal 12 C. XII of the Abridged English Metrical Brut or Short Chronicle (M. Fisher, Scribal Authorship and the Writing of History in Medieval England (Columbus, 2012), esp. pp. 116–41). The creative way in which scribes dealt with texts they were copying was well illustrated in an essay by Lister Matheson and Linne Mooney about the Beryn scribe, who shows ‘a desire and willingness to complete his authors’ or exemplars’ deficiencies’ (‘The Beryn Scribe and His Texts: Evidence for Multiple-Copy Production of Manuscripts in Fifteenth-Century England’, The Library 4.4 (2003), 347–70 (p. 354)). 39 E. Kooper and A. Kruijshoop, ‘Of English Kings and Arms’, in In Other Words: Transcultural Studies in Philology, Translation and Lexicography presented to Hans Heinrich Meier on the Occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. J. L. Mackenzie and R. K. Todd (Dordrecht, 1989), pp. 45–56. 40 For an impression of what such a roll manuscript looks like, see the British Library website displaying London, British Library, MS Royal 14 B. VI: http://www.bl.uk/ catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourHistoryGeneal.asp#ROLL; accessed 29 January 2015. This manuscript is very similar to KB 75 A 2/2, but with at least one important difference: the Royal manuscript does not have the opening paragraph with a brief history of the British kings. The Hague and Royal manuscripts belong to a group of Anglo-Norman genealogical rolls that flourished in England in the last quarter of the thirteenth century and in the early decades of the fourteenth. These rolls have been studied extensively by O. de Laborderie, Histoire, Mémoire et Pouvoir: Les Genealogies en Rouleau des Rois d’Angleterre (1250–1422) (Paris, 2013). Another roll belonging to this tradition is Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole Rolls 38. It is closely related to the Hague Roll, and also includes a brief history of British kings. For an edition and translation of the Ashmole Rolls 38 prologue, see J. Rajsic, ‘Genealogical Rolls’, in Vernacular Literary Theory and Practices of Medieval England, c. 1120–c. 1450: Texts and Translations in the Frenches of England, ed. J. Wogan-Browne, T. Fenster and D. Russell (Cambridge, forthcoming [working title]).

38

86

Erik Kooper

Plate 2 Opening of the Hague Roll showing the Heptarchy diagram and history of England’s kings from Brutus. The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 75 A 2/2



Longleat House MS 55

87

Around the same time I heard that Diana Tyson was collecting material for a new catalogue of manuscripts with Anglo-Norman Prose Brut chronicles, and therefore passed on to her information about this manuscript as well as my transcription of the text.41 When a little later I came to know Lister Matheson, I told him about the manuscript too. But when their publications appeared, in 1994 and 1998 respectively, Tyson had included the Hague manuscript, Matheson had not.42 Why not? The answer must lie in Matheson’s strict definition of this type of text. Tyson’s paper was entitled ‘Handlist of manuscripts containing the French Prose Brut chronicle’. Her list added up to 116 manuscripts, a substantially greater number than Lister’s ‘meagre’ forty-nine. When I asked Lister for a reaction, his response, by e-mail, was unambiguous, and in typical Lister style. What he objected to was that her hundred-odd manuscripts contain texts of various types and, indeed, different works, rangíng from the AN Brut to genealogies to other chronicles that simply begin with Brutus (such as the Scalacronica). Some of the latter probably used the Brut as a source but they cannot claim to be THE Brut. Tyson takes the term ‘Brut’ as a generic term rather than the title of a specific work. Tyson herself had stated three criteria for dividing her manuscripts into categories: starting point, finishing point and nature of the text. On the basis of these she included ‘those texts which start with or include Brutus, or which start at the Heptarchy, or which start later but have a text so similar to the others that one may reasonably assume them to belong to the family’.43 Several years before Matheson and Tyson published their works Edward Donald Kennedy, in his volume Chronicles and Other Historical Writing for A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, had already pointed out the complexity of the Prose Brut material. He wrote that it is ‘more accurate to speak of Prose Brut chronicles rather than one chronicle, since a number of the manuscripts are textually quite different from one another with interpolations not found in others’.44 In a much more recent paper Kennedy finds that the ‘term Latin Brut is misleading because scholars have used it to refer to several different chronicles’.45 D. Tyson, ‘Handlist of Manuscripts Containing the French Prose Brut Chronicle’, Scriptorium 48 (1994), 333–44. 42 In her impressive Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, which appeared in 1999, Ruth Dean, to whom I had sent photocopies of the Hague Roll, included it under the heading ‘Genealogical Chronicles’, a group of texts ‘with historical notices of varying length, drawn from chronicles such as Li Livere de Reis de Brittanie, Li Livere de Reis de Engleterre, and Brut’ (R. J. Dean, with the collaboration of M. B. M. Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, AngloNorman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series 3 (London, 1999), p. 7). J. Spence, Reimagining History in Anglo-Norman Prose Chronicles (York, 2013), p. 13, points out that the first of these ‘apparently also served as the source for the texts of genealogical roll-chronicles of English kings’, such as the Hague Roll and Ashmole Rolls 38. 43 Tyson, ‘Handlist of Manuscripts’, p. 333. 44 Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, p. 2629. 45 ‘Glastonbury’, p. 119. 41

88

Erik Kooper

A little further down he says about the Latin Brut that it ‘is in part drawn from material in the Anglo-Norman and English Bruts but also includes considerable information not in them’. And he concludes: ‘[The Latin Brut] can be considered an original compilation, covering the same period as the vernacular Bruts but possibly intended as a chronicle that, because it was written in Latin, might have more authority than the vernacular ones.’46 It must be concluded that scholars apparently have difficulty in deciding when to call a text a Prose Brut chronicle, and that the underlying cause for their indecision is the lack of clear and generally accepted parameters.

How to Define a Prose Brut Chronicle? Since Matheson published his book an enormous amount of research has been carried out, and is in fact still being done.47 If one thing has become clear it is that the type of historical writing denoted as a ‘Brut chronicle’ could in principle encompass a wide range of texts, in English, Latin and Anglo-Norman, and even in Welsh. But whether these all qualify to be called ‘Prose Brut chronicles’ by the strict Mathesonian criteria is doubtful. On the other hand, the term ‘Brut chronicle’ is used perhaps rather too loosely by Tyson and many other scholars.48 Therefore, to facilitate discussion of this kind of text, a more practicable description is needed. Following Matheson, a first step should be that only prose texts may be considered. A strict definition of what he considered to be a ‘Prose Brut’ Matheson does not provide, but he had made a first attempt when he stated: ‘The starting point for all comparisons is the Anglo-Norman Long Version of the Brut and the initial translation thereof into English.’ In addition to this he used two tests: ‘a formal examination of each text to determine its contents and continuations’, and a ‘textual comparison of selected test passages that show consistent, definitional variation in Ibid., p. 120. This is not the place to give an exhaustive enumeration of all publications since 1998 as there are simply too many, but at least one thing should be mentioned. The ‘Imagining History Project’, led by John Thompson, at Queen’s University Belfast, in which Lister Matheson was involved from the very beginning, has resulted in a website with brief descriptions of virtually all ME Prose Brut manuscripts (http://www.qub.ac.uk/ imagining-history/resources/short/index.php; accessed 29 January 2015). Beside this there were editions, such as The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle, ed. and trans. J. Marvin, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006), An English Chronicle 1377–1461: A New Edition, ed. W. Marx, Medieval Chronicles 3 (Woodbridge, 2003), Prose Brut to 1332, ed. H. Pagan, Anglo-Norman Text Society 69 (Manchester, 2011), and numerous book-length studies and articles in journals. The various bibliographical references in the present book will give a fair impression of what has been published. 48 Kennedy, in his comprehensive survey of the Middle English chronicle material, lists nine categories, of which the second is ‘Brut chronicles’; these ‘begin with the legendary founding of Britain or, although beginning later, are derived from other Brut chronicles’ (Chronicles and Other Historical Writings, p. 2602). Due to this broad definition he can include works like Laȝamon’s Brut as well as the verse chronicles of Robert of Gloucester, Thomas Castleford, Robert Mannyng and John Hardyng. 46 47



Longleat House MS 55

89

particular groups (that is, passages demonstrating that some process of conscious revision has taken place as opposed to simple scribal variation between texts)’.49 On the basis of the textual comparisons Matheson was able to catagorize the bulk of the manuscripts into four groups: the Common Version, the Extended Version, the Abbreviated Version and a final group of Peculiar Texts and Versions. But useful as this is, it does not provide a solution of the problem of definition. To bring more clarity to the discussion we should begin by accepting that a ‘Prose Brut chronicle’ is a genre, not a specific text. Matheson, as is clear from the passages quoted above and his comment on Tyson’s list, was always looking for THE Brut text, that is, in his opinion there was an Ur-text, which remained virtually unaltered during the copying process, and was at most rigged up with a variety of accretions and continuations.50 For him this standard text always had to be there or else it was not to be called a Prose Brut. Furthermore, in order to be called a Prose Brut chronicle a text has to meet all of the following criteria: 1. A Prose Brut has to begin with an account of the first settling of Britain by Brutus; whether that account includes the Troy story, or the Albina legend, is of secondary importance. 2. It has to contain at least a short history of both the British and the Anglo-Saxon kings, and to continue after the Norman Conquest at least as far as the death of Henry III or the coronation of Edward I; this makes the earliest cut-off date roughly 1270.51 3. The majority of the material should be based on earlier Prose Brut texts, and thus ultimately go back to the Oldest Version of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut.52 Where does all this leave us with regard to the two chronicles I have discussed? To test the definition I first compared the Latin text found in the Longleat manuscript with the Oldest Version of the AN Prose Brut (OV) as well as with a few other potential sources, like the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth (HRB) and Wace’s Roman de Brut for the British section of Longleat’s history. Two examples may suffice to illustrate the results, one from the earliest part of the texts, the fight of Corineus and Gogmagog, the other from the life of one of the British kings, Ebraucus. It appears that Longleat not only follows the general line of events of the AN Brut, but also shares with that many details that occur in these two texts

Matheson, The Prose Brut, p. 49 (for both quotations). The phrase ‘virtually unaltered’ should not be taken stricto sensu, for, as the term indicates, in the group of Peculiar Texts and Versions there is more variation than, e.g., in the group of Common Versions. 51 Here I do not follow Diana Tyson, who would accept chronicles that start later but are otherwise quite similar to Brut texts with continuations, and therefore, in her opinion, are members of the same family (and see my next point). 52 The Middle English translation was from the so-called Long Version of the AN Prose Brut, but that in turn was based on the Oldest Version. 49 50

Erik Kooper

90

only. In these passages Longleat echoes the AN Brut almost verbatim, while together they present a text that for its details is clearly independent of the other two.53 Longleat

OV

Gogmagog duas Gogmagog prist Corin si fort qil costas Cornei confregit (35v.11) li debrisa deux costez (p. 171) Cesti Ebrank … Iste Ebranus fort homme e post mortem patris eius cum pussant, e cesti par sa pruesce e summa letitia par aide de ses coronatus et Brutons conquist fuit ita tute Fraunce. E prudens et gaina iloeqe tant potens quod dor e tant de conquestus argent qe quant est totam il reuint en cestre Franciam terre, il fist vne et abstulit noble cite e lapella inde tantum Eborac apres son thesaurum noun, qe ore est vt edificaret appele Euerwyk ciuitatem communement en Eboracentem nomine suo. Et fraunceys. Cesti roi [fyt] le chastel de fecit castrum puceles ke ore est vocatum apele Edenburgh Castrum (pp. 271–5) Puellarum, nunc autem Edyngbourgh (fol. 36r, 14–17)

HRB

Wace

G. … fregit ei tres costas, duas in dextro latere, unam uero in sinistro (Bk 21.480–2) Ebraucus filius suus, uir magnae staturae er mirae fortitudinis, regimen Britanniae suscepit … Hic primus post Brutum classem in partes Galliarum duxit et illato proelio affecit prouincias caede uirorum atque urbium oppressione infinitaque auri et argenti copia ditatus cum uictoria reuersus est. Deinde trans Humbrum condidit ciuitatem, quam de nomine suo uocauit Kaerebrauc; id est ciuitas Ebrauci. … Condidit etiam Ebraucus urbem Aldclud uersus Albaniam et oppidum Montis Agned, quod nunc Castellum Puellarum dicitur, et Montem Dolorosum. (Bk 27.85–94)

[G.] Corineüm vers sei sacha / Si que treis costes li fruissa (lines 1149–50) [Ebrauc] fu li premiers ki par mer / Mut d’Engletere ailleurs rober. / Il assembla un grant navie / Si prist de ses homes une partie / Si ala rober les Franceis / E les Flamans e les Tieis; / Les marines tutes prea / E grant aveirs en aporta. / … / Ebrauc, ki out aveir assez, / Ver Escoce fist dous citez: / Kaer Ebrac l’une apela, / … / L’altre cité plus vers north mist / E el mont Agned chastel fist / Qui des Pulceles ad surnun (lines 1501–8; 1517–19; 1525–7)

After this I did the same kind of test with a passage from the later period, that of the English kings, and compared Longleat and the AN Brut with Gaimar’s Estoire des Engleis:

53

Considering that the Latin of Longleat is rather unsophisticated, Geoffrey’s Historia seems an unlikely candidate as a possible source anyway.



Longleat House MS 55

91

Longleat

OV

Gaimar

Post hanc regnauit Aedmundus frater eius. Iste fugauit duos reges Anelauum et Reginaldum vltra Humbriam. Regnauit quinque annis et iacet Glastonie. Cui successit Edredus, qui subiugauit Scociam et seisiuit Daciam, de quo sanctus Dunstanus multa bona predicauit. Regnauit nouem annis et dimidio et iacet Wyntonem (fol. 47v, 9–13)

Apres cesti Athelston regna son frere Edmund. … E le tierz an qil regna, il ala outre Humbre, ou ili auoient deux rois Daneis felouns. Lun auoit anoun Anelaf et lautre Reinold. Il les enchaca ambedeux de la terre … Cesti ne regna qe sis anz e gist a Glastingbury. Apres cesti Edmund regna Edded soun frere, qe … seisist tute Norhumberlande en sa mayn e fist les Escoz enclin a sa volunte. E en le secund an … vint Anelaf Quiran, roi de Denmarz, e seisist tute Norhumberland … E plus vint le Roi Eddred oue grant poer e lenchaca hors de ceste terre. Cesti Roi Eddred estoit durement prodom, de qi bunte Seint Dunstan precha grauntz bens. Il regna ix anz e demi, e gist a Wincestre. (pp. 253–67)

Eadmund out nun, prodom, ço crei, e li tierz anz cum il regna, ultre Humbre son ost mena. Dous reis i out, felons Daneis: li uns out nun Unlaf li reis, li altre ert Renald apelez. Fors les chasçat de cel regnez. … Il tint sa terre puis treis anz, donc fist de lui Deus ses comanz. Edret son frere aprés regnat.  … seisi tut Norhumberland, e les Escoz li vont clinant. Quant il regnout el secund an, idunckes vint Anlas Quiran, Norhumberland seisi e prist, … Treis anz la tint icil Daneis, puis l’enchascerent Norhumbreis. Iric le fiz Harold receurent, de fei tenir bien l’aseürent. Dous anz regnat en cel regné, donc el tierz an l’en unt chascé. Edret idunkes la receut, mes d’iloc a un an morust. (lines 3530–58)

Here a similar conclusion can be drawn: Longleat’s text comprises no more than the basic data of the lives of Edmund and Edred. It tells us whom they succeeded, how long they reigned, where they were buried, and one or two notable feats, significant at least in the eyes of the compiler. The author of the AN Prose Brut gives his readers a little more than the bare bones, but the Longleat and AN versions remain virtually the same, and are quite distinct from that of Gaimar. The facts that make out the basis of all three accounts can ultimately be traced to the AngloSaxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum and Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum, but none of these has all of them. However, for the purpose at hand this observation is irrelevant, as our concern was merely to find out if Longleat is dependent on the AN Prose Brut or not. And the answer to that is positive, we may conclude. It is true, of course, that Longleat has a number of extensions and idiosyncratic additions that put an individual stamp on it (and in that sense it underpins Kennedy’s observation on the Latin Bruts, quoted above), but there is no doubt that it remains within the boundaries set by the definition of a Prose Brut offered above. The manuscript in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in The Hague presents a different picture altogether. It seems most unlikely that a source will ever be found for the blunder with which it opens: ‘Deuant la Natiuite nostre seignur Ihesu Crist .M. e CC. anz. Brutus le fiz Siluius e Corineus son frere vindrent en Engleterre’ (‘1200 years before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Brutus, the son of Silvius, and Corineus his brother arrived in England’). But we go from bad to worse, for only

Erik Kooper

92

five lines down we read: ‘Apres Brut regna son fiz Cisilius grant tens. Apres Cisilius regna Eboracus le tierz rei’ (‘After Brutus his son Sisillius reigned for three years. After Sisillius reigned Eboracus, the third king’). The eldest son of Brutus is of course Locrinus, who reigned after his father. Such a mistake as we see here can hardly be attributed to a faulty reading of a scruffy exemplar or a dozing copyist, and what may have caused it will probably remain a mystery. If the appearance of this name may come as a surprise, that of Eboracus as his successor and third king is equally puzzling. In Geoffrey’s Historia Eboracus is the sixth king, coming after Gwendolin, Maddan and Mempricius, his father. This Eboracus, as Geoffrey’s text says, fathered twenty sons and thirty daughters on his twenty wives; one of these sons was called Sisillius, but he was not the one who succeeded his father – that was his eldest brother, Brutus Greenshield (who is not mentioned in the Hague manuscript). Much later in Geoffrey’s history we come across three kings who bear the name Sisillius, but that can hardly explain the confusion. Inexplicable distortions of names, dates and numbers keep cropping up in the text, both in the brief section on the British kings and in the roughly 350 lines on the English ones. Nevertheless, it is clear that the roll presents these kings in roughly the usual order and with many of the traditional details.54 It is through these details in particular that we can gain some insight into the roll’s major sources, as is witnessed by the following example. After Harthacnut had been made king he levied a tribute and a tax to pay for the crews of his ships: Apres Haraud Harefot regna Hardeknout son frere, e en le secund an ke cestui regna grant tresor fu rendu as Daneis, cest a sauer .xxj. M. liber. e .cc. e .ix. lb. E derechief ouekes .xxij. nefs .xj.M. liures. e xlviij. liures (lines 239–45). (‘After Harald Harefoot reigned Hardecanute, his brother, and in the second year of his reign a great treasure was rendered to the Danes, i.e. 21,209 pounds. And in addition for twenty-two ships 11,048 pounds.’) When we compare the amounts of money and the number of ships with the more likely sources, the results lead to an interesting conclusion: Source

1st amount

2nd amount

ships

KB 75 A 2/2 ASC, E (1040) Henry of Huntingdon

21,209 21,099 21,099

11,048 11,048 11,048

22 32 32

Both MS A and MS E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle specify that eight marks had to be paid for every rower, but only MS E states what this added up to. William of Malmesbury as well as Henry of Huntingdon adopts the story of the taxes, but while William gives it scant attention (he just mentions the amount per ship, twenty marks), Henry of Huntingdon, though omitting the specification, gives both the two totals and the number of ships. In contrast to these, the vernacular 54

It should be noted that the various accounts are indeed roughly the same, since there are always minor differences in order and emphasis (see also n. 12).



Longleat House MS 55

93

texts of Gaimar and the AN Prose Brut have a brief entry on the two sons of Cnut, but without mention of this tax. Many additional examples could be adduced that would testify to the same, viz. that Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum is a major source for the Hague text, and that hardly any connection with the AN Prose Brut can be detected.55 Although more detailed study of the Hague Roll is necessary, it may be concluded that the way in which its compiler abbreviates and expands his sources has made it an interesting text in its own right.

Conclusions In the Preface to his book Lister Matheson introduced its subject as the ‘Middle English Prose Brut’, going on to say that his study ‘classifies and groups the Middle English manuscripts and early printed editions and comments on the relationships that developed among them from the late fourteenth through the fifteenth centuries’.56 His study, then, is of a text which, even if it was expanded or abbreviated in the course of time, or translated, still remained recognizably the same text. Diana Tyson approached the subject from the opposite direction by taking ‘Prose Brut’ as a generic term, as Matheson commented. But her criteria were so loosely defined that almost any medieval historiographical work dealing with English history and containing passages that evoke those of other ‘Brut’ texts could be subsumed under it. In the above I have argued that neither view can lead to a fruitful discussion on the question of which texts to include or debar from our research on what John Thompson has recently called ‘the Middle English prose Brut tradition’.57 For this reason I have suggested a compromise between the two positions, which defines a Prose Brut chronicle as a genre whose ultimate textual basis should be, or can be traced to, the Oldest Version of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut. This means that Longleat 55 ought to be added to the list of Latin Prose Brut chronicles, whereas the Hague genealogical roll does not belong to the genre. The present essay, and the present book for that matter, could not have been written without Lister Matheson’s ground-breaking and seminal study. And thus we see that the acre sown by him over fifteen years ago still produces new crops, and indeed new seeds. The continued activities in the field that was so dear to him always gave him great satisfaction, and that these continue even after his death would undoubtedly have pleased him even more.

Both the AN Prose Brut and the Hague Roll (and the oldest genealogical rolls in general) end with the death of Henry III, and therefore it may have seemed unrealistic to surmise that the AN Brut could be a source for the Hague Roll. But my purpose here was rather to establish that the two texts show a different source tradition. 56 Matheson, The Prose Brut, p. ix. 57 ‘Why Edit the Middle English Prose Brut? What’s (Still) in It for Us?’, in Probable Truth. Editing Medieval Texts from Britain in the Twenty-First Century, ed. V. Gillespie and A. Hudson (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 445–63 (p. 454). 55

chapter six

PECULIAR VERSIONS OF THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PROSE BRUT AND TEXTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY William Marx

I

t is now over 100 years since the publication of Friedrich Brie’s edition of the Middle English Prose Brut for the Early English Text Society, and a much shorter time since the publication of Lister Matheson’s The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle (1998).1 Both works are watersheds in the history of scholarship on the medieval Prose Brut and vernacular historical narrative in general.2 Lister Matheson’s book is a more accurate representation of the nature of the Brut, which, like many large medieval texts, is a truly fluid work that has the capacity to reflect and respond to changes in taste, changes in the languages, and, most of all, because of the nature of the subject matter, changes in the political and cultural climate of medieval Britain. It is the word development in Lister Matheson’s subtitle that signals the direction for his study, which highlights the nature of the body of texts that is referred to as the medieval Prose Brut, be it Anglo-French, Middle English or Latin, by demonstrating that it was a text that was in a constant state of change and was constantly being reinvented. Understood in this way, the question that the Brut provokes is what are the dynamics of its development? Or, what drives the development of the Brut to produce such a disparate and, one might say, undisciplined body of texts? There are many ways in which it is possible to investigate this question, but this essay focuses on examples from what Lister Matheson referred to as the ‘peculiar texts’ of the Middle English Prose Brut. The term ‘peculiar’ is one he inherited from the early work on the Brut by C. L. Kingsford in his monograph English Historical Literature of the Fifteenth Century (1913), and Kingsford used the term in its older sense of The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (1906–8; reprinted as one volume, 2000). Prior to this edition, Brie had published a monograph which was an investigation of the manuscripts, Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik: The Brute of England oder the Chronicles of England (Marburg, 1905). L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998). 2 On Middle English historical texts, see E. D. Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989). For the Brut, see pp. 2629–37, 2818–33. 1

94



Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut

95

‘particular’, ‘distinctive’ or ‘special’.3 Among the Brut texts, the ‘peculiar versions’ are those that most invite investigation and speculation; they are, it can be argued, the most obvious products of cultural or political change, or, in some cases, cultural or political anxiety. However, we only become aware of their distinctiveness when we understand how they are constituted. Fundamental to our understanding of the dynamics of the development of the Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut is that there exists what is known as the Common Version, or a standard version. This concept, however, is problematic because of the complexity of the textual history of the Brut. Lister Matheson provides a framework for classifying the manuscripts and texts that form the Middle English Common Version. Up to the year 1333, the Middle English Common Version is a translation from the Anglo-Norman Brut; beyond this date the narrative is an original composition in Middle English. The Common Version does not come down to us as a single text but survives in a number of forms with continuations, as well as ‘Extended’ and ‘Abbreviated’ versions, which are developments of the Common Version.4 The Peculiar Versions are those versions that show significant variations in terms of content and/or structure when set beside the Common Version.5 The kind of survey of the range of peculiar texts of the Brut that might make it possible to understand what lies behind the emergence of these versions – that is, something that would build on what Lister Matheson was able to achieve – is not available at this stage. We lack detailed investigations of manuscript texts and editions to bring to light the nature and extent of variation in structure and content of texts. The following discussion examines aspects of two of the Peculiar Versions, ‘The Peculiar Version to 1437, with a continuation to 1461 (PV–1437/1461)’, which is witnessed in two manuscripts, and ‘The Peculiar Version to 1422: Group B (PV–1422:B)’, also witnessed in two manuscripts, in an attempt to highlight some features of variation against the Common Version found in these groups and to ask, tentatively, what might lie behind the development of these versions.6 ‘The Peculiar Version to 1437 with a continuation to 1461 (PV–1437/1461)’ reveals an intriguing textual history.7 Although PV–1437/1461 has been shown to draw on a C. L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature of the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913). Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 49–54, 79–172, 173–255. For the Anglo-Norman text, see R. J. Dean, with the collaboration of M. B. M. Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series 3 (London, 1999), pp. 30–3, nos. 42, 43, 44, 45; The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: An Edition and Translation, ed. and trans, J. Marvin, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006), and idem, ‘Sources and Analogues of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: New Findings’, in Readers and Writers of the Prose Brut, ed. W. Marx and R. Radulescu, Trivium 36 (Lampeter, 2006), pp. 1–31. See also J. J. Thompson, ‘Why Edit the Middle English Prose Brut? What’s (Still) in It for Us?’, in Probable Truth: Editing Medieval Texts from Britain in the Twenty-first Century, ed. V. Gillespie and A. Hudson, Texts and Translations 5 (Turnhout, 2013), pp. 445–63. 5 On the ‘Peculiar Versions’, see Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 256–334. 6 Ibid., pp. 271–96. On editions of PV–1437/1461, see n. 7, below. PV–1422:B has not been edited. 7 W. Marx, ‘Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 21608 and the Middle English 3 4

96

William Marx

number of Latin chronicles, the Eulogium Historiarum provides the main direction for the development of this variant text. This Latin chronicle is witnessed in five manuscripts, and it is generally agreed that of these Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.7.2, is the holograph of the compiler. The manuscript, which dates between 1362 and 1366, has been located to Malmesbury Abbey, and belongs to a tradition of Benedictine monastic historical writing. Another manuscript, London, British Library, MS Cotton Galba E. VII, is unique in that it contains a Latin continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum that covers the years 1361–1413, that is, to the death of King Henry IV and the coronation of Henry V. There is general agreement that the continuation is Franciscan and originated at the house of Grey Friars in Canterbury.8 For PV–1437/1461, MS Cotton Galba E. VII is particularly interesting as a witness to the Eulogium Historiarum because the Middle English text draws on the continuation as well as the early parts of the Latin chronicle, which suggests that the compiler’s exemplar was possibly the Cotton Galba manuscript itself or one closely related to it that contained the continuation to 1413. In the Common Version of the Brut the subject of the prologue is the legend of Albina and her sisters,9 and the first chapter contains the history of Brutus

Prose Brut’, Journal of the Early Book Society 1 (1997), 1–16, and An English Chronicle 1377–1461: A New Edition, Medieval Chronicles 3 (Woodbridge, 2003). The latter is a new edition of what is known as The Davies Chronicle: An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI, ed. J. S. Davies, Camden Society, 1st s. 64 (London, 1856); the editor used only the manuscript in his personal possession, which is now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lyell 34. It is badly damaged and lacks much of the account of the reign of Richard II. Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 21608, which did not come to light until the 1970s, contains an undamaged text where Lyell 34 is damaged, and so forms the basis of the new edition of the chronicle. See also Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 287–94. Marie Stansfield has edited the first part of the chronicle to 1087: ‘Revision and Development in Two Witnesses of a Late Medieval Recension of the Middle English Prose Brut’, 2 vols. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wales, Lampeter, 2008); see also M. Stansfield, ‘Parallel Texts and a Peculiar Brut: A Case Study’, in Probable Truth, pp. 465–79. 8 Eulogium (Historiarum Sive Temporis), ed. F. S. Haydon, 3 vols., Rolls Series 9 (London, 1853–63). On Benedictine historical writing, see J. G. Clark, The Benedictines in the Middle Ages, Monastic Orders (Woodbridge, 2011), pp. 224–30. For the Eulogium Continuation, see III, 333–421. The continuation has been edited separately by S. N. Clifford, ‘An Edition of the Continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum, 1361–1413’ (unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, University of Leeds, 1979). On the date and origin of the Eulogium Historiarum and the continuation, see A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1974–1982), II, 57, 101, 103–5, 158 n. 5. See also C. GivenWilson, Chronicles of the Revolution, 1397–1400: The Reign of Richard II, Manchester Medieval Sources (Manchester, 1993), pp. 5–6, and G. B. Stowe, ‘The Continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum: Some Revisionist Perspectives’, English Historical Review 119 (2004), 667–81. See also M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalogue, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1900–4), II, 216–17, and P. R. Robinson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c. 737–1600 in Cambridge Libraries, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1988), I, 97. 9 The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 1–4.



Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut

97

and how he conquered ‘Albyon’.10 PV–1434/1461 has the same prologue, but the compiler draws on the Latin Eulogium Historiarum to begin chapter one with how the three sons of Noah divided the world among them and from which of them Brutus descended.11 At this point the narrative from the Eulogium Historiarum converges with that of the first chapter of the Brut. The Peculiar Version follows chapter 40 of the Common Version, the reign of King Armoger (Arvirargus; c. AD 45), up to Brie I, 36/6, where it adds from the Eulogium Historiarum an account of the arrival of Joseph of Arimathea in Britain and the founding of Glastonbury Abbey; this is followed by the assumption of the Virgin Mary derived from the Revelations of Elizabeth of Schönau. To chapter 42, the beginning of the reign of King Westmer (Marius, son of Arvirargus), the compiler adds from the Eulogium Historiarum a version of the story of Titus and Vespasian and the destruction of Jerusalem.12 The compiler of PV–1437/1461 used the Eulogium Historiarum as the source for substantial interventions to extend and deepen the historical range of the vernacular narrative. The Brut by its nature is conspicuously secular, but these additions argue that for PV–1437/1461 the compiler was driven by a desire to give a theological or religious dimension to the vernacular historical narrative, and to situate English history in a Christian chronology and framework. This feature of PV–1437/1461 is evident in other parts of this version of the Brut. The episode in the Common Version concerned with the violation of sanctuary at Westminster Abbey in 1378 is set in PV–1437/1461 in the context of the legend of its foundation and hallowing in the Anglo-Saxon period. This is derived from the Franciscan continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum that is witnessed in MS Cotton Galba E. VII.13 At the same time, however, the Latin continuation focuses principally on the politics of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, and for PV–1437/1461 it is the source for a large number of additions to the account of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV. These additions have the effect of recasting the emphasis of the Brut, making the narrative of the years 1377 to 1413 more ideologically complex. As PV–1437/1461 comes closer to serving as a commentary on its own times, it helps to reveal for us the extent to which the Common Version of the Brut was complicit in suppressing adverse criticism of royal government. This is most clearly evident when the narrative of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV in PV–1437/1461 is set beside that in the continuation of the Common Version that runs from the coronation of Richard II (1377) to the capture of Rouen (1419), Ibid., pp. 4–6. Marx, ‘Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 21608’, pp. 3–4; for the text, see Stansfield, ‘Revision and Development’, II, 6–8. In Lyell 34, the prologue is designated chapter 1. 12 Texts of these additions, with commentary, appear in Marx, ‘Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 21608’, pp. 4–6. The passage from the revelations of Elizabeth of Schönau is unique to NLW MS 21608. For the source, see: Die Visionen der hl. Elisabeth und die Schriften der Aebte Ekbert und Emecho von Schönau, ed. F. W. E. Roth (Brünn, 1884), pp. 53–4. 13 An English Chronicle 1377–1461, ed. Marx, 3/10–5/20, p. 111. 10 11

98

William Marx

that is, the ‘Common Version to 1419’.14 For example, the Common Version omits any references to or fails to acknowledge the Wonderful Parliament of 1386 in which – as readers of PV–1437/1461 learn – Parliament challenged Richard II about his management of the kingdom, dismissed corrupt ministers, and made the king subject to a commission to investigate the royal finances. The Common Version also ignores events that surrounded and led up to the Merciless Parliament (beginning 3 February 1388). In PV–1437/1461 the compiler used these to highlight failings in Richard II’s administration of government and his deceit.15 The same kind of far-reaching revisions to the narrative of the Common Version of the Brut are evident throughout the narrative from 1377 to 1413.16 In the light of the work of the compiler of PV–1437/1461 it becomes clear that the ‘Common Version to 1419’ was designed to present a sanitized, uncontroversial account of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV. The compiler of the Peculiar Version has detected omissions or absences from the Common Version, and has used the Latin text to create a vernacular narrative of the years 1377 to 1413 that is critical of the kingship and government of Richard II and Henry IV. The revisions that characterize PV–1437/61 as a whole are complex and, we can argue, motivated by a desire to incorporate into vernacular historical narrative material that ranges from religious history to contemporary politics. The second Peculiar Version, ‘The Peculiar Version to 1422: Group B (PV–1422:B)’, reveals a range of motives that are similar to those that govern PV–1437/1461. It is unpublished and survives in two manuscripts of the mid to late fifteenth century: Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 397, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 754.17 The version of the Brut of which they are witnesses was compiled sometime in the second quarter of the fifteenth century, although the dating needs more investigation. As with PV–1437/1461, what make this version distinctive, or make it a peculiar version, are the numerous interpolations incorporated throughout the narrative. Through these, the historical narrative of the Brut is reconceived; in important ways the compiler has reimagined history. This is edited as continuation ‘C’ of the Common Version in The Brut, ed. Brie, II, 335–91; see Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 107–28. Continuation ‘C’ is the best published witness to the text of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV that the compiler of the Peculiar Version was working with. 15 The Brut contains nothing about ‘The Wonderful Parliament’ (October 1386), but there is an account of the parliament of the previous year (October 1385) (The Brut, ed. Brie, II, 340/30–341/23) which is incorporated into PV–1437/1461 along with an account of ‘The Wonderful Parliament’ drawn from the continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum (see An English Chronicle, ed. Marx, 8/36–10/3). For the ‘Merciless Parliament’ (beginning in February 1388) and its context, see The Brut, ed. Brie, II, 342/17–343/31, and An English Chronicle, ed. Marx, 10/11–12/34. Treatments of these episodes and others that give the English Chronicle a perspective on the politics of the years 1377 to 1413 that is distinct from that of the Common Version of the Brut are discussed in the introduction to An English Chronicle, ed. Marx, pp. xxix–lv, and W. Marx, ‘Reception and Revision in the Middle English Prose Brut’, in Readers and Writers, ed. Marx and Radulescu, pp. 53–69. 16 An English Chronicle, ed. Marx, pp. xxix–lv. 17 Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 294–6. 14



Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut

99

A useful example of these interpolations is from the reign of Edward the Confessor. In Brie’s edition of the Common Version of the Brut, chapter 125 gives details of the invitation of the nobles of Anglo-Saxon England in 1042 to Edward the Confessor to take the throne of England. The chapter contains remarks about Edward’s saintly character which, we learn, became more evident when he was king. The text reads: ‘[Edward] loved God and holy church passing al maner thing, & poor men also, and regarded them as if they had been his own brothers and to them often he gave alms with a good heart.’ The next chapter (126) of the Common Version is an account of one of Edward’s acts of charity: he secretly gave his ring to a pilgrim.18 In the Peculiar Version of the Brut in Peniarth 397 and Bodley 754 there comes between these two chapters a substantial passage of just over 2,000 words that has no counterpart in Brie’s text of the Common Version nor in the Anglo-Norman text.19 The first question we might ask concerns the contents of this interpolation. The second is what the interpolation contributes to the historical narrative of the Brut, that is, its purpose. Two Latin chronicles are the sources for the interpolation. Passages translated from The Chronicle of John of Worcester (formerly known as the Chronicon ex chronicis of Florence of Worcester) form part of the interpolation and are concerned first with the coronation of Edward the Confessor in Winchester on Easter Day in 1043.20 The compiler incorporated the account of the conflict of 1051–2 that involved Godwine, earl of Kent, and his family, Eustace, count of Boulogne, and King Edward. Godwine and his family, including his sons Sweyn and Harold, are forced into exile. When they return to England, they threaten King Edward with a military force but conflict is averted, and Godwine and his family recover their estates. At this point the compiler adds from another source the detail that peace would be established between King Edward and Earl Godwine on the provision that Earl Godwine surrender two hostages to William, duke of Normandy. This account derives from Eadmer’s Historia Novorum in Anglia.21 The compiler returns to the Chronicle of John of Worcester for two further episodes: the expulsion of Norman officials from England and the death of Earl Godwine. For the remainder of the interpolation the compiler uses Eadmer’s Historia Novorum in Anglia. This relates how Harold Godwineson approaches William, duke of Normandy, to request the freeing of the two hostages that his father had surrendered to William, Harold’s cousin and brother. Harold is presented as bearing considerable responsibility. Here Harold is manoeuvred into swearing an oath that he would support William in his efforts to take the throne of Anglo-Saxon England. The compiler uses the speech The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 128/11–129/8. MS Peniarth 397, pp. 53–60; MS Bodley 754, fols. 55r–57r. The summary of the interpolation is based on W. Marx, ‘Middle English Manuscripts of the Brut in the National Library of Wales’, The National Library of Wales Journal 27 (1991–2), 361–82 (pp. 365–6). 20 For material used from this source for the interpolation, see The Chronicle of John of Worcester. II. The Annals from 450 to 1066, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk, trans J. Bray and P. McGurk, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1995), pp. 534–5, 556–73. 21 Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule, Rolls Series 81 (1884), pp. 5–6. 18 19

100

William Marx

and dialogue from Eadmer’s account to give a dramatic quality to the episode in which Duke William puts his case to Harold concerning his claim to the throne. And anon aftur this, Harold axed leue of Kyng Edward to goo into Normandie to speke and to trete with the Erl Gilliam for his brother and cosyn that lay in plegge. ‘God spede yow;’ quod the kyng, ‘so that ye do no preiudyce to the reame, I holde me content’. Soo Harold with alle his lordis went and passed ouer the see into Normandie and was recevyd full worshipfully of Erl William. And Harold, thorough moche tresoun and falsnesse that he thought, spake wondur feyre, so at the laste he tolde hym wherfor he was comen. So vppon this Erl Guilliam openyd his herte and seyde, ‘Whenne Kyng Edward and I were chyldern her and pleyfers togyder, he made me feythe and trouthe that after his dissese to leve me the crovne of Englond, and I to be rightfull eyre aftur hym. And yif ye wolle wedde my doughter and litte me haue yor suster, I schall make hir to be widdid to the best baroun of my lande, and vppon this to make me surete to kepe the castelle of Douere vnto my behoue and to be of my counceil whenne I schalle reigne. Loke what thing ye wolle desyr of me, at that tyme, I behote you, I wolle it you grant, and vppon this to be sowrn vppon a boke and on alle the reliques it to performe, and Y shalle delyuer you yowr cosyn. And whenne I come I shalle bryng yow your brother with me and eyld hym vppe saf and sovnde’. And Harold thought he myht not wele ansuer, but graunted alle these poyntis and was sworon vppon a boke and on alle the reliques to performe alle William desir, and retorned hom agayn into Englond with his cosyn.22 Here, William adds further terms to the agreement, and Harold swears on the relics to help William to the throne. This is all done so that Harold can retrieve and guarantee the safety of the two hostages. The details of these episodes are well known, especially to students of the Norman Conquest. What is of interest, however, is that this is a fifteenth-century addition to the narrative of the Common Version of the Middle English Brut. This lengthy interpolation provokes questions concerning its function or purpose in this context. Its length of over 2,000 words means that it is substantial. Its function or purpose is twofold, that is, it speaks to the past and to the present – the mid fifteenth century. First, the interpolation seems to reflect the compiler’s desire to remedy what he saw as a deficiency in the historical narrative of the Brut as he found it in the Common Version. Where it deals with Edward the Confessor, the Brut concentrates on his saintliness. The compiler’s purpose for the Middle English Peculiar Version would seem to be to give the historical narrative a different character and texture by including accounts of the significant political events leading up to the Norman Conquest; he wanted to correct what he saw as a limitation in the scope of the narrative of the Common Version. Also, for a mid fifteenth century audience, the interpolation adds to the historical narrative episodes that reflect contemporary concerns about kingship, royal power in relation to the power of the earls, MS Peniarth 397, pp. 59–60; also, MS Bodley 754, fol. 57r.

22



Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut

101

challenges to royal authority, and questions of the legitimacy of royal succession. All of these issues are played out in a less oblique way in the narrative of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV in PV–1437/1461.23 The interpolation in PV–1422:B provides an historical analogy for some of the political issues, or the political anxieties, that haunted the fifteenth century.24 The passage in PV–1422:B is not unique but is one of many interpolations into the narrative of the Brut in this Peculiar Version. Of a different tone and character is the material that is attached to the account of William the Conqueror in chapter 133 of the Brut.25 This chapter of the Common Version is brief and mainly political and military in character. In the Peculiar Version of the Brut in the Peniarth and Bodley manuscripts there is a lengthy interpolation at this point that introduces an additional perspective on William.26 It refers to aspects of William’s life, going back even to the circumstances under which he was conceived and why he had the appellation ‘bastard’. The text outlines the hardships that William suffered in his youth and how, as he grew into adulthood, he overcame them; he made a good marriage and reigned for over twenty years. The account also details aspects of William’s appearance, and his character, that is, his wisdom, courtesy and desire for fame. It refers also to his activities as king: he followed a policy of planting forests in place of towns, he was a law maker and he showed his piety in founding two religious houses. This is another lengthy interpolation. The substance of the passage is not original to this Peculiar Version but can be traced to specific Latin sources: the Polychronicon (book VI, chapter 19), William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum and Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum (book VI, chapter 39), which uses the obituary of William the Conqueror from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.27 What implications can be drawn from additions of this kind to the Common Version of the Brut? These passages have no counterparts in the Anglo-Norman text; the interpolations are distinctive features of the Middle English text, PV–1422:B, and they are drawn from Latin sources. They are notable for the way they expand An English Chronicle, ed. Marx, pp. xxix–lv. P. Strohm, England’s Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation, 1399–1422 (New Haven and London, 1998); An English Chronicle, ed. Marx, pp. lxxxix–xc. 25 The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 136/29–138/11. 26 For chapter 33 of the Common Version of the Brut and the interpolation, see MS Peniarth 397, pp. 71–4; MS Bodley 754, fols. 60v–61v. A transcription of this passage from Peniarth 397 appears in W. Marx, ‘Latin Chronicles and Medieval Lives in the Middle English Prose Brut’, in Recording Medieval Lives: Proceedings of the 2005 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. J. Boffey and V. Davis, Harlaxton Medieval Studies 17 (Donington, 2009), 102–11 (pp. 106–7). 27 Ralph Higden, Polychronicon, ed. C. Babington and J. R. Lumby, 9 vols., Rolls Series 41 (1865–6), VII, 118–29 (pp. 122–7); William of Malmesbury, ‘Gesta Regum Anglorum’: The History of the English Kings, ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, completed by R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols., Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1998, 1999), I, 508–9; Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People, ed. and trans. D. Greenway, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1996), pp. 404–7; The AngloSaxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation, ed. D. Whitelock with D. C. Douglas and S. I. Tucker (London, 1961), pp. 163–5.

23 24

102

William Marx

the picture of William the Conqueror as an individual. The compiler of this version draws on a Latin tradition of chronicle writing to give some hinterland to the sparse narrative of the reign of William I in the Common Version of the Brut. In this respect he seems to want to give to this fifteenth-century vernacular text something of the character of Latin chronicles and here to flesh out the standard or common version of the vernacular narrative. There is a wealth of interventions of these kinds – additions and substitutions – made by the compiler of the narrative of this Peculiar Version of the Brut, drawn mostly from Latin chronicle writing. The latter part of this peculiar text, however, shows interventions of a different kind. The final phase of the narrative in the Peniarth and Bodley manuscripts deals with the reign of Henry V and occupies a substantial number of pages of Peniarth 397 (pp. 531–8). It begins with the first paragraph of chapter 244 of the Common Version of the Brut,28 which recounts Henry’s assumption of the throne and his reburial of Richard II in Westminster Abbey. Then follow the execution of the Lollards and Sir John Oldcastle’s revolt of 1414, and indeed episodes of the reign of Henry V to 1422 including the execution of Oldcastle in 1418. The events of this narrative have counterparts in the Common Version of the Brut; however, the compiler has not used this text but rather a vernacular London civic chronicle.29 It may be that the compiler’s exemplar was defective after the first paragraph of chapter 244 of Common Version and that he had to look for a source to complete the narrative to 1422. Or, given what is evident elsewhere in the manuscript, it may have been the compiler’s decision that at this point he should abandon the Brut text and use the London civic chronicle to complete the narrative. Generally, this Peculiar Version of the Brut in the Peniarth and Bodley manuscripts is intriguing for its eclecticism and for what it reveals about the work of one or possibly more fifteenth-century editors and revisers. There may indeed have been more than one compiler at work, but the pattern of revision is much the same throughout in that it consists of a patchwork of substantial additions and substitutions, some running to 4,000 words or more. Portions of the Common Version of the Brut are left as they are, but the compiler or compilers have systematically incorporated large self-contained passages into the narrative. There are some instances of repetition,30 but little evidence of synthesis; the compiler’s main techniques are addition and substitution. * * * We return to the question of the motives that lie behind the work of the compilers and ask what seems to be driving the development of these two peculiar, or The Brut, ed. Brie, II, 373. In his Prose Brut, Matheson notes this source in his commentary on PV–1422:B (p. 296 n. 3). For the text of the London civic chronicle, see Chronicles of London, ed. C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1905), pp. 1–116. See also M.-R. McLaren, The London Chronicles of the Fifteenth Century: A Revolution in English Writing (Cambridge, 2002). 30 Marx, ‘Middle English Manuscripts of the Brut in the National Library of Wales’, p. 366. 28 29



Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut

103

particular, Brut texts. To adopt a methodological analogy, does this exercise in textual archaeology, which involves uncovering layers of additions and substitutions in the texts of the two versions, bring to light motives that have cultural or political significance? Certain motives do emerge, for example: (1) to extend the range of reference and the kinds of material that make up the narrative, and, in so doing, to broaden the historical and political compass of the Brut; (2) to include personal aspects of individuals, particularly leaders, or, in other words, to humanize figures like King Edward the Confessor and King William I who in historical terms tend to assume mythic proportions; (3) to give insight into negotiations over political decision-making and, for the later periods, the deliberations of parliament as with the account of Richard II in PV–1437/1461; (4) to restore to the historical narrative what can be seen as absent or possibly suppressed; and (5) to use the past to provide analogies for the political controversies or political anxieties of the present or recent past such as the legitimacy of royal succession. In addition, explorations of the textual archaeology of these Peculiar Versions of the Brut reveal evidence of changes in the linguistic culture of late medieval England. For the early parts of the texts the compilers translate Latin chronicles into Middle English in order to extend and develop the narrative, to add episodes that give a fuller picture of political events, or to give more of a hinterland to the political narrative. At the same time, the compilers may have wanted to include in the texts materials that would give to vernacular historical writing the kind of authority that Latin chronicles implicitly carried. In this way the compilers were using the Brut as a vehicle for the vernacularization of historical writing for a broad readership.31 At the same time, for the latter part of the narrative of PV–1422:B – the reign of Henry V – the compiler used a London civic chronicle, in place of the Brut’s text, as if the compiler wanted to incorporate material from this well-established and popular form of vernacular historical narrative into the revised chronicle, not only for its range of reference but for its implicit authority. What we can discover through textual archaeology about the activities of compilers is privileged information. That is, for the medieval reader of the Peculiar Versions the manuscripts do not draw attention to the interpolations; they are designed to fit seamlessly into the established text, the Common Version. The sources or origins of interpolated passages only emerge as such as the result of close investigation of the manuscript texts. Our interpretations and conclusions about the motives that drove the compilers of Peculiar Versions are made on the basis of the insights that emerge through research. The motive of the vernacularization of historical writing in the fifteenth century, for example, is more implicit than explicit in the manuscript texts. How are we to understand these texts and, as See essays in the collection Readers and Writers, ed. Marx and Radulescu: C. Weinberg, ‘History and Chivalry in the Brut, 1333–1377’, pp. 33–51; A. N. Vines, ‘“Thys Ys Her Owne Boke”: Women Reading the Middle English Prose Brut Chronicle’, pp. 71–96; T. Drukker, ‘I Read Therefore I Write: Readers’ Marginalia in Some Brut Manuscripts’, pp. 97–130; E. J. Bryan, ‘Dialoguing Hands in MS Hatton 50: Reformation Readers of the Middle English Prose Brut’, pp. 131–87; and R. Radulescu, ‘Gentry Readers of the Brut and Genealogical Material’, pp. 189–202.

31

104

William Marx

Peculiar Versions, what they represented to the medieval reader? For the medieval reader or audience, the revisions and interpolations subtly change the character of vernacular historical writing. In one sense, the Prose Brut as a concept begins to disappear; what we understand as the Brut becomes, fundamentally, a framework for different, often conflicting narratives of British history. In the Peculiar Versions discussed here, vernacular historical narrative is generally more weighty and for the medieval reader presents a broader historical and political range of reference than the Common Version of the Brut. Through this kind of revision vernacular historical writing becomes a more mature and more complex expression of the national consciousness. The subtitle of the present collection of essays in memory and honour of Lister Matheson is ‘Books Have Their Histories’. The discipline of book history tends to focus on questions of context, that is, patronage, production, ownership, readership and use. Certainly the manuscripts in which Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut survive encourage investigations of these issues, but book history conceived strictly in these terms ignores another important dimension to the history of these books. This essay uses an approach that is based on the traditional notion of the manuscript book as text within the context of manuscript culture. As such it is analogous to the work of archaeology at a fundamental level, which compels the researcher to investigate the layers of activities at a particular site – here, for ‘site’ read ‘text’ – as products of cultural history. In this respect the Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut have histories that are complex and intriguing. For these two particular versions, this essay has established only narrow, exploratory trenches, and exposed only a small fraction of their cultural archaeology, but for the Peculiar Versions of the Middle English Prose Brut this dig is one with which it is worth persevering.

chapter seven

THE ENGLISH PROSE BRUT CHRONICLE ON A ROLL: CAMBRIDGE, CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, MS 546 AND ITS HISTORY Jaclyn Rajsic

C

ambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 (hereafter Corpus 546) is one of four royal genealogical rolls currently held in the Parker Library’s collection.1 It was written in 1527, in English and on paper, by a certain Ambrose Middelton of Inner Temple in London, we learn from a Latin colophon at the end of the roll.2 The roll begins with the Creation (a prologue describes the seven days in which God created the world) and, like several royal genealogies produced in fifteenth-century England, the illustrated tree diagram in Corpus 546 opens with a roundel for Adam and Eve, from whom all proceeding figures are shown to descend. The diagram progresses through selected Old Testament figures and Trojan kings until it reaches Aeneas, Silvius and Brutus. It continues through a host of legendary British rulers, ultimately derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae (c. 1136), and then through Anglo-Saxon kings. Lines of popes and emperors run down the left and right sides of the roll, as is common in many genealogical rolls produced in late medieval England. However, while these other rolls bring the diagrammatic history up to date with contemporary English rulers, Corpus 546 ends with the Anglo-Saxon king Harold, son of Godwine. Little is known about this roll, and it has not yet benefitted from critical study. However, as I aim to demonstrate here, it will be of great interest to scholars interested in royal genealogies and, especially, in the Prose Brut. I argue in this essay that Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 presents a hitherto unidentified text of the English Prose Brut chronicle, albeit a highly

The others are Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MSS 98, 98A and 116. Corpus 546 is briefly described by R. Vaughan and J. Fines, ‘A Handlist of Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Not Described by M. R. James’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 3 (1960), 113–23 (p. 115). The roll measures 17’4” x 6 ¼” (ibid.). 2 The colophon identifies Middelton as a ‘socium Interioris Templi in ciuitate London’. The year is written clearly in Roman numerals. I follow the spelling of Middelton as it appears on the roll. 1

105

106

Jaclyn Rajsic

abbreviated version of it.3 To demonstrate this, I examine two episodes and one narrative feature that are characteristic of the Prose Brut but are not necessarily found in other histories of England’s rulers: the story of Albina; the tale of King Curan, known to readers of medieval romance as Havelok the Dane; and the Prose Brut’s sequence of early Anglo-Saxon kings. I suggest that Corpus 546 belongs in Lister Matheson’s group of ‘Very Short Texts Based on the Brut’, in his ‘Peculiar Texts and Versions’ category, and I also contend that it is unique in the Prose Brut tradition. Corpus 546 is one of only two English Prose Brut texts extant to be written on a roll, not in a codex (though their texts and diagrams are very different); but neither has been linked to the Prose Brut until now.4 It is the only Prose Brut roll to combine the English narrative with lines of popes and emperors and to extend its history back to the Creation. Corpus 546 thereby belongs to the genres of both Prose Brut and genealogical roll,5 each of which was exceedingly popular in late medieval England but has often been eclipsed in studies of English historical and literary texts by better-known and canonical works. Thanks to Matheson’s pioneering work, the Prose Brut is receiving an increasing amount of scholarly For the purposes of this discussion, which focuses on the British and Anglo-Saxon pasts, I use the term ‘Prose Brut’ to refer to the text of Common Version of the English chronicle and Oldest and Long Anglo-Norman Versions. Much of what is true of these versions is also true of other French and English copies of the history. I specify when I am referring to a Prose Brut text that differs from the more common versions, for example one of Matheson’s ‘Peculiar Texts and Versions’. 4 Matheson does not list any rolls in his study of Prose Brut texts and manuscripts, and none have been identified by other scholars since. See L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), pp. 314–18.   I only recently discovered the second English Prose Brut roll: London, College of Arms, MS 20/8. This roll stretches from Adam to King Henry II. It ends imperfectly; the later sections of the roll have been torn off. The genealogical tree diagram runs down the centre and/or right column of the roll, while most of the text appears in the left column; thus text and image appear side-by-side. The majority of the roll is devoted to an abbreviated account of the mythical British past. The history of Anglo-Saxon and later English kings (to Henry II) is strikingly short in comparison. This further attests, with Corpus 546, to the interest in England’s earliest past by readers and writers of the Prose Brut. Two features confirm that College of Arms 20/8 presents a condensed version of the Prose Brut chronicle, and not a different history of England’s kings. First, as is characteristic of the Prose Brut, College of Arms 20/8 includes King Curan and his wife. Second, it incorporates the Prose Brut’s passage comparing Edgar to King Arthur. However, it identifies King Egbert of Wessex as the first Anglo-Saxon king to rule after the Britons, whereas the Common Version of the Prose Brut chronicle does not (see further pp. 110–11, below). Some Peculiar Versions of the English Prose Brut incorporate Egbert, so it may be that College of Arms 20/8 was derived from one of them. Or, perhaps its author saw fit to modify the history, changing the Prose Brut’s sequence of Anglo-Saxon kings. Unlike Corpus 546, College of Arms 20/8 does not include Albina or Cadwallader (its Prose Brut exemplar probably did not have the Cadwallader episode), and there are no lines of popes or emperors. The roll is quite plain. 5 On the former, see Erik Kooper’s essay in this volume. 3



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

107

attention, as many of the essays in this volume demonstrate.6 However, genealogical rolls are rarely studied in any detail, as historical texts in their own right, largely due to the fact that the majority of them remain unedited. It is one of my arguments in this essay that genealogical rolls do not simply abbreviate larger and more familiar works, but, more profoundly, that their authors reshape the lengthier narratives they appear to summarize.

Abbreviating the English Prose Brut Chronicle: Albina, Havelok and Anglo-Saxon Kings The Prose Brut chronicle is distinctive from other histories of England’s rulers in many ways. An analysis of its defining features can therefore enable us to determine whether Middelton followed a Prose Brut text or a copy of a different English history when writing his roll. The presence of the Albina myth is one such characteristic. This story relates Albina’s arrival on and naming of the island of Albion before Brutus’s legendary conquest of the land. There, she and her sisters copulate with incubi or with the Devil himself, depending on the version, and give birth to the giants whom Brutus later defeats. Although the myth was popular in late medieval England, it certainly enjoyed its widest dissemination as part of the Prose Brut tradition, since it appears as a prologue to most copies of the Anglo-Norman and English Prose Bruts; but it is not ubiquitous among England’s chronicles.7 Its inclusion in Corpus 546 is therefore our first clue that Middelton might have used a copy of the Prose Brut when writing his diagrammatic history. In Corpus 546 the Albina story appears in a rather lengthy paragraph written above the roundel for Brutus, the land’s first king, as is consistent with its prefatory placement in Prose Brut manuscripts. There are many different versions of the myth, but two main groups (A and B) have been identified.8 In group A versions, Albina and her thirty sisters come from Greece and do not succeed in murdering their husbands (the women are exiled for their attempted murder, and ultimately arrive to the then-unnamed Albion). The youngest sibling, who loves her lord, reveals her sisters’ plot to her spouse and the crime is prevented. In group B versions, Albina is the daughter of King Diocletian and Queen Labana of Syria; she has thirty-three sisters and the women succeed in murdering their husbands. Sources See also the essays collected in Digital Philology: A Journal of Medieval Cultures 3.2 (2014), which consider the English Prose Brut manuscript acquired by Dartmouth College in 2006 and other Prose Brut texts. 7 The Albina myth was written sometime in the early fourteenth century. It appears with thirty-one copies of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, but not the Oldest Version. See R. J. Dean, with the collaboration of M. B. M. Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series 3 (London, 1999), pp. 27–31 (nos. 37, 38, 39, 41). 8 See especially L. Johnson, ‘Return to Albion’, Arthurian Literature 13 (1995), 19–40. On Latin versions of the story, particularly De origine gigantum, see J. P. Carley and J. Crick, ‘Constructing Albion’s Past: An Annotated Edition of De origine gigantum’, Arthurian Literature 13 (1995), 41–114. 6

108

Jaclyn Rajsic

may blend details from these two groups together and make further changes to the story.9 However, it was a group B version that became attached to the Long Version of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut chronicle and subsequently appears in most English manuscripts to include the story (Anglo-Norman Short Versions have the group A text),10 so it is significant that Corpus 546 relates the group B tale. Its account corresponds closely to the one found in the English Prose Brut. It is, of course, compressed, and as a result some details and occurrences found in the Prose Brut are absent; however, at no point does Corpus 546 contradict the Prose Brut’s narrative, and Middelton’s story ends, as we would expect, by looking ahead to Brutus’s conquest of the giants: And then the Devyll toke a body of the ayre & sent to them [i.e. the women] & begate gyantes on them, Gogmagog & Longherigam & oder[s], & [the giants] dwelled yn caves & hilles at there wyll vnto the tyme that Brute arryved & come to Totnes that was yn the seid yle, and there he conquered & scomfyted the gynates [sic] aboueseid.11 Here, as elsewhere, Corpus 546 seems to echo the English Prose Brut: ‘& þey dwellyd in Cauys & in hulles at here will, & had þe lond of Albyon as hem liked, vn-to þe tyme þat Brut Arryved & come to Tottenesse, þat was in þe Ile of Albyon. And þere þis Brut conqueryd & scomfyted these geaunteȝ aboueseyd.’12 This last remark in particular is one of several phrases in Corpus 546 that appears to have been lifted almost verbatim from an English Prose Brut text. All of this suggests that Middelton used an English Prose Brut manuscript as the source for his Albina story and, I believe, for his historical narrative up to and including Harold’s reign. Middelton’s incorporation of King Curan in his diagrammatic history provides further proof of this. In the genealogical tree diagram Curan appears after kings Adelbright and Edell, who rule after King Constantine (who is in turn King Arthur’s successor), and before King Conan. This is precisely where we find him in the English Prose Brut chronicle. Yet, Curan never appears in Geoffrey’s Historia, and so he does not appear in many of its Brut chronicle successors (in these texts Constantine is succeeded by Conan). When he does appear in other Brut chronicles, Curan/Havelok is often said to rule at a much later point in England’s history See the examples given by L. M. Ruch, Albina and her Sisters: The Foundation of Albion (Amherst NY, 2013), pp. 79–90. 10 Some English Prose Brut manuscripts witness changes to the Albina story and/or present a group A text, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. On Albina in the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, see J. Marvin, ‘Albine and Isabelle: Regicidal Queens and the Historical Imagination of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicles’, Arthurian Literature 18 (2001), 143–91. 11 My emphasis. In all manuscript quotations abbreviations are silently expanded and modern punctuation and capitalization are used. 12 The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (London, 1906–8), I, 4 (my emphasis). Cf. the Common Version passage transcribed by Matheson, The Prose Brut, p. 185, which relates that the giants ‘dwellyd in Cauys & in hulles at here will’, as in Corpus 546. 9



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

109

than in the Prose Brut, during the Anglo-Saxon period, which would make these histories unlikely sources for Corpus 546.13 As with the Albina myth, the Corpus 546 and English Prose Brut accounts of Curan’s life and reign are remarkably similar (I here quote Middelton’s story in its entirety, for ease of comparison with the English Prose Brut): After the deth of Kyng Constantyne this Kyng Aldebright, a Dane, was kyng of Norff[olk] & Suff[olk] & maried Orwenne, Kyng Edell[’s] syster, & had a doughter on her called Argentell. And yn the iijde yere after he toke a strange syknes & sent for Kyng Edell, his brother yn lawe, to come & speke with hym & desired hym to take his doughter & the londe & when she come to age to marie her to some worthy man, & then to yelde vp her lond ayen. And Edell it graunted & by othe confermed his desyre. This Edell, a Bryton, helde Nicholl, Lyndeser, & all the londe vnto Humber. And this Kyng Edell, contrary the trust put to hym, dyd marye his cosyn Argentell to a knave of his kechyn called Curan. & he became a strong man for he was Havelokes son, Kyng of Kyrklonde yn Denmarke. And this Curan dyd conquere his wyfes londe after & slewe Kyng Edell. This Curan reigned but iij. yere & was slayn by the Saxons & Danes & buried at Stonehenges.14 The Prose Brut’s Curan story combines details from Geffrei Gaimar’s twelfthcentury Estoire des Engleis, its main source for Anglo-Saxon history, and the anonymous Lai d’Haveloc.15 It also has parallels with the English romance Havelok the Dane, namely the fact that Curan is said to rule over all of England, not just parts of it, as in Gaimar.16 While Middelton abridges the tale, all of his details correspond to the English Prose Brut’s story, suggesting again that the Prose Brut was Middelton’s source for his genealogical history. What I wish to underscore about the Corpus 546 passage is its remark that the kitchen knave whom Edell marries to Argentell turns out to be Havelok’s son, not Havelok himself as in Gaimar and romance tradition. This detail is important because it distinguishes copies of the English Prose Brut chronicle from most of For a list of examples, see R. J. Moll, ‘“Nest past autentik, mais apocrophum”: Haveloks and their Reception in Medieval England’, Studies in Philology 105 (2008), 165–206 (pp. 168–9). See also Caroline D. Eckhardt, ‘Havelok the Dane in “Castleford’s Chronicle”’, Studies in Philology 98 (2001), 1–17. 14 My emphasis. Compare The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 91–2. Italicized phrases correspond to the following sections from the Prose Brut’s passage: ‘And in þe þridde ȝere after, him come vppon a stronge sikenesse, þat nedes he moste dye; and he sent to Kyng Edelf his brotherin-lawe, that he shulde come and speke with him’; ‘and þan he shulde ȝelde vp her lande aȝeyne. Edelf hit grauntede, and by oth hit confermede at his power’; ‘ffor þis Curan was Hauelockes sone, þat was Kyng of Kirkelane in Denmark; and þis Curan conquered his wifes lands, and slough Kyng Edelf ’ (ibid.). 15 J. Marvin, ‘Havelok in the Prose Brut Tradition’, Studies in Philology 102 (2005), 280–306 (pp. 283, 291). 16 See also T. Turville-Petre, ‘Havelok and the History of the Nation’, in Readings in Medieval English Romance, ed. C. M. Meale (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 121–34. 13

110

Jaclyn Rajsic

its Anglo-Norman predecessors. In the Oldest Version Curan and Haveloc are the same person; however, owing to a translation error the hero’s identity changed in the English tradition.17 The precise point in time when Adelbright and Edell are shown to rule confirms an English Prose Brut source for Corpus 546, instead of an Anglo-Norman one. In Anglo-Norman Prose Bruts the reigns of Adelbright, Edell and Curan mark a pause of sorts in the main line of kings from Constantine to Conan. Their Conan section begins, ‘Apres cesti Constantin regna Conan son neueu’ (‘After this Constantine reigned his nephew Conan’).18 But the English Prose Brut specifics that Conan rules after Curan rather than Constantine: ‘After þis Curan, regnede Conan, þat was his cosyn’.19 The English Prose Brut therefore goes further than its Anglo-Norman relatives in integrating Curan into the succession of kings who rule over England, making Conan both the inheritor and relative (cosyn) of Curan (in place of constantine), and the Corpus 546 narrative accords with it. As such, we can be sure that Middelton followed the English Prose Brut’s narrative when writing his roll, and that Corpus 546 does not represent an independent translation of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut into English (i.e., independent from the original Common Version translation).20 Finally, and as before, some phrases in the roll are strikingly similar to passages in the English Prose Brut text edited by Friedrich W. D. Brie, although it is not my intention to suggest that one of Brie’s manuscripts was Middelton’s exemplar. Equally, it is important to consider the many stages of copying and transmission that would have given shape to Middelton’s text. Exact parallels should not be expected, nor are they necessary; the overall similarity between Corpus 546 and the English Prose Brut chronicle is sufficient to show the close relationship between the two, despite their minor linguistic differences. The Prose Brut’s presentation of the passage of dominion, the period that saw the transfer of insular power from the ancient Britons to the Anglo-Saxons, is dramatically different from those of many of its contemporaries. The Prose Brut follows and adapts Gaimar’s Estoire for its account of Anglo-Saxon kings, whereas English writers more commonly adhere to other sources, often William of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum or Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum. As a result, the Prose Brut records a different sequence of early English kings than other Brut chronicles written in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle and the second version of John Hardyng’s Chronicle, to take only two examples, trace a line of early English rulers comparable to Henry of Huntingdon’s, Marvin, ‘Havelok in the Prose Brut Tradition’, pp. 299–300. Marvin finds that ‘the evidence of the Anglo-Norman Long Version is mixed. … The shift may thus have occurred at the time of translation [into English] or in the Long Version text used by the translator’ (ibid., p. 300). 18 The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: An Edition and Translation, ed. and trans. J. Marvin, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 182–3. See further Moll, ‘Haveloks and their Reception in Medieval England’, pp. 172–3, and Marvin, ‘Havelok in the Prose Brut Tradition’, pp. 297–9. 19 The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 92. 20 Such a translation was made in 1435 by John Mandeville, rector of Burnham Thorpe in Norfolk. See further Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 328–34. 17



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

111

which proceeds through Brithric, Egbert, Ethelwulf, Ethelbald, Ethelbert and Ethelred before reaching Alfred, Edward and Athelstan in the ninth and tenth centuries.21 However, both the Prose Brut and Corpus 546 move from Galfridian rulers to kings Ossa (i.e., the eighth-century king Offa of Mercia),22 Osbright, Ella, Saint Edmond, Edulf and Eldrede before arriving at Alfred, Edward and Athelstan. Perhaps most strikingly, Henry of Huntingdon, Robert of Gloucester and John Hardyng all single out King Egbert of Wessex as an important ruler of the whole of England in the ninth century. They were far from alone in this; the view was widespread in English histories.23 In contrast, however, Egbert never appears in the Prose Brut.24 His function is fulfilled instead by Ossa, who, we learn, ‘conquerede alle þe kynges of þe lande, & regned aboue ham alle’ (England was formerly divided into several kingdoms, each ruled by different kings).25 Egbert’s absence from Corpus 546, and Middelton’s adherence to the Prose Brut’s chronology and accounts of Anglo-Saxon kings, confirms that Middelton continued to use the Prose Brut as the source for his diagrammatic history long after his narrative of mythical British rulers. To remove any doubt, later in the roll Middelton compares the English king Edgar to none other than the great King Arthur, following the Prose Brut: ‘This Edgar reigned after Edwyn his brother & was lorde & kyng above all the kynges of Scotlonde & Walys & sens the tyme that Arthur was none of his power.’26 The comparison ultimately derives from Gaimar, but it was widespread in England through copies of the Prose Brut chronicle and does not appear in the other English histories noted above.

Preliminary Conclusions Taking together the evidence seen thus far, it is clear that Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 represents a hitherto unidentified English Prose Brut text, an abridged reworking of the Common Version of the chronicle. It is unlikely that Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle moves directly from Ethelwulf (Adelwolf) to Ethelred (Aldred), skipping Ethelbald and Ethelbert. Hardyng has Ethelwulf (Athelwolfe) and Ethelbert but not Ethelbald. 22 See further The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, ed. Marvin, p. 322, n. to lines 2317–24. 23 It is especially prominent in a group of royal genealogical rolls written in Anglo-Norman in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, which visibly identify Egbert as the first ruler of a united Engletere. Egbert is the first Anglo-Saxon king to appear in the illustrated tree diagram that runs down the centre of the roll, ultimately to reach contemporary English rulers (usually Henry III or Edward I). See further n. 41 below. 24 With the exception of some Peculiar Versions of the chronicle that incorporate material from sources other than Gaimar’s Estoire, and are thus better compared to the Historia Anglorum and its successors in their Anglo-Saxon sections. 25 The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 102. Five kingdoms are named, but Ossa is said to rule over them and the ‘oþere costes’ (ibid.), so the Prose Brut author probably had the Heptarchy in mind here. Egbert was often said to rule all seven kingdoms of England, as in the genealogical rolls mentioned in n. 23 above (see also n. 41 below). 26 Compare The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 113: ‘And þis Edgare was Kyng and lorde aboue alle þe kyngs of Scotland and of Walys: fram þe tyme þat Arthure was gone, neuer was siþen kyng of his power.’ 21

112

Jaclyn Rajsic

the manuscript stems from an Abbreviated or Extended Version text, themselves derived from the Common Version. These versions add a unique exordium at the beginning of the history as well as details from the Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle, but none are found in Corpus 546.27 I suggest, therefore, that Corpus 546 be included in Matheson’s group of ‘Very Short Works Based on the Brut’, a subsection of his ‘Peculiar Texts and Versions’ category. To this group, I would also add the second English Prose Brut roll I have identified: London, College of Arms, MS 20/8.28 Matheson lists five manuscripts in his ‘Very Short Works’ group,29 so these additions bring the total up to seven. I have seen only one of Matheson’s five manuscripts.30 However, based on his descriptions of the others I do not believe that the two rolls are related to them. Rather, Corpus 546 and College of Arms 20/8 are unique English Prose Brut texts; both should stand on their own in the ‘Very Short Works’ group. Matheson’s interest in Prose Brut texts and manuscripts went beyond categorization. Where possible, he provided information about the provenance and authorship, and an approximate date, of his manuscripts. As his work shows, and as the essays in this volume continue to demonstrate, no study of medieval texts is complete without a consideration of the contexts in which those texts appear, whether social, political or material. I argue that the unique Prose Brut text penned by Ambrose Middelton cannot be fully appreciated until we explore the possible motivations that lay behind its production, especially given its material format. Although we know the who, when and where of Corpus 546’s production, the question of why Ambrose Middelton wrote this diagrammatic history has yet to be answered.

Ambrose Middelton and his Diagrammatic History Little is known about Middelton and his life. According to the Inner Temple’s records, a certain Ambrose Middelton joined the inn in Michaelmas Term of 1526,31 which suggests that Middelton completed his genealogical roll approximately one year after his admission there. In the early sixteenth century, as now, Inner Temple was a society of lawyers and law students, so it seems that Middelton was a practitioner of law. He was probably the first son of John Middleton of Barnard Castle in County Durham.32 If this is correct, then he was indeed an attorney and had See further Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 53–4. For a brief textual description, see n. 4 above. 29 See Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 314–18. 30 The text from London, Lambeth Palace, MS 306, printed in Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (London, 1880), pp. 1–28. 31 A Calendar of Inner Temple Records 1505–1603, ed. F. A. Inderwick (London, 1896), I, 88: ‘Admission of Ambrose Midylton in Michaelmas term last past, and he is pardoned all offices and vacations for the sum of 20s., which he owes to the society’. The entry is dated to 9 July 1527. 32 Sir J. Baker, The Men of Court 1440 to 1550: A Prosopography of the Inns of Court and Chancery and the Courts of Law, 2 vols., Selden Society Supplementary Series 18 (London, 2012), II, 1093. 27 28



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

113

been so since at least 1520. He held several posts in the north of England, including Justice of the Peace in Westmorland from 1531 and, from 1547, in Cumberland; by c. 1544 he was keeper of the rolls (custos rotulorum) in both.33 He seems to have died in or around 1555; his will is dated to 4 August 1555.34 It is unclear whether or not Corpus 546 was kept in London or whether it travelled with Middelton up north; nothing is known about the provenance of the roll before it was given to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, by Thomas Whincop, one of its Fellows, in 1682 (or 1692).35 Nevertheless, thanks to Middelton’s colophon, much more is known about the authorship of this genealogical roll than most, and we can count this lawyer and northerner among the Prose Brut’s readers and writers. The question remains, however, as to why Middelton decided to write his genealogical roll to begin with. Moreover, why did he choose to end his diagrammatic history with Harold instead of continuing it with more recent kings? As one scholar remarks, ‘presumably [Corpus 546] was copied from a medieval roll; however, usually such a genealogy would extend beyond the Norman Conquest, so it is interesting that Ambrose Middelton chose to conclude at this point’.36 The answer lies in the roll itself, at the end of Middelton’s account of William’s defeat of King Harold, in the last two lines of his narrative: ‘And of his [i.e. William’s] reigne, with the names of all the kynges & there specyall actes sens his tyme unto Edward the .iiij.th, appereth yn an oder rolle playnly’ (my emphasis). Middelton, then, wrote Corpus 546 as a continuation backwards in time of a different roll, which stretches from William to Edward IV, perhaps one that he came across in London.37 It is significant Baker summarizes Middelton’s career (ibid.). According to Baker, Middelton died ‘without issue’ (ibid.). However, the wills of Middelton himself and of his wife, Cecily, and brother, Anthony, all name sons, the eldest of whom is called Thomas. See Wills and Inventories from the Registry at Durham, Part III, ed. J. C. Hodgson, Surtees Society 112 (London, 1906), pp. 12–13 (for Ambrose), and Wills and Inventories from the Registry at Durham, Part II, ed. W. Greenwell, Surtees Society 38 (London, 1860), pp. 35–7 (for Anthony and for a long quotation from Cecily’s will). For Thomas Middelton’s will, see ibid., pp. 37–9. Unfortunately, none of the wills mention books or rolls. 35 Vaughan and Fines record the year of Whincop’s donation as 1692 (‘Handlist’, p. 115), based on an inscription written on the dorse of the roll. However, the number nine is only partly visible, and I believe it could be an eight. Unfortunately, examination of the roll under ultraviolet light did not resolve the issue. A date of 1682 would be a better fit with Whincop’s donation of Corpus 116, another of the Parker Library’s genealogical rolls, in 1682–3. 36 ‘Summary’, ‘Manuscript 546’, Parker Library on the Web; accessed 9 April 2014. 37 The best-known genealogical text from William the Conqueror to fifteenth-century kings is John Lydgate’s Verses on the Kings of England, which originally ended with King Henry VI, but in nine manuscripts the Henry VI stanza is altered or one or more stanzas for subsequent kings are added (in some cases only a heading for Edward IV is added). See L. R. Mooney, ‘Lydgate’s “Kings of England” and Another Verse Chronicle of the Kings’, Viator 20 (1989), 255–89 (pp. 259–62). Mooney counts thirty-six fifteenth- and sixteenth-century copies of the Verses, including one seventeenth-century copy (p. 256). All are found in codices. Two more codex copies are added by S. M. Horrall, ‘Lydgate’s “Verses on the Kings of England”: a new manuscript’, Notes and Queries, n.s. 35:4 (1988), 33 34

114

Jaclyn Rajsic

that this ‘oder rolle’ is said to end with Edward IV, not with more recent kings such as Henry VIII, who was in power in Middelton’s time. Genealogical rolls continued to be read long after the period in which they were written; Middelton’s comment at the end of Corpus 546 seems to provide further evidence of this. It is telling, however, that what Middelton thought was missing from his ‘oder rolle’ was a narrative of the past rather than the present. Critical discussions of fifteenth-century genealogical rolls have privileged their representations of contemporary history, especially in relation to their propagandist aims. Many of these rolls were produced and disseminated during the Wars of the Roses, and writers responded to political changes in genealogical texts. Scholarly interest in British myth in royal genealogies written in this period has similarly centred upon propaganda and the use of political prophecy, as accounts of Galfridian kings were used to bolster Yorkist claims to the English throne.38 Written several decades after the Wars of the Roses, however, Corpus 546 reminds us of the perceived importance of the past to readers and writers of English histories and genealogies no matter the political context; it reminds us that these rolls were received as texts in their own right, as additional sources of England’s past and present both in and after the fifteenth century, despite the fact that Galfridian history was becoming increasingly questioned at that point. Middelton himself seems to have been particularly interested in England’s early history for its explanations of the origins of placenames and foundations of cities. He often underlines the names of such places, and usually draws a cross beside them too, which makes for ease of reference for anyone wanting to learn about the etymology of English towns and landmarks.39 But there is more to Corpus 546’s importance than its focus on pre-Conquest rulers and events, and it involves Middelton’s use and adaptation of the Prose Brut. By choosing to adapt the English Prose Brut’s narrative for his diagrammatic

441, and J. Boffey and A. S. G. Edwards, ‘Middle English Verse in Chronicles’, in New Perspectives on Middle English Texts: A Festschrift for R. A. Waldron, ed. S. Powell and J. J. Smith (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 119–28 (p. 126 n. 32). I have identified a thirty-ninth copy of Lydgate’s Verses (late fifteenth century, up to Henry VI), which unlike others is written on a roll, where it complements a genealogical tree diagram from William to Henry VI and his son, Edward Prince of Wales: London, College of Arms, MS Num. Sch. 3/4. This finding suggests that more copies of Lydgate’s Verses might have been written on rolls but either did not survive or are awaiting discovery. Mooney counts sixteen manuscripts of a related poem, the Anonymous Kings of England, six of which are rolls. ‘In almost all the surviving manuscripts [the poem] is accompanied by a pedigree of the kings’ (Mooney, ‘Lydgate’s “Kings of England”’, p. 263). It is tempting to suggest that Middelton’s ‘oder roll’ might have been a copy of Lydgate’s Verses or the Anonymous Kings, but this hypothesis cannot be proven. 38 See especially A. Allan, ‘Yorkist Propaganda: Pedigree, Prophecy and the “British History” in the Reign of Edward IV’, in Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. C. Ross (Gloucester, 1979), pp. 171–92. 39 There are further illustrations in the roll, in addition to the genealogical tree diagram and roundels: Noah’s ark, the Tower of Babel, and the True Cross (next to the roundel for Saint Helena, who ‘founde the Holy Crosse’).



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

115

history, Ambrose Middelton did something rather special.40 Over seventy genealogical rolls of England’s kings written in fifteenth-century England, which stretch through British and Anglo-Saxon rulers (typically from Noah or Adam and Eve), survive.41 This is an impressive number, and attests to the immense popularity of royal genealogies in late medieval England. Three of these rolls draw on the Prose Brut chronicle for their narratives of British and/or English history: (1) the so-called Adam and Eve roll, also held in the Parker Library’s collection (but it only includes sections of the Prose Brut);42 (2) Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley Rolls 2, an insular copy – and adaptation – of a group of genealogies of the kings of France from Priam onwards, known as A tous nobles, which in several manuscripts is juxtaposed with a diagrammatic history of England’s kings from mythical British rulers (as in Bodley Rolls 2), and which was composed and disseminated in fifteenth century France; and (3) London, British Library, MS Add. 27342, a different and hitherto unidentified insular rewriting of the English history found in A tous nobles manuscripts, but which presents the history of England’s kings alone.43 If language is I have not seen all royal genealogies extant from this period. More Prose Brut rolls may well be uncovered through further research. 41 Some are now bound as codices but appear to have been originally designed as rolls. I do not count the royal genealogies written in the late thirteenth century and in the fourteenth, which differ from the fifteenth-century rolls discussed here. These earlier genealogies, such as The Hague Roll (see further Erik Kooper’s essay in this volume), typically stretch from King Egbert of Wessex to Henry III or Edward I. However, some of them, like The Hague Roll, include a short account of Galfridian kings, who appear before the line(s) of Anglo-Saxon rulers. These earlier rolls represent an important stage in the development of royal genealogies in medieval England, since they saw the incorporation of legendary British rulers into diagrammatic histories of Anglo-Saxon and later English kings. On British history in these rolls, see further my ‘Looking for Arthur in Short Histories and Genealogies of England’s Kings’ (forthcoming). The thirteenth- and fourteenth-century rolls (most are written in Anglo-Norman but some are Latin) have been studied extensively by O. de Laborderie, Histoire, Mémoire et Pouvoir: Les Genealogies en Rouleau des Rois d’Angleterre (1250–1422) (Paris, 2013). See also J. Spence, Reimagining History in Anglo-Norman Prose Chronicles (York, 2013). 42 See D. B. Tyson, ‘The Adam and Eve Roll: Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 98’, Scriptorium 52 (1998), 301–16. The (imperfect) text, based partly on the Prose Brut, appears on one side of the roll. On the other side is a different diagrammatic history beginning with Adam and Eve.   The title ‘Adam and Eve roll’ is slightly misleading, since a number of genealogies written in this period begin with a roundel depicting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, this diagrammatic history begins with two large illustrations, one for each of Adam and Eve, so Adam and Eve are more prominent in this genealogy than in others. 43 For an edition and translation of the Bodley Rolls 2 prologue, see my ‘Genealogical Rolls’, in Vernacular Literary Theory from the French of Medieval England: Texts and Translations, c. 1120–c. 1450, ed. J. Wogan-Browne, T. Fenster and D. Russell (Cambridge, forthcoming). On A tous nobles, see especially M. A. Norbye, ‘Genealogies and Dynastic Awareness in the Hundred Years War: The Evidence of A tous nobles qui aiment beaux faits et bonnes histoires’, Journal of Medieval History 33 (2007), 297–319; and M. A. Norbye, ‘A Popular Example of “National Literature” in the Hundred Years War: A tous nobles qui aiment beaux faits et bonnes histoires, A Mirror of its Times’, Nottingham Medieval 40

116

Jaclyn Rajsic

a reliable indicator, then these three rolls follow an Anglo-Norman Prose Brut text, as opposed to an English one, since all three are written in French.44 Corpus 546 is one of only two rolls that appear to map the English Prose Brut’s narrative onto the tree diagram format. This, I suggest, sets it apart not only from other English Prose Brut texts, but also from other royal genealogies written in late fifteenth and early sixteenth century England. Typically, these sources present a narrative of the past ultimately derived from Geoffrey’s Historia, Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum and/or William of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum, but not the Prose Brut’s reimagined account of the British past and not its Anglo-Saxon history derived from Gaimar. One such genealogy, which was popular in late fifteenth century England, is the so-called Roger of St Albans pedigree. This group of texts take their name from Roger of St Albans, a friar based in London in the 1450s, to whom authorship of the original genealogy is attributed.45 Written in Latin, they begin with Adam (or Adam and Eve) and stretch through British and Anglo-Saxon kings to contemporary English rulers, usually King Henry VI but sometimes Edward IV. At least fifteen copies or versions survive.46 Close study reveals one of them to be Cambridge, Corpus Christi Studies 51 (2007), 121–42. Several A tous nobles texts (and diagrams) are embedded in a universal history, on which see: La Chronique Anonyme Universelle: Reading and Writing History in Fifteenth-Century France, ed. and trans. L. F. Davis, Studies in Medieval and Early Renaissance Art History 61 (Turnhout, 2015). For the history of England’s kings, based on the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, which is often juxtaposed with A tous nobles, see my ‘“Cestuy roy dit que la couronne de Ffraunce luy appartenoit”: Reshaping the Prose Brut Chronicle in Fifteenth-Century France’, in The Plantagenet Empire, 1259–1453: Proceedings of the 2014 Harlaxton Medieval Symposium, ed. P. Crooks, D. Green and W. M. Ormrod (Donington, forthcoming 2016). 44 The rolls’ accounts of King Curan’s reign can help to confirm this conclusion. Unfortunately, the story is not included in Corpus 98. In Bodley Rolls 2 and BL Add. 27342 the Curan story is abbreviated such that there is no reference to Haveloc (i.e., as either Curan himself or Curan’s father). However, in both Constantine is said to be Conan’s oncle (recall that Conan follows Curan in the narrative), which suggests an Anglo-Norman Prose Brut source. Compare The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, ed. Marvin, p. 182: ‘Apres cesti Constantin regna Conan son neueu.’ And see pp. 109–110 below. In the English Prose Brut edited by Brie the familial relationship between Constantine and Conan is unspecified. Conan is linked instead to Curan, his cousin (see The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 91–2). See also my essay about continental French histories that use the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut (some of which are rolls) in n. 43, above. 45 E. D. Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989), p. 2675. 46 Allan, ‘Yorkist Propaganda’, p. 189 n. 3, lists five manuscripts, and five more in A. Allan, ‘Political Propaganda Employed by the House of York in England in the Mid-Fifteenth Century, 1450–1471’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wales, University College, Swansea, 1981), pp. 267 n. 2, 271 n. 1. I can confirm that there are at least four more copies: Corpus 98A; London, British Library, MS Add. 63009; London, College of Arms, MS 20/27; and a roll sold by Dominic Winter Auctions on 4 March 2015, which emerged from and returned to private hands. The Dominic Winter roll is very similar to BL Add. 63009; either the former is copied from the latter or both stem from the same exemplar. Lehigh University apparently also has a Roger of St Albans roll, but I



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

117

College, MS 98A, another roll in the Parker Library’s collection. Significantly, Roger of St Albans texts include neither Albina nor Curan,47 and they position King Egbert of Wessex as the first Anglo-Saxon monarch to rule over a united England, following a period of rulership over its seven kingdoms by different kings, a period these rolls illustrate extensively with roundels arranged in seven long parallel lines, linking the rulers of individual Heptarchy kingdoms together. Roger of St Albans texts and other late medieval genealogical rolls therefore offer very different accounts of England’s past than the one Middelton produced with Corpus 546. It is my argument, however, that Middelton must have had access to a genealogical roll such as the Roger of St Albans one, because it was his exemplar for the section of his text and tree diagram stretching from Adam and Eve to Aeneas, and for the lines of popes and emperors that run down the left and right sides of his roll.48 Indeed, the order of biblical and Trojan figures from Adam and Eve to Aeneas in Corpus 546 matches exactly with that typically found in Roger of St Albans texts.49 Moreover, Roger of St Albans genealogies characteristically include lines of popes and emperors, a feature they share with several other late medieval genealogical rolls.50 Corpus 546, then, straddles the genres of Prose Brut and genealogical roll; it sits within, and between, both traditions, since Middelton drew on both when writing his short chronicle. Yet, Middelton’s use of a royal genealogy such as the Roger of St Albans one also raises questions about Corpus 546’s production. If Middelton had a model for a diagrammatic history of England’s kings that included an account of the British have not examined it so I do not count it here: http://library.lehigh.edu/omeka/exhibits/ show/medieval/secular/ralbans; accessed 10 August 2013. I have identified a version of the Roger of St Albans genealogy in College of Arms MS 20/6. This roll breaks away from other Roger of St Albans texts at the time of Henry III (additionally, its accounts of several Anglo-Saxon kings are shorter in comparison). From this point, its genealogical tree diagram is markedly different from other copies: the diagram has three columns for the kings of France and England and for the British line (i.e., the Mortimer line). It is designed to show King Edward IV’s right to rule over both England and France. The Latin roll ends with Edward IV, followed by a short paragraph written in English, which appears to be about Cadwallader and the prophecy of the Britons’ return to rule. The scribe left spaces in the text for personal names and placenames to be filled in, presumably in red ink, but this project was not completed. 47 Save for two Roger of St Albans rolls, which are exceptional for briefly recounting the Albina story (but Albina is not part of the genealogical tree diagram): BL Add. 24342 and College of Arms 20/6 (a unique version of the genealogy). 48 Middelton may have used a genealogy other than the Roger of St Albans type, since other rolls similarly include lines of popes and emperors, roundels from Adam and Eve to Aeneas, and a row of Heptarchy roundels to denote the break between British and English histories (the importance of this feature is discussed below). However, the Roger of St Albans genealogy, which has all of these features, offers a good example of what Middelton’s ‘oder roll’ could have looked like. 49 I compared Middelton’s roll with Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley Rolls 7. 50 But note that in Corpus 546 the lines of popes and emperors do not continue up until the present day, as we would expect. Pope Paul I (d. 767) and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (d. 1106) are the last to be featured in the diagram.

118

Jaclyn Rajsic

and Anglo-Saxon pasts, then why did he not follow that model for the entirety of his roll, continuing to use it from Aeneas onwards?51 Moreover, and most importantly for our purposes, why did he turn to the English Prose Brut chronicle from this point instead? My answer, though it is impossible to prove, is that Middelton felt that these other rolls were missing something, that there was a more suitable historical narrative to follow when writing a genealogical account of England’s early kings. The Prose Brut was the ‘standard historical account of British and English history’ in late medieval England, as Lister Matheson put it,52 so perhaps it should come as no surprise that Middelton opted to follow the Prose Brut instead of an alternative source of English history. We know that Middelton wanted to extend his ‘oder rolle’ further backwards in time, but most copies of the Prose Brut begin with Aeneas.53 He may, then, have turned to a diagrammatic history such as the Roger of St Albans genealogy to fill the gap in the historical record of Trojan and biblical figures who lived before Aeneas, Ascanius, Silvius and Brutus, copying his source’s lines of popes and emperors at the same time. Still, Middelton’s use of the Prose Brut is something of a surprise given the prevalence of royal genealogies written in fifteenth-century England that do not adhere to it, at least one of which Middelton had access to. Middelton’s reasons aside, however, I would like to suggest that his use of the Prose Brut sheds light on the chronicle’s portrayal of English history.

Representing History in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 and in the Prose Brut By adapting his source text to fit the tree diagram format, Ambrose Middelton fundamentally reshaped the Prose Brut chronicle. His diagram and roundels transform the chronicle from a strictly textual into a highly visual narrative. What is more, the added material about Trojan and biblical figures and popes and emperors situates the national history within a wider, universal context. It also points to a key difference between prose texts and diagrams for the composition and reception of history. Genealogical rolls offer new possibilities for history writing: the space created by the roll’s unbroken page and tree diagram layout allow for multiple events and chronologies to be depicted side by side: rolls allow us to read history sideways as well as forwards and backwards, and the reading experience is Middelton appears to have switched to his Prose Brut exemplar with his account about Aeneas, but he added to it information likely taken from his genealogical roll source. Corpus 546 mentions Aeneas’s son by Lavinia, Silvius Posthumous; but the Prose Brut only features Ascanius, Aeneas’s son by his first wife, Creusa. Roger of St Albans genealogies have roundels for both sons. The Silvius Posthumous roundel branches off to the right of the Aeneas one, and is the first of a series of roundels running down the right side of the roll (it ultimately becomes the line of Roman emperors). The design is the same in Corpus 546. Middelton’s Ascanius paragraph may not come from the Prose Brut, but his Silvius account corresponds to the Prose Brut’s narrative and there are a few verbal parallels with the text edited by Brie: The Brut, I, 5–6. 52 The Prose Brut, p. 9. 53 Some include king lists of earlier Trojan rulers and sometimes of biblical figures. 51



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

119

uninterrupted. At any point in the Corpus 546 narrative, readers need only look to the right to learn about the Roman emperors ruling at the time of England’s kings, for example, although the chronologies of kings, popes and emperors do not always match up. This suggests that the lines of popes and emperors are more illustrative than practical, providing a general frame for England’s past but not necessarily intended to be used as a tool to accurately align English and European histories.54 Nevertheless, in terms of scope, this roll might be best compared with universal chronicles and late medieval genealogical rolls, as well as some printed editions of the Prose Brut,55 which similarly situate England’s history within a wider geographical and Christian framework. Indeed, Middelton’s lines of popes and emperors are more than just diagrams. Snippets of text appear beside or beneath the roundels for notable figures, such as Saint Augustine and Julius Caesar, which marks further expansion by Middelton on his Prose Brut source, since the information provided here is not found in the English chronicle.56 Above all, however, the illustrated tree diagram that runs down the centre of Corpus 546 brings the genealogical structure of the Prose Brut chronicle to the fore. Royal genealogies that include British and early English rulers necessarily present an imagined bond between kings past and present that enables presentday rulers to be seen as the descendants of Brutus, Arthur and others. Much of this is owed to the roll format, which stresses continuity and encourages readers to overlook the clear breaks in bloodlines. Moreover, the arrangement of roundels along the centre of the roll promotes an ideological royal succession that goes beyond biological and ethnic ties. This imagined connection between rulers of different ethnicities, whether British, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman or otherwise, lies at the heart of the Prose Brut chronicle. While other Brut histories may draw attention to the ruptures caused by conquest, some going so far as to emphasise the oppression and servitude of the English people after the Norman Conquest A roundel and short text for Julius Caesar appear to the right of the roundel for British king Cassibellan, during whose time ‘Julius Cesar the Emperour come yn .iij. tymes to conquer this lond’, so here the lines of kings and emperors coincide successfully. The line of emperors starts to get ahead of the English history before the passage of dominion section: Emperor Justinian (sixth century) appears beside the paragraph about Hengist’s naming of England and division of it into seven kingdoms, during Vortigern’s time (fifth century). The roundel for Charlemagne (eighth century), the first Holy Roman Emperor, appears next to Uther. Middelton might have wanted his lines of popes and emperors to end around the time when power was transferred from the Britons to the Anglo-Saxons. His line of popes ends beside the row of Heptarchy roundels that is drawn below King Careticus’s paragraph (in whose time Gormund invades the land and gives it to the Anglo-Saxons, who divide it into seven kingdoms). The line of emperors proceeds slightly further, mostly owing to short sections of text written between the roundels, which creates greater space between them. The roundel for Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV sits to the right of King Ossa’s roundel, while Henry IV’s text continues down the margin until the roundels for Ethelred and Alfred. 55 On the latter, see Neil Weijer’s essay in this volume. 56 Such information might have come from a genealogical roll or from another source text that Middelton had access to. 54

120

Jaclyn Rajsic

and into the present day,57 the Prose Brut works hard to smooth the succession between peoples and evade such division, thereby creating a sense of continuity in England’s history.58 Margaret Lamont describes the Norman Conquest in the Prose Brut as a ‘nonevent’;59 William’s defeat of the usurper Harold is justified, since Harold broke his sworn oath to marry William’s daughter and to ‘kepe & saue þe reaume of Engeland, to þe profite & auauntage of Duc William’.60 This is precisely how Middelton represents the Norman Conquest in Corpus 546.61 His shaping of the Anglo-Saxon conquest is more complex. The Prose Brut brings British and English histories together in such a way that the loss of British dominion and change between peoples is not explicitly marked. Most noticeable in this regard is the Oldest Version’s purposeful omission of Cadwallader, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s last British king. The chronicle proceeds from the British king Cadwalein (Cadwalayn in the English Prose Brut), Cadwallader’s predecessor in the Historia, to the English king Ossa, skipping nearly two centuries of history in the process since Ossa corresponds to the eighth-century king Offa of Mercia.62 Moreover, the Prose Brut does not distinguish between British and English figures in this section of the narrative, focusing on issues of morality rather than ethnicity,63 which serves to further conceal the transfer from British to English power at this point. Julia Marvin explains about the Oldest Version: The chronicle does not here point out the different ethnicities of the opponents, although the information could be derived from careful reading. It then finishes the job of obscuring the passage of dominion by describing a period of anarchy, ceasing to identify rulers in Britain as Saxon or British, and See further T. Summerfield, ‘Synthesis and Tradition in the Early Fourteenth-Century Verse Chronicles in English’, in Thirteenth Century England VII: Proceedings of the Durham Conference 1997, ed. M. Prestwich, R. Britnell and R. Frame (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 143–52; and D. Moffat, ‘Sin, Conquest, Servitude: English Self-Image in the Chronicles of the Early Fourteenth Century’, in The Work of Work: Servitude, Slavery and Labor in Medieval England, ed. A. J. Frantzen and D. Moffat (Glasgow, 1994), pp. 146–68. 58 See further J. Marvin, ‘Narrative, Lineage, and Succession in the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle’, in Broken Lines: Genealogical Literature in Late-Medieval Britain and France, ed. R. L. Radulescu and E. D. Kennedy, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe 16 (Turnhout, 2008), pp. 205–20. Marvin writes on p. 207 that ‘one of the Oldest Version’s main, if unstated, goals is to give its readers a sense of essentially unbroken lineage from the time of Brut straight through to that of the Plantagenets in power when the chronicle was composed’. 59 M. E. Lamont, ‘The “Kynde Bloode of Engeland”: Remaking Englishness in the Middle English Prose “Brut”’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007), p. 214. 60 The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 135. 61 As before, several sentences in Middelton’s account of Harold’s reign and the Norman Conquest appear to have been lifted almost verbatim from the English Prose Brut. (cf. The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 134–7). 62 See n. 22 above. 63 Marvin, ‘Havelok in the Prose Brut Tradition’, pp. 288–9, and ‘Narrative, Lineage, and Succession’, pp. 210–11. 57



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

121

making invading Danes the new enemy. It effectively brings the Saxons into the fold rather than casting the Britons out.64 In the Oldest Version of the Prose Brut chronicle royal genealogy is an idea; British and English kings are united by their shared governance of England (either all or part of it). This notion is shared by subsequent Anglo-Norman and English versions, and Ambrose Middelton makes it visible with his column(s) of roundels for British and Anglo-Saxon rulers drawn down the middle of his roll.65 However, over 100 copies of the English Prose Brut chronicle add the Cadwallader episode back into the Prose Brut’s narrative, between the accounts of Cadwalayn and Ossa, thus drawing attention to the change in peoples at this point.66 One of these manuscripts must have been Middelton’s exemplar, since Corpus 546 includes a short account of Cadwallader’s reign, which appears in the left of two columns arranged in parallel at the centre of this section of the roll (left and right columns report the concurrent reigns of British and English kings, respectively, who share rulership over the land, as in the Historia). The Cadwallader paragraph sits below the account of Cadwalayn (left column) and alongside those of Oswald and Oswy (right column). After it, Middelton briefly records the reigns of kings Ossa (left column) and Osbright (right column); from this point the kings are Anglo-Saxon, but as in the Prose Brut monarchs are not explicitly said to be British or English in this part of the roll. By including Cadwallader, Middelton draws attention to the Britons’ loss of dominion in his narrative, in contrast to the Oldest Version and many subsequent French and English copies of the chronicle. Yet, what is remarkable about his account is that Middelton omits details found in the English Prose Brut’s Cadwallader episode (as transcribed by Matheson) that would seem to be important aspects of the story, many of which underscore the fall of the Britons and the rise of the Anglo-Saxons, as they settle in England and develop the landscape. He ignores Cadwallader’s lament at his departure from his homeland, and with it the British king’s remark that God does not want the Britons to remain on account of their sins. Cadwallader here appeals to the English, among others, to ‘turn ageyn’ to the land, but Middelton does not include this appeal. Furthermore, he omits the ensuing arrival of the Germanic peoples, who settle in and divide the land and establish kings. Finally, Middelton says nothing of the angelic voice confirming to Cadwallader that ‘it was not þe wille of God þat the Brytouns regne more in ‘Havelok in the Prose Brut Tradition’, p. 289. Even when roundels are not joined up by connecting lines, which denote familial relationships between rulers, their sequential arrangement along the centre of the roll suggests that royal lineage is not strictly biological. 66 The episode is transcribed by Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 57–61. Lamont finds that ‘110 of the MSS’ include the Cadwallader episode (M. Lamont, ‘Becoming English: Ronwenne’s Wassail, Language, and National Identity in the Middle English Prose Brut’, Studies in Philology 107 (2010), 283–309 (p. 305 n. 27)). Elizabeth Bryan counts the story in 112 of Matheson’s 203 English manuscripts (E. J. Bryan, ‘The Afterlife of Armoriche’, in Layamon: Contexts, Language, and Interpretation, ed. R. Allen, L. Perry and J. Roberts, Medieval Studies Series (London, 2002), pp. 117–55 (p. 152 n. 47)). 64 65

122

Jaclyn Rajsic

Engelond’, and conveying the prophecy of the Britons’ eventual (though only potential) return to rule.67 Middelton selects only the opening and closing sections of the English Prose Brut’s Cadwallader episode for his roll. In doing so, he reshapes the story in such a way that ethnic change and markers of a period of Anglo-Saxon dominion fade from focus, although there is still a hint of them since the Britons are said to move to Wales under the leadership of Yuor and Ynori: This Cadwaladre reigned noblely & well xij. yere & then he ffell syk & yn his tyme fell a grete hungre that a man coude gyt no corne to bye for money but the people lyved by rootes [and] herbes. And then fell so grete pestylence that the quy kooude not burie the dede. And he, perceyvyng this, toke his iorney yn to lytyll Bryten for sorowe, & then called Yuor his [son] & Ynori his cosyn & bad them take his navy & goo to Wales & be ye the lordes of Brytons, that no dyshonour come to them by the paynems. And he toke his wey to Rome & was confessed of Pope Serius & toke penance & there died .xij. die[m] May. anno domini .VC.lxxix. A very brief account of Ossa’s reign immediately ensues: ‘this Offa was Seynt Oswaldes broder & conquered all the kynges of the londe & reigned aboue them all’. There is no sign here of a period of anarchy; Middelton proceeds from Cadwallader’s death to Ossa’s reign as though there had been no rupture.68 Indeed, Middelton’s Cadwallader episode almost fits into the Oldest Version’s project of masking the fall of the Britons and the final transfer of power between peoples. It is not a perfect fit, but it is a much better one than it might have been, owing to the specific details that Middelton chose to include – and to leave out. Whether or not Middelton’s avoidance of many of the Prose Brut’s Cadwallader details was a deliberate attempt to foster a sense of continuity between his British and English kings (without having to lose Cadwallader from his narrative), his adaptations invite us to consider the creative possibilities that can be facilitated by abridgement, the opportunities for writers to shift the meanings and emphases of passages and to omit and rewrite events, perhaps even dramatically, when they ‘summarize’ a story. Finally, it is not just Middelton’s written text that downplays the break between Galfridian and English histories in Corpus 546. Visually, the precise moment of change from British to Anglo-Saxon dominion in Corpus 546 goes unmarked, and thus unremarked, unless one reads the text carefully. It is typical of fifteenthcentury genealogical rolls to signal the loss of British sovereignty over the land with a pictorial representation of the Heptarchy: a row of seven connected roundels, one naming each kingdom, which runs across the width of the roll, dividing the illustrated lineage of Galfridian kings from the lines of English rulers. In Roger of St Albans genealogies this row of roundels appears at the end of the British line, that is, after the reign of King Careticus, during whose time Gormund destroys the land and gives it to the Anglo-Saxons (these rolls omit kings who rule after Careticus in 67 68

Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 60–1. The rupture happens earlier, when Gormund gives the land to the Anglo-Saxons and then, we learn, the kings warred against one another for a long time.



The English Prose Brut Chronicle on a Roll

123

the Historia, including Cadwallader, from their main line of Galfridian kings).69 In other words, Roger of St Albans genealogies mark the break between British and English histories very clearly. The Prose Brut almost obsessively maps the establishment and re-establishment of these kingdoms, as it lists the English regions at three different points: (1) after Hengist seizes the land from the Britons, destroys the churches, renames the land England and then divides it into seven kingdoms;70 (2) after Gormund gives the land to the Anglo-Saxons (in Careticus’s time);71 and (3) at the beginning of King Ossa’s reign (a list of five kingdoms rather than seven).72 Middelton follows the Prose Brut’s lead by drawing a row of Heptarchy roundels at the first two points (using his genealogical roll exemplar as a model for the diagram, but following the order of kingdoms given in the Prose Brut), but not at the third: he does not provide a visual depiction of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms between the roundels for Cadwallader and Ossa, nor does he list the regions in prose during Ossa’s time, as we would expect from a Prose Brut text. It may be that Middelton only felt it necessary to record the times when the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were founded and then re-established (i.e., the Prose Brut’s first two kingdom lists) in his text and diagram, since the Prose Brut’s third list simply marks the rulership of five regions by different kings. Nevertheless, the effect of Middelton’s departure from the Prose Brut here is significant. The absence of a third row of kingdom roundels in Corpus 546 enables us to read over the ultimate loss of British power, at least visually. At the same time, Corpus 546 transforms the row of Heptarchy roundels from a visible marker of the beginning of the period of Anglo-Saxon dominion, as in Roger of St Albans texts and several other genealogical rolls, into a map of the kingdoms imagined to have been ruled by both the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons. Although Middelton’s inclusion of the Cadwallader episode takes away from the Prose Brut’s concealment of the passage of dominion, therefore, his uses of the row of Heptarchy roundels – no longer an indicator of the break between British and English lineages – and his compression of the Cadwallader story seem to avoid drawing attention to the final transfer from British to English power. Corpus 546 fosters a sense of continuity in England’s early history, and the Prose Brut’s idea of an imagined lineage that links kings of different families and ethnicities together, through its pattern of roundels arranged vertically along the centre of the roll. This pattern is reinforced by a series of crowns drawn atop the roundels for British and Anglo-Saxon rulers.73 All monarchs from Brutus to Harold are In some other fifteenth-century genealogies the British line ends instead with Cadwallader, so the Heptarchy roundels appear after his reign, instead of after Careticus’s. 70 The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 55 (the land is renamed Engistes lande). 71 Ibid., I, 95. 72 This third list appears whether or not the Prose Brut text includes the Cadwallader episode. 73 Crowns are drawn atop kings’ roundels in several royal genealogical rolls, including some Roger of St Albans genealogies (e.g., BL Add. 63009 and the Dominic Winter roll). It is possible that similar crowns appeared in Middelton’s genealogical roll source. 69

124

Jaclyn Rajsic

crowned. Those who are not did not rule over territories in England, but may be the children or siblings of kings, for example. Middelton thus distinguishes England’s rulers from their relatives who do not partake in the pattern of rulership that unites British and English kings, a pattern that would continue past Harold and William to include post-Conquest rulers in Middelton’s ‘oder rolle’. Ultimately, therefore, Corpus 546 underscores – and makes visible – the genealogical structure already present in the Prose Brut chronicle, combining elements from his genealogical roll and Prose Brut sources to craft a diagrammatic history that reshapes England’s past as presented in his sources.

Conclusion In the Prose Brut chronicle Middelton found the ideal history of England’s kings to map onto a genealogical roll. His motivations for putting aside his genealogical roll exemplar and following the Prose Brut, I suggest, stemmed both from the popularity of the Prose Brut chronicle and from the history’s genealogical design, its construction of a line of kings that is imagined rather than strictly ethnic or biological, and can thereby incorporate British and Anglo-Saxon rulers alike. But Middelton did not abandon his roll source altogether when he reached Aeneas. Instead, he blended his Prose Brut text and diagrammatic history together and made his own adaptations to both. In doing so, he wrote a Prose Brut text and genealogical roll like no other, a ‘universal’ history of England’s early kings that lends force to the perceived succession from rulers past to present implicit in the Prose Brut’s narrative. Unique among English Prose Brut chronicles and royal genealogical rolls, Corpus 546 marks the meeting point of two highly popular medieval genres, and reveals them to be a particularly fitting conceptual match. Peculiar Versions of the English Prose Brut chronicle are sites where history writing was productive: where the more common narrative was adapted and changed, and where we can see individual writers’ interpretations of and responses to the Prose Brut’s history. Until we take account of the ways in which these ‘peculiar’ texts reshape the historical narrative, we will not be able to fully appreciate the richness of the Prose Brut tradition, the range of variations and uniquenesses that Matheson took pains to identify and categorize. For Ambrose Middelton, the Prose Brut was an authoritative history of England’s kings, perhaps the history, still in 1527. His Prose Brut roll reminds us of the continued writing and reception of Prose Brut chronicles in the early sixteenth century, at a time when manuscripts of the history circulated alongside printed versions. Post-medieval receptions of the Prose Brut and the study of Peculiar Versions are areas ripe for critical study. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 is only a small part of the picture.

chapter eight

RE-PRINTING OR REMAKING?THE EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE CHRONICLES OF ENGLAND 1 Neil Weijer

L

ister Matheson will be best remembered and most sorely missed for his work describing and categorizing the manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut chronicle (hereafter Brut), work thath not only facilitated systematic scholarly study of the many different Brut manuscripts but that also broke new ground in tracing the activities of the scribes who produced them. In the eyes of earlier historians studying the fifteenth century, the Brut’s ubiquity had been its sole notable feature. The anonymous Brut took as its starting point the legendary line of British kings from Brutus to Cadwallader, first set in writing by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and extended the narrative through the succession of Saxon, Norman and Angevin kings, abbreviating or excising graphic details about the deeds of the early Britons and drawing heavily on vernacular adaptations of Geoffrey’s Historia, as well as other English and Anglo-Norman histories, for its continuations.2 The brevity of the For consistency and clarity I will refer to the manuscripts that contain the Middle English Prose Brut as Brut and all printed editions based on the same text as the Chronicles of England. These titles did not apply uniformly or exclusively to either the printed editions or the manuscripts. 2 The narrative in the earliest Middle English Bruts begins with Brutus and concludes in 1333, after the Battle of Halidon Hill. Over the course of the fifteenth century, successive continuations extended the narrative to 1377, 1419 and beyond, with some manuscripts ending with the coronation of Edward IV in 1461. For descriptions of the extant manuscripts, see L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998); E. J. Bryan, ‘Rauner Codex MS 003183: The Beeleigh Abbey Brut at Dartmouth College’, Journal of the Early Book Society 12 (2009), 207–43; and the essays by Erik Kooper and Jaclyn Rajsic in this volume. More detailed descriptions of many of the manuscripts are now available online through the Imagining History Project: http://www.qub.ac.uk/imagining-history/ resources/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Earlier versions of the same historical narrative existed in Anglo-Norman as well as Latin; see J. Marvin, ‘Sources and Analogues of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: New Findings’, in Readers and Writers of the Prose Brut, ed. W. Marx and R. Radulescu, Trivium 36 (Lampeter, 2006), 1–31 (pp. 24–5), and idem, ed. and trans., The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006). 1

125

126

Neil Weijer

Brut’s narrative, combined with its reliance on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s legendary history of Britain, not only diminished its worth in the eyes of some early twentiethcentury scholars, but also made it difficult to distinguish Brut manuscripts from copies of other chronicles and histories of the time, which shared a similar scope and common subject matter.3 By carefully considering the Brut’s textual variations and adaptations, Matheson breathed life into the study of a kind of historical writing that had been considered prolific but uninspired, dry and derivative. This essay will attempt to invigorate another aspect of the Brut tradition: its printed editions. In order for scholars to fully assess the social and historical impact of the Brut, the printed editions of the chronicle must be considered alongside its manuscripts. Thus far, the only printed edition of the Brut to receive significant scholarly comment has been the first one, which was produced by William Caxton on 10 June 1480 under the title The Chronicles of England. Caxton’s printed Chronicles was notable for being the first English vernacular history to appear in print, and also for containing a continuation of the history from 1419 down to ‘the beginnyng of the regne of our said soverain lord kyng Edward the iiij’ (i.e., to 1461), which was incorporated into all subsequent printed editions, both by Caxton and by others.4 Continuations to such a late date were present in only a few manuscripts, and led Matheson, in his study of the Brut’s textual evolution, to closely compare the composition of manuscripts and incunabula, arguing persuasively for a broader picture of Caxton’s activities than the mechanical reproduction of texts.5 Matheson suggested that Caxton had continued the Brut himself, and that the printer’s behavior had paralleled that of the anonymous fifteenth-century scribes who had produced the manuscript continuations down to 1419 and, sporadically, beyond. Caxton had gathered material from a wide range of sources about both English and non-English events, arranging it in a form consistent with the organization and narrative style of the earlier part of the chronicle, ultimately to produce an original text that reflected his own expectations of what the history of England should include.6 However, Caxton was not the only printer to experiment with the form and content of the Brut. Within a decade, Caxton’s work had undergone another alteration at the hands of an anonymous printer in St Albans, sometimes referred to as

The Brut’s first editor, Friedrich W. D. Brie, commented that the continuations past 1333 of the 120 then-known manuscripts represented a ‘series of chronicles’, and the presence of short continuations taken from London civic chronicles, a popular genre but nowhere near as pervasive as the Brut, may have conflated the two traditions for C. L. Kingsford and, later, for Antonia Gransden. See The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (London, 1906–8), II, v; C. L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913), pp. 115–16, 133–5; and A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, 2 vols. (London, 1974–82), II, 220–7. 4 W. Caxton, Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480), sig. iir. 5 L. M. Matheson, ‘Printer and Scribe: Caxton, the Polychronicon, and the Brut’, Speculum 60 (1985), 593–614. See also D. Wakelin, ‘Caxton’s Exemplar for the Chronicles of England?’, Journal of the Early Book Society 14 (2011), 75–113. 6 Matheson, ‘Printer and Scribe’, pp. 609-10, and see below, pp. 130–1. 3



Re-printing or Remaking?

127

the ‘Schoolmaster’ or the ‘Schoolmaster Printer’.7 But this alteration was of a different kind. Instead of expanding Caxton’s continuation past 1461, the Schoolmaster set the Chronicles’s succession of English kings within a wider ‘universal history’ context by compiling a digest called the Fruit of Times and grafting it onto the historical narrative; the Fruit of Times took the form of a series of chapters interspersed throughout the main text of the Chronicles of England. Although I will refer to The Fruit of Times separately here as a way of differentiating between the two editions I will discuss, the Fruit of Times exists only in some of the printed editions of the Chronicles. It should not, I will argue, be considered as a stand-alone text. In the main, its chapters consist of excerpts translated directly by the Schoolmaster from Werner Rolevinck’s Fasciculus Temporum, a Latin universal history that provided a narrative of ecclesiastical and secular events from the creation of the world to the first years of Sixtus IV’s papacy in the early 1470s. Caxton had also mined the Fasciculus for material in his continuations both of the Brut and of another historical work, the English Polychronicon, which he printed in 1482.8 With the creation of the Fruit of Times, the Schoolmaster brought the chronological scope of the Fasciculus to his edition of the Chronicles of England, the succession of Biblical patriarchs, popes and Roman emperors running parallel to that of the kings of Britain from Brutus to Edward IV. The overwhelming majority of subsequent The preface to the St Albans printer’s edition of the Chronicles of England contains no information about the identity of the printer, but suggests that the text had been compiled as early as 1483, even though it is now thought to have been printed closer to 1486 alongside the press’s only other English-language production, the Book of Hunting, Hawking, and the Blazing of Arms. Prior to these two books, the press had produced a small number of scholarly texts in Latin. Wynkyn de Worde, who modeled his 1497 Chronicles on the St Albans text, referred to the compiler and, perhaps, the printer of the St Albans edition as the ‘sometime schoolmaster of St Albans’. Thus, the title of ‘Schoolmaster Printer’ became known to us. See Catalogue of Books Printed in the XVth Century now in the British Museum. XI. England, ed. L. Hellinga (’t Goy-Houten, 2007), pp. 303–4 (hereafter BMC XI). A short description of the St Albans press can also be found in L. Hellinga, William Caxton and Early Printing in England (London, 2010), pp. 90–9. 8 Caxton’s edition of the Polychronicon, a universal chronicle originally composed in Latin by Ranulph Higden, took John Trevisa’s fourteenth-century translation as its source text. It continued the Polychronicon from 1358, where Trevisa left off, down to 1461 by supplying a new book, the Liber Ultimus, complete with prefatory material. Caxton claimed in his preface to have used the Fasciculus Temporum as a source for the Liber Ultimus, yet this new book was not entirely new at the time of publication. The material from 1419–61 had appeared two years earlier, nearly verbatim, as his continuation of the Brut in his 1480 edition of the Chronicles of England. An in-depth discussion of the Polychronicon lies outside the scope of this essay, but the text is significant not only for being Caxton’s second major historical production but also because the Schoolmaster used small portions of it in compiling the Fruit of Times. See BMC XI, pp. 127–30; Matheson, ‘Printer and Scribe’, pp. 601–6; idem, ‘National and Civic Chronicles in Late Fifteenth-Century London’, in The Yorkist Age: Proceedings of the 2011 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. C. Steer and H. Kleineke (Donington, Lincs, 2013), pp. 256–74; and especially K. Tonry, ‘Reading History in Caxton’s Polychronicon’, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 111 (2011), 169–98, and J. Boffey, Manuscript and Print in London, c. 1475–1530 (London, 2012), pp. 60–5. 7

128

Neil Weijer

editions of the Chronicles of England followed suit, as successive printers used the Schoolmaster’s edition for their own texts. Thus, the Schoolmaster’s composition and inclusion of the Fruit of Times in the Chronicles of England had an important influence on the shaping of many of the Brut’s printed editions.9 Matheson used the absence or presence of the Fruit of Times to categorize the printed editions of the Chronicles as either ‘Type I’ or ‘Type II’, respectively. Despite the fact that over three quarters of its chapters alternated with the English history in the Chronicles, he considered the Fruit of Times to be complementary, yet extraneous, to the development of the Brut, likely since it did not continue the narrative of English history any further than Caxton’s edition had.10 Tamar Drukker expressed a similar sentiment in her study of the reception and circulation of Brut manuscripts, stating that after Caxton’s first edition of the Chronicles ‘no more continuations which could be regarded as an organic part of the whole were added’.11 The perceived stasis of the printed editions, when compared to the flurry of fifteenthcentury scribal activity in manuscripts, sets them as a coda to the Brut’s manuscript circulation. Thus far, scholars have either invoked these collective ‘re-printings’ to attest to the continued popularity (or marketability) of the Chronicles, or, alternatively, to its gradual replacement by other, newer printed texts.12 However, I argue that the printed editions of the Chronicles can do much more for the study of the Brut than simply attest to its popularity. To begin with, the compilation of these two Types of the printed Chronicles suggests that uses of the Brut were still evolving at the end of the fifteenth and, indeed, in the sixteenth century. The pages of each edition are the result of continued experimentation by printers, much as the Brut manuscripts bear the marks of their scribes, illuminators and rubricators. Considered individually, copies of the printed editions can also offer valuable information about their readers and owners, for whom the difference between a printed book and a manuscript was largely immaterial, and can thus complement studies of the reception and circulation of the Brut.13 As Julia Boffey Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 339–48. For descriptions of the earliest English editions, see BMC XI. A preliminary investigation of the incunable editions can also be found in N. Weijer, ‘Compilation, Presentation, and Circulation of the Middle English Prose Brut Chronicle, 1480–1500’ (unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2010), pp. 29–62. 10 Matheson, The Prose Brut, p. 341. In the Type II editions, the alternation between chapters of the Fruit of Times (headed with a date) and of the English history taken from the Chronicles (usually describing the reign or activities of a particular king) becomes less frequent as the text goes on. 11 T. Drukker, ‘Readings in the Middle English Prose Brut Chronicle’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2002), p. 20. See also Tonry, ‘Reading History’, p. 198. 12 Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 23–7, 347–8. See also D. R. Woolfe, Reading History in Early Modern England, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 1–35, for a discussion of the proliferation of additional historical forms. 13 For example, those highlighted in Readers and Writers of the Prose Brut, ed. Marx and Radulescu, as well as in the attempts at ‘cultural mapping’ undertaken by the Imagining History project. See S. Kelly and J. O’Rourke, ‘Culturally Mapping the Middle English 9



Re-printing or Remaking?

129

has recently suggested, works such as the St Albans edition of the Chronicles hint at a complex set of interactions between manuscript and print.14 For the purposes of this study, I will confine myself to a comparison between the first editions of each Type: Caxton’s editio princeps of 1480 (Type I) and the anonymous edition produced at St Albans between 1483 and 1486 (Type II, the Schoolmaster’s edition). I will pay particular attention to how both printers incorporated information from Werner Rolevinck’s Fasciculus Temporum into their editions. My aim is threefold. First, with regard to composition, I wish to show that Caxton and the Schoolmaster utilized material from the Fasciculus Temporum to different effect, and that their choices were guided by different editorial plans. Second, using the layout and presentation of each edition, I will demonstrate that the Schoolmaster’s Fruit of Times was intended to enhance and to provide critical context for the reading of English history in the Type II editions. Moreover, I will argue that the Schoolmaster sought to create a unified, expanded and distinctive edition of the Chronicles that reflected his own preferences and values as a historian, much as Caxton had done in his edition by continuing the Brut. Finally, I will briefly explore how the reception of these editions can broaden our understanding of the circulation of the Prose Brut chronicle, in manuscript as well as in print. By better appreciating how these books were made, both in terms of their physical production and the intellectual labor of their authors and printers, we are able to consider why they were made in ways that go beyond the desire to enhance their marketability. In these two Types of the Chronicles of England we may identify two separate visions of history and historical authority, and through this broader lens we may witness the continued evolution of the Brut in print and in manuscript, at the end of the fifteenth century and beyond.

Rewriting the Chronicles of England: The Printers, Their Sources and Their Approaches Both editions of the Chronicles say little about the circumstances of their creation or, more importantly, the motives of their creators. However, a good deal of evidence about the approaches of their printers can still be drawn from a close examination of each edition’s compilation. The different ways in which Caxton and the Schoolmaster approached the project of printing the Chronicles of England are best exemplified by their different uses of Werner Rolevinck’s Fasciulus Temporum. Widely printed in Europe, the Fasciculus Temporum was organized around a series of parallel timelines, one keeping track of the time since the creation of the world and one centered on the birth of Christ, and showed the lineal progression of rulers and popes in relation to each other on the page (see Plate 1).15 Like the large format Prose Brut: A Preliminary Report from the “Imagining History” Project’, Journal of the Early Book Society 6 (2003), 41–60. 14 Boffey, Manuscript and Print in London, p. 65. 15 M. B. Stillwell, ‘The Fasciculus Temporum: A Genealogical Survey of Editions before 1480’, in Bibliographical Essays: A Tribute to Wilberforce Eames, ed. G. Winship

130

Neil Weijer

manuscripts in which it also circulated, the printed editions of the Fasciculus placed the names of popes and kings in roundels, with explanatory information located next to each roundel. Compendious and technically complex, both the content and the layout of the Fasciculus posed challenges to Caxton and, more pointedly, to the Schoolmaster. More on the layout of the editions will be discussed below, but first I will examine how Caxton and the Schoolmaster adapted the Fasciculus’s content, and its effect on their respective narratives. Caxton’s approach to the Fasciculus Temporum was to embellish its information and integrate it directly into the new chapters he composed for his edition of the Chronicles of England (i.e., the continuation from 1419 to 1461). Most of his borrowings from the Fasciculus are descriptions of the popes from Eugene IV (1431–47) to Pius II (1458–64), as well as some notes on miracles in the Low Countries and in France and reports of battles in the Mediterranean theater. This material is inserted into the relevant chapters of the Chronicles without comment or citation, supplementing the Brut’s national history by contextualizing it within wider Christian and European frames, yet doing so implicitly.16 But Caxton’s continuation is more than simply a combination of material from its sources. His interpolations engage what he considered to be key themes within English history, and were embellished by Caxton as he saw fit. The overall effect of this flexible approach is a continuation which, though it incorporates new and more varied material, maintains a rhetorical and historical posture quite similar to the Brut narrative to 1419, which Caxton had imported faithfully from his manuscript source.17 Indeed, it should be stated at the outset that Caxton’s continuation involved no small creative effort. The Brut narrative had ended on a high note in 1419: Henry V’s victory at Agincourt and his capture of Rouen. It fell to Caxton to describe the years of reversal, loss and internal struggle that defined the reign of Henry VI, as well as his deposition by the currently reigning monarch, Edward IV. Following the pattern of the Brut’s earlier manuscript continuators, Caxton created a narrative that attempted to reconcile the breaks in the line of English kings, preserving the agency and authority of the monarchy even in times of strife and open warfare. For Caxton, this involved separating the authority of the monarchy from the inefficiency of a particular monarch, and treading a very fine line in laying blame. One way to accomplish this was to ally the interests of the monarchy with the goals of the Church. The descriptions of the popes throughout the continuation, for example, are oriented towards papal schism and their efforts against the Ottomans (Cambridge MA, 1924), pp. 409–40; L. Ward, ‘Two Carthusian Histories, their Authors and Audiences’, in Die Ausbreitung kartäusischen Lebens und Geistes im Mittelalter, 2 vols., Analecta Cartusiana 63 (Salzburg, 1990–1), II, 132–6; J. Martens, ‘The Fasciculus Temporum of 1474: On Form and Content of the Incunable’, Quaerendo 22 (1992) 197–204; and A. Classen, ‘Werner Rolevinck’s Fasciculus Temporum: The History of a Late Medieval Best-Seller or: The First Hypertext’, Gutenberg Jarbuch 81 (2006), 225–30. 16 Tonry describes the effect in the Polychronicon as ‘a dizzying run of juxtapositions and parataxis’ (‘Reading History’, p. 186). 17 Wakelin, ‘Caxton’s Exemplar’, pp. 88–94.



Re-printing or Remaking?

131

and heretics.18 These concerns emerge after Caxton describes Henry V, in particular, as a pious supporter of the Christian faith who would have campaigned against the Saracens had he lived, perhaps holding him up for comparison to earlier British kings like Lucius and Constantine, or, more immediately, with Richard I. Previous continuators had linked the virtue of these rulers to their efforts to promote Christianity within Britain and, in the cases of Constantine and Richard, beyond its borders.19 Material from the Fasciculus is also brought in to intensify the most dramatic moment in Caxton’s continuation: the English loss of Normandy. This event, heavily foreshadowed in Caxton’s text, is described alongside the capture and destruction of Constantinople by the Turks, linking a low point in English history to a disaster in Christendom.20 Caxton’s description of the destruction wrought upon Christendom reflects an embellishment above and beyond the narrative of the Fasciculus, and his lament is likely also intended to apply to the disastrous loss of England’s continental possessions. Both of these events provide Caxton with the chance to reflect on the failure of kingship and leadership in England during Henry VI’s reign, and perhaps to cast his overthrow by Edward as a return to appropriate regal authority. It appears, therefore, that when selecting and adapting material from the Fasciculus, Caxton was looking to create a narrative that reflected England’s role in a wider world, but also one that preserved a degree of coherence with the earlier sections of the Brut. When compared to the Schoolmaster’s edition, Caxton’s use and embellishment of the narrative found in the Fasciculus becomes clearer. The Schoolmaster adopted Caxton’s Chronicles for the bulk of his edition, but drew more heavily and directly upon the Fasciculus Temporum, translating more of its material into English to create the Fruit of Times. In doing so, he reshaped Caxton’s narrative in important ways, and compiled his own, unique history of England. The Schoolmaster’s program of alterations points to two main authorial goals: his privileging of chronology in structuring the entire text, where Caxton had chosen to expand his own continuation along thematic lines, and his efforts to preserve the integrity of his sources without excessive alteration. In what follows I examine each of these in turn, looking at what material the Schoolmaster selects Caxton’s description of Pope Pius II, for example, takes the details of his early life and even the date of his death in 1464 from the Fasciculus, but where the Fasciculus mentions that Pius attempted to launch an expedition with pilgrims from Germany (‘hic passagium ordinare cupiens cum plures ex almania venissent romam ipsos cum benedictione remisit ad propria eo quod non suffecissent’, Rolevinck, Fasciculus Temporum (Cologne, 1479), sig. h6v), Caxton expands the episode as follows: ‘This pope ordeyned grete indulgencis and pardon to them that wold go werre ayenst the turke, 7 wrote an epistle to the grete turke exorting hym to become cristen, 7 in the ende he ordeyned a passage ayenst the turke at Ankone, to whiche moch peple drewe oute of all parties of cristendome, of which peple he sente many home ayene be cause they suffised not’ (Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480), sig. y2v). 19 Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480), sig. u4v, u6r. The account of Richard’s reign in the Chronicles emphasizes his recovery of the Holy Land (sigs. h7r–v). 20 Ibid., sig. x5v. 18

132

Neil Weijer

from the Fruit of Times and how he seeks to integrate it with Caxton’s historical narrative. Accurate chronology, long the preoccupation of ecclesiastical histories and monastic chronicles, was a growing concern in vernacular works from at least the fourteenth century onward, and a driving force behind the Schoolmaster’s edition.21 In his preface to the Chronicles of England (adapted from the Polychronicon), the Schoolmaster provides Ranulf Higden’s lessons on learning history, with an emphasis on establishing the correct eras and dates in which events occurred, the ‘trew cowntyng of the yeris’ that was the key to proper historical knowledge.22 Although he did not incorporate the running timeline found in the Fasciculus Temporum, which would have required drastic changes in the layout of the Brut material (compare Plates 1 and 2), the Schoolmaster did create headings for the chapters of the Fruit of Times with the years that their events began. Since the chapters of the Fruit of Times could be found before, after and interspersed between chapters of the English history from Caxton’s edition of the Chronicles, this numbering provided a framework that grounded the entire narrative in linear chronology. The Schoolmaster also exploited and, where necessary, created textual parallels between the English history of the Chronicles and the world history of the Fasciculus in order to better integrate the Fruit of Times with the adjacent chapters of the Chronicles. In this way he provided much-needed chronological context for Britain’s early kings, reinforced visually as a result of his decision to compile separate chapters for the Fruit of Times. For example, following the Fruit of Times chapter, which listed Ozias as the king of Judah, he added a small bit of text to the subsequent chapter in the Chronicles, on the reign and deposition of King Lear’s daughter Cordelia, stating that Cordelia became queen during the tenth year of Ozias’s reign.23 Likewise, he split the (already short) chapter in the Chronicles on the reigns of the British kings Mempris and Madan in order to insert a Fruit of Times chapter on King David, who was supposed to have reigned after Madan and before Mempris.24 In fact, at several points during the early succession of kings the Schoolmaster inserts editorial comments stating that he is unable to match the chronology because the information on the British kings is too sparse or too compact.25 C. Given-Wilson, Chronicles: the Writing of History in Medieval England (London, 2004), pp. 113–36. In addition to the Polychronicon and the St Albans edition of the Chronicles, the criticism of the Albina legend found in John Hardyng’s Chronicle calls explicit attention to the tale’s chronological errors, even as it appears to endorse the moral truth of the episode. See The Chronicle of Iohn Hardyng, ed. H. Ellis (London, 1812), pp. 25–31 (esp. p. 26). 22 Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sigs. a2v–a3v, and compare Polychronicon (Westminster, 1482), sig. 21r–22r. Interestingly, the division of time into six ages has been removed from Higden’s mnemonic by the Schoolmaster, perhaps because he planned to divide the narrative of the Chronicles into seven parts, not six. See below, p. 138. 23 Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. d3v. 24 Ibid., sig. c6v. 25 Ibid., sigs. d4r and e5v. 21



Re-printing or Remaking?

133

The description of the Roman emperor Constantine comes in one such section, just prior to the entry of the Germanic leaders Hengist and Horsa into England, where several Fruit of Times chapters are inserted in a row to bring the succession of popes and emperors back into line with the succession of British kings. The entry provides more direct evidence of linking, and also suggests that the Schoolmaster decided to incorporate some material from the Fasciculus to augment and complement the information already present in the Chronicles of England. Like the other ‘links’ between chapters added by the Schoolmaster, this change is minimal. The Type I editions of the Chronicles describe Constantine’s birth in Britain to a Roman father and a British mother, St Helena, and his subsequent reign in Britain; but the Brut had not been overly concerned with detailing his activities as emperor of Rome and thus, neither was Caxton’s edition of the Chronicles.26 A reader of the Fruit of Times chapter in the Schoolmaster’s edition would find information about Constantine’s wisdom and piety – demonstrated above all by his famous ‘donation’ of the Western Empire to the Church – and the baptism of St Helena by Pope Sylvester, and would then be referred back to the earlier chapter of the Chronicles on Constantine’s reign in Britain with the tag ‘and more ye may heir of him in the crounyclis of englond for hee wos kyng in englond’.27 Such a reader, if (s)he was moving through the Schoolmaster’s edition from beginning to end, would have already encountered Constantine, so it is possible that this note was intended for readers jumping through the text using the tabulae. From an editorial perspective, however, it is also likely that the Schoolmaster wanted to cement the link between one of Britain’s famous rulers and the record of his deeds outside of the Chronicles, connections that were sought by readers of the Brut manuscripts as well.28 It is unlikely, therefore, that the Schoolmaster’s decision to compose the Fruit of Times in separate chapters was anything less than an attempt to create a new edition of the Chronicles that functioned as an organic whole, an edition in which chronology played a vital role in accurately relating the events of England’s ancient past. If chronological accuracy was one of the Schoolmaster’s main guiding principles in composing his edition, a stricter approach to preserving to his sources was another. His literal translations from the Latin of the Fasciculus and separation of its material from Caxton’s should not be taken as laziness or lack of creativity, but rather as a technique of establishing authority commonly accepted by medieval chroniclers.29 Since the Schoolmaster rarely altered Caxton’s text, the redundancies between the Fruit of Times material and the material in Caxton’s 1419–61 continuation call more attention to the use and modification of the Fasciculus by Caxton Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480), sig. c1r-v. Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. i2r. The end of the previous Fruit of Times chapter also calls attention to Constantine’s British parentage (sig. i1v). 28 See the discussion of Constantine, St Helena and the Three Kings of Cologne below, pp. 139–42. 29 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, pp. 14–20, and P. Damian-Grint, The New Historians of the Twelfth-Century Renaissance: Inventing Vernacular Authority (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 85–142 (esp. pp. 117–20). 26 27

134

Neil Weijer

than has been previously recognized, and bring Caxton’s editorial strategy into sharper focus. Two particular examples, drawn from Caxton’s continuation, are worth noting here, since in both places the Schoolmaster has uncharacteristically intervened in Caxton’s text, either by removing parts of it or by moving them to the Fruit of Times. The first of these demonstrates Caxton’s efforts to portray larger events in Latin Christendom in a specifically English light. After describing the dissent in the realm arising from the execution of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, Caxton shifts focus to the schism between popes Eugene and Felix V following the council of Basel in 1431. In Caxton’s chapter, the schism is resolved when a delegation of French and English bishops appeal to Felix to step down.30 The Schoolmaster also describes the schism in the preceding Fruit of Times chapter, where his description, translated directly from the Fasciculus, accords with Caxton’s continuation except for any mention of English involvement.31 It appears, then, that both Caxton and the Schoolmaster were using the Fasciculus as their main source for this event, but that Caxton had pulled in the description of England’s intercession from an outside source and implied its efficacy. While the Schoolmaster could have struck the entire redundant episode from Caxton’s chapter in the Chronicles (since it now largely repeated the material found in his Fruit of Times chapter), he only removed the Latin text of a papal notice concerning the abdication of Felix from Caxton’s continuation, replacing it with a note referring the reader back to the Fruit of Times chapter immediately before, ‘wherof ther wos a verse publisshed as afore sayde’.32 As with the description of Constantine, such cross-references functioned to tie the narrative of the Chronicles together with that of the Fruit of Times, and the repetition also likely served to cement the episode in the memory of its reader. Thus, if the Schoolmaster was less likely to embellish the Fasciculus than Caxton was, his editorial approach also led him to preserve Caxton’s narrative, intervening only to remove verbatim repetition. The second example of editing by the Schoolmaster gives a clear sense of both his and Caxton’s stances toward their sources: their description of the invention of printing. Caxton’s Type I edition contained the following passage within a chapter that addressed marvels in London, border disputes and the reconciliation between Henry VI and his lords in 1458: Also aboute this tyme the crafte of enprinting was first founde in Magunce in Almayne, whiche craft is multiplied thurgh the world in many places, and bookes bene had grete chepe and in grete nombre by cause of the same craft.33 Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480), sig. x5r. ‘For after [Nicholas V] was electe and sacred pope certayne lordes of Fraunce and of Englond were sente in to Savoye to Pope Felix, for to entrete hym to cesse of the papacie, And by the speciall labour of the bisshoppe of Norwych and the lord of Seint Johanes he cessed the the [sic] second yere after that pope Nicholas was sacred.’ 31 Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. H4v. 32 Ibid., sig. I5v. The notice appears on sig. H4v. Compare Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480), sig. x5v. 33 Ibid., sig. y1v. 30



Re-printing or Remaking?

135

Matheson believed that this passage was the combination of two sources close to Caxton: an unidentified London chronicle that described printing’s invention in Mainz (Maguncia) and Caxton’s advertisement for his own books, which stated that they might be had ‘good chepe’.34 However, the passage is more likely the combination of Caxton’s advertisement and a Cologne edition of the Fasciculus Temporum, which locates the origins of printing in Mainz, and also describes the craft as ‘multiplied through the world’, which the London chronicle does not do.35 In addition to Caxton’s Chronicles, the Schoolmaster also had access to a Cologne edition of the Fasciculus (this is discussed below), and his description of the advent of printing is a much closer translation of the Latin: Nota: Printerys of bokis wer this tyme mightely multeplied in maguncie 7 thurgh out the world. and thei began frist [sic] and ther held the craftis. And this time mony men began for to be more sotell in craftis and suyfter then euer they wer afore.36 Not only has the Schoolmaster excised the sentence about books being had ‘good chepe’, but he has removed the section from Caxton’s continuation and placed it at the end of the book, in the corresponding Fruit of Times chapter, as he had done earlier with the Latin notice of Felix V’s abdication. Thus, in the two authors’ uses of the Fasciculus Temporum, we may observe the Schoolmaster’s literal approach to maintaining historical accuracy and authority in marked contrast to Caxton’s more flexible, rhetorical stance. The Schoolmaster’s strict approach to translation and faithful reproduction of the Fasciculus has a final benefit in that it may allow us to pinpoint the edition of the Fasciculus Temporum that he used to compose the Fruit of Times. Margaret Stillwell’s survey of the early editions of the Fasciculus helpfully noted a number of textual variants between the early editions, some of which were found in several groups, and some of which were unique to individual editions. Based on her findings, it is possible to identify the Schoolmaster’s source text as a later Cologne printing by Heinrich Quentell, who produced three editions of the Fasciculus between 1479 and

Matheson, ‘Printer and Scribe’, pp. 599–600. L. Hellinga and M. Ford, ‘Deletion or Addition: A Controversial Variant in Werner Rolevinck’s Fasciculus Temporum (Cologne: 1474)’, in Essays in Honor of William B. Todd, ed. D. Oliphant (Austin, 1991), pp. 60–79 (p. 74). The article notes additional similarities between the Fasciculus and the text of Caxton’s continuation to the Polychronicon, but does not identify the continuation with the earlier version of the Chronicles of England. Matheson had hypothesized that Caxton had used a Louvain edition of the Fasciculus as the source for his Chronicles (‘Printer and Scribe’, p. 599), but the Louvain edition does not contain the reference to printing’s origins in Mainz. 36 Chronicles of England (St Albans: c. 1486), sig. K8r. Compare Rolewinck, Fasciculus Temporum (Cologne, 1479), sig. h6v: ‘.40. milia Artifices mira celeritate subtiliores solito fiunt. Et impressores librorum multiplicantur in terra ortum sue artis habentes in Maguntia.’ 34 35

136

Neil Weijer

1481. These texts not only include the description of printing’s origins in Mainz, but several other unique variations that are preserved in the Fruit of Times.37 Many of these are minor additions of a word or two, and not all variant passages from the Fasciculus were adopted in the Fruit of Times, but one substantial episode clarifies which source text the Schoolmaster was translating from.38 The passages describing the invention of chess in Quentell’s editions of the Fasciculus Temporum (left) and the Fruit of Times (right) are set below, with Quentell’s unique variant in bold: ¶Ludus scacorum reperitur ab xerse philosopho pro correctione euilmerodach tyranni qui suos magistros et sapientes occidere consueuit et hujusmodo solatio indirecte attractus fuit ad mendationem. quia quem aperte crudelem corrigere non audebat: hujusmodi industrioso solatio mansuetum redere procurabat.39

Nota: The play of the Ches wos found of Xerse a philosophur for the correccion of Enylmerodach this tyme the king of babulon a gret tryant the wich was wont to kyll his own maisters and wyse men. And for he durst not rebuke him oppynly. With sych a witty game he procurt hym to be meeke.

Here it becomes apparent that the Schoolmaster’s word-for-word approach to translation had its limits: Quentell’s passage contains a redundancy, since his variation adds the line et huiusmodi industrioso solatio mansuetum redere procurabat without removing the text two lines above it (from hujusmodo solatio to mendationem), common to all other editions. The Schoolmaster removed this repetition in his Fruit of Times, departing from his exemplar in a similar manner to his treatment of the papal schism. Additionally, in the Fruit of Times material at the very end of the Chronicles of England, which extends past the coronation of Edward IV, the Schoolmaster recasts two events from his source (the Fasciculus Temporum) to emphasize their connection with England: the conquest of Guelders by Charles the Bold (‘ye wich weddid Dame Margaret sustre to kyng Edward the myghti the fourth of englond’) and John of Abingdon’s activities as Sixtus IV’s legate in England.40 The Schoolmaster’s efforts in compiling his edition should thus be seen as the reflection of his intent for the work as a whole, rather than the mechanical copying of passages from one source into another. Like Caxton, the Schoolmaster’s choices of what Stillwell, ‘Fasciculus Temporum’, pp. 424–37. Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sigs. e5r and f6r; Stillwell, ‘Fasciculus Temporum’, pp. 434–5. The description of Plato and Aristotle as ‘[most] famous clerks’ (famosissimi) and Jesus’s granting of eternal peace ‘to his lovery’ (suis dilectoribus) are small additions the Schoolmaster has also incorporated. 39 Rolewinck, Fasciculus Temporum (Cologne, 1479), sig. c6r; Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. e2r; Stillwell, ‘Fasciculus Temporum’, p. 434. In the Fasciculus, the position of Euylmerodach’s roundel identifies him as a ‘king of Babylon’, which likely explains the Schoolmaster’s addition to the passage. 40 Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sigs. K8v–K9r. 37 38



Re-printing or Remaking?

137

information to include in his edition were driven by the desire to augment the history of England he received (in this case Caxton’s printed Chronicles). When his edition is examined as a whole, it becomes clear that the most necessary augmentation the Schoolmaster believed he could make to the history of England was to set it within a more accurate chronological framework. Through both printers’ use of the Fasciculus Temporum, therefore, we may observe two different strategies of compilation at work in the two Types of the Chronicles of England. More importantly, we may appreciate their effect on the shaping of Caxton’s and the Schoolmaster’s entire works. Caxton’s strategy of creative adaptation produced a more expansive narrative of England’s rising and falling fortunes. The Schoolmaster’s edition, in turn, reframed Caxton’s narrative as one that could be reconciled with the history of all mankind. The Schoolmaster’s innovations in presentation, we shall see, advanced his program further still, and cast the differences between these two editions into sharper relief.

Re-envisioning the Chronicles: The Presentation of the Two Editions The layout and appearance of both editions serve to further highlight the differences between Caxton’s and the Schoolmaster’s approaches to compiling history and establishing historical authority. As mentioned above, the Fasciculus Temporum’s array of timelines made it an intensely visual text, which meant that it posed to both Caxton and the Schoolmaster the technical challenge of how to integrate its diagrams into their prose narratives. In addition to the Fasciculus’s genealogical roundels and accompanying text, larger woodcuts were also employed to divide its timeline into the six ages of man, and to indicate other important events, such as the founding and destruction of cities, the Flood and the birth of Christ. Spacing and arranging these visual elements was no mean feat, since it required the use and reuse of specialized woodcuts, as well as an arrangement of the page in terms of its smallest element – em spaces – in order to align the text and woodcuts properly with the timelines.41 This layout also made it difficult to locate a particular event in the text or on the page. Because of this, editions of the Fasciculus were equipped with lengthy indices, so that the varied pieces of information that they contained might be more effectively navigated by their readers. While the Brut was also organized genealogically, its prose narrative had no capacity for the visual parallels between chronology and genealogy that the Fasciculus was designed to display. Given these challenges, it is perhaps not surprising that Caxton chose to model the layout of his edition on the Brut rather than the Fasciculus, leaving out the timelines, woodcuts and roundels, and dealing only with the text of Werner Rolevinck’s history.42 Caxton’s edition was divided much as it had been in the Brut C. Bolton, ‘The Influence of Type and Spacing on the Design of the Printed Page’, Jaarboek voor nederlandse boekgeschiedenis 19 (2012), 51–64. 42 Similar strategies exist in the Polychronicon and Caxton’s edition of the Morte D’Arthur. See Tonry, ‘Reading History’, pp. 185–96, and T. Takagi and T. Takamiya, ‘Caxton Edits the Roman War Episode: The Chronicles of England and Caxton’s Book V’, in The 41

138

Neil Weijer

manuscript that was his main source: by chapter headings set off from the rest of the text. Caxton’s edition developed this strategy further by including a table of chapter headings so that readers (or, potentially, buyers) could quickly see that the chronicle contained new material. Rubricated initials and paraphs (¶) provided emphases within each chapter, and as with Caxton’s other early productions, rubrication was intended to be supplied by hand. Although Caxton would experiment with woodcuts and hierarchies of type in his later work, and was even at this time trying out new forms of punctuation in an effort to make his books visually effective and appealing, his editions of the Chronicles closely resembled the Brut manuscripts they were drawn from.43 The Schoolmaster, on the other hand, proved more willing than Caxton to integrate some of the visual logic of the Fasciculus into his entire book. The St Albans edition incorporated a page-specific system for locating each piece of information (mostly the names of kings and patriarchs) contained within the chapters of the Chronicles. This system bore closer resemblance to the tabulae found in the Fasciculus Temporum than to the chapter headings used to make up Caxton’s table in the Chronicles.44 Running headlines were printed across the top of each page – another adaptation from the Fasciculus – providing a quick and easy reference point for the reign of the English monarch being discussed. Finally, the use of rubricated initials and paraphs, the main form of organization within the chapters of Caxton’s Chronicles, was expanded in order to separate the text further, and to allow for quicker reference on the page. Adding to the complexity and cost in production, the rubrication in the St Albans edition was printed, requiring twice as much effort by the printer, in addition to the trouble of re-registering every sheet on the press. The St Albans edition also adopted and modified the program of woodcuts found in the Fasciculus, adding to the organization and visual appeal of the work. This edition of the Chronicles was the first to use woodcuts, and one of the first English incunabula to do so. The adaptable woodcut that marked each of the six ages of man in the Fasciculus, dividing the text into six parts, was also used by the Schoolmaster to mark the six ages in the Fruit of Times. The Schoolmaster went further, however, employing the cut again at the arrival of Brutus and thus the beginning of the Brut, again connecting English history with the material that surrounded it and unifying the work in seven parts, rather than six.45 Two additional cuts were adapted from the Fasciculus: the Tower of Babel and a basic woodcut of a cross to note Christ’s Malory Debate: Essays on the Texts of Le Morte Darthur, ed. B. Wheeler, R. Kindrick and M. Salda, Arthurian Studies 47 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 169–91. 43 See W. Blades, The Biography and Typography of William Caxton, England’s First Printer, 2nd edn (London, 1882), pp. 117, 125–7; N. Blake, Caxton’s Own Prose (London, 1973), pp. 37–41; and, more generally, M. B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley, 1993), pp. 50–5, 87–96. 44 Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. ar. The leaves of the table are signed separately from the main body of the text, which begins with sig.a2. 45 Wynkyn De Worde’s 1497 reworking of the St Albans edition employed the cut an eighth time to mark the arrival of another momentous event in English history: the arrival of the Normans (sig. p6v).



Re-printing or Remaking?

139

crucifixion. The cutter may also have attempted, and ruined, another woodcut from the Fasciculus: Noah’s Ark. The description of the Ark in the Fruit of Times is set in two square blocks of unequal size, one of which could have been intended to house an illustration.46 Both in its composition and its execution, therefore, this edition was innovative, adapting text and technology to reinforce the Schoolmaster’s chronological framework for English history. The design of the Schoolmaster’s woodcuts also helps confirm that the Schoolmaster’s source was one of Heinrich Quentell’s editions of the Fasciculus Temporum. The woodcuts used in the St Albans edition do not capture the more intricate details of Quentell’s, but the cut of the Tower of Babel (Plate 2) bears strong resemblance to the unique cut used in Quentell’s 1479 and 1481 editions of the Fasciculus Temporum (Plate 1).47 While the cuts used to demarcate the ages of the world are similar across the continental editions of the Fasciculus, a great variety of woodcuts were used for the other images, likely due to the fact that printers such as Quentell could reuse woodcuts from their earlier books. The Schoolmaster, on the other hand, needed to have all of his cuts made, and used Quentell’s copy of the Fasciculus Temporum not only as a model for the text, but also for his illustrations.48 Yet even if they were too complex to replicate, Quentell’s other woodcuts may still have influenced the Schoolmaster’s composition. At the birth of Christ, Quentell inserted a sentence on the Magi and their presentation of gifts to Christ, accompanied by a large woodcut scene of the adoration. Given the location of Quentell’s press and the popularity of the cult of the Magi, it is perhaps not surprising that in the foreground one of the Magi’s attendants carries a shield bearing the arms of Cologne.49 The Schoolmaster did not include this cut, perhaps because it was too large as well as too intricate. Nor did he use the description of the Magi from the Fasciculus, favoring instead the more detailed section in the Polychronicon; nevertheless, in his Chronicles he identified the Magi as ‘The iii.kynges of Colan’, which the Polychronicon does not do.50 Given the Schoolmaster’s predisposition to preserve his sources, it is notable that he decided to insert this, but a look at the Brut’s manuscript record indicates that he was not alone in making this connection. Five surviving Brut manuscripts are bound with copies of the Middle English poem The Three Kings of Cologne, which tells the story of the journey of the Magi to Bethlehem and back, as well as the translation of their relics first to Constantinople, then to Cologne.51 One of these Bruts Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. a6r. Quentell’s 1480 edition features a different woodcut of the Tower of Babel, and thus can likely be discounted. 48 E. Hodnett, English Woodcuts 1480–1535 (London, 1935), p. 48. 49 Rolewinck, Fasciculus Temporum (Cologne, 1479), sig. d5r. 50 Chronicles of England (St Albans, c. 1486), sig. f7v; Trevisa, Polychronicon (Westminster, 1482), sig. 23.5v. 51 J. Boffey, ‘“Many grete myraclys … in divers contreys of the eest”: The Reading and Circulation of the Middle English Prose Three Kings of Cologne’, in Medieval Women: Texts and Contexts in Late Medieval Britain, Essays for Felicity Riddy, ed. J. WoganBrowne et al., Medieval Women 3 (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 35–47. The following Brut 46 47

140

Neil Weijer

Plate 1 The layout of the Fasciculus Temporum, showing the woodcut of the Tower of Babel. Rolevinck, Werner. Facisul[us] tempo[rum] o[mn]es a[n]tiquoru[m] cronicas [com]plecte[n]s, admissus ab alma vniuersitate Colon. incipit feliciter (Cologne, Heinrich Quentell, 1481), fol. 4r (sig. a5r)



Re-printing or Remaking?

141

Plate 2 The St Albans edition of the Chronicles, with a woodcut modeled on Quentell’s. University of Glasgow Library, sp coll Hunterian Bv.2.17, fol. a7v

142

Neil Weijer

– Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng 530 – contains a continuation copied out of one of Caxton’s editions by a later scribe.52 In addition to the devotional purpose ascribed to the text, and the popularity of the cult of the Three Magi in the Middle Ages, English readers may have looked to connect the later life of Constantine and his donation with the emperor’s British origins, a connection that the Schoolmaster made explicit in his edition. They may also have read the Three Kings for further information about Constantine’s mother, St Helena, who translated the relics of the Magi to Constantinople, discovered the relics of the Nativity and built churches in the East. In its layout as well as its compilation, then, the Schoolmaster’s edition represents a blending of old and new histories, and his own ‘reading’ of three influential historical texts, rather than a re-printing of Caxton’s earlier addition with another text (the Fruit of Times) included. It is conceivable that the Schoolmaster had his own copies of the Chronicles of England and the Polychronicon, and might even have acquired a different edition of the Fasciulus Temporum than the one Caxton employed. While nothing in the text of Caxton’s first edition of the Chronicles would definitively preclude his use of Quentell’s 1479 edition of the Fasciculus as a source, the short span of time between the printing of the two books (potentially as short as half a year) would have made it difficult for him to acquire the text before the Chronicles went to press. Hellinga’s suggestion that Caxton had used one of the earlier Cologne editions, such as that printed by Conrad Winters, seems to me to be more plausible.53 Regardless, it seems unwise to diminish the independence of the Schoolmaster’s efforts in compiling the Fruit of Times and interweaving it with the historical narrative of the Chronicles. While indebted to Caxton for some of his source material, the design of the Schoolmaster’s edition as well as his greater fidelity to his sources strongly indicate that the Schoolmaster was following his own plan for the Chronicles, both as a printer and as another anonymous contributor to the Brut tradition. Taken together, Caxton’s and the Schoolmaster’s printed editions represent two different lenses through which the history of England could be viewed. In terms of the Brut tradition, Caxton broke new ground with the continuation to his Chronicles, expanding the Brut’s geographical and chronological scope while preserving a literary stance quite similar to that of the generations of scribes and historians that had come before him, and freely adapting the language of his sources to better convey his message. On the other hand, the Schoolmaster’s careful attention to the composition and organization of his material reflects no less of an awareness of his role as the creator of a new production. His message about historical knowledge is clearer: in order for it to be read correctly, the entire history manuscripts all contain versions of the text: Cambridge, University Library, MS Ee.4.32; Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.5.43 (II); London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 491; London, British Library, MS Cotton Galba E.VII; and Harvard MS Eng 530. 52 Harvard MS Eng. 530, fols. 204r–211v. The continuation ends imperfectly in the middle of Caxton’s chapter 251, before his account of the papal schism: Chronicles of England (Westminster, 1480) sig. x2v. 53 See above, n. 35.



Re-printing or Remaking?

143

of England must be set in its wider universal context, enabling more accurate chronological representation.

Remaking the Chronicles: Printers and Readers So far my discussion has focused on a very small number of readers – two, to be exact. For just like the scribes of medieval manuscripts, so too were William Caxton and the Schoolmaster the first readers of their respective editions of the Chronicles. But how many others did they anticipate would share their outlook, or make use of their books? Outside of the print shop, the surviving copies of their editions provide evidence of the identity of further owners and readers. Even though they are late productions, some still contain fifteenth-century marginalia, and many have marks from sixteenth-century owners and readers. Of the copies of the printed Chronicles that I have been able to examine, many contain what Tamar Drukker has called ‘narrative marginalia’, drawing attention to events in the text, either by underlining or copying out passages, in similar proportion and in similar locations to the marginalia found in the Brut manuscripts she analyzed.54 The opening chapters of the history containing the stories of Albina, Brutus and the early British kings, the foundation of cities and, towards the end of the book, the notes of famines, prices and portents, were singled out by anonymous and named readers of the printed books, as had also been done by many readers of the Brut manuscripts. In the editions that contain the Fruit of Times, its readers were equally attracted to the early origins of mankind and to the foundations of cities that its early chapters offered, and copies record the activity of country gentry as well as urban readers.55 Not all readers would have encountered the Fruit of Times in print. In University of Glasgow Library, MS Hunter 83, a compiler has added the initial Fruit of Times material from the St Albans edition to an earlier Brut manuscript, and also incorporated a continuation for 1419–61, whose headlines, ‘Liber Ultimus’, indicate that it was taken from Caxton’s Polychronicon.56 In addition to composing the new material, which included his own drawing of the Tower of Babel based on the St Albans woodcut (Plate 3), this compiler also annotated the main text of the Brut, creating his own continuous history with the materials available to him. Over 140 full or partial copies of the printed Chronicles exist across both Types. I have currently examined forty copies of the earliest editions, most of which are held in the collections of Cambridge University Library, Glasgow University Library and Newberry Library in Chicago. My ongoing dissertation research will cover an additional seventy of these books. For comparison with manuscripts, see T. Drukker, ‘I Read Therefore I Write: Readers’ Marginalia in some Brut Manuscripts’, in Readers and Writers, ed. Marx and Radulescu, Trivium 36 (2006), 97–130 (p. 98), and N. Weijer, ‘Compilation, Presentation, and Circulation’, pp. 67–9. 55 Chicago, Newberry Library, MS Inc. 9827, for example, was annotated by several members of the Bagot family of Blithfield, Staffordshire, at the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth. See also R. Radulescu, ‘Gentry Readers of the Brut and Genealogical Material’, in Readers and Writers, ed. Marx and Radulescu, pp. 189–202. 56 Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 166–70, 205; Boffey, Manuscript and Print, p. 61. 54

144

Neil Weijer

The manuscript, which later circulated in London among a mercantile audience, became, in Julia Boffey’s words, ‘effectively a whole new work’.57 Viewed in the light of the manuscript tradition alone, Hunter 83 is an exceptional production, albeit one that served as a possible copy text for two more manuscripts.58 However, when the Type II editions of the Chronicles are brought into the picture, then Hunter 83 becomes less of an anomaly and more of a reflection of the increasing number of readers whose encounters with the history of England were mediated by printed texts, and who sought to enhance their reading of the Brut with the universal history contained in the Fruit of Times and Polychronicon, among other sources. Caxton and the Schoolmaster were not alone in their desire to look outside English history for additional information on the notable figures it contained and for a chronological framework to support the genealogy of the early kings. Thus, the additional material found in the Type II editions of the Chronicles of England (the Fruit of Times) should no longer be considered extraneous to English history. Rather, this material is complementary to the larger narrative and should, I have argued, be treated as an integral part of the Brut and understood as part of the chronicle’s development.

Conclusions The printing of the Chronicles of England in the late fifteenth century allows us to look back as well as to look forward. The Schoolmaster of St Albans, we have seen, combined traditional attitudes towards historical authority with novel printing techniques in order to produce an innovative edition, and one with direct consequences for the reading of English history. His blend of national and universal history inspired subsequent printers to issue their own Type II editions, and at least one compiler or owner to update an earlier manuscript. The drive to reconcile the early history of England with external histories, notably Roman ones, would only intensify in the sixteenth century as a new generation of humanist historians took up the task.59 What is more, his composition represents not just the evolution of form or advances in printing technology, but can be analyzed as a creation with its own cohesive narrative, a logic all its own. To the story of England’s origins, and the claims to antiquity and sovereignty guaranteed by Brutus and his Trojan progeny, the Schoolmaster added material that he thought would be desired by his readers and necessary to the proper understanding of the history of Britain: more origins, more foundations, some novelties, but above all a structure that allowed the Brut to Ibid.; B. Sinclair, ‘In Pursuit of the Brut: Identity, Landscape, and Location with Particular Emphasis on Glasgow University Library Hunterian MS 83’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Queen’s University, Belfast, 2008), p. 217. 58 Matheson, ‘Printer and Scribe’, pp. 609–10; The Prose Brut, pp. 204–8. 59 See D. Woolf, ‘From Hystories to the Historical: Five Transitions in Thinking about the Past, 1500–1700’, in The Uses of History in Early Modern England, ed. P. Kewes (San Marino, 2006), pp. 31–67. See also T. Kendrick, British Antiquity (London, 1950); F. J. Levy, Tudor Historical Thought (San Marino, 1967); and J. Levine, Humanism and History: Origins of Modern English Historiography (Ithaca, 1987). 57



Re-printing or Remaking?

145

be read in and measured against a broader historical and chronological context. By emphasizing the ‘trew cowntyng of the yeris’ and the need for a wider chronology, he was also bringing a universal interpretation of history, once the more exclusive purview of the Latinate, to a wider audience than before.

Plate 3 A continuator adds material from the Fruit of Times into his manuscript copy of the Brut. University of Glasgow Library, MS Hunter 83, fol. 4r

146

Neil Weijer

Research on the manuscript tradition of the Brut chronicle continues to illustrate the dynamism, vivacity and pervasiveness of the chronicle within the English historical tradition and among the different groups of readers, scribes and sellers that encountered it. Why should the printed editions of the chronicle be different? The printing of the first vernacular history in England was a momentous event, but as I have suggested here, the printing of the Brut after its editio princeps did not mark the ossification of the chronicle and the beginning of its slow decline and eclipse in the sixteenth century. Rather, these printed copies illustrate the Brut’s continued efflorescence, alongside a wider variety of texts and genres than had previously been encountered, and never in separation or isolation from the vast quantity of manuscripts that the fifteenth century had produced. To exclude the St Albans printer from assuming the role of scribe or author is to miss out on a key phase in the Brut’s development, and to diminish the impact of an incredibly influential English chronicle.60

60

I would like to thank Jaclyn Rajsic, Erik Kooper and Dominique Hoche for their thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions on the drafts of this essay. Any ambiguities or errors that remain are mine.

part iii

RECEPTIONS AND AFTERLIVES OF LATE MEDIEVAL CHRONICLES

chapter nine

TREVET’S LES CRONICLES: MANUSCRIPTS, OWNERS AND READERS Heather Pagan

E

arly fourteenth century England witnessed a resurgence of interest in AngloNorman historiographical texts, the likes of which had not been seen since the period following the accession of Henry II in the second half of the twelfth century.1 During the reigns of the first three Edwards, multiple texts narrating the history of the kings of England were written in Anglo-Norman: the Prose Brut, the Livere de Reis de Britannie, the Anonimalle Chronicle, the Livere de Reis de Engleterre, the Brute, the Lignee des Bretons et des Engleis and the Petit Brut.2 More recent scholarship has shown an interest in the reception of these types of works, as the The earliest historiographical texts written in French were composed in the AngloNorman realm in the early to mid twelfth century. Gaimar’s and Wace’s chronicles were the first vernacular verse texts to relate the history of the royal lineage; see Geffrei Gaimar, Estoire des Engleis, ed. A. Bell, Anglo-Norman Text Society 13 (Oxford, 1960) and Estoire des Engleis: History of the English, ed. and trans. I. Short (Oxford, 2009), and Wace, Roman de Brut, ed. I. Arnold, 2 vols., Société des anciens textes français (Paris, 1938–40) and Wace’s ‘Roman de Brut’: a history of the British, ed. and trans. J. Weiss (Exeter, 1999). The rise of Anglo-Norman historiography in the twelfth century has been attributed to Henry II’s interest in his forebears as well as to the tradition of vernacular historiographical writing in England. See further P. Damian-Grint, The New Historians of the Twelfth Century Renaissance (Woodbridge, 1999). 2 The Prose Brut was a multi-stage composition, which began after 1272 and continued until about 1350: see The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: An Edition and Translation, ed. and trans. J. Marvin, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006), and Prose Brut to 1332, ed. H. Pagan, Anglo-Norman Text Society 69 (Manchester, 2011). The related Anonimalle Chronicle dates to the first half of the fourteenth century: The Anonimalle Chronicle 1307–1334, ed. W. R. Childs and J. Taylor, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series 147 (Leeds, 1991). The Livere de Reis de Britannie dates to the first quarter of the thirteenth century, while the Livere de Reis de Engleterre was written a quarter of a century later (Le Livere de Reis de Brittanie, ed. J. Glover, Rolls Series 42 (London, 1865)). Le Petit Bruit was written in 1309: Rauf de Boun, Le Petit Bruit, ed. D. Tyson, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Plain Texts Series 4 (London, 1987). The Brut was composed shortly after 1307: An Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle, ed. E. Zettl, EETS OS 196 (London, 1935), pp. 92–105. John Spence provides the most comprehensive discussion of the importance of these chronicles in his Reimagining History in AngloNorman Prose Chronicles (York, 2013). 1

149

150

Heather Pagan

great number of manuscripts with Anglo-Norman prose chronicles suggests they were quite popular during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Ownership and readership of Anglo-Norman prose chronicles in the fourteenth century was varied; as John Spence notes: the chronicles were widely read by members of the nobility, the gentry and the clergy – especially men, though some works were also written for women. The evidence from surviving copies suggests that these works were most popular in certain areas of the country: in south-east England, especially at some large monasteries; in the north of England, with a focus on English claims in Scotland; and also in the March of Wales, with a focus on Marcher lords. Judging by material preserved alongside the Anglo-Norman prose chronicles, they were primarily seen as serious historical writing and frequently circulated with complementary historical texts in Latin and Anglo-Norman.3 The writing of these vernacular national chronicles preceded the composition of Anglo-Norman works that attempted to be more universal in nature, incorporating the foundation myth and lineage of British and English kings into the framework of biblical history and the history of Rome. One of the first to successfully accomplish the writing of such a universal chronicle in Anglo-Norman was Nicholas Trevet in his work known as Les Cronicles.4 It survives in eleven manuscripts, and a closer examination of the manuscript transmission of this work, and specifically evidence of their ownership, may shed additional light on the communities that were particularly interested in Anglo-Norman prose chronicles in the fourteenth Spence, Reimagining History, p. 49. Modern research on Trevet’s Anglo-Norman text is indebted to the edition and commentary provided by A. Rutherford, ‘The Anglo-Norman Chronicle of Nicholas Trivet’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1932), as well as to Ruth Dean’s study of Trevet’s historical works; see R. J. Dean, ‘The Manuscripts of Nicholas Trevet’s Anglo-Norman “Cronicles”’, Medievalia et Humanistica 14 (1962), 89–105, and idem, ‘Nicholas Trevet: Historian’, in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays presented to Richard William Hunt, ed. J. J. G. Alexander and M. T. Gibson (Oxford, 1976), pp. 328–52. There is currently no published edition of Les Cronicles, although one is preparation by the author and Geert De Wilde. Several extracts have been edited for publication: G. Stephens and J. A. Ahlstrand, S. Patriks-sagan, innehållande S. Patrik och hans Järtecken, Nicolaus i S. Patriks Skärseld och Tungulus (Stockholm, 1844), pp. 66–70; G. W. Dasent, Theophilus in Icelandic, Low German and Other Tongues, from the MSS in the Royal Library, Stockholm (London, 1845), p. 31; G. L. Frost, ‘Caesar and Virgil’s Magic in England’, Modern Language Notes 51 (1936), 431–3; E. Brock, ‘The Life of Constance (The Source of Chaucer’s Man of Law’s Tale) from the Anglo-Norman Chronicle of Nicholas Trivet (after A.D. 1334)’, in Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’, ed. F. J. Furnivall, E. Brock and W. A. Clouston (London, 1888), pp. 1–53; M. Schlauch, ‘The Man of Law’s Tale’, in Sources and Analogues of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and G. Dempster (Chicago, 1941), pp. 155–206 (pp. 165–81); and R. M Correale, ‘The Man of Law’s Prologue and Tale’, in Sources and Analogues of the Canterbury Tales, ed. R. M. Correale with M. Hamel, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 2005), II, 277–329.

3 4

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

151

and fifteenth centuries. More specifically, this may allow us to determine which of the manuscripts may have been consulted by Trevet’s royal dedicatee and by his most famous readers, Gower and Chaucer. Born between 1258 and 1268, Nicholas Trevet was the son of Sir Thomas Trevet, a Justice in Eyre. A member of the Order of Preachers, he studied at Oxford and perhaps in Paris as well. A large number of Trevet’s writings survive, such as his commentaries on biblical texts as well as classical works. He also composed three historical texts, one of which was written in Anglo-Norman. The Annales sex regum Angliae is a Latin account of the period 1135–1307, beginning with the events leading up to Stephen’s accession and closing with the death of Edward I, and was probably composed between 1320 and 1323.5 The Historia (ab origine mundi), dedicated to Hugh, archdeacon of Canterbury, followed in 1327–8.6 This is a universal chronicle, annalistic in style, which attempts to be a record of all memorable events from Creation to the end of the fifth age, that is, to the birth of Christ.7 Trevet’s third historical work is his only one written in the vernacular. Les Cronicles was dedicated to Princess Mary of Woodstock (1279–1332), the fourth daughter of Edward I and a nun of Amesbury.8 It summarizes world history from the Creation to contemporary times with a particular attention to events in England. Trevet’s sources are numerous: the earliest portion of the chronicle is largely based on the Bible, supplemented with material ultimately derived from Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum Historiale, Petrus Comestor’s Historia Scholastica, Liber Pontificalis and the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius as well as that of Orderic Vitalis and likely that of Bede, to name but a few. Later portions of the text draw on a range of sources, including Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, William of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum, Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum, Roger of Wendover’s Flores Historiarum and the London annals: Alexander Rutherford lists over twenty-five chronicles used by Trevet in his compilation.9 Les Cronicles is extant in eleven manuscripts, identified and catalogued by Ruth Dean: M Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 45 (c. 1335–40) R Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B. 178 (XIV3/4, later revised to 1335–50) P Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds français 9687 (c. 1340–50) F Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Fairfax 10 (XIVm) F. Nicholai Triveti, de ordine frat. Praedicatorum: Annales sex regum Angliae, ed. T. Hogg, English Historical Society (London, 1845). 6 Known as the Historia ab origine mundi ad Christum natum; there is no edition of the text at present. 7 Dean, ‘The Manuscripts’, pp. 349–52, provides a full list of manuscripts containing Trevet’s historical works, identifying twenty-two copies of the Annales and seven copies of the Historia. 8 Only four of the eleven manuscripts contain the dedication to Mary. See n. 16 for further discussion of the dedication. 9 ‘Anglo-Norman Chronicle’, p. 18.

5

152

Heather Pagan

T Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.4.32 (XIVm–1360) A London, British Library, MS Arundel 56 (c. 1375) L Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Vossius MS Gallici F.6 (XIV4/4) S Stockholm, Kungliga Bibliotek, MS D.1311a (c. 1400) D Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 119 (XV1/4) H Cambridge MA, Harvard University Houghton Library, fMS Eng 750 (XV/XVI) J Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS James 19 (1620–38).10 The manuscripts form two distinct families, mainly based on the contents of their last folios. Family A is represented by the manuscripts M, F, T, A, S, H and the other by R, P, L, with one manuscript, D, incomplete.11 (Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, fMS Eng 750 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS James 19 are omitted from the following discussion as they are sixteenth- and seventeenth-century copies, and preserve only extracts of the text. The Harvard manuscript is a compilation of historical extracts in Anglo-Norman, English and Latin – an English Brut, Wendover’s Flores Historiarum, the Treaty of Bretigny and other historical notes in Latin – so Les Cronicles appears to provide additional historical material not contained in these other chronicles. The James manuscript is mainly a collection of James’s notes taken from historical manuscripts held at Magdalen College, Oxford, and contains short extracts taken from M.) Trevet’s work is not the only universal Anglo-Norman chronicle from this period – both the Polistorie and the Scalacronica should be considered as such – but both the sources used in the composition of Les Cronicles and the scope of the work differ significantly from its contemporaries. As John Spence notes, Trevet is the only Anglo-Norman chronicler to write a universal history which focuses so intensively on biblical history. The first third of his work is largely devoted to an account of history based on the Old Testament and the Gospels: Geoffrey of Monmouth’s legendary history of Britain and classical or pseudo-classical history is only included in brief, fragmentary detail.12 The Scalacronica devotes lengthy passages to the legendary history of England but quickly passes over any biblical history, while Les Cronicles does quite the reverse. This difference in subject matter may be attributable to the Scalacronica having a The most recent dating of the manuscripts is provided by R. J. Dean, with the collaboration of M. B. M. Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series 3 (London, 1999), pp. 47–8, no. 70. 11 Dean, ‘The Manuscripts’, p. 96, notes that ‘five of the MSS (MFTAS…) end with the coronation of Ludwig, Duke of Bavaria, and treaties (1325) leading to the conquest of Lombardy for him by his erstwhile rival Frederick, Duke of Austria. … One manuscript (D) is unfinished, breaking off in the year 1183. The other three (PRL) have a brief continuation which adds the condemnation of Ludwig on charges of heresy, the imprisonment of Nicholas V (1329), and another stage of Edward II’s struggle with Scotland.’ H belongs to the first family as it is lacking the continuation. Family A also lack the genealogy (see below). 12 Spence, Reimagining History, p. 102. 10

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

153

lay author instead of an ecclesiastical one who was very familiar with Latin ecclesiastical histories. However, the Polistorie, also written by a monk, equally shows a greater devotion to ‘the legendary history of Britain than it does to biblical and early ecclesiastical history’.13 Spence suggests that the emphasis on biblical history and the inclusion of episodes such as the well-known Constance tale are a result of Trevet’s desire to create ‘a chronicle which sought to place English history in the framework of biblical and Christian history, as exemplified by a genealogy it included in which Edward I’s ancestry was traced back to Adam’.14 Does Trevet’s focus on biblical history over fabulous tales indicate his desire to create a universal history for a royal nun? Did the reception of this text differ in any way from that of other Anglo-Norman prose chronicles as a result of its different focus? Did Trevet’s readers consider this a religious history, providing tales of exemplary models, or did they simply read it as a universal history? An evaluation of the extant manuscripts of Les Cronicles will show that like the readership of Anglo-Norman national chronicles as elaborated by Spence, the readership of Trevet’s universal chronicle crossed class and gender lines, read as it was by men and women of the nobility, gentry and clergy, throughout England and abroad, and who perceived the work as serious historical writing.

Royal Readers and Owners While the intended audiences of most of the Anglo-Norman prose chronicles remain unknown, as these texts lack dedications by their anonymous authors, Trevet’s Les Cronicles was evidently composed with a specific royal reader in mind.15 Four of the seven extant complete manuscripts of the work begin with a rubric indicating that the text was written for Mary of Woodstock.16 She is also referred to Ibid. Ibid., p. 103. D. Tyson, ‘French Vernacular History Writers and Their Patrons in the Fourteenth Century’, Medievalia et Humanistica 14 (1986), 103–24 (p. 118), takes Trevet’s prologue at its word and suggests that ‘Trevet wrote because he had found that the reading public lacked books and found existing histories too lengthy…’. See n. 17 for the full text of the prologue. 15 Diana Tyson provides a thorough examination of patronage in French chronicles of the fourteenth century in her article, ‘French Vernacular History Writers’. Tyson identifies five Anglo-Norman chronicles with known patrons: alongside Trevet’s work we find Langtoft’s history, written for an unidentified ‘Scaffeld’; the Petit Bruit written for Henry de Lacy; the Polistorie, written for John, the unidentified friend of the author, a monk from Christchurch, Canterbury; and finally a lost chronicle by Froissart dedicated to Queen Philippa. Tyson cautions that any conclusions based on these few examples ‘must be tentative… There are no common factors linking these isolated instances. Their importance lies in the fact that they show an interest in French historiography by people with no tradition of patronage in their environment’ (Ibid., pp. 116–17). 16 The three earliest manuscripts, M R P, along with A, begin with the dedication to Mary: ‘Ci comencerent les Cronicles qe Frere Nichol Trivet escrit a ma dame Marie la fillie moun seignour le Roi d’Engleterre Edward le filtz Henri’ (‘Here begins the chronicle which Brother Nicholas Trevet wrote for my lady Mary, the daughter of my lord, the king of England, Edward, the son of Henry.’). All translations are my own. 13 14

154

Heather Pagan

twice more in the chronicle – once in a list of the children of Edward I and secondly in a fuller description of Edward’s daughters and their spouses and children. It does not appear that Mary commissioned the chronicle, nor lived to see its completion.17 The tone is practical and didactic, translating all Latin and Greek citations, except for those drawn from the liturgy, which Trevet seemed to have expected Mary to understand. While Mary may never have read the chronicle, it does seem to have circulated in royal hands shortly after its composition. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds français 9687 is the most elaborately decorated of all the manuscripts, and it is believed that it was produced ‘for a particular library or for some nobleman’, or even to have been the copy of the text originally destined for Mary of Woodstock.18 Robert Correale believed that the manuscript was then owned by Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, and his wife, Margaret of Flanders, thus sometime between their marriage in 1369 and her death in 1404.19 This conclusion is based on the presence of the inscription of AO in the top right margin of fol. 2v, which suggests that the book may once have been stored in the chest of books inscribed with AO mentioned in a post-mortem inventory of Margaret’s goods. Correale also believed that this manuscript then passed into the hands of Phillip’s brother, John, the duke of Berry, and from there into the library of the dukes of Burgundy, where it appears in the inventory from 1467.20 It is certainly The work begins with a prologue, which makes no mention of Mary but suggests that Trevet had been asked to compose a history that would be shorter and easier to understand: ‘Pur ce qe nous sumes avisez de ceux qe sont perceous en estudie q’il sont enoiez de la prolixté d’estories et qe plusurs en ount defaute des livres, il nous plust requiller brevement la conte des lynes qe descenderent del primer piere Adam, droitement estendues tanque a la nesance Notre Seignur Jhesu Crist, si qe, par la descripcion q’est mise, soient les coers plus attraitz a regarder et l’abreggement faite, qe l’em puisse la chose de plus legier entendre et recevir de plus vive memoire. Ne nous n’escourterom pas la verité de l’estoire mes la mousterons ordinément selonc la descente de Adam par patriarches, juges, rois, prophetes et prestres et des autres de lour temps jusques a Notre Saveour; et puis aprés dé gestes des apostoiles, emperours et rois tanque l’apostoil Johan vintisme secund’ (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds français 9687, fol. 2ra). (‘As we are advised by those who are slow in their studies that they are tired of the prolixity of stories, and that they lack books, it has pleased us to gather briefly together the account of the lines that descend from the first father Adam, stretching directly until the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ, so that by the given description hearts should be more attracted to reading and with the abbreviation, one can more easily hear it and receive it with better memory. We will not abbreviate the truth of the story but we will show its order from the descent of Adam through the patriarchs, judges, kings, prophets and priests and others of their time until Our Saviour and after of the deeds of the apostles, emperors and kings until Pope John the 22nd.’) 18 R. Correale, ‘Chaucer’s Manuscript of Nicholas Trevet’s Les Cronicles’, The Chaucer Review 25 (1991), 238–65 (p. 292 n. 51). 19 Correale, ‘The Man of Law’, p. 262. 20 L. Douet-d’Arcq notes that the Duke of Berry had in his library in 1416 ‘un livre appellé Les Croniques d’Angleterre, escript en mauvais françois, de lettre de court, couvert de cuir fauve, à deux petits fermouers de laton [Prisé 30s t.]’ (‘a book called the Chronicles of England, written in bad French, in a legal hand, covered with tan leather with two 17

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

155

the manuscript referred to in the 1467 inventory of the Bruges library, where it is described at number 779 as a book made of vellum with white board covers bearing the title of the book, a type of Bible, with Ne le devoit pas opening fol. 2r, finishing with, bonne entre nuyt.21 It is possible that Les Cronicles is the work mentioned in the 1477 version of the inventory as ‘Ung autre libre parlant des Papes, Croniques, et autres choses’ (‘another book about popes, chronicles and other things’).22 The manuscript remained in the ducal library until 1749 when it was taken to Versailles and entered the royal collection.23 In the ‘Inventory of the Goods and Chattels Belonging to Thomas, duke of Gloucester’, made in 1397, there is listed: ‘Item j blanc livre de Cronicles Trivet ove claspes de latoun pris iij. s. viij. d.’ (‘Item one white book of Trevet’s Cronicles with brass clasps valued at iij. s. viij. d’) and ‘Item un livre coverez blanc quyr appellez les Cronicles Tryvet pris xx.d.’ (‘Item one book covered in white leather called Trevet’s Cronicles valued at xx. d.’).24 Gloucester was the great-nephew of Mary of Woodstock and it is possible he obtained or was bequeathed one or more copies directly from her. It is possible that the manuscript covered in white leather described here is the same as the one listed in the 1467 inventory, and thus that the copy held by the Duke of Gloucester is the same as Fonds français 9687. Most recently, through a textual analysis of the known Trevet manuscripts, Robert Correale has shown that Gower, and later Chaucer, likely had a copy of one of the manuscripts of the sub-family R, P, L, D, which they used when compiling their own works – for Gower the ‘Tale of Constance’ in the Confessio Amantis, and the ‘Man of Law’s Tale’ in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.25 In Correale’s analysis of small brass closures’) (‘Notice sur la bibliothèque de Jean, Duc de Berri en 1416’, Revue archéologique 7.1 (1850), 144–68 (p. 154)). The title could possibly refer to Trevet’s chronicle but may equally refer to a Brut of some kind, or even Froissart. 21 ‘779. Ung autre livre en parchemin couvert d’ais blans, intitulé au dehors: Ce livre est en manière de Bible; comançant au second feuillet, Ne le devoit pas, et au dernier, bonne entre nuyt.’ J. Barrois, Bibliothèque protypographique ou Librairies des fils du Roi Jean, Charles V, Jean de Berri, Philippe de Bourgogne et les siens (Paris, 1830), p. 132. These are indeed the phrases that begin fols. 3r and 114r. It is interesting that none of the inventories refer to Trevet by name, despite the fact that fol. 1v contains the inscription bearing his name. 22 G. Peignot, Catalogue d’une partie des livres composant la bibliothèque des ducs de Bourgogne au XVe siècle, 2nd edn (Dijon, 1841), p. 88. 23 F. Avril and P. D. Stirnemann comment that ‘Enlevé de la bibliothèque ducale à Bruxelles en 1748–1749, ainsi que le raconte la note effacée aux ff. 2–2v, le manuscrit fut relié et integré dans les collections royales. A ce moment le bifolium final portant la mention “207 Cest le roman de Villamen Gouste” fut separé de son volume d’origine …’ (Manuscrits enluminés de la Bibliothèque Nationale: Manuscrits d’origine insulaire VIIe– XXe siècle (Paris, 1987), p. 160). 24 V. Dillon and W. H. St John Hope, ‘Inventory of the Goods and Chattels Belonging to Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, and Seized in his Castle at Pleshy, Co. Essex, 21 Richard II (1397); With their Values, as Shown in the Escheator’s Account’, Archaeological Journal 54 (1897), 275–308 (pp. 301–2). The Fairfax manuscript, described below, was also bound in white leather on bevelled boards so one of the references may be to this manuscript. 25 R. M. Correale, ‘Gower’s Source Manuscript of Nicholas Trevet’s Les Cronicles’, in John

156

Heather Pagan

variant readings in RP versus LD and between R and P, he suggests that Paris is the ultimate source.26 Would it have been possible for Gower and Chaucer to have consulted the Paris manuscript, c. 1385–c. 1395? The difficulty lies in determining where the manuscript was at that precise moment in time. It is just about possible that one of the manuscripts in the possession of the Duke of Gloucester was the Paris manuscript – both the inventory description and the inscription suggest it belonged to the Woodstock family.27 If the Paris manuscript was in the possession of the Duke of Gloucester, this would require it to pass to the Burgundian library after the inventory of 1397 but prior to 1404, although there is no external evidence, beside the mark AO, that the manuscript entered the library prior to 1467. Our recent transcription of the Paris manuscript has shown that while it is an ornate manuscript clearly destined for a royal reader, it is also a poorly executed copy, full of eyeskips and other errors, suggesting that it is a copy of an earlier, better manuscript. It is possible that it is this manuscript, referred to as manuscript Y by Dean, which was used by the two poets.28 Where copy Y may have been held remains a mystery.29 It appears that Trevet’s chronicle entered royal hands in England not long after its composition, with two copies in the ownership of a royal English duke at the close of the fourteenth century. The work would move into royal libraries on the continent during the fifteenth century, with another manuscript, discussed below, entering the Swedish royal collection, in the mid seventeenth century. Trevet’s work may never have been seen by its royal dedicatee; however, copies of the chronicle do seem to have circulated among the members of Mary’s extended family. Gower: Recent Readings, ed. R. F. Yeager (Kalamazoo, 1989), pp. 133–57. The ‘Tale of Constance’ was edited by G. C. Macaulay in The English Works of John Gower, 2 vols., EETS ES 81 and 82 (London, 1900–1), lines 587–1612, and more recently by R. Peck in Confessio Amantis, 2 vols., Middle English Texts (Kalamazoo, 2000–4), II, lines 587–1612. The ‘Man of Law’s Tale’ can be found in The Riverside Chaucer, ed. L. Benson, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1987), pp. 87–104. 26 ‘On the basis of the evidence in the Constance story alone, therefore, either Rawlinson or Paris could represent Chaucer’s source manuscript… When Trevet’s language is compared with the corresponding passages in these poems, the comparisons provide evidence against all the surviving French texts except Paris’ (Correale, ‘Man of Law’, p. 291). Correale also notes that ‘none of the surviving manuscripts of Les Cronicles preserves the text of Trevet’s story in the form Gower used as his source of the Tale of Constance’, but that close examination shows it has to be a manuscript related to PR (‘Gower’s Source’, p. 150). 27 It is questionable whether Chaucer would have had access to either of the two copies in this library during the period as Gloucester was the leader of the Lords Appellant and thus in conflict with Chaucer’s patron, John of Gaunt. 28 Dean, ‘Manuscripts of Nicholas Trevet’, p. 100. 29 This of course supposes that the manuscript that Gower and Chaucer used was in fact an Anglo-Norman copy and not a manuscript of the later Middle English translation. For the possible use of a Middle English copy, see C. R. Rose, ‘The Provenance of the Trevet Chronicle (fMS Eng 938)’, Harvard Library Bulletin n.s. 3 no. 4 (1992/93), 38–55. See also the essay by Christine Rose in the present volume.

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

157

Non-Royal Readers While Les Cronicles may have been composed for a royal patron, the codicological evidence provided by the manuscripts shows that the majority of the subsequent owners and readers of this text were members of the clergy and gentry. Information concerning the earliest known locations of Trevet’s Les Cronicles outside of royal hands is provided by some late fourteenth century wills and suggests that in the fourteenth century quite a few of the readers of this Anglo-Norman work were clergymen and other professionals.30 A William Davy, identified as William David, canon of Hereford, mentions in his will of 1383 ‘item lego Henrico Cachepol cronicam vocatam Trivet’.31 Henry Cachepol was a parliamentary representative for Hereford and mayor of the city for a number of years between 1348 and 1392. In North Yorkshire, in the 1391 will of John Percehay of Swinton, in Ryedale, there is a reference to ‘eidem magistro Johanni alium librum vocatum Trevet, nondum plene scriptum’.32 During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, several manuscripts seem to have passed into the hands of minor gentry in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, though one copy is known to have been owned by a London merchant. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Fairfax 10 features a copy of the chronicle followed by an anonymous history of Richard I’s crusade.33 Spence has noted that Fairfax 10 also contains a draft letter from John Broughton of Toddington to John Chedworth, bishop of

There are no references to Les Cronicles in any of the published catalogues in the Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues series (London, 1990–), though references to his Latin commentaries abound. A copy may have been in the London Clarenceux King of Arms library, as their catalogue refers to ‘Item a booke wryttyn by William Whityng alias Huntingdon herauld and after Chester of Cronicles in frenche of popes emperours and kinges of Englond with the armes of diuers gentilmen painted, bownde in white parchement’ (Hospitals, Towns and the Professions, ed. N. Ramsay and J. Willoughby, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 14 (London, 2009), p. 182). Whityng was likely Chester Herald between 1447 and 1455. 31 B. G. Charles, ‘Notes on Old Libraries and Books’, National Library of Wales Journal 6 (1950), 353–71 (p. 355). Charles believes that this refers to Trevet’s Annales, though the use of cronicam suggests that it could be Les Cronicles. 32 Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. L. Baker, Surtees Society 4 (London, 1836), p. 164. Interestingly, the will notes that Percehay owned a copy of an Anglo-Norman Brut, which he also bequeathed to John of Scardeburgh, rector of Tichmarsh: ‘unum Brutum in Gallico, quod est in manibus Thomae Slegill’. An inventory of Scardeburgh’s books upon his death in 1395 lists the Brut manuscript but makes no mention of Trevet: Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society 45 (London, 1865), p. 6. 33 Dean, Anglo-Norman Literature, p. 38, no. 56; The Crusade and Death of Richard I, ed. R. C. Johnston, Anglo-Norman Text Society 17 (Oxford, 1961). The relationship between this work and Trevet’s Les Cronicles will require further analysis upon completion of the new edition. In the introduction to his edition, Johnston notes a number of references in the text to statements only found in Trevet’s Annales, and mentions that the Crusade, while based mainly on Howden, uses material similar to that used by Trevet. He does not suggest that the Crusade was written by Trevet. 30

158

Heather Pagan

London, dated 8 August 1459, on a final folio. He has identified Broughton as a member of the Bedfordshire gentry and sheriff of the area in 1436, 1460 and 1466.34 The earliest known owners of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B. 178 were the Keble family, likely from the Cambridgeshire area. A note on the pastedown indicates that ‘R. Kebell paid to Neve of Bradfeld for arr. of rent be thands of his servaunt the Sonday next after seint Scolast, ao. xvio. Henr. VIII. xxd.’, that is, 1525, while a later note mentions the death of his wife Agnes in 1530.35 The manuscript also contains the signature ‘Henrici Spelman’ on its opening folio. Sir Henry Spelman (1563–1641) was a historian and antiquarian who helped to found the Society of Antiquaries.36 He was the author of the Aspilogia, a treatise on coats of arms written in Latin, and so it may be that the four coats of arms crudely sketched on the final folio of Rawlinson B. 178 were drawn by him.37 Spelman would later publish a short passage from the chronicle concerning Saint Augustine of Canterbury.38 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 119 is an incomplete copy, ending in 1189 and with chronological gaps at earlier points in the text. The manuscript contains three signatures on the first folio. The earliest name is that of ‘Mr. Harman and Katren Harman’ – perhaps Edmund Harman, a merchant who rose to become the king’s barber in 1533 and master of the Barber’s company. It was later signed by one G. Buggyn. This is likely the same individual whose name is also found in eight other manuscripts in a late sixteenth century hand.39 The manuscript was later acquired by Spelman, whose signature is equally on the first folio, and who also owned the Rawlinson manuscript. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.4.32 appears to be closely related to the Reimagining History, p. 35. G. D. Macray, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Bodleianae Partis Quintae Fasciculus Primis, Viri Munificentissimi Ricardi Rawlinson (Oxford, 1862), p. 519. O. Pächt and J. J. G. Alexander, Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1966–73), I, 596, mistakenly date the manuscript to 1434 rather than 1334. Keble was a common Cambridgeshire surname and a number of Kebles are listed as alumni of Cambridge during the sixteenth century. See J. Venn and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses: a biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge from the earliest times to 1900, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1922, reprinted 2011), I, iii, 1. 36 S. Handley, ‘Spelman, Sir Henry (1563–1641)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [ODNB] (Oxford, 2004): http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/26104. 37 The first on a chevron between three cinquefoils pierced five lozenges. The second a chevron engrailed between three mullets, pierced. The third on a bend between two crescents six lozenges. The fourth is a cross flory. The arms do not appear to belong to any of the known owners. 38 H. Spelman, Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones in re ecclesairum orbis Britannici (London, 1639), I, 111–12. 39 See H. O. Coxe, Laudian Manuscripts, Quarto Catalogues, Bodleian Library 2 (Oxford, 1885, reprinted 1973), p. xiii, where he notes: ‘There is a William Buggyn whose career is reconstructed by Venn as follows: “Matriculated, Trinity College, Cambridge 1572, M.A. 1578. One of this name admitted at Basle University 1581, and described as ‘Londinensis”.’

34 35

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

159

Fairfax manuscript as both include the same Richard I text.40 The early ownership of the Cambridge manuscript is unknown, but it features the signature of Guillaume Le Neve, a York herald, on the first and the final folios of the manuscript. Guillaume is identified by his title ‘Clarencieux, Roy D’armes et chevalier du Roy’, which he held between 1635 and 1646. The members of the College of Arms were encouraged to read such historical material, as N. Ramsay and J. Willoughby note: At some point between 1469 and 1483, Richard, duke of Gloucester, as Constable and Earl Marschal issued a set of ordinances of the officers of arms. Two of his injunctions specifically concerned the herald’s books (BL MS Cotton Tiberius E. VIII, fol. 159r–v): Item we woll and commannd that in tymes convenyent the said offycers of armes do apply them selfes in redyng of bokes of dyuers langages as cronycles and storyes for the better inducement of vnderstandyng in gestes honour and feates of Armes. …41 London, British Library, MS Arundel 56 is signed ‘William Howarde 1589’ on the first folio. This is possibly Lord William Howard, an antiquary and second son of the Duke of Norfolk, who died in 1640.42 From the fragmentary evidence provided by the manuscripts, certain patterns can be revealed, which closely follow Spence’s conclusions on the readership of Anglo-Norman prose chronicles. In the fourteenth century, we find Trevet’s chronicle in the hands of royalty, with two copies in the library of the Duke of Gloucester and with two more passing between clergymen and a mayor and a magister. This is the only period that the chronicle is known to be in clerical hands. The early readership is spread across the country, though in areas underlined by Spence as demonstrating a particular interest in historical works, in this case, the Welsh border region and York, with two copies in the ducal library in Essex. In the fifteenth century, two members of the minor gentry in Bedfordshire and London have copies while a copy circulated in Cambridgeshire in the sixteenth century. After this point, the chronicle seems to have then been collected by a number of antiquarians or those interested in genealogy in the seventeenth century – Le Neve, Howard, Spelman with two copies – all of whom had links to the Norfolk area.

Dean believed the manuscripts ‘give the impression of having been written in the same centre, possibly even at approximately the same time, but by scribes whose training seems to have been separated by a decade or so’ (‘An Essay in Anglo-Norman Paleography’, in Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature Presented to Mildred K. Pope (Manchester, 1939), p. 86). Johnston, Richard I, p. viii, feels that both derived from a common archetype, rather than being copied from each other. 41 Hospitals, Towns, p. 178. 42 R. Ovenden and S. Handley, ‘Howard, Lord William (1563–1640)’, ODNB, http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/13947. 40

160

Heather Pagan

Continental Readership Unusually for an Anglo-Norman chronicle, a certain number of manuscripts of Les Cronicles seem to have circulated on the Continent.43 As mentioned above, the Paris manuscript entered a continental library from early in the fifteenth century and was held by the dukes of Burgundy until the dissolution of their library. Two other manuscripts seem to have also travelled on the Continent, though it is likely that both were originally copied in England. Stockholm, Kungliga Bibliotek, MS D.1311a contains the signature of Claude Fauchet. Fauchet was born in 1530 and eventually became President of the Cour des Monnaies and royal historiographer under Henry IV of France. He seems to have had a particular interest in medieval French chronicles, and once claimed that his library exceeded 2,000 books and manuscripts.44 Fauchet died in 1601 and it is believed that a number of his manuscripts entered the library of Queen Christina of Sweden around 1659. The Stockholm manuscript contains on the final page in a sixteenth-century hand the following quatrain: ‘Dormir ne puis se yvre ne suys / Et sans dormir vivre ne puis / Ainsy comment se je veul vivre / Que je soye toulz les jours yvre / Amen ainsy soit il’ (I cannot sleep unless I am drunk and I cannot live without sleep. Thus if I wish to live, I must be drunk daily. Amen, so be it).45 Queen Christina may have already been familiar with the work as her court librarian, Isaac Vossius, had a copy of Les Cronicles in his personal collection. Vossius’s name is found on the first folio of Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Vossius MS Gallici F.6, which entered the University’s collection in 1670, having been purchased from his extensive library. Vossius amassed what was considered one of the most extensive private libraries of the seventeenth century. He began collecting The influence and readership of Anglo-Norman chronicles on the Continent remains an understudied topic. Spence, Reimagining History, p. 21, ‘demonstrates that these works were almost exclusively read in England’. Continental circulation of Anglo-Norman historical texts does occur; the manuscripts of Wace’s Roman de Brut are often of continental origin. Fewer copies of Anglo-Norman prose chronicles originate outside of England but it does occur – of the 50 manuscripts of the Prose Brut, about 15% are continental copies. Other similar works, such as those listed at n. 2, seem to have been unknown on the Continent, though one manuscript of Le Livere de Reis de Britannie may be continental. Neither of the other Anglo-Norman universal chronicles, Scalacronica and Polistorie, seem to have circulated outside of England. 44 U. T. Holmes and M. L. Radoff, ‘Claude Fauchet and his Library’, PMLA 44 (1929), 229–42. Fauchet’s ownership of this manuscript is noted on p. 233, called ‘a Chronique anglo-normande’. 45 J. Morawski makes note of this proverb in several continental manuscripts: ‘Ne puis dormir se ne sui yvre, Et se ne dorm, je ne puis vivre; Or escouvient, se je veul vivre, Que je soie touz les jours yvre. Anonyme dans [B. N. Fr. c]. Autre copie: B. N. Fr. 2206, fol. 178; premier vers: “Dormir ne puys, si (je) ne suys yvre”’ (Les Diz et Proverbes des Sages (Paris, 1924), p. 40). The first manuscript he names is a fifteenth-century manuscript containing mainly saints’ lives, while the second is a sixteenth-century collection of ballads and other songs. It may suggest that the note was made around the time Fauchet owned the manuscript. Fauchet had an interest in poetry, publishing in 1581 his Recueil de l’Origine de la Lange et Poesie Françoise, Ryme et Romans (Holmes, ‘Claude Fauchet’, p. 230). 43

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

161

manuscripts as city librarian in Amsterdam in 1644 and continued this after he became court librarian to Queen Christina of Sweden in 1648. Prior to entering Vossius’s library, the manuscript seems to have been owned by a certain William Aylesbury, whose signature can be found on the first and final folios of the manuscript. This could possibly be the translator and government official of the same name who was known to be in Amsterdam between 1647 and 1650 and who perhaps sold the manuscript to Vossius during this period.46 It could be that Aylesbury was responsible for the extensive notations in English that appear in the margins of this manuscript.47 Les Cronicles does seem to have had a limited circulation on the Continent, but aside from the copy in the library of the dukes of Burgundy, which entered their collection in the fifteenth century, the continental circulation of the text seems to be primarily in the seventeenth century when manuscript copies entered the collections of Vossius and the queen of Sweden. Only Fauchet seems to have had a demonstrable interest in historical works, and the inclusion of Trevet’s chronicle in his extensive library of historical material, where it is the sole Anglo-Norman text, and one of the few, with Matthew Paris’s Historia Minor, written by an Englishman, suggests Fauchet deemed it a serious account of English history.48 As we shall now see, other, anonymous readers, equally considered Les Cronicles as such, leaving traces of how they read the work, though not their names.

Marks of Readership Aylesbury is only one of several readers to leave their marks on these manuscripts but the identities of these readers generally remain obscure. The earliest manuscript, Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 45, whose early readership and ownership is unknown, has an organizational structure that is not repeated in any of the other manuscripts, which is clearly designed to assist the medieval readers of the text.49 The first two folios and the initial pastedown, as well as the final two folios and the final pastedown, are used to create an index to the large work. This index takes the form of a series of columns headed in alphabetical order from A through V, written in a hand contemporaneous with the text of Les Cronicles. It appears to have been added after the chronicle was copied. In a column below each letter are listed names S. Lee, ‘Aylesbury, William (bap. 1612, d. 1656)’, rev. Sean Kelsey, ODNB, http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/931. 47 Chapter titles and short summaries to help the reader quickly find the relevant passage are found in the margins throughout the text. Initially, they are written in AngloNorman and Latin and in a very similar hand to that of the scribe who wrote the body of the text, though in a darker ink. This glossing stops with the birth of Christ and is taken up by a later, post-medieval hand, which provides titles and summaries in English. 48 Holmes, ‘Claude Fauchet’, pp. 234–42, attempts to recreate Fauchet’s library though references in his published works as well as listing those manuscripts known to have been owned by him. 49 See H. O. Coxe, Catalogus Codicum Mss. qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus, Pars II (Oxford, 1852), p. 28. 46

162

Heather Pagan

or places with a folio number alongside, suggesting that this volume was used by a reader as a reference work, rather than a text to simply be read from cover to cover.50 Many of the owners of the aforementioned Rawlinson manuscript have left traces of their readership: the initial pastedown features an image of a camel, above which can be found a short prayer in English, ‘O myhtfull prynce ful of pyte’.51 The final folios of the manuscript contain a number of items, written in a variety of postmedieval hands that differ from the hands of Keble and Spelman: a note in Latin on the rivers that flow from Paradise; a note in English on the Greek inscription said to be written on Mount Calvary; a note in English on English bishoprics; a prayer in Latin to Saint Nicasius; the coats of arms already mentioned; and a charm, ‘pro macula vel dolore in oculo’. The inner back cover of the Fairfax manuscript includes ‘Johannes cui fuit uxor Elizabeth filia Roberti Stonham’ in a hand the catalogue dates to the sixteenth century.52 On the first folio of the Arundel manuscript can be found the signature of a W. Brygge, the name Elizabeth (with ‘Eliz’ written elsewhere on the page), and a note that the text of the manuscript runs from the Creation to 1440 [sic]. Folios 77v and 78r are blank, though the names Edward and George are written upside-down on the bottom of 78r; 78v was used by someone practicing pen flourishes. Folio 79 seems to have originally been left blank as well, but the verso has a Sibylline prophecy of twenty-seven lines in Latin about Judgement Day. While the prophecies may not be considered strictly historical material, in other manuscripts readers have added historical documents to support Trevet’s chronicle. A simple genealogy from Adam to Edward I can be found in three of the manuscripts: P, R and L. It is presented within the body of the text, running down one column with the chronicle continuing beside it. The genealogical tree is carefully drawn using several colours in the Paris and Rawlinson manuscripts; however, it is quite crudely added in the Leiden manuscript. The Leiden manuscript adds two other genealogical trees after Les Cronicles, of great importance during the Hundred Years’ War – one, showing the descent of Edward III from Saint Louis, in a hand slightly later to the text of the chronicle, followed by a letter in Latin, supposedly from Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, after which can be found a second genealogy, in another hand, though of the same era, in Anglo-Norman showing much the same lineage but including Edward’s children and naming For example, in the ‘S’ column, ‘de Stonehenge’ is listed followed by ‘47’ and indeed, at folio 47, there is a reference to the creation of Stonehenge along with ‘Stonhenge’ underlined in red in the margin. The index appears to be selective as it does not contain all marginal references. Trevet himself seems to have viewed his text as something to be read in snippets, rather than from cover to cover, as he makes numerous references to other stories found in other portions of the chronicle. Since the chaptering has not remained consistent across the copies, the index provides an additional method of locating passages. 51 I can find no other examples of this prayer. 52 F. Madan, et al., A summary catalogue of western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford which have not hitherto been catalogued in the Quarto series, 8 vols. (Oxford, 1895–1953), II, ii, 776. 50

Trevet’s Les Cronicles

163

Richard II as King of England, thus ensuring that this copy cannot have been complete prior to 1377. The final lineage is followed by a folio describing the descent of Edward III from the kings of France and explaining why Edward was the only legitimate heir of France.53 The marks left by these anonymous medieval readers vary; some are clearly short notes and additions that have little to do with Les Cronicles. The index in Magdalen College 45 as well as the genealogies in Paris, Rawlinson and Leiden, however, point to a readership who engaged with the text as a work of reference, either through the addition of an index or marginal notes, allowing them to return to important material, or through the addition of images to clarify and reinforce the historical framework of the text. These early readers clearly considered the chronicle a serious historical work, adding to the history, but do not seem to have engaged in particular with any part of the history, for example, with the Constance story, the exemplary tale that is so unlike the rest of the chronicle, and for which Trevet is best known today, through the works of Chaucer and Gower. While the tale certainly stirred their imaginations, nothing in the manuscripts suggests that this tale or any other was considered more important to its readers than the other sections of the universal chronicle.

Conclusion Written originally for a royal patron between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, the manuscripts of Trevet’s Anglo-Norman chronicle were owned by a variety of individuals: by royal dukes on both sides of the Channel, minor gentry and parish rectors, and several others from the king’s barber to mayors and heralds. The early readership of this Anglo-Norman chronicle seems to have initially been members of the royalty and clergy, with the original patron both royal and clerical, that is, from groups traditionally associated with an ability to read in French. That said, the fourteenth century also saw the chronicle in the hands of a mayor in a Marcher town and a northern magister. The manuscripts continued to circulate in the 53

Spence, Reimagining History, p. 19, refers to this genealogy as ‘an Anglo-Norman, pro-English genealogical diagram and accompanying narrative about the kings of France’, and correctly suggests that this is the same genealogy edited by D. Tyson, ‘Three Short Anglo-Norman Texts in Leeds University Library Brotherton Collection MS 29’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 52 (2008), 81–112. She indicates that the genealogy can be found in a manuscript of the Anonimalle Chronicle as well as the Lanercost Chronicle and with Langtoft’s Chronicle. However, the version printed by Tyson ends with the roundel for Edward I, suggesting that Leiden is a later copy, and based on textual variants, likely based on a similar source to the copy found with the Anonimalle Chronicle. Jaclyn Rajsic has identified two other copies of the genealogy in University of Chicago Library MS 224 (fols. 35v–36r) and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley Rolls 6 (a genealogical roll of England’s kings from Adam and Eve to Henry V). In Bodley Rolls 6 the text was uniquely extended from Edward III up to King Henry V. Yet another genealogy is added within the body of the Leiden text at an earlier point (fol. 77r), roughly sketching the lines of descent of the dukes of Normandy and the kings of Scotland to show why the king of England should have dominion over both.

164

Heather Pagan

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries among the English gentry, in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, as well as in London, suggesting a possible readership of AngloNorman into this period. The manuscripts would later also be owned and read by several antiquaries with known interests in historical works, on both sides of the Channel, with multiple copies held in the Norfolk region. However, Les Cronicles will remain best known for its influence on two of the greatest English authors of the fourteenth century. It is hoped that a full edition of Les Cronicles, which is currently in progress, will help evaluate more fully the influence this chronicle had on contemporary AngloNorman and English texts.

chapter ten

MATTHEW PARKER AND THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PROSE BRUT Elizabeth J. Bryan

L

ondon, British Library, MS Harley 24 has been consulted by a few noteworthy readers of the Middle English Prose Brut (MEPB) over the five centuries of its existence,1 but it has escaped recognition until now that this manuscript was read closely during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Previous readers of Harley 24 include the antiquarian Sir Simonds D’Ewes (1602–1650) and Sir Frederic Madden (1801–1873). Sir Simonds D’Ewes, from whom Harley purchased Harley 24, reorganized and mutilated another Prose Brut manuscript that he owned, now London, British Library, MS Harley 266, yet he left Harley 24 pristine and without interference. See the cataloguer’s lament in the description of London, British Library, MS Harley 1568, in British Museum, Department of Manuscripts, A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, in the British Museum … 4 vols. (London, 1808), I, 3–4, II, 127; and A. G. Watson, The Library of Sir Simonds D’Ewes (London, 1966). In 1850, Sir Frederic Madden, Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Museum, collated Harley 24 with Woburn Abbey MS HMC 181, the Middle English Prose Brut manuscript ‘in the possession of His Grace the Duke of Bedford, June 1850’, according to Madden’s handwritten annotations in Woburn 181 and his accompanying letter (hereafter ‘Madden letter’; this letter is annexed to a description of the manuscript written in Madden’s hand). On fol. 94v of Woburn 181, Madden identified his comparison text Harley 24 by its Harleian shelfmark, number 24, and by the titles ‘Brute of England’ and ‘Dunstable Chronicle’, but in his accompanying letter, Madden judged the title ‘Dunstable Chronicle’ to be incorrect for the Middle English Prose Brut and for Harley 24 specifically: ‘From the beginning of the reign of Edw.II. to the end, this Chronicle [Woburn 181] is the [same] with the Common prose Brut, (called also the Dunstable Chronicle, but very erroneously,)’ (‘Madden letter’, p. 2). Madden was responding to the Harleian catalogue description of Harley 24 as the ‘Dunstable Chronicle … better known by the common Title of I. Brute, or Brute of England, being an English Chronicle composed in the Time of K. Edward III. and continued (as in this Copie) to the Reign of K. Henry V’ (Catalogue of Harleian Manuscripts, I, 3–4). Other than the words ‘[D]unstable Cronicle’ written on flyleaf 1*, there is no other manuscript marking in Harley 24 that supports any connection of this manuscript with Dunstable or Dunstable Priory. The eighteenthcentury Harley manuscript cataloguers had used Harley 24 as a basis of comparison for other Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts. This comparison is particularly visible in their catalogue description of Middle English Prose Brut Harley 1568: ‘This Book agreeth very well with that, in this Library, marked no. 24. excepting the Prologues, which are here wanting’ (Catalogue of Harleian Manuscripts, II, 127). The most comprehensive

1

165

166

Elizabeth J. Bryan

Canterbury from 1559 to 1575, or by a member of his circle. This Parker reader, as I shall refer to him, underlined with red crayon nearly one hundred words in an apparently random fashion across the five-page narrative of the reign of Henry I, king of England.2 The red crayon markings present several mysteries. Why these particular words? Why only this tiny section of the text? Why this manuscript? Why the Middle English Prose Brut? Indeed, what did Parker understand this text, which we call the Middle English Prose Brut, to be? Archbishop Parker valued Latin and Old English chronicles of England’s past for their witness to an English Church history seen as continuous with the Elizabethan Reformist Church of England, but for Parker and his circle the evidentiary status of chronicles in Middle English was apparently more open to question. Might the red underlinings in the Harley 24 Middle English Prose Brut constitute use of a Middle English chronicle for research on ecclesiastical history? This essay addresses the readerly curiosities and estimations about both manuscript and MEPB text that drew the Parker reader to underscore such a nonsensical series of words in Harley 24. I will argue that manuscript evidence shows the Parker circle to have read and compared at least three manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut, despite that text’s lack of citation in Parkerian records. My reconstruction of readerly patterns in Harley 24 suggests that the Parker reader meant to assess readings in Harley 24 and in Matthew Parker’s two known Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts; that Parker or his associates returned to this passage repeatedly as new questions arose; and that the red crayon underlinings in Harley 24 reflect curiosity about where Middle English words, spelling and orthography fit into the historical development of the English language, even if the Parker reader’s interest in fols. 80v–82v was also motivated by historical questions about the Investiture Controversy, questions that go directly to relationships between Church and empire or monarchy. Archbishop Parker and his circle have been much studied for their re-accumulation of manuscripts dispersed in Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, in the service of their rewriting the history of the English Church as historical and doctrinal precedent for the Roman Church.3 Matthew Parker’s characteristic red crayon annotations sprinkle liberally across the manuscripts of his collection, now preserved in the Corpus Christi College library at Cambridge, and his red marks have also been found in other manuscripts that ‘came to my hands’ as Parker said, edition of the Middle English Prose Brut is The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (London, 1906–8). 2 MS Harley 24, fols. 80v–82v, pencil foliation numbers. 3 See major studies by T. Graham and A. G. Watson, The Recovery of the Past in Early Elizabethan England: Documents by John Bale and John Joscelyn from the Circle of Matthew Parker, Cambridge Bibliographical Society, Monograph 13 (Cambridge, 1998); M. McKisack, Medieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford, 1971); C. E. Wright, ‘The Dispersal of the Libraries in the Sixteenth Century’, in The English Library before 1700, ed. F. Wormald and C. E. Wright (London, 1958), pp. 148–75; and H. L. Parish, Monks, Miracles and Magic: Reformation Representations of the Medieval Church (New York, 2005).



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

167

a vast trove that has been explored by R. I. Page, C. E. Wright, M. McKisack, T. Graham, A. Watson and others.4 From the evidence of the tell-tale red underlinings on fols. 80v–82v, we can now add Harley 24 to that large list of manuscripts that were owned, borrowed or otherwise consulted by Matthew Parker and his circle as they researched English national and ecclesiastical history.5 However, even though its red crayon underlinings prove that Harley 24 was read by Parker or his associates, this manuscript does not appear to be cited in the Parker circle’s inventories of manuscripts that contained histories of England. In fact, no manuscript of the Middle English Prose Brut has been identified so far in these lists, nor in Matthew Parker’s correspondence, despite the presence of red crayon markings not just in Harley 24 but also in the two Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts in Archbishop Parker’s collection, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MSS 174 and 182.6 (CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 do not feature underlined words in the section on Henry I, but Parker or a member of his circle must have compared them to each other at least briefly, because this reader wrote in both manuscripts, in red crayon, a cross-reference to the end-point of the history in the other manuscript.7) R. I. Page, Matthew Parker and His Books, photographs by M. Budny (Kalamazoo, 1993). See also the references listed in n. 3 above. The quotation is from Matthew Parker’s letter to Lord Burghley on 9 May 1573, in Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D. D. Archbishop of Canterbury: Comprising Letters Written By and To Him, from A.D. 1535, to His Death, A.D. 1575, ed. J. Bruce and T. T. Perowne, The Parker Society (Cambridge, 1853), p. 425, no. 325. 5 Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, p. 128, list six Harley manuscripts, but not Harley 24, as showing signs of Parker’s consultation. 6 I have searched the following sources for evidence of the Middle English Prose Brut: Correspondence of Matthew Parker, ed. Bruce and Perowne; Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past; John Bale, Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae catalogus, 2 vols. (Basel, 1557–9); John Bale, Index Britanniae Scriptorum: Quos ex variis bibliothecis non parvo labore collegit Ionnes Baleus, cum aliis: John Bale’s Index of British and Other Writers, ed. R. L. Poole and M. Bateson (Oxford, 1902; reprinted with introduction by C. Brett and J. P. Carley, Cambridge, 1990). 7 On fol. 198v of CCCC 174, which ends with the death of King Edward III, Parker wrote ‘hic desunt vsq[ue] ad 7 H[enry] qui[n]ti’, a cross-reference to CCCC 182, a Middle English Prose Brut manuscript that continues until 1419, during the reign of Henry V; and, on fol. 151r of CCCC 182, after the text of King Edward III’s death, Parker wrote ‘hic t[erm]i[n]at[u]r | vn[us] liber’, a cross-reference back to CCCC 174, the ‘liber’ that ended there at Edward III’s death; these annotations and cross-references were described by M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1912), I, 401, 425–6, and these manuscript descriptions are repeated online at Parker Library on the Web: see ‘Manuscript 174’ and ‘Manuscript 182’, Parker Library on the Web; accessed 9 January 2015. Parker or a member of his circle wrote and then erased a red-crayon mark in the margin of CCCC 174 fol. 88r, next to text (about Kent’s lack of support for Empress Maud after the death of Henry I) equivalent to Harley 24 fol. 83v, i.e., equivalent to one folio after the Harley 24 red underlinings conclude, and this erased mark adds circumstantial suggestion of a direct comparison of CCCC 174 to Harley 24 by this Parker reader. A few other brief red-crayon markings occur in CCCC 174 (fols. 88r erased, 174v, 197r) and CCCC 182 (fols. 125r, 125v and end flyleaf fol. ii.v); CCCC 182 contains interpolated folios 6r–7v, 9r–14v and 174r–176v that were written by an unidentified early modern hand. Ink annotations 4

168

Elizabeth J. Bryan

The inventories where one would expect the Middle English Prose Brut to be mentioned are those by the antiquarian John Bale, whom Parker consulted, and John Joscelyn, Archbishop Parker’s Latin secretary. Bale and Joscelyn compiled several catalogues of historic manuscripts before and during the term of Parker’s archbishopric, including a list of manuscripts that John Bale submitted to Matthew Parker in 1560 in response to a request by Queen Elizabeth I.8 John Joscelyn drew in part on Bale’s published catalogues of 1557–9 to make his own ‘List of Writers on Medieval English History’, extant in London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero C. III, sometime before 27 January 1567, according to Watson and Graham.9 Joscelyn’s list is thorough, identifying manuscripts by owner and location as well as by incipit and author. Why was the Middle English Prose Brut, a text that was obviously read within the Parker circle, not cited in these Parkerian research documents and lists of manuscripts? The Parker circle’s citational practice is relevant for understanding the discrepancy between what they read and what they cited. Their references to books in correspondence, catalogues and other records relied heavily on authorial attribution (e.g., ‘Matthei Paris chronicon’, ‘your book of Matthew Paris’ story’, ‘Chronica Matthaei Parys’10) to identify and cite manuscripts of historical texts. But the vernacular Anglo-Norman Prose Brut and Middle English Prose Brut texts, available in such vast numbers of manuscripts and early print editions, could not be so identified. Anonymous authorship – even resistance to named authorship – characterizes the on end flyleaf ii.v just above Parker’s red-crayon ‘Pag 184’ suggest that CCCC 182 had been compared to a life of Saint Augustine and to the Scalacronica; see also Parish, Monks, Miracles and Magic, p. 35 n. 74. 8 Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 7489, fols. 1–4v, contains John Bale’s letter to Matthew Parker, 30 July 1560, with its list of histories of England; Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 16–30, Document B, provide plates and a transcription of Bale’s letter, and they identify the present whereabouts of these manuscripts when known. In relation to Queen Elizabeth’s request that Archbishop Parker aid a German research project on ecclesiastical history, see Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 3–4, with useful bibliography, and see letters to Archbishop Parker from Sir William Petre (p. 118, no. 83) and Flacius Illyricus (p. 139, no. 99) in Correspondance, ed. Bruce and Perowne. In 1548 and 1557–9, Bale published his Scriptorum, his catalogue of British writers (and manuscripts) of all genres organized by chronology, and he kept an alphabetized catalogue in a notebook as well, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Selden Supra 64 (SC 3452), edited by Poole and Bateson (Index Britanniae Scriptorum). There is no identifiable reference to the Middle English Prose Brut in Bale’s catalogues. 9 Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 5–12, 61; pp. 54–109, Documents J1 and J2, provide an edition of Joscelyn’s catalogue (though with slightly elided text for some items between J2.39 and J2.72) and trace the manuscripts’ present-day locations. Joscelyn’s catalogue contains no identifiable references to the Middle English Prose Brut. Graham and Watson’s identification of item J2.88 as the Middle English Castelford’s Chronicle is probably in error, judging from the manuscript descriptions here and in Bale’s Scriptorum, pp. 380–1. 10 Correspondence of Matthew Parker, ed. Bruce and Perowne, pp. 139–41, letter 99 (‘Flacius Illyricus to Archbishop Parker’, 22 May 1561), pp. 352–4, letter 271 (‘Archbishop Parker to Sir William Cecil’, 9 August 1569); Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, pp. 29–30, ‘John Bale’s letter to Matthew Parker’, 30 July 1560.



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

169

Prose Brut textual tradition from the late thirteenth century through the fifteenth century, and scholars today still invent pseudo-authorial monikers like ‘Long Version reviser’ to distinguish among Prose Brut versions and translations. In the absence of named authors, serious historians of the Elizabethan period – including Matthew Parker – had to resort to ad hoc names when referring to their anonymous historical manuscripts, including the Prose Brut.11 The chronicle term ‘Brut(e)’ had been available since Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae in 1136, but the term was not universally or even commonly used, and it was useless as a title because it did not discriminate among authors (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, Laȝamon, anonymous) nor languages (Latin, Anglo-Norman, English) nor forms (prose, rhyming meter, alliterative verse). It is not surprising to find Robert Ricart citing ‘Brutes Cronicles’ in 1479 as his source for part one of his Maires Register or Kalendar of Bristol (Bristol Record Office, MS 04720, fol. 2r), and to find Caxton printing the Middle English Prose Brut using an alternate title, the ‘Chronicles of England’, the following year.12 The problem is nicely illustrated by later Elizabethan antiquarian Richard Broughton’s citation of ‘an old English chronicle that I have’ for quotations that are identifiably from the Middle English Prose Brut (i.e. The Bale and Joscelyn do record a few anonymous history texts, i.e., ‘Chronica Regum Angliae’ in Bale’s letter to Matthew Parker, ibid., and in Bale’s Index Britanniae Scriptorum, ed. Poole and Bateson, p. 515; ‘Anonymous Britannus. Vide in Baleo’ is Joscelyn’s label for a life of Saint Alban with no known author, in Graham and Watson, Recovery of the Past, p. 67, no. 21, J2; Bishop Richard Davies of St David’s wrote to Archbishop Parker about three books, one of which was ‘a Chronicle of England the author unknown’, in Correspondence of Matthew Parker, ed. Bruce and Perowne, pp. 265–7, letter 204, 19 March 1565–6. A near contemporary example of ad hoc grasping for an author’s name in order to cite an anonymous chronicle is Elizabethan antiquarian Joseph Holland’s reference to London, College of Arms, MS Arundel 22, an anonymously authored English prose translation of Wace’s Roman de Brut, as his ‘Geffrey of Monmouth … which I haue in english very auntiently written’: J. Holland, ‘Of the same [The Antiquity, Authority, and Succession of the High Steward of England]’, in A Collection of Curious Discourses Written by Eminent Antiquaries Upon Several Heads in Our English Antiquities, ed. T. Hearne, 2 vols. (London, 1773), II, 23, no. IV, 1 June 1603. 12 J. C. Crick, The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, IV: Dissemination and Reception in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 121–43, demonstrates that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (1136) ‘travelled under a number of titles, Historia and Gesta especially, but occasionally others, such as Cronica and Brutus’; see pp. 140–1 for her list of thirteenth- through fifteenth-century HRB manuscripts labeled in original rubrics as a ‘Brutus’; The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: An Edition and Translation, ed. and trans. J. Marvin, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 2–4, discusses the history of the term Brut for the historical tradition; F. W. D. Brie, Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik The Brute of England oder the Chronicles of England (Marburg, 1905), pp. 9–11, surveys the variety of incipits and titles for the Middle English Prose Brut; L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), pp. 14–26, mentions several labels given to the Middle English Prose Brut in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, including Caxton’s print title Chronicles of England (1480) but also his reference elsewhere to ‘the comyn cronicles’ (p. 14 n. 22) and Rous’s citation of the ‘comen Brute’ (p. 23 n. 55). 11

170

Elizabeth J. Bryan

Brut, ed. Brie, I, 138/26-9 and 140/3-6).13 Whenever an Elizabethan historian refers generically to an English chronicle, it might or might not be the Middle English Prose Brut, so it is possible that Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts lurk unidentified in the Parker citation lists. While the Parker circle’s readership of the Middle English Prose Brut remains thus obscured in their manuscript citations, the red crayon markings in CCCC 174, CCCC 182 and Harley 24 show that the Parker reader identified all three manuscripts as containing the same text, which we call the Middle English Prose Brut, and the Parker reader seems to have been engaged in a serious project of collating the three, although how and where Parker gained access to Harley 24 remains unknown.14

Signs that Parker was Collating Harley 24 with CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 Some of the Harley 24 red crayon underlinings correspond exactly to specific points of confusion or disagreement between CCCC 174 and CCCC 182, Matthew Parker’s two manuscripts of the MEPB, and those correspondences suggest that the Parker reader was trying to settle some differences between his two manuscripts of the MEPB by collating them with Harley 24. Archbishop Parker did not have the twentieth-century advantage of Lister Matheson’s taxonomy of Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts, so he would not have known that of the three manuscripts, CCCC 174 contains an earlier textual version of the MEPB (Common Version to 1377, full continuation Stage 1), and that Harley 24 and CCCC 182 are both later Extended Version texts of different recensions (Harley 24 is Extended Version to 1419: Group A, whereas MS 182 is Extended Version to 1419: Group C).15 But even Matheson’s taxonomic help does not explain all the spelling and vocabulary variations among these three manuscripts, and the stylistic and linguistic variety among these texts even now presents a puzzle, as it apparently did for the Parker reader. Positing a collation process by the Parker reader would explain why only part of a word, the ‘erche’ of ‘Erchebysshope’, is underlined on fol. 80v of Harley 24. In CCCC 174 (fol. 85r), Anselm is introduced as the ‘erchebisshop of Kaunt(er)bery’, but in CCCC 182 he is said to be merely the ‘Bisshopp(e) of Cauntirbury’ (fol. 63v) (and both manuscripts later refer once to Anselm as just Bishop). The difference would surely be meaningful to Matthew Parker, the Reformation archbishop of Canterbury seeking evidence of English church practice in chronicles of England’s past. The red crayon underlining of ‘Ancelyn’ and ‘erche’ in ‘Ancelyn that was ‘Of the same. [Of Forests]’, in A Collection of Curious Discourses, preface T. Hearne, II, 381, no. LXI. 14 Names written in folio margins of Harley 24 include Edward Coryton (fol. 86v) and Joh(an)is Laurens (fol. 107r); on fol. 82r, in the section under discussion, several names (not owners?) are written in ink: ‘Memo þ(a)t Y John Best hat Reseued of my broder viiii d. … payd to Jamys Trwbody | Wyllyam Samet | Robert Coriton’. What could be a manuscript shelf mark, ‘X.I.’, is written in red crayon by the Parker reader on flyleaf 1* next to the words ‘[D]unstable Cronicle’, so it is possible that this MEPB was from Dunstable Priory after all, despite Sir Frederic Madden’s skepticism (see n. 1 above). 15 Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 87–8; 177, 179–80, 184–7, 197. 13



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

171

Plate 1 The Parker Reader’s red crayon. Middle English Prose Brut chronicle in London, British Library, MS Harley 24, fol. 81v

172

Elizabeth J. Bryan

Erchebysshope of Caunt(er)bury’ in Harley 24 (fol. 80v) could be seen to confirm the CCCC 174 reading of Anselm as ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’ against the CCCC 182 reading of ‘Bishop’ Anselm. Twenty underlined words in Harley 24 (about 20% of all the red underlinings) correspond directly to textual variants between CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 – see accompanying table – and it is this sustained pattern that strongly suggests the Parker reader saw Harley 24 as a third manuscript witness that, at least some of the time, could be used to arbitrate verbal differences between Parker’s two manuscripts, CCCC 174 and CCCC 182. CCCC 174 CCCC 182 BL MS Harley 24 (fols. 85r–87r) (fols. 63v–65r) (fols. 80v–82v) for cause that for enchesone that 1. for enchesou(n) þat 2. eftsone estsoins [sic] efte sonnes 3. þoruȝ cou(n)ceile þorowe þe wyse men(n) thurgh counseille 4. of luþ(er) men cursid men of lithir he wolde not be hit 5. he wolde nouȝt ben hit he wolde nought solowyng [sic] after sewing after 6. comynge aft(er) for be cause that for encheson that 7. for enchesoun þat for bicause for enchesonne that 8. for enchesoun þat 9. h(is) sust(er) his dought(er) his dought[er] Suster to dame Maude Dame Maude dame Maude16 10. for whiche enchesoun for whiche cause for which enchesonne 11. his douȝt(er) to spouse his doughter to wyfe spousse his dought(er) for cause for encheson that 12. for enchesoun(n) þat 13. and anon as and as and anoon as 14. Margaretes douȝt(er) Margaret his dought(er) Margaretis doughter 15. taillages of | chirches tallagis of chirches tallage of Churchesse 16. to(r)nede | þo to þe king went to the king tornede hem vnto the kyng the vengeaunce of god the auengeaunce | of god 17. þe veniaunce of god 18. vnto hire | owene lord vnto him selfe vnto hire owne lorde 19. had holliche al þe lande hadde holyche the lande had holiche alle the lande whenne tho twoo yere 20. whenne þo too . ȝer(e) whanne that .ij. yere were gon were agone were a goo The appearance of arbitrariness in the Harley 24 underlinings fades once the two Parker Brut manuscripts are recognized as the key to what the Parker reader was doing and seeing in Harley 24. Among the textual variants in the above table, some specific interests emerge, 16

I have used square brackets here in ‘dought[er]’ rather than the usual round brackets that indicate editorial expansion of the scribe’s abbreviation for ‘-er’, because in this Harley 24 usage only, the Parker reader not only underlines the word but also expands the abbreviation with his red crayon. The square brackets in this case distinguish the Harley reader’s overwriting of the letters ‘er’ from my own expansions of the abbreviation for ‘-er’, which are indicated in round brackets. See the discussion on p. 175.



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

173

like the repeated attention to the Middle English word ‘enchesoun’. CCCC 174 uses the word ‘enchesoun’ five times in these chapters on Henry I’s reign, and every single time CCCC 182 uses the synonym ‘cause’. The Parker reader is remarkably persistent in attending to this word every time it comes up in Harley 24, where the red-underlined word ‘enchesoun’ confirms the CCCC 174 reading (against CCCC 182) in each of the five instances. By Matthew Parker’s time, the word ‘enchesoun’ may have been already archaic and therefore unfamiliar,17 and it is also possible that he was examining whether ‘encheat’ was the meaning, although this suggestion remains speculative. The Corpus Christi manuscripts’ textual variants to which the Harley 24 underlinings draw attention show the Parker reader to be curious about a number of things, from substantive historical detail to linguistic and orthographic forms.

Sorting out Matilda The most substantive difference of detail between CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 in this section concerns the identity of one of several women named Maud or Matilda. The Parker reader’s red crayon markings in Harley 24 in the phrase ‘his dought[er] Suster to dame Maude’ (fol. 81v) show that he responded to the textual crux, and this underlining in combination with several others suggests that across the chapters on Henry I’s reign the Parker reader traced marriages of women named Matilda. It is understandable that confusion over ‘Matilda’ might arise in the chronicles, since there were so many of them in Henry I’s life. Henry I’s mother was named Matilda (of Flanders) and he had a sister Matilda. His first wife was Matilda of Scotland (originally she was named Edith). Henry had four different daughters named Matilda, his legitimate daughter Matilda ‘the Empress’ (b. 1102) and three illegitimate daughters, each called Matilda Fitzroy: the Countess of Perche, the Abbess of Montvilliers and the Duchess of Brittany. Finally, Henry I’s son and heir, William Adelin, had a short-lived marriage to Matilda of Anjou before he died in the White Ship disaster. The Matilda or Maud who occasions confusion between CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 is apparently not any of these Matildas, and in fact, she should not have been a Matilda at all. The problematic ‘Dame Maud’ of these manuscripts is said to be the indirect cause (or ‘enchesoun’) of strife in Normandy in 1117 between Henry I of England and King Louis VI of France. She is identified in CCCC 174 as the sister of Henry I but in CCCC 182 as the daughter of Henry I; CCCC 174 reads ‘for enchesoun þat þe erl had spousede h(is) | sust(er) dame Maude’ (fol. 86r), while CCCC 182 reads ‘for bicause the Erle hadde spoused | his dought(er) Dame Maude’ (fol. 64r). According to the MEPB text, King Henry I of England had authorized his men in Normandy to be loyal to the earl of Blois as if the earl were their lord, against the king of France, even though Normandy owed feudal allegiance to the 17

‘Encheason’, in The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, ed. J. A. J. Murray, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1971), I, 145; usages cited after the fifteenth century are few and they tend to occur in archaizing texts.

174

Elizabeth J. Bryan

king of France.18 The supposed reason for this support was that the earl had married ‘Dame Maud’, Henry’s sister – or Henry’s daughter. Which is she, sister or daughter? Collation with Harley 24 does not exactly settle the question this time, because the Harley 24 text has the incorrect variant ‘Erle Boloigne’ (fol. 81v) instead of the earl of Blois, and Harley 24 also reconfigures the identity of Dame Maud (inaccurately) to include both sister and daughter: ‘the Erle had spoused his [Henry’s] dought[er], suster to dame Maud’ (fol. 81v). Historically, the skirmishes in Normandy in 1116–18 involved the count of Blois, who in 1117 was Theobald (Thibaut) IV, the older brother of Stephen of Blois, who would succeed Henry I as king of England. Theobald’s mother (not wife) was the sister of Henry I, but her name was Adela, not Matilda. Adela had married Stephen II, count of Blois, who had died in 1102. Six years after the skirmishes of 1117, Count Theobald did marry, in 1123, a Matilda, but Matilda of Carinthia, not any kinswoman of Henry I. Stephen of Blois would later marry Matilda, countess of Boulogne, but not until 1125, eight years after the events being chronicled. From Julia Marvin’s edition of the Oldest Version of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut (ANPB-OV), we can ascertain that confusion had beset this passage from the very beginning of the Prose Brut textual tradition.19 The Oldest Version correctly specifies Theobald, count of Blois, and correctly names Adela rather than Maud, though Adela is spelled ‘Aude’ which could easily give rise to ‘Maude’ in scribal transmission; but already a ‘sister/mother’ error is in place, as the Anglo-Norman text says (in Marvin’s translation) ‘Count Theobald had married Adela his [i.e., Henry I’s] sister’ when in fact Adela was Theobald’s mother, not his wife.20 The ANPB-OV is correct about Adela being Henry I’s sister. Marvin’s manuscripts F, W and D read ‘sa seor’, although Marvin’s base manuscript (MS A) leaves out the relationship word (‘sa’ but no ‘seor’), and that scribal uncertainty may have played a further role in the faulty textual transmission and translation into English. Without the kind of scholarly work done in the last one hundred years by Julia Marvin, Friedrich Brie, Donald Kennedy21 and Lister Matheson to establish the scope of the Prose Brut’s transmission, this path of textual error could not possibly be traced. Cf. The Brut, ed. Brie, I, 142/12–143/2; ‘Blois’ is spelled variously among MEPB manuscripts and in some cases is confused by scribes or revisers with ‘Boulogne’. Examples of spelling variants range from ‘Bleynes’ (ibid., 142.19 from Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.171), ‘Boloigne’ (Harley 24, fol. 81v) or ‘Blenes’ (or ‘Bleues’) (CCCC 174, fol. 86r) to ‘Blowys’ (CCCC 182, fol. 64r), ‘Bloys’ (London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 6, fol. 122r) or ‘Blois’ (London, British Library, MS Harley 53, fol. 82v). ‘Blois’, not ‘Boulogne’, is historically correct. The error of ‘Boulogne’ may have arisen because Stephen of Blois married Matilda of Boulogne several years after these events. 19 The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, ed. Marvin, pp. 248–9, lines 3312–16, 335 n. 3307–28, 396 n. 3312–13. The line is ‘pur ceo qe le Conte Thebaud auoit espuse Aude sa [seor]’. 20 See n. 19 above. 21 E. D. Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989), pp. 2611–46, 2845–65. 18



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

175

With such tools, however, we can detect how Adela, sister of Henry I and mother of Count Theobald of Blois, transmuted into a king’s sister/daughter who married her own son. Lacking our present-day advances in reconstructing the challenging textual tradition of the MEPB, but needing to establish who the ‘doughter’ or ‘sister’ was, Parker or a member of his circle apparently scoured the Harley 24 MEPB chapters on Henry I’s reign for every instance of a ‘Matilda’ who was married to anyone. The Parker reader’s ‘Matilda project’ can be tracked by his four underlinings of the word ‘spousede’ in Harley 24. Only once does underlined ‘spousse’ (fol. 82v) cue a textual variant between CCCC 174 and CCCC 182, but that one variant (‘spousse’ / ‘wife’) confirms the Parker reader’s understanding that ‘spousede’ means ‘married’. The Parker reader is tracing royal weddings in order to ascertain which Matildas are born in royal wedlock. First he underlines ‘spousede’ in the passage that confirms that Henry I ‘spousede Maude that was Margaretis doughter the Quene of Scotlande’ (fol. 80v) and that names the legitimate children of that marriage, including ‘Maude [who] was afterwarde Emp(er)esse of Almayne’ (fol. 80v). The next passage with underlined ‘spousede’ is the confused narrative of the marriage between the count of Blois (or ‘Boloigne’ in Harley 24) and the sister or daughter of Henry I; the Harley 24 narrative tries to improve the text to posit an implicitly out-of-wedlock sister to Maud the Empress, but it is still historically wrong when it reads ‘the Erle had spousede his [i.e., Henry I’s] dought[er] Suster to dame Maude’ (fol. 81v). The Parker reader underlines ‘spousede’ a third time in reference to Empress Maud’s marriage to ‘Henry the Emperoure of Almaigne that had spousede Maude his [i.e., Henry I’s] doughter’ (fol. 82r). After the death of her husband, Emperor Henry, Empress Maud returns to England where her father, King Henry I, grants that ‘Geffrey Plantaginet the Erle of Angoy’ may ‘haue and spousse his dought(er) Maude the Emp(er)esse’ (fol. 82v). This is the Parker reader’s final underlining of a form of ‘spousede’ or ‘spousse,’ at the point where Empress Maud’s son, the future Henry II, is assured of legitimate royal birth. In this instance, the Parker reader’s focus on the word ‘spousse’ in collation of Harley 24 with CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 reveals his targeted investigation of kinship and marriage relationships of the various Mauds affiliated with Henry I. For the Parker reader, therefore, collation sometimes serves inquiries other than editorial establishment of the text, interests like royal genealogy and succession. Such interests require correct understanding of paleographical features, and in the contentious ‘sister v. mother’ passage, we glimpse the Parker reader determining from manuscript comparisons how to expand a scribal abbreviation. With red crayon, he overwrote on Harley 24 fol. 81v the letters ‘er’ to complete the word ‘dought[er]’, where the scribe had ended the word with the letter t and added the looping penstroke to the right, up, left and down.22 Both CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 used the same conventional loop as abbreviation for ‘er’ or ‘ir’ in this passage, for ‘sust(er)’ in CCCC 174 (fol. 86r) and for ‘dought(er)’ in CCCC 182 (fol. 64r). 22

See n. 16 on my use of square brackets v. round brackets to indicate the Parker reader’s v. my expansion of the scribe’s abbreviation of ‘er’.

176

Elizabeth J. Bryan

But the Harley 24 wording of ‘dought Suster to dame Maude’ could be seen as ambiguous enough, and Middle English paleography perhaps uncertain enough, to require confirmation that the scribe’s squiggle should be interpreted as -er rather than, for example, as possessive or plural forms -es or -is. In fact, one other red crayon underlining in Harley 24 shows the Parker reader’s scrutiny of possessive forms in proximity to the looping abbreviation for -er, in the underlining of letters -etis in ‘Margaretis doughter’ on fol. 80v, in a passage where confusing variants occur in CCCC 174 (‘Margaretes douȝt(er)’, fol. 85r) and CCCC 182 (‘Margaret his dought(er)’, fol. 63v). The Parker reader underlined in Harley 24 just the letters that arbitrate this difference: ‘Margaretis doughter’. Getting the genealogical relationships right required getting the grammar and paleography right. Another pattern of interest involves the orthography of the Middle English yogh. A series of Harley 24 underlinings of words that are spelled with the letter yogh in CCCC 174, but not in CCCC MS 182, suggests that that letter may have raised questions for the Parker reader, especially since the yogh and the similar-looking three-shaped letter z (e.g., ‘kingez’ and ‘goodez’ fol. 174v, ‘talyagez’ fol. 196v) are both frequently used in the text of CCCC 174 and might be difficult to distinguish. Parker’s circle would also have been familiar with the Anglo-Saxon letter g of similar orthography. Three places where CCCC 174 has ‘þoruȝ’ (and CCCC 182 has ‘þorowe’ or ‘through’ or ‘thorugh’), the Harley 24 underliner marks the word ‘thurgh’ (fols. 80v–81r). The words ‘forȝaf ’ and ‘ȝaf ’ in CCCC 174 (fol. 85v) are spelled without a yogh in CCCC 182 (‘for yaue’ and ‘yaue’ on fols. 63v-64r), and the equivalent words ‘for yafe’ and ‘yaf ’ spelled without the yogh are underlined in Harley 24 (fol. 81r). The word ‘ȝelden’ in CCCC 174 (fol. 85v) corresponds to ‘yelden’ in CCCC 182 (fol. 64r); the Harley 24 reader has underlined the equivalent ‘yoldede’ on fol. 81r. Words meaning ‘again’ and ‘against’ are underlined three times in Harley 24 (on fols. 81r–v, ‘a yen’, ‘ayens’ and ‘a yen’) where CCCC 174 spelled their equivalents with a yogh (‘aȝen’ on fol. 85v, ‘aȝens’ and ‘aȝen’ on fol. 86r) but CCCC 182 spelled them without a yogh (‘ayen(e or s)’, ‘ayenst’ and ‘ayene’ on fols. 64r–v). Although the Parker reader did not underline every Harley 24 word that had a yogh in CCCC 174, he marked enough of them to show that deciphering the letter yogh in CCCC 174 was aided by collation with other MEPB manuscripts – CCCC 182 and Harley 24 – to distinguish the letter yogh from the three-shaped z or the AngloSaxon letter g. A word like ‘ȝelden’ (CCCC 174, fol. 85v) could have radically different meanings depending on what the letter was interpreted to be (‘yield’ or ‘geld’, for example). The Parker reader here collates for a Middle English paleographical feature that has direct implications for Middle English semantics. Collation of CCCC 174, CCCC 182 and Harley 24 was not just an end in itself for the Parker reader, nor was it systematic enough to suggest any large-scale editorial project.23 A number of textual variants between CCCC 174 (fols. 85r–87r) and CCCC 182 (fols. 63v–65r) are not marked by the Parker reader’s red crayon 23

The insertion into CCCC 182 of several MEPB folios written in an unidentified early modern hand suggests limited editorial activities by someone in the sixteenth century, not necessarily the Parker circle; Harley 24 was not the source for the text in those interpolated folios.



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

177

underlinings in Harley 24 (fols. 80v–82v). The word ‘sorwe’ in CCCC 174 is ‘harme’ in CCCC 182, but the Parker reader does not underline ‘sorowe’ in Harley 24. Other examples where the Parker reader is not interested in the potential for Harley 24 to settle textual differences include a date (‘vifte’ in CCCC 174 but ‘.iiii.’ in CCCC 182), vocabulary substitutions (‘bigan’ v. ‘arros’; ‘wente to’ v. ‘shippid in to’; ‘þo’ v. ‘ther’; ‘nome’ v. ‘receyved’ and ‘nome’ v. ‘toke’), and once a detail about the high altar (‘cherche of oure lady at Roen’ v. ‘Chirche atte Rone of our Lady even atte the high aucter’). The Parker reader was obviously not a proto-Lachmannian editor seeking to establish a best text, even though he was in part exploring issues of linguistic variation and textual transmission and authority. In one instance, the Parker reader underlined a word that was, among these three manuscripts, unique to Harley 24: ‘tything’. The opposite of looking to Harley 24 to arbitrate a variant in the two CCCC manuscripts, the Parker reader’s practice in this case called attention to a word that CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 agreed on but Harley 24 did not. The Harley 24 spellings ‘tything’ or ‘tything(es)’ suggests the issue of church tithes, certainly a matter of interest to the archbishop, and the Parker reader underlines the word three times on fol. 82r. However, the word in Harley 24 actually means ‘tydings’, news, as the spellings in CCCC 174 and CCCC 182 have it and as the narrative context demands. The unprecedented appearance of the word ‘tything’ in Harley 24 seems to have raised a new question for the Parker reader, and his three underlinings, not motivated by textual variants in the other two manuscripts, suggest that he continued to come back to this passage on Henry I for new inquiries. These traces of the Parker reader’s process suggest that the red crayon underlinings were not made in one sitting, but instead were made episodically over time, as inquiries about the text, features of script and Middle English language gave rise to new questions. In Harley 24 the absolute confinement of red crayon underlinings to this one brief five-page section in the lengthy Middle English Prose Brut text suggests that the Parker reader selected a finite ‘control’ textual passage in which to carry out his text- and word-comparisons. Why, then, choose this particular passage, the one that chronicles the reign of English King Henry I? For the Parker circle, with their knowledge of and sensitivity to Anglo-Saxon vocabulary and script features, a chronicle of a post-Norman Conquest king might be thought to guarantee use of post-Anglo-Saxon English language, with no possibility of Anglo-Saxon textual sources. If so, one criterion for selecting Harley 24 fols. 80v–82v as a test passage may have been linguistic, to the extent that the Parker reader was interested in sorting Middle English variant words and spellings in the three Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts. Another criterion was likely historical. Archbishop Parker’s deep concern with relations between Church and monarchy in Elizabethan England would have made the Prose Brut section on Henry I relevant to his interest in England’s historical involvement in the Investiture Controversy. The Investiture Controversy is primarily associated with eleventh- and twelfthcentury political relationships between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy, and it is usually thought of as manifesting materially in the ritual of the ordination of bishops and archbishops. Did the emperor or king, on the one hand, or the

178

Elizabeth J. Bryan

pope, on the other, have the superior authority to give the crozier and ring to a new bishop in his ordination and consecration? Blumenthal’s foundational study, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century, shows a longer (eighth through thirteenth century), more geographically diverse and much more complex evolution of relationships, not just between monarch and pope but among various political constituencies across Europe, including dukes, barons, bishops, monarchs and only eventually popes.24 Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury in a Church of England again separated from Rome after the reign of Mary Tudor, was certainly interested (even ‘invested’) in what the relationship was or should be between bishop and monarch or archbishop and monarch, as the Protestant Reformation continued to unfold in Elizabeth I’s reign. The MEPB passage under the Parker reader’s scrutiny tells of Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (1093–1109), and the ups and downs of his relationship with King Henry I of England (1100–1135). The story of Henry I and Anselm is an important moment in the history of relations between the English crown and the Roman Papacy in the exact temporal context of the Investiture Controversy. The MEPB’s summary version of the history of Henry I is heavy on events that implicate issues of the Investiture Controversy: Archbishop Anselm and King Henry square off against each other over whether the king has the right to tax churches, and Anselm seeks refuge with the Pope at the ‘Court of Rome’ for two years; English King Henry I’s daughter, Maud, marries Holy Roman Emperor Henry V in 1114 (providing, until the death of Henry V in 1125, a potential dynastic link between England and the Holy Roman Empire); and the widowed Empress Maud receives oaths of loyalty from the archbishop of Canterbury and others, oaths that are subsequently forsworn, but in the context of the Investiture Controversy are suspect to begin with because of debate over whether canon law permitted ecclesiasts or monastics to swear oaths at all. Some of the words underlined in Harley 24 by the Parker reader’s red crayon point to these interests: ‘Ancelyn’ (Anselm) and ‘Erchebysshope’ on fol. 80v; ‘tallage of Churchesse’ and ‘pope’ on fol. 81r; and ‘doon othe and foialte to the Emperesse’ and ‘the firste that made the oothe was the Erchebysshoppe | of Canterbury’ on fols. 82r–v. The MEPB chronicle of the reign of Henry I is not detailed or lengthy enough to have satisfied comprehensive research interests in the Investiture Controversy, but these nine underlined words suggest the Parker reader’s substantive interest in what an English chronicle in Middle English language might have to say about the Investiture Controversy and its relations to the realm of England, including details like an archbishop of Canterbury swearing and forswearing allegiance to Queen Matilda.

Conclusion The five pages that bear red crayon markings in Harley 24 are best seen as the Parker reader’s laboratory for learning how to read post-Conquest English language 24

Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia, 1988).



Matthew Parker and the Middle English Prose Brut

179

chronicles, more specifically Middle English Prose Brut chronicles that the Parker circle were simultaneously trying to assess for historical authority. Folios 80v–82v chronicle the succession of Henry I from William Rufus, the death of Henry’s son(s) by shipwreck, the marriages of his daughter Matilda to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V, and to Geoffrey of Anjou, and Henry I’s ups and downs with Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury. Multiple lines of inquiry were investigated in these pages by the Parker reader at different times, and although not all of them are traceable, several interests are visible in the Parker reader’s underlinings. The Parker reader consulted Harley 24 as a third manuscript witness to arbitrate some textual variants in Parker’s two manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut, CCCC 174 and CCCC 182, although not all the underlinings can be explained as settling variants in CCCC 174 and CCCC 182, and some variants do not receive corroborating red underlines in Harley 24. The underlined words and added hyphens and red crayon expansion of scribal abbreviations give a glimpse of the Parker reader’s examinatio of texts transitioning into other interests. Some of the red marks show the Parker reader working out the Harley 24 scribe’s habits or usages in order to understand what the Middle English words mean, as when the Parker reader’s red crayon expands an abbreviation for -er or when words spelled with a yogh in CCCC 174 are tested against both CCCC 182 and Harley 24. In some cases the variants of the Harley 24 text may have raised new questions for the Parker reader; one suspects that is the case in his three underlinings of the word ‘tything(es)’ on fol. 82r, where the spelling suggests the issue of church tithes while the meaning of the word is actually ‘tydings’, news. The selection of this passage on Henry I as a control sample for manuscript comparisons was likely influenced both by its linguistic medium of post-Conquest English and by its ideological relevance to national Church history, especially the history of investiture and of the archbishops of Canterbury and their historical relations with Rome and with English monarchs. The Parker reader’s underlining of the word ‘pope’, which had already been crossed out by an earlier reader who had interlined the requisite ‘bishop of rome’ correction mandated by Henry VIII, is part of this pattern of interest. One wonders whether a piece of the Parker reader’s interest was in the lineage and succession problems of Empress Matilda as precedent for female monarch Elizabeth I, whom Archbishop Parker served as head of the English church. Empress Matilda is said in these Middle English Prose Brut pages to have been double-crossed by her archbishop of Canterbury, William, who swore and forswore oaths of loyalty. In these two and a half folios of Harley 24, mysteries certainly remain. The question of who owned the manuscript that the Parker reader chose to mark in, apparently over an extended time, remains unanswered. Recovery of the red crayon writer’s exact motivations or processes of thought for choosing to underline many of the specific words is still in doubt. But the evidence of Parkerian investigation of Harley 24 (and CCCC 174 and CCCC 182) should not be ignored. Without the red crayon underlinings in Harley 24, one might conclude that the Parker circle devalued and ignored the Prose Brut and other chronicles in Middle English.

180

Elizabeth J. Bryan

Instead, Harley 24 shows that Archbishop Parker and his scholarly associates attempted to understand and assess this Middle English Prose Brut, and to that extent they did recognize it as a vernacular history pertinent to their work, and worth deciphering.25

25

Since completing this article I learned that Tokyo, Takamiya MS 29, currently on deposit in the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, contains a few red-crayon annotations by Matthew Parker (or a reader in his circle). I thank Emily Ulrich for drawing this manuscript to my attention. If the Takamiya manuscript is counted, then there are four Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts affiliated with Parker.

chapter eleven

THOMAS HEARNE AND ENGLISH CHRONICLES Edward Donald Kennedy

T

he early eighteenth century antiquarian Thomas Hearne (1678–1735) devoted much of his life to publishing medieval chronicles of England written in Latin and in English. Although his efforts, Joan H. Pittock observes, were condemned by contemporaries as work that was ‘self-evidently lacking in utility, refinement, and especially in application’, they contributed to the ‘preservation of a past no longer fashionable’ and demonstrated ‘root characteristics of Englishness which otherwise would not have survived’.1 Although many in England expressed disdain for the study of the Middle Ages, many others appreciated his efforts to inform readers about England’s medieval past, and his books sold well. In the paragraphs below, after discussing Hearne and his publications, I shall turn to his interest in four chronicles written in English that I became acquainted with over thirty years ago when working on A Manual of the Writings in Middle English:2 the early fourteenth century metrical chronicles of Robert of Gloucester and Robert Mannyng and the sixteenth-century prose chronicle generally known as ‘Hearne’s Fragment’, all of which Hearne edited; and a chronicle that he had planned to edit, the late fourteenth/fifteenth century English Prose Brut. As will be apparent from the paragraphs that follow, Hearne’s comments about these works in his introductions, diaries and notebooks indicate that he, unlike many of his contemporaries and later scholars, realized their importance, and the importance of other chronicles, to English historical and literary studies. He also anticipated some modern theories about editing and about the value of the study of individual manuscripts. Hearne was trained as a classicist at Oxford.3 He entered St Edmund Hall in 1696, received his BA in 1699 and his MA in 1703, and lived there for the rest of his J. H. Pittock, ‘Thomas Hearne and the Narratives of Englishness’, British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 22 (1999), 1–14 (pp. 1, 12). 2 See my Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989). 3 Unless otherwise noted, the information about Hearne’s life in this paragraph is based on Theodor Harmsen’s excellent biography Antiquarianism in the Augustan Age: Thomas Hearne 1678–1735 (Oxford, 2000), and T. Harmsen, ‘Hearne, Thomas (bap. 1678, d. 1735)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn), doi:10.1093/ ref:odnb/12827. 1

181

182

Edward Donald Kennedy

life. He began his scholarly career with the publication between 1703 and 1708 of four editions of highly regarded classical authors, or ‘Ancients’ as they were then known. From 1709 on, however, most of his efforts, except for an edition of the Acta apostolorum (1715), went into publishing the first editions of many medieval and early modern writers. Although he made important contributions to work others were doing on authors like Chaucer and Langland,4 his true interests, like those of his sixteenth- and seventeenth-century predecessors Henry Savile, John Selden, William Camden and Thomas Gale, were in the generally less highly regarded antiquarians, biographers and chroniclers. Hearne’s editions made available to future scholars some of the most important sources of medieval history.5 In the twenty-six years between 1709 and his death in 1735 at the age of fifty-seven, he produced twenty-eight editions of medieval and early modern works. Most of these were chronicles, although he included some biographies, such as William Roper’s life of Thomas More and Titus Livius Frulovisi’s life of Henry V, and works of antiquarians, such as a nine-volume edition of John Leland’s Itinerary, followed by a six-volume edition of Leland’s De rebus Britannicis collectanea. Latin chroniclers, some of which were published in several volumes, included William of Newburgh, John of Fordun, Robert of Avesbury, John of Glastonbury and Roger Hoveden, to mention only the most prominent. He left unfinished at his death the chronicle of John Bever.6 The titles of Hearne’s editions, however, indicate only part of what he edited, for he included in these volumes many shorter pieces as appendices. Nowadays, one expects an appendix to a volume to be relevant to its content. That was not the case with Hearne’s appendices, which are, for the most part, irrelevant to the editions in which they appear. Apparently wanting to give those who purchased his books their money’s worth, he added as appendices whatever scraps he had at hand, such as cartularies, letters by antiquarians, even a discussion of Chaucer. These include some hidden gems: one, added to the pseudo-Thomas Sprott chronicle, is Nicholas Cantilupe’s early fifteenth century Historiola or ‘little history’ of Cambridge University, which tells of King Arthur’s granting a charter of privilege to the university and of its being sacked by Mordred and his allies.7 He added to He worked on the textual traditions of Piers Plowman and The Canterbury Tales, tried to determine the authorship and date of composition of Piers Plowman, and contributed to early editions of Chaucer. Other works that he helped with include Thomas Smith’s edition of the letters of St Ignatius (1709) and Joshua Barnes’s edition of Homer (1711). (See Harmsen, ‘Hearne’, ODNB, and his Antiquarianism, pp. 51, 125, 140, 156–8, 234.) 5 On the importance of his editions of chronicles, see, in addition to Harmsen, passim, R. Sweet, Antiquaries: The Discovery of the Past in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London, 2004), p. 280. 6 For a list of Hearne’s editions and the content of the appendices attached to them, see Harmsen, ‘Appendix’, Antiquarianism, pp. 301–14. 7 For a discussion of this work, written to show the antiquity of Cambridge University in contrast to that of its rival Oxford, see A. Putter, ‘King Arthur at Oxbridge’, Medium Ævum 72 (2003), 63–81; A. Putter, ‘Cantilupe [Cantelope] Nicholas (d. 1441)’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/72473; A. Putter, ‘Cantilupe, Nicholas’, The Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle [EMC], gen. ed. G. Dunphy, 2 vols. (Leiden, 2010), I, 243–4. 4



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

183

his edition of Roper’s biography of Thomas More the Godstow Chronicle, the most nearly complete printed edition we have of one of the Latin Bruts. An appendix to his edition of John of Glastonbury’s chronicle is his edition of the Anglo-Saxon poem, The Battle of Maldon, based upon a transcription made five years before its medieval manuscript was destroyed in the Cottonian fire of 1731. Whatever Hearne’s reasons for publishing it,8 this was the only basis for our knowledge of the poem until 1935 when Neil Ker discovered in the Bodleian Library the transcription Hearne had used,9 a discovery that made scholars realize that although Hearne could not read Anglo-Saxon, he had nevertheless produced a reasonably accurate edition that required few emendations.10 Admittedly, Hearne made his share of blunders including his attributing to Thomas Sprott, who died in 1272, chronicles written in the fourteenth century;11 and he caused later scholars confusion by giving his 1722 edition of John of Fordun’s Chronica gentis Scotorum the title of the later fifteenth-century chronicle of Walter Bower, Scotichronicon; by falsely attributing a life of Henry V he published to Thomas Elmham, a monk of St Augustine’s Canterbury; and by naming the part of Robert Mannyng’s English chronicle he edited after its source, the Anglo-Norman chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft.12 However, he made many chronicles available long before the Rolls Series began in the nineteenth century, and his editions have been admired for their accuracy. In fact, in reacting against sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury editors who at times altered their texts with counterfeit passages to support

This poem, with its account of a foreign victory over the Saxons, seems irrelevant today as an appendix to John of Glastonbury’s Cronica. In light of Hearne’s political views (discussed below), however, Hearne probably saw a parallel to the appointment of German Hanoverians as kings of the English. See K. Sutherland, ‘Byrhtnoth’s EighteenthCentury Context’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 183–95. 9 This transcription was once thought to have been copied by John Elphinstone, deputy keeper of the Cottonian Library, for the antiquary Richard Graves (1677–1729). Graves gave it to Hearne, who attributes it to Elphinstone in his edition. See The Battle of Maldon, ed. E. V. Gordon (London, 1937), p. 34. Now scholars believe that the transcriber was David Casley, Elphinstone’s successor as deputy keeper of the Cottonian Library. See H. L. Rogers, ‘The Battle of Maldon: David Casley’s Transcript’, Notes & Queries n.s. 32 (1985), 147–55. 10 On the accuracy of Hearne’s edition of Maldon, see Maldon, ed. Gordon, pp. 36–7. Also see Donald Scragg’s more recent edition in Maldon AD 991, pp. 15–36, in which he indicates necessary changes in brackets. 11 The chronicle Hearne attributed to Sprott is actually two chronicles: the first extends from Creation to the translation of Thomas Arundel from York to Canterbury in 1397; the second, from Albina’s legendary founding of Albion to 1339. Since Thomas Sprott was active around 1272, it is unlikely that he wrote them, at least the parts extending into the fourteenth century. See L. Ruch, ‘Sprott, Thomas’, in EMC, ed. Dunphy, II, 1382–3. 12 His edition of the last part of Mannyng’s chronicle was titled Peter Langtoft’s Chronicle: (as illustrated and improv’d by Robert of Brunne) from the death of Cadwalader to the end of K. Edward the First’s reign (1725). On the edition of the life of Henry V, see Harmsen, Antiquarianism, pp. 247–8. 8

184

Edward Donald Kennedy

various political agendas, he refused to emend texts13 and thus anticipated the theory of some editors today that texts should be published even with obvious errors. Although Hearne appeared to have a promising career as assistant to the librarian of the Bodleian, where he extensively revised its catalogue of printed books, some of his scholarly opinions – such as his belief in the legend that King Alfred had founded Oxford – and his religious and political views caused him problems. In religion, he favored High-Church theology as opposed to the Low-Church inclinations of the Whigs in power,14 and he believed in the divine heredity of kings.15 In politics he was a nonjuror: he would not swear allegiance to the reigning English monarchs because he believed that the true king had to be a Stewart, and he thus hoped to see a James III on the throne. His Jacobitical loyalty would inspire him in 1722 to publish his edition of the Scottish chronicle of John of Fordun.16 His refusal to take the oath of allegiance to the Hanoverian king George I by 23 January 1716 resulted in his losing his position at the Bodleian. After he refused to resign, the library changed its locks on 26 January to keep him out. He held on to his old keys for the rest of his life.17 Although St Edmund Hall permitted him to continue living in his rooms on their premises, he was forbidden after 1716 to publish books based on Bodleian manuscripts or under the Oxford imprint.18 Thereafter, he produced his editions as a private publisher,19 and they were financed through patrons, like Thomas Rawlinson, or through subscriptions by members of the Society of Antiquaries and others interested in medieval chronicles. Friends, like the brothers Thomas and Richard Rawlinson, the antiquarian James West of St Albans and Oxford, and Thomas Baker, a nonjuring antiquarian at Cambridge, lent or gave him manuscripts to publish.20 He was poor, but his needs were modest, and he is one of the few people who ever made a living by producing scholarly editions. He earned through his publications, in fact, a fairly decent income, advancing from a state of near poverty when he lost his position at the Bodleian to ‘amassing a comfortable fortune’ by the time of his death in 1735.21 He also produced more books during this period than Oxford University Press.22 His success suggests that the standard view of general bias against things medieval in the early eighteenth century needs qualification. See Sweet, Antiquaries, p. 15. See Harmsen, Antiquarianism, p. 57. 15 Sweet, Antiquaries, p. 35; Harmsen, Antiquariansim, p. 65. 16 Harmsen, Antiquarianism, pp. 273–6. 17 Ibid., pp. 69–70; also see Pittock, ‘Narratives’, p. 13. 18 Harmsen, ODNB and Antiquarianism, pp. 68–82. 19 The books were printed at the University Press, but Hearne employed the University’s printers and paid for all other costs of book production. See I. G. Philip, ‘Thomas Hearne as Publisher’, Bodleian Library Record 3 (1951), 147–55. 20 On these and other friends of Hearne, see Harmsen, Antiquarianism, pp. 115–36. 21 Philip, ‘Hearne as Publisher’, p. 155. 22 Ibid., p. 148. 13 14



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

185

Hearne had more than his politics and religious beliefs working against him. Although friends had advised him to continue working as a classicist, he became a medievalist when the study of the Middle Ages was not highly regarded by many of the leading intellects of his day. Many in England, Harmsen observes, considered medieval chroniclers to be ‘barbarous writers’ whose works were ‘replete with the superstitions of the Catholic faith’.23 Hearne, however, believed that these works were more important than the classics, for the chronicles of England could teach the gentry about their national history and give them a proper understanding of the religious and political order.24 Although much of the disdain for chronicles in England in the eighteenth century was because they were thought to convey what some believed were Roman Catholic superstitions, one of Hearne’s most devastating critics was a Roman Catholic, Alexander Pope, who had himself drawn upon medieval literature with his poems ‘Eloisa to Abelard’ and his adaptation of Chaucer’s House of Fame. Medieval chronicles and the work of antiquarians, however, were another matter. For these he had the contempt that, according to James Sutherland, was ‘the normal one for the period’.25 Pope refers to Hearne in the fourth of his Moral Essays (‘Of the Use of Riches’, 1733): one of the ways that people waste money is by purchasing ‘Rare monkish Manuscripts’ suitable ‘for Hearne alone’.26 Earlier, in the introductory note to the first version of The Dunciad (1728), Pope ironically praises Hearne’s theory that texts should not be emended: ‘I can never enough praise my very good Friend, the exact Mr. Tho. Hearne; who, if any word occur which to him and all mankind is evidently wrong, yet keeps he it in the Text with due reverence, and only remarks in the Margin, sic. MS.’27 Pope’s best-known reference to Hearne, however, occurs later in The Dunciad: he immortalized him as the pedant Wormius, even including in the opening lines an imitation of bad Middle English verse inspired by Hearne’s editions of English verse chronicles: But who is he, in closet close y-pent, Of sober face, with learned dust besprent? Right well mine eyes arede the myster wight, On parchment scraps y-fed, and Wormius hight. To future ages may thy dullness last, As thou preserv’st the dullness of the past!28 Harmsen, Antiquarianism, pp. 238, 241. Sweet, Antiquaries, p. 35. Also see J. M. Levine, The Battle of the Books: History and Literature in the Augustan Age (Ithaca NY, 1991), p. 287. 25 The Dunciad, ed. J. Sutherland, 2nd edn, vol. V of The Poems of Alexander Pope (London, 1953), p. 171 n. 26 ‘Epistle IV: To Richard Boyle, Early of Burlington … Of the Use of Riches’, line 9, Moral Essays, in The Best of Pope, ed. G. Sherburn, rev. edn (New York, 1940), p. 191. 27 Dunciad, ed. Sutherland, p. 59 n. 28 Ibid., pt III, pp. 170–2.181–6. 23 24

186

Edward Donald Kennedy

Pope adds that dunces, like Wormius, have ‘A Lumberhouse of Books in ev’ry head, / For ever reading, never to be read’.29 In his footnotes to a later edition of the Dunciad Pope denies that Hearne was the model for Wormius and that, in fact, Hearne had published ‘many curious tracts’ that Pope had ‘to his great contentment perused’.30 Pope must indeed have perused them with contentment since he lifted the Middle English vocabulary for his lines on Wormius from Hearne’s edition of Robert of Gloucester, and his imitation of bad Middle English verse appears to have been suggested by Hearne’s praise for Robert’s poetry.31 Moreover, in his edition of Mannyng Hearne describes a seventeenth-century Danish scholar of Nordic runes who was actually named Olaus Wormius, as a ‘very great man’,32 and this was probably Pope’s source for the name, with its connotations of worm-eaten manuscripts. However, in spite of Pope’s statements to the contrary, no one appears to have doubted that Pope had Hearne, not the real Wormius, in mind. Several years later, Edmund Curll, seller of books and patent medicines, publisher of pirated editions and pornography (e.g., A Treatise of the Use of Flogging in Venereal Affairs (1718), The Nun in her Smock (1724)), and enemy of both Pope and Hearne, changed the name from ‘Wormius’ to ‘Hearnius’ in lines that he lifted from The Dunciad. He placed these around the engraved title-page portrait of Hearne that appeared on the so-called ‘impartial’ memorial volume that Curll published shortly after Hearne’s death (see Plate 1). The volume consisted primarily of Curll’s revision of an earlier attack on Hearne by John Bilstone, Hearne’s successor at the Bodleian, which had been published in 1731 while Hearne was still living.33 Among its insults, it describes Hearne as ‘a most sordid poor Wretch’ and a ‘Studier and Preserver of Monkish Trumpery’ who wasted a ‘life of Fifty odd Years’.34 The eighteenth century, like any age, had some nasty people in it. * * * The editions that inspired Pope’s mockery in 1728 were the two English metrical chronicles that Hearne published in 1724 and 1725, the early fourteenth century chronicle attributed to a Robert of Gloucester and the part of Robert Mannyng’s English chronicle (1338) that was based on the Anglo-Norman chronicle by Pierre de Langtoft. D. C. Douglas observes that the earliest of these, the Robert Ibid., p. 172.189–90. Ibid., p. 171 n. 31 Pope indicates in a note that he was familiar with Hearne’s glossary to his edition of Robert of Gloucester. See Dunciad, ed. Sutherland, p. 171, n. to line 184. 32 Langtoft, ed. Hearne, p. lxxxv. 33 See Harmsen, Antiquarianism, pp. 88–90, 291–2. For discussion of the portrait, which some have interpreted as intentionally unflattering, see p. 290 n. 1. 34 Curll, Impartial Memorials of the Life and Writings of Thomas Hearne, MA by several hands (London, 1736), p. 60. Curll, in the third volume of his Mr Pope’s Literary Correspondence (London, 1735), had earlier included the lines from The Dunciad with ‘Hearnius’ substituted for ‘Wormius’. On Curll’s life, see R. N. MacKenzie, ‘Edmund Curll (d. 1747), Bookseller’, ODNB, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/6948, or R. Straus, The Unspeakable Curll (London, 1927). 29 30



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

187

Plate 1 Title page of Edmund Curll’s Impartial Memorials. Curll substituted ‘Hearnius’ for Pope’s somewhat more subtle ‘Wormius’ in the lines that Curll lifted from The Dunciad and placed around the picture of Hearne

188

Edward Donald Kennedy

of Gloucester, was the ‘the first workmanlike edition of a Middle-English text’.35 Although excerpts from the Robert of Gloucester chronicle had been published earlier,36 Hearne believed that it was an important work and that the manuscript that he used as a copy text should be published in its entirety. Hearne had first seen a manuscript of Robert of Gloucester in the Bodleian when he was an undergraduate, and he tells us in the introduction to his edition of the chronicle that he ‘was wonderfully delighted with it’.37 This early discovery may account for his enthusiasm for the chronicle, an enthusiasm that few had before or have had since. By contrast, Hearne omitted the first part of Mannyng’s chronicle, which was based on Wace’s legendary history of Britain. In a diary entry of 22 August 1725 he wrote that the antiquarian John Anstis advised him that the legendary part ‘would be of no use, and … would disgust my Readers’.38 Hearne had included the legendary material in his edition of Robert of Gloucester without apparent concern for his reader’s disgust, but perhaps he thought that one English verse edition was sufficient for material that could be read in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia, which Hearne at one point planned to edit.39 He worked on both English chronicles at about the same time, and, in fact, devotes a considerable amount of the introduction to Robert of Gloucester to discussing Mannyng. These chronicles were a marked departure from Latin monastic chronicles. Hearne explains in his introductions that they interested him, in part, because they were history for the common people who were unable to understand Latin or Anglo-Norman. Mannyng, for example, in his version of Pierre de Langtoft ‘adapted himself to the Capacity of the Vulgar, and did not affect a high-flown Stile, nor hard Words’.40 Moreover, these chronicles include information ‘about our Monasteries and our ancient History not yet divulged’ that ‘will prove of unspeakable satisfaction’ to scholars. Such works are more important than those of classical antiquity, for they teach the gentry the history of their nation and can help them lead moral lives: ‘no Study can be more pleasant … than that of our National History and Antiquities’ and ‘cannot but be of wonderful service to the Publick’.41 Hearne writes that there are many details in Mannyng’s account not found in other chronicles, and although he says that it is not ‘properly my business to point out such Passages’ since his job is that of ‘a faithfull Editor, not that of an Annotator or Commentator’, he nevertheless devotes about twelve pages of his introduction to listing information unique to Mannyng’s version.42 His enthusiasm for his subject and perhaps a desire to Douglas, English Scholars (London, 1939), p. 239. On the earlier excerpts and an excellent appraisal of Hearne’s work, see A. Hudson, ‘Robert of Gloucester and the Antiquaries, 1550–1800’, Notes & Queries 214 (1969), 322–33. 37 Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle, ed. Thomas Hearne, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1724), I, x. 38 Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne [R&C], ed. H. E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society [OHS] 65 (Oxford, 1914), IX, 8. 39 Harmsen, Antiquarianism, p. 143. This project never materialized. 40 Langtoft, ed. Hearne, p. xxxv. 41 Ibid., p. xxvii. 42 Ibid., pp. lxiv–lxxvi. 35 36



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

189

exhibit his knowledge of the material in chronicles seems to have won out over his statement that it was not an editor’s business to point out such matters. He may also have been using the rhetorical device occupatio, which calls attention to something by ironically denying that one is going to say anything about it but then goes ahead and says it anyway. Hearne would have been familiar with occupatio as a trained classicist (and as a reader of Chaucer).43 Hearne valued these chronicles too for what they tell us about the ways the English language had changed since the Middle Ages.44 Others in the eighteenth century, of course, were aware of changes that had taken place in English spelling, vocabulary and syntax, and many feared the language’s impermanence in contrast to Latin, which they erroneously believed had had stability. Pope, in his Essay on Criticism, wrote: ‘Our sons their fathers’ failing language see / And such as Chaucer is, shall Dryden be’.45 In the third book of Gulliver’s Travels, Swift presents the Struldbruggs, who lived forever, but because their language was ‘always upon the flux’, lost their ability to communicate after two hundred years since no one could understand them.46 Later, Samuel Johnson would begin his dictionary with the hope that it would help stabilize and standardize the English vocabulary but would realize by the time he published the dictionary in 1755 the futility of trying to ‘embalm’ a language and ‘secure it from corruption and decay’.47 Hearne knew this long before Johnson, but instead of fearing changes in English, he delighted in what older writers could teach us about the language. Robert of Gloucester’s chronicle is ‘of wonderfull use in acquiring a knowledge in the Saxon tongue’, Hearne’s term for early Middle English, which ‘continued to be spoke (tho’ with great Alterations) in Robert of Gloucester’s time, and many years after’.48 He recommends, in one of many digressions in his introduction to Mannyng, comparing the two versions of the Wyclifite translation of the Bible, to ‘find out the Alterations that have crept into the old Saxon Tongue’.49 Like many early philologists, he mistakenly attributed much of the change in English to Chaucer’s influence rather than to the fact that Chaucer happened to be writing in the dialect of the late fourteenth century English court: he regrets that after ‘Geffry Chaucer undertook to refine (as they termed it) the Language’, Saxon ‘began to be most disus’d’.50 Unlike Robert of Gloucester’s nineteenth-century editor Cf. Chaucer’s knight’s account of Arcite’s funeral, Knight’s Tale, pt 4, lines 2913–65. The Knight says he is not going to mention the names of the trees that were felled for the funeral pyre but then lists twenty-one types (The Riverside Chaucer, gen. ed. L. D. Benson, 3rd edn (Boston MA, 1987), p. 64). 44 On this, see Douglas, English Scholars, p. 239. 45 An Essay on Criticism, pt 2, in Best of Pope, ed. Sherburn, p. 66.482–3. 46 Swift, ‘A Voyage to Laputa …’, III.x, in Gulliver’s Travels and Other Writings, ed. L. A. Landa, Riverside Editions (Boston MA, 1960), p. 172. 47 See his ‘Preface to the English Dictionary’, in Johnson: Prose and Poetry, sel. M. Wilson (Cambridge MA, 1963), p. 319. 48 Gloucester, ed. Hearne, I, xi. 49 Langtoft, ed. Hearne, pp. xxx–xxxi. 50 Gloucester, ed. Hearne, I, xi. 43

190

Edward Donald Kennedy

who described the verse as ‘doggerel’ and ‘as worthless as twelve thousand lines of verse without one spark of poetry can be’,51 Hearne believed that the verse made Robert unjustifiably ‘neglected and despised’. In fact, ‘he (and not Chaucer …) is the Ennius of the English Nation, and he is … to be as much respected, as even Ennius himself was among the Romans’. Unlike many modern scholars, Hearne understood the utilitarian (as opposed to aesthetic) aims of much medieval verse and was thus better able to appreciate the accomplishments of writers like Robert. He realized that many medieval poets ‘thought they had done their Parts well, if their Rhythms, however mean otherwise, related matter of Fact, and were agreeable to Truth’.52 Moreover, by describing Robert, and specifically not Chaucer, as the ‘Ennius’ of the English nation, he is disagreeing with the status given Chaucer by later writers, such as the fifteenth-century imitators now known as English and Scottish Chaucerians, who considered Chaucer the father of English poetry. Robert of Gloucester, like Ennius, is a founder, but of English verse rather than a nation. Hearne regretted that French had had so much influence upon the language of later medieval English writers. The people, he says in his edition of Mannyng, ‘wholly despised the French Language’, and ‘’twas a piece of great wisdom to do so. The introduction of the French Tongue was of very great disadvantage’ because ‘it brought a disuse of the Scriptures, which having been translated into Saxon, were commonly read among the Vulgar … [T]he Normans … did all they could … to destroy every thing that look’d Saxon.’ He praised Mannyng ‘for cultivating the English Tongue’. 53 Hearne’s attitude toward French was shared by others in the early eighteenth century who worried about English being ruined by the introduction of foreign words, particularly French ones. Daniel Defoe considered new foreign words ‘an intolerable grievance’; John Dryden condemned ‘those fops’ who ‘cannot express their meaning in English’ and must borrow ‘some French phrase’; and Joseph Addison wished there could be ‘superintendents of our language’ who would ‘prohibit any French phrases from becoming current in this kingdom’.54 Hearne differed from his contemporaries, however, in that he did not express interest in keeping new French words out of the contemporary language; he knew instead that most of the damage had already been done. Robert of Gloucester’s dialect, in particular, was worth examining because it represented a more pristine English that was still primarily ‘Saxon’. Also apparent from Hearne’s introductions to these works was his interest, long before Samuel Johnson wrote his Lives of the English Poets (1779–81), in the life of a writer and what the work reveals about him. Unlike modern critics who study the lives of writers to see if their biographies can help interpret what they have written, Hearne’s interest was the reverse of this: he studied what they had written in order to learn what clues the works might give about their lives. Robert of Gloucester was The Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, ed. W. A. Wright, 2 vols., Rolls Series 86 (London, 1887), I, xl. 52 Gloucester, ed. Hearne, I, l. 53 Langtoft, ed. Hearne, pp. xxix, xxxi. 54 A. C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edn (New York, 1957), pp. 346–67. 51



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

191

‘one of the first Rank in our old Historians’, a man ‘of great Worth … for his own Probity and Honesty, and for the History he hath given us’. He produced factual accounts and ‘left out whatever he thought Romatick’. Contrary to the opinions of many, Robert was a writer who ‘hath continued too long hid from the World’.55 Hearne realized, however, that he did not have much reliable biographical information. All he knew was that the author identified himself as Robert at one point in the text, and since his research had turned up ‘many Robert of Gloucesters’, he wished that he could discover his ‘true Sirname’.56 He suspected, as some later scholars did not, that the author may not even have been from Gloucester, since this attribution is one found written on the Cottonian manuscript ‘in a modern hand’.57 However, he could date at least part of the work since the author says he was present at the Battle of Evesham in 1265,58 and his account of the fight between town and gown at Oxford in 1263 indicates that he was ‘present in that university at the very time of that famous scuffle’.59 He assumes that he was a monk from the ‘great Abbey of Gloucester’ who was sent to ‘take care of the Youth’ at Oxford, and speculates that he ‘resided in an old House, where Monks used to study, on the West Part of Stockwell Street’.60 Although scholars since the nineteenth century have believed that the work was written at the end of the thirteenth century or the beginning of the fourteenth,61 Hearne at least knew that Robert was still alive in the sixth year of the reign of Edward I since he mentions that Edward had had a ‘fair tomb’ for King Arthur erected at Glastonbury in 1278, but that he did not live long enough ‘to write the Glories of the Reign of Edw. I’.62 Robert’s text gave Hearne some clues about when and where the author lived, and a chronicle written in English at this point would obviously have been intended for both the uneducated and the lower classes. Other than that it did not tell him much about the author. Although Robert of Gloucester is remembered, Hearne says, for bad poetry, Mannyng, on the other hand, is now ‘quite forgot, even among our best Antiquaries’.63 Hearne tries to make up for this by telling his readers about Mannyng’s life, and he had more to go on than he did with Robert of Gloucester. He knew both Mannyng’s chronicle and his collection of moral tales, Handlyng Synne, and Mannyng left in these works more biographical information than did most medieval writers. He Gloucester, ed. Hearne, I, lii, lxv, vii. Ibid., p. lxxx. 57 Ibid., p. lxxix. 58 Ibid., p. lxviii. 59 Ibid., p. lxxvi. 60 Ibid., pp. lxxvi–lxvii. 61 W. A. Wright suggested that the chronicle was written c. 1300 (Metrical Chronicle, I, xi). Matthew Fisher suggests the longer version was written 1297–8 in response to the Barons’ Wars (Scribal Authorship and the Writing of History in Medieval England (Columbus OH, 2012), p. 98). The earliest manuscript, British Library, Cotton Caligula A.xi, dates from c. 1325. 62 Gloucester, ed. Hearne, I, lxvii–lxviii, lxxv. 63 Langtoft, ed. Hearne, p. xliv. 55 56

192

Edward Donald Kennedy

tells us that he was from Bourne in southern Lincolnshire and that he began writing Handlyng Synne in 1303 and that he completed his chronicle at the Gilbertine house at Sixhills on Friday, 15 May 1338. Hearne speculates, on the basis of the two texts, about other aspects of Mannyng’s personality. He praises his simple style and his desire to make his work comprehensible to common folk. Mannyng wrote his chronicle ‘not for Praise and Vain-Glory, but with a design of doing good’. He was ‘a Man of probity and virtue’, ‘of a chearful [sic], pleasant humour, and … very blithe and merry whenever he saw a proper occasion’ without using ‘any immoral or indecent Expressions’. He was ‘naturally addicted to virtue, and his being engaged in a religious course of Life made him have a stricter Guard upon himself ’. Mannyng was, Hearne reminds us, ‘a Member of Sixille, a House that consisted of Women as well as Men. Can we, therefore, think, that since he was of a jocular Temper, he could be wholly free from Vice? Or that he should not sometimes express himself loosely to the Sisters of that Place?’ Hearne answers these rhetorical questions: since that priory was never ‘noted for … Lewdness, … we ought, by no means, to suppose that Robert of Brunne behaved himself otherwise than became a good Christian during his Abode there’.64 This biographical information corresponds to the impression Mannyng gives in his chronicle of a good man devoted to teaching the unlearned: his stated purpose in writing his history of England was to enable the unlearned or ‘lewed’ folk who knew no French or Latin to have ‘solace & gamen in felawscip’ when learning which kings were wise and which were fools.65 Hearne, like Robert of Gloucester and Mannyng, lived when literature was still expected to teach as well as delight, and he believed that chronicles were very much a part of that moral tradition. As mentioned above, he believed that knowing something about the history of one’s country was important for its citizens, and he would have recognized in these medieval chroniclers kindred spirits who, like him, were making available to their readers accounts of England’s triumphs and failures. Hearne regretted that Mannyng had not, for the sake of posterity, told us more about himself. He would have liked him to have been fuller of himself, as I do likewise lament, that some other of our ancient Worthies had not left us Memoirs of their Lives. But this … was neglected by them, as disagreeable to the Rules of Modesty, which … was a false notion, especially if they took care to conceal what they committed to writing of that kind ‘till after their death, and put it into the hands of some faithfull Friends, that might make use of it in defense of their posthumous Fame against malicious Enemies.66 This indicates both Hearne’s fascination with the life of a writer, and, as Theodor Thomsen suggests, his concern for his own posthumous reputation. Hearne left at his death 192 diaries and notebooks that he had no intention of publishing Ibid., pp. xxxiv–xxxix, xlii. Robert Mannyng of Brunne, The Chronicle, ed. I. Sullens (Binghamton NY, 1996), p. 91.1–17. Hearne did not edit this part of the chronicle. 66 Langtoft, ed. Hearne, pp. xlv–xlvi. Also see Harmsen, Antiquarianism, p. 285. 64 65



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

193

during his lifetime.67 These contain notes and transcriptions for his scholarly works, material on the history of the University of Oxford and the town, biographies and obituaries, and frank, often unflattering comments about contemporaries and current events. Hearne never wanted his books to go to the Bodleian; the proper course, as he indicates in the passage above, was to put them into the hands of ‘some faithfull Friends’. He therefore bequeathed the manuscripts and many of his rare books to someone of his own political persuasion, a nonjuror William Bedford, who inherited them in 1735.68 After Bedford’s death in 1747, however, his widow sold them to Richard Rawlinson, and Rawlinson’s collection was left to the Bodleian on his death in 1756.69 Thus many of Hearne’s books and manuscripts ended up in the library that had not only sacked him but had changed the locks on its doors to keep him from using its collections. In a further irony, between 1885 and 1921, Oxford University Press, which had forbidden Hearne to publish under its imprint, published much of what was in the diaries and notebooks in an eleven-volume edition, The Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne.70 * * * Hearne’s interest in the lives of writers, as reflected in his introductions to Robert of Gloucester and Robert Mannyng and in his own notebooks and diaries, is relevant to the third chronicle written in English that he edited, generally known today as ‘Hearne’s Fragment’. He discovered it in a manuscript at the Ashmolean Museum and published it in 1719, several years before the chronicles of Robert of Gloucester and Robert Mannyng, as an appendix to the Latin chronicles he attributed to Thomas Sprott.71 Like many of the appendices in Hearne’s editions, the ‘Fragment’ has no relation to other material in the book. It is an early sixteenth century account of events in the life of King Edward IV, beginning in 1459 and ending in mid-sentence in September 1470.72 It was part of a genealogical chronicle of the kings of England from Edward I through Henry VII. The twenty-four folios of the manuscript had been planned in advance with the crest of each king heading the page where the account of the king’s life was to be added. The material on Edward IV had to fit into folios 19v–22v since folio 23, allocated to Richard III, had been inscribed with Richard’s armorial display before the biographical material was added. As Morgan observes, ‘Hearne’s Fragment’ ends in mid-sentence in 1470 because the scribe had no more space to write. The section about Edward IV is, moreover, ‘out of keeping with the design and style’ of the other lives in this chronicle.73 The section on Ibid., pp. 92-3. Many of the printed books were sold by the bookseller Thomas Osborne in 1736. See Harmsen, Antiquarianism, p. 298. 69 Ibid, pp. 297–9; Harmsen, ODNB. 70 R&C, ed. C. E. Doble, et al., 11 vols., OHS 2, 7, 13, 34, 42, 43, 48, 50, 65, 67, 72 (1885–1918). 71 See n. 11 above. 72 Now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 845. 73 D. A. L. Morgan, ‘Hearne’s “Fragment” and the Long Prehistory of English Memoirs’, English Historical Review 124 (2009), 811–32 (pp. 812–13). 67 68

194

Edward Donald Kennedy

Edward IV is obviously an independent work that was not originally intended to be part of the genealogical chronicle in which it appears. Hearne titled this chronicle ‘A remarkable fragment of an old English chronicle’. He wrote in his introduction: ‘Est fragmentum dumtaxat. Sed plane satis egregium’ (‘It is merely a fragment, but a quite illustrious one’). Scholars have dropped ‘old English’ from the title since most today would assume it was written in AngloSaxon. They have also dropped the word ‘remarkable’, with its connotations of striking, unusual, extraordinary, exceptional, since not many have agreed with this assessment, and few have paid much attention to the fragment. However, Morgan’s article in the English Historical Review points out that the fragment, consisting of its author’s recollections of events at the court of Edward IV, is one of the few examples from the Yorkist period of a historical memoir, as opposed to works like The Historie of the Arrival of King Edward IV that were produced as government propaganda. It was apparently written by Thomas Howard, 1st earl of Surrey and 2nd duke of Norfolk, in the early sixteenth century as a reaction against the account of Edward IV in Pynson’s 1516 edition of The New Cronycles of England and of Fraunce. Although a few memoirs survive from the fourteenth century in the chronicles of Adam Murimuth, Geoffrey le Baker, Sir Thomas Gray and Adam of Usk, the only other one from the Yorkist period is the late fifteenth century continuation of the Croyland Chronicle.74 Thus Hearne was right: it is a remarkable fragment. He recognized the rarity of his discovery. Moreover, it was a genre in which he was interested, as reflected by the biographical accounts in his notebooks and diaries and by his wish that early writers like Mannyng had told us more about themselves. Hearne was ahead of his time both as an editor and a scholar. His approach to publishing texts without emending them is one many editors take today, and the arguments against that type of editing, similar to those raised by Pope and others, are still with us. Hearne’s belief that we should see texts as they appeared in individual manuscripts is shared by those who scan medieval manuscripts today and post them online. Hearne did the best he could in the days before scanners were available. He was ahead of his time too in realizing the value of those non-canonical writers that many today are studying but that not long ago had been ignored. * * * Since Hearne published so many chronicles, it may seem curious that he did not edit the most popular of those written in English, the Prose Brut, the language of which would have been more accessible to eighteenth-century readers than that of Robert of Gloucester and Robert Mannyng. As a matter of fact, he indeed appears to have planned an edition of one of the English Prose Brut manuscripts. Friedrich W. D. Brie points out that Hearne left a promotional notice in one of the manuscripts, now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.190, that an edition was in progress: ‘One Publisher is now printing … that noted English Chronicle called Brute of England (wrote by a monk of St. Albans & so much made use of by Caxton) … Subscriptions

74

Ibid., pp. 822–3.



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

195

are taken in … by the Publisher at Edmund Hall.’75 Edmund Hall was Hearne’s address, so he presumably was the publisher ‘now printing’ the edition. Although the manuscript is now in the Rawlinson collection, Hearne owned it at the time he wrote the note about editing it. William D. Macray indicates that the manuscript was owned by Thomas Baker and then by Hearne, who was the last owner before Richard Rawlinson: according to a note in the manuscript, Hearne received it on 2 March 1726/27 ‘ex dono amici doctissimi Thomæ Bakeri’.76 In a reference to English Prose Brut manuscripts in a diary entry for 28 January 1728/29, he refers to ‘a very good one that I have myself, wch was given me by Mr. Baker of Cambridge’.77 When Hearne received the manuscript from Baker in March 1726/27, he was busy with other projects, and these probably kept him from editing a work the length of the English Prose Brut.78 Thus it would have been among Hearne’s possessions when he died in 1735 and would subsequently have been inherited, along with Hearne’s other books, by William Bedford, whose widow sold Hearne’s collection to Rawlinson. Some of the original leaves of this manuscript were missing. Baker had copied the first leaf from an unidentified Prose Brut in the University Library at Cambridge, and then Hearne, apparently trying to fill in gaps of the text he planned to edit, copied several more folios (101–2, 150, 157–61) from another Prose Brut, Ashmole 793.79 Elias Ashmole’s manuscripts are now in the Bodleian Library, but from the time of Ashmole’s death in 1692 until 1860, they were housed at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford; and this would explain how Hearne in 1726/27 could have had access to a manuscript now associated with the Bodleian. Hearne owned at least one other Brut manuscript, which he cites twice in the glossary to his edition of Mannyng. In the diary entry for 28 January 1728/29, in which he says that Baker had given him ‘the very good manuscript’ that is now Rawlinson B.190, he mentions that he had also been given a ‘very imperfect’ manuscript from a William Burman and that he had referred to this manuscript

F. W. D. Brie, Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik ‘The Brute of England’ oder ‘The Chronicles of England’ (Marburg, 1905), p. 6. I am indebted to Julia Marvin for sending me this reference. 76 W. D. Macray, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecæ Bodleianæ, pars 5, fasiculus 1 Ricardi Rawlinson codicum classes [A–B] (Oxford, 1862), col. 525. 77 R&C, ed. H. E. Salter, OHS 67 (1915), X, 90–1. 78 Other projects at the time included the chronicle of Adam of Domerham (1727), William of Malmesbury’s De antiquitate Glastoniensis ecclesiae (1727) and the Pseudo-Elmham life of Henry V (1727). He was also assisting the antiquarian John Anstis with other projects during this period. See Harmsen, Antiquarianism, pp. 246–8. There were rumors of a new edition of the Brut in 1724: in a notebook entry for 10 May, Hearne says that he recently heard that the London bookseller James Woodman was going to ‘reprint Caxton’s Chronicle’ (R&C, ed. Committee of the OHS, OHS 50 (1907), VIII, 210). However, the note in the Rawlinson manuscript clearly refers to Hearne’s Oxford address, not London. 79 Macray, Catalogi, col. 525; also L. M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), p. 225. 75

196

Edward Donald Kennedy

‘in my Glossary to Peter Langtoft [i.e., Mannyng]’.80 This manuscript is now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.205.81 Macray observes that the manuscript includes a note written by Hearne on 20 February 1724/25: ‘Given me by my friend Mr. Burman, BA of Xt [Christ] Church’.82 Thus he would have received this Brut when he was working on his editions of Robert of Gloucester and Mannyng; and this, like his other Brut chronicle, would have been sold with Hearne’s other books to Rawlinson after his death. Hearne knew several other English Prose Brut manuscripts as well, both while he was working at the Bodleian and after his dismissal. Brie discovered in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud misc. 733, a note that Hearne must have written while still at the Bodleian in which he identified Laud misc. 733 as the Prose Brut that Caxton had published. (The Laud manuscript was not the copy text upon which Caxton based his edition, but Hearne may simply have meant that it was the same chronicle [not manuscript] that Caxton had published.83) Moreover, he included in his introduction to Robert of Gloucester an excerpt from the Brut in London, College of Arms, MS Arundel LVIII, a compilation of historical texts added to a somewhat modernized version of Robert of Gloucester’s chronicle.84 This excerpt, which he says comes from ‘Caxton’s Chronicle’,85 briefly covers the years from the accession of Edward I until the Battle of Halidon Hill (1333) and includes verses on that battle found in a number of other English Prose Brut manuscripts. In a diary entry for 19 July 1713 Hearne mentions that Thomas Rawlinson showed him a list of vellum manuscripts that were in his study including ‘A Chronicle of England, with this note at ye Beginning: … written by John Douglas Munke of Glastonburuye Abbaye. MS. membr. fol.’ and ‘A Chronicle of England, fol. very well illuminated’.86 Over fifteen years later Thomas’s brother, Richard, lent him the first of these on 25 January 1728/29, at which time Hearne added a note to the manuscript: ‘This ms. belongs to Dr. Richd Rawlinson, who lent it me. Tho: Hearne’. He indicates in a diary entry that he returned it on Tuesday 28 January, and describes the manuscript as a folio ‘vellom [sic] MS. in English, being the Chronicle of England, R&C, ed. Salter, X, 91. Brie, Geschichte, pp. 6–7. 82 Macray, Catalogi, col. 536. 83 Brie, Geschichte, p. 6. The Laud manuscripts had been housed in the Bodleian since the seventeenth century. Thus Hearne would have written the note before 23 January 1716. Caxton’s exemplar is most closely represented by the manuscript that is now London, British Library, MS Add. 10099, which appears to have been copied from Caxton’s edition. See Matheson, The Prose Brut, p. 165. 84 Brie, Geschichte, p. 6. Brie erroneously cited the manuscript number as ‘LVII’ at this point instead of ‘LVIII’, although the number is correct earlier in the book (p. 3). The excerpts from the English Prose Brut are from an alternate translation attributed to a fifteenthcentury priest from Norfolk, John Mandeville. It survives in one other manuscript, London, British Library, MS Harley 4690. On this version, see Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, p. 2632; Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 5, 330–2. 85 Gloucester, ed. Hearne, I, lxxxii–lxxxiii. 86 R&C, ed. D. W. Rannie, OHS 34 (1898), IV, 213. 80 81



Thomas Hearne and English Chronicles

197

commonly called Brute of England’. He mentions that it is similar to the two that he owns, the one given him by Baker and the other by Burnam. Hearne also says it is ‘intitled on the back side Chronicle of England by Dowglas, Monk of Glastonbury’ and ‘ends in the 6th year of Hen. V’ (i.e., like many Brut chronicles, 1419). Hearne, like scholars after him, rejected the attribution to ‘Dowglas’. He describes the Rawlinson manuscript as being ‘perfect’ and having at the end ‘some verses in old English about the Acts of Ric. I [i.e., the Middle English romance Richard Cœur de Lion]’.87 Edward Harley, second earl of Oxford and Mortimer, purchased the manuscript from Rawlinson in 1734, and it is now London, British Library, MS Harley 4690.88 There were still others that he knew about. In an entry for 31 August 1713, while still at the Bodleian, Hearne mentions that there were many notes written in a later hand ‘in the Chronicle Brute of England in Bibl. Bodl.’.89 He reports seeing on 9 January 1720 Benedict Leonard Calvert’s ‘Brute of England … of wch there is a vast plenty of Copies’, which had been ‘given him by his Uncle, the Earl of Litchfeild [sic]’. This was ‘an imperf. English MS’ that ‘ends in Edw. 3d’s Reign’.90 In an entry for 25 October 1722 he writes that John Murray of Oxford says he ‘hath ye finest Caxton’s Chronicle in MS. yt he believes is in England’.91 On 20 October 1726 he writes that ‘Mr. [James] West of Balliol Coll., … lent me a MS. of the History of England, being a little Folio. ’Tis of that kind wch is call’d Brute of England … ’tis very imperfect’.92 Obviously, Hearne knew a number of manuscripts of the English Prose Brut and several years before his death had planned to edit the one that is now MS Rawlinson B.190. This edition, though announced, never materialized and was presumably one set aside for the future. Except for the thirteen fifteenth- and sixteenth-century prints published between 1480 and 1528, this chronicle remained unedited until the early twentieth century.93

Afterword When I was invited to participate in a session in memory of Lister Matheson at the 2013 International Medieval Congress at Kalamazoo, I considered a paper on Hearne appropriate since both he and Lister contributed so greatly to the study of chronicles. These two scholars were, of course, different in many ways, as were their R&C, ed. Salter, X, 90–1. I am indebted to Elizabeth J. Bryan for identifying this manuscript for me and for sending me information about its provenance. Although Hearne describes the manuscript as similar to the two he owned, the Brut in this manuscript is one of the two known copies of the different Mandeville translation of the English Prose Brut. For information on the other manuscript, see n. 84. 89 R&C, ed. Rannie, IV, 233. This manuscript is now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 50 (SC 4112). 90 R&C, ed. Committee of the OHS, OHS 48 (1906), VII, 88. 91 R&C, ed. Committee of the OHS, OHS 50 (1907), VIII, 128. 92 R&C, ed. Salter, IX, 210. 93 The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (1906–8). 87 88

198

Edward Donald Kennedy

circumstances in life: so far as I know, Michigan State never changed the locks on its library to keep Lister out, and he was fortunate in not having an Alexander Pope as an adversary nor an Edmund Curll as the editor of his memorial volume. If the Scot Lister had lived in the early eighteenth century, however, he may have agreed with Hearne that only a Stewart should be recognized as king.94 There were similarities too in that both had many friends with whom they collaborated, and both chose to work in a period and a genre that was not as popular as others. Many then questioned and today question the value of medieval studies in general and chronicles in particular. Some readers now may not know that when Lister started working with chronicles, relatively few were interested in the genre. Lister, like Hearne, also had great interest in and knowledge of the English language; Lister began his career working on the Middle English Dictionary. Both worked on Langland and Chaucer, with Lister, in fact, having made an important discovery about Chaucer’s ancestry that Derek Pearsall drew upon for his biography of Chaucer.95 Yet both Hearne and Matheson were interested not so much in these major authors but in what some think of as the ‘humble chronicle’. In the case of Lister, this included editions of chronicles of Warkworth and of Shirley, many articles including a major study in Speculum of Caxton, the Polychronicon and the English Prose Brut, and of course, his vastly important book on the manuscripts of the English Prose Brut. Both Lister and Thomas Hearne were leaders in recognizing the importance of chronicles, and both had extensive influence upon others working in the field. Especially important is the enthusiasm that they had for their work, which they passed on to other scholars. Whether speaking of a ‘remarkable fragment of an old English chronicle’ or a newly found ‘curious version’ of the English Prose Brut, both displayed similar delight in and enthusiasm for discovery, delight and enthusiasm evident too in the plans for projects that both left incomplete at their deaths.

Jacobites could be either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Although the Stuart claimants to the throne were Roman Catholic, in Scotland and Wales support for the exiled James II and his descendants was primarily dynastic rather than religious; in Ireland the support was from Roman Catholics. In England Jacobites were drawn from Roman Catholics and members of the Church of England, like Hearne. See Encyclopædia Britannica, online version, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/299035/Jacobite; accessed 24 January 2015. 95 Matheson, ‘Chaucer’s Ancestry: Historical and Philological Reassessments’, The Chaucer Review 25 (1991), 171–89; Pearsall, The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer (Oxford, 1992), pp. 12–13.

94

chapter twelve

THE MANUSCRIPT OF CASTLEFORD’S CHRONICLE: ITS HISTORY AND ITS SCRIBES Caroline D. Eckhardt

T

Go, litel bok, go, litel myn [historie] Chaucer, modified

he Brut chronicle family has many branches, as Lister Matheson and others have increasingly brought to light.1 Although Castleford’s Chronicle, the immensely long verse chronicle to be discussed here, is surely one of the lesser relations and had, to my knowledge, no direct progeny, nevertheless it is a valuable witness to the development of the Brut tradition in a northern English context.2 This chronicle is known to exist in only one manuscript, which, as I will show, can be traced from a Yorkshire origin, as the fifteenth-century product of an imperfect collaboration between two main scribes and a rubricator; to a probable sojourn in Westminster or London in conjunction with its ownership by an avid book collector who was, by one dubious account, perhaps also a murderer; to an eighteenth-century

In addition to Lister M. Matheson’s superb study and classification of the manuscripts of the Middle English Prose versions, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), an essential resource for the English Brut chronicles as a whole is E. D. Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, vol. 8 of A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, gen. ed. A. E. Hartung (New Haven CT, 1989). On the Middle English Prose Brut manuscripts, see also Imagining History: Perspectives on Late Medieval Vernacular Historiography, Queen’s University Belfast, http://www.qub.ac.uk/imagining-history/ resources/wiki/index.php/Main_Page; accessed 1 October 2014. On the French Prose Brut, see The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle: An Edition and Translation, ed. and trans. J. Marvin, Medieval Chronicles 4 (Woodbridge, 2006), and Prose Brut to 1332, ed. H. Pagan, Anglo-Norman Text Society 69 (Manchester, 2011). 2 Castleford’s Chronicle or The Boke of Brut, ed. C. D. Eckhardt, 2 vols., EETS OS 305 and 306 (Oxford, 1996). No extensive study yet exists. For brief notices, see Kennedy, ‘Thomas Bek of Castleford’s Chronicle of England’, in his Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, pp. 2624–5, 2809–11, and S. L. Peverley, ‘Thomas Castleford’s Chronicle’, Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, gen. ed. G. Dunphy (Leiden, 2010), II, 1425–6. On the ‘Syrian’ version of the Albina prologue, which Castleford’s Chronicle includes, see L. M. Ruch, Albina and her Sisters: The Foundation of Albion (Amherst NY, 2013). Still useful for some details is M. L. Perrin’s dissertation, ‘Über Thomas Castelfords Chronik von England’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston, 1890). 1

199

200

Caroline D. Eckhardt

transition to the Continent among the household goods of a Londoner serving as a minor official in Germany, where it acquired its present designation as Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim.3 This itinerary shows the continuing circulation of a somewhat aberrant version of the underlying Brut narrative across regional and national distances and across time.4 Recent studies of England’s medieval book culture have emphasized the importance of diversified and interrelated networks of writers, readers and owners of books, not only in London as the main metropolitan center but also in other cities and in local and regional contexts, including Yorkshire and other parts of the North of England, which were active sites of production and ownership. At York, as John Friedman has shown, scriveners, flourishers and illuminators had formed a gild by 1425, and there are records of the activities of individual and amateur scribes, as well as professional book production collaborations that included a scribe, a binder, an illuminator and sometimes an editor or overseer.5 Having studied more than three thousand bequests of books in late medieval wills proved in northern England (Yorkshire, Durham and Carlisle), Friedman found that almost half of these bequests were for service and devotional books, but the wills also referred to some two hundred classical, grammatical and literary texts, such as a manuscript of the Canterbury Tales and one of Chaucer’s Troilus, a Gower manuscript, a copy of Chrétien’s Lancelot, three of Mandeville’s Travels, twelve of works of Ovid, six Petrarchs, a Boccaccio, one of Christine de Pisan and several drama manuscripts. However, chronicles and other historical writings are not extensively represented in these wills, with a total of just thirty-nine of the more than three thousand bequests, and apparently only five of these books (or a tiny percentage of the whole) are known to have been written in English: three copies of Layamon’s Brut, one For the library’s catalogue description of the manuscript, see W. Meyer, Die Handschriften in Göttingen, 2, Universitäts-Bibliothek, Verzeichniss der Handschriften im Preussischen Staate, I, Hannover, 2, Göttingen (Berlin, 1893, rpt. Hildesheim, 1980), pp. 353–4. The manuscript was initially given the shelfmark Hist. 664 and then recatalogued as Hist. 740. 4 Among the chronicle’s oddities are a very brief episode in which Roland is the father of Tristan, and a partial account of the Havelock tale. See C. D. Eckhardt and B. A. Meer, ‘Constructing a Medieval Genealogy: Roland the Father of Tristan in Castleford’s Chronicle’, MLN 155.5 (2000), 1085–111, and C. D. Eckhardt, ‘Havelock the Dane in Castleford’s Chronicle’, Studies in Philology 98 (2001), 1–17. 5 J. B. Friedman, Northern English Books, Owners, and Makers in the Late Middle Ages (Syracuse, 1995), p. 2. More recent studies include S. Gee, ‘The Printers, Stationers and Bookbinders of York before 1557’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 12 (2000), 27–54; R. Hanna, III, ‘The Yorkshire Circulation of Speculum Vitae’, in Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts in England, ed. M. Connolly and L. R. Mooney (York, 2008), pp. 279–91; A. Grounds, ‘Evolution of a Manuscript: The Pavement Hours’, in Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts, ed. Connolly and Mooney, pp. 139–60; and R. Hanna, III, ‘Some North Yorkshire Scribes and Their Context’, in Medieval Texts in Context, ed. D. Renevey and G. D. Caie (London, 2008), pp. 167–91. There are also multiple references to York or Yorkshire manuscripts in the collection The Production of Books in England 1350–1500, ed. A. Gillespie and D. Wakelin (Cambridge, 2011), and R. Hanna, Introducing English Medieval Book History (Liverpool, 2014). 3



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

201

copy of Trevisa’s translation of Higden’s Polychronicon and one book listed just as ‘Chronicles (English)’.6 This relatively small representation of historical writings is somewhat surprising, given that the second most frequently copied text in Middle English, surpassed in this respect only by the Wycliffite Bible, was evidently the Middle English Prose Brut chronicle, to judge by the number of extant copies: more than 250 for the Wycliffite Bible, approximately 181 for the Middle English Prose Brut, and 123 for the next most frequent text, the Prick of Conscience, etc.7 From sources other than wills it can be documented that the English Prose Brut in particular was not unknown in Yorkshire. For example, as Lister Matheson and Raluca Radulescu have shown, the miscellany that is now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 185, includes an English Prose Brut copy written in a Yorkshire dialect; this manuscript was owned by, and perhaps made for, the Hopton family of Swillington.8 A Yorkshire association, though later, also marks Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B. 190, an English Prose Brut manuscript that at the end of the seventeenth century belonged to the Archbishop of York.9 Nevertheless, literary taste in late medieval Yorkshire does not seem to have run heavily to vernacular chronicles, especially in English, a situation that makes Castleford’s Chronicle noteworthy as an unusual element of northern England’s book culture. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries certainly saw Yorkshire historical writing in Latin and some in Anglo-Norman as well. Barrie Dobson points out the ‘diverse and impressive’ production of Latin chronicles from Yorkshire monastic houses, even if not from York Minster itself,10 and Yorkshire produced two of the most important Anglo-Norman historical compilations, Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronicle (c. 1305–7), whose Yorkshire political context has recently been discussed

Friedman, ‘Appendix C: Book Ownership in the North, A Census from Wills’, Northern English Books, p. 257. Only two manuscript copies of Layamon’s Brut are now known; if Friedman’s entry is correct, these northern English wills demonstrate that at least one more copy then existed (unless the same manuscript was bequeathed more than once). 7 M. G. Sargent, ‘What Do the Numbers Mean? Observations on Some Patterns of Middle English Manuscript Transmission’, in Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts, ed. Connolly and Mooney, p. 212. Although the tally of extant manuscripts is only an indirect measure of the medieval corpus, Sargent has studied the various forms of evidence again, and finds it ‘incontrovertible’ (p. 212) that the Wycliffite Bible and the Prose Brut occupied first and second place among the Middle English manuscripts that once existed. 8 Matheson, The Prose Brut, pp. 206–7; R. Radulescu, ‘Gentry Readers of the Brut and Genealogical Material’, in Readers and Writers of the Prose Brut, ed. W. Marx and R. Radulescu, Trivium 36 (Lampeter, 2006), p. 190. 9 L. Mooney, S. Horobin and E. Stubbs, ‘Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson B.190’, in Late Medieval English Scribes, University of York, http://www.medievalscribes.com, ISBN 978-0-9557876-6-9; accessed 10 October 2014. 10 B. Dobson, ‘Contrasting Chronicles: Historical Writing at York and Durham at the Close of the Middle Ages’, in Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to John Taylor, ed. I. Wood and G. A. Loud (London, 1991), pp. 201–18 (p. 213). 6

202

Caroline D. Eckhardt

by Chris Given-Wilson,11 and the Anonimalle Chronicle (late fourteenth century). Further, at least one manuscript of the first version of the French Prose Brut (now Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Nouvelles Acquisitions Françaises 4267 N), perhaps copied in 1338, was at the priory of Monk Bretton in South Yorkshire in the sixteenth century,12 and may have been there earlier. However, Castleford’s Chronicle is evidently the first Yorkshire chronicle written in the English language,13 and it had no immediate followers. A vast narrative of nearly forty thousand lines in four-stress rhyming couplets, Castleford’s Chronicle – or ‘The Boke of Brut’, as it is designated in an internal heading14 – resembles other Brut chronicles in presenting and extending the long sweep of the traditional ‘British history’ that had been constructed by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century. Beginning with two contrasting foundation legends, that of Albina and her sisters (a post-Galfridian accretion to the tradition) and then that of Brutus the Trojan and his companions, the chronicle’s capacious narrative proceeds onward through many centuries, punctuating time primarily by the sequence of rulers as it moves from the era of Brutus’s successors to the tale of Lear, the arrival of the Romans, the imperial achievements of King Arthur and the coming of the Saxons. Continuing past what had been Geoffrey’s termination, it goes on to recount the Norman Conquest (in two versions) and the reigns of the Angevin kings and their successors. Although the reporting of events typically moves steadily forward, the narrative sometimes dwells and dilates on certain reigns or figures. As in other Brut chronicles, Brutus and Arthur receive the most expansive treatment, but occasionally there are also smaller narrative nuggets that read like gestures towards romances or embedded folktales (which is perhaps what they are).15 A long section of Geoffrey’s prophecies of Merlin, which the Brut chronicles typically omit, is included here, constituting the first known English translation of this material.16 The text ends abruptly with the year 1327, when Edward II has been ousted from the throne, but not yet murdered. If, as is usually thought, Castleford’s Chronicle dates from the time of the last events it records, then it belongs to the very small group of English-language chronicles dating from the late thirteenth century through the first third or half of the fourteenth century (a period when most historical writing in England was still in Latin or French). The others in this English-language group are Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle, the C. Given-Wilson, Chronicles: The Writing of History in Medieval England (London, 2004), pp. 168–72. 12 The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, ed. Marvin, pp. 60–1. 13 J. Taylor, Medieval Historical Writing in Yorkshire, Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, St Anthony’s Hall Publications 19 (York, 1961), p. 14; idem, English Historical Literature in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1987), p. 152. 14 Castleford’s Chronicle, ed. Eckhardt, I, 7.229. 15 Eckhardt and Meer, ‘Constructing a Medieval Genealogy’; Eckhardt, ‘Havelock the Dane in Castleford’s Chronicle’. 16 C. D. Eckhardt, ‘The First English Translations of the Prophetia Merlini’, The Library, ser. 6.4 (1982), 25–34. 11



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

203

anonymous Short Metrical Chronicle and Robert Mannyng of Brunne’s Chronicle. Like Castleford’s Chronicle, all are in verse and all represent the Brut tradition. As noted above, Castleford’s Chronicle is known in only one copy, which has been located in Göttingen since the eighteenth century. The manuscript consists of 223 vellum folios, of which the chronicle occupies folios 1r through 221r, with two columns per page; the handwriting, in the brownish ink typical of many late medieval English manuscripts, suggests a date of about 1450–75, which would imply a gap of more than a century from the last work on the composition of the chronicle, in the vicinity of 1327 (if that timing is correct). This copy was presumably not made to appeal to the taste of a wealthy owner, as it is executed plainly, being decorated only by the red ink of the rubrics and enlarged red letters at the start of chapters and books, along with a red vertical stroke through the first letter of each line of verse. Yet although it is plain in design, it was written fairly carefully and has been proofread and corrected. It seems likely that genealogically it is a ‘grandchild’ manuscript, in other words, that at least one generation intervenes between this fifteenth-century copy and the original, because despite the proofreading, occasional lines are missing: there are twenty-six singleton lines, here and there, that lack a partner-line to form their couplet. Presumably these lines were already missing in the exemplar, or the process of correction that is evident elsewhere would have restored them. The dialect has northern characteristics,17 and the chronicle makes many references to Yorkshire and to Scotland.18 This chronicle and its manuscript are intriguing in several ways. One concerns its title, another its authorship, and these two are tied together. As mentioned above, there is no internal title other than ‘The Boke of Brut’, which appears at the point where the narrative transitions from the prefatory tale of Albina and her sisters as the first founders of Albion to its second foundation story, the tale of Brutus: Her endys the Prolog Olbyon, That was an yll all wylsome. Nowe her begynnys the Boke of Brut, And howe he hys awne land fors[o]ke, And howe Albyon conqueryd, And aftyr hym Brutayne it named, That nowe is callyd Yngland, certainly, Aftyr the name of Engyst of Saxony. (lines 227–34) The conventional title of ‘Castleford’s Chronicle’ (or ‘Thomas Bek of Castleford’s Chronicle’, as in Donald Kennedy’s designation)19 derives from the fact that the In A. McIntosh, M. L. Samuels and M. Benskin, A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (Aberdeen, 1986), I, 89, the hands of the two scribes (see below) are designated as Linguistic Profile 27 and 28, and associated with the West Riding of Yorkshire and with north Yorkshire respectively. 18 Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, p. 2625; Perrin, ‘Über Thomas Castelfords Chronik’, pp. 39–42; also I thank L. M. Ruch for pointing out many of these instances. 19 In the edition I chose to use the title Castleford’s Chronicle in order to maintain at least

17

204

Caroline D. Eckhardt

words ‘Thomas Castelford’ are written at the top of the opening folio. This name, in a hand different from the other scribal hands, could of course represent an owner rather than the author, or serve some other purpose altogether, and there may have been multiple men named Thomas in the town of Castleford, which is now part of the metropolitan borough of the City of Wakefield. As for Thomas Bek, to whom the chronicle has sometimes been attributed, Donald Kennedy has noted that a Thomas Bek was living in Pontefract in 1269 and was rector in Castleford in 1278, but he is probably a little too early to be the author of this chronicle.20 Beyond documenting a Castleford association, the name written on fol. 1r has proven resistant to identification. Two main scribes wrote the chronicle, with the change occurring at fol. 32v; the rubricator who wrote the chapter headings starting with fol. 17v shows a third hand (rubrics up to that point seem to be the work of Scribe A). The hands of Scribe A and Scribe B are similar, but not identical. Their formations of the minuscule letter ‘w’, for example, are somewhat different, with Scribe A using strokes that are more parallel, Scribe B more angled; also, Scribe A uses an unlooped ‘d’, especially as the text continues, more frequently than does Scribe B. Further, the two scribes’ patterns of spelling show some differences; for instance, Scribe A often uses ‘y’ where Scribe B prefers ‘i’ in words such as ‘aftyr’ / ‘aftir’. The juncture between the work of Scribe A and Scribe B on fol. 32v reveals an error in planning, which is worthy of note because it suggests a mode of production in which a book dealer, or someone else responsible for organizing the production of this copy, would have distributed sections of the task out to two main copyists who were not working in a simple sequence, or in each other’s immediate presence (see Plate 1). Evidently, Scribe A, coming to the end of a segment of the text, finished copying a chapter (this is Book II, ch. 17) at the bottom of column A, writing the usual forty-five lines per column. Scribe B began chapter 18 at the top of column B, but, presumably eyeing up the available space, saw that there would be a shortage, and coped in two ways. First, Scribe B left no room for the new chapter’s rubric at the beginning of the column; the rubricator had to write the rubric in the margin below Column A. Second, Scribe B squeezed an additional line into Column B, compressing the column so that it would include this line and nevertheless end within the lower ruling, level with the text that Scribe A had written in Column A. This situation makes sense if we assume that when Scribe B worked on Column B, the next section of the text had already been copied onto fol. 33r, so that Scribe B’s new material had to be accommodated in the space in between, which turned out to be slightly inadequate. Some type of collaborative mode of copying by sections or partial consistency with most previous publications on this text, and to distinguish it from other works called Brut. 20 Kennedy, Chronicles and Other Historical Writing, p. 2624, in reviewing the tradition of attributing the chronicle to this Thomas Bek, notes that ‘if this man wrote the chronicle, he would have been about 80 when he finished it’. Cf. Perrin, ‘Über Thomas Castelfords Chronik’, p. 45.



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

205

Plate 1 Conjunction of the work of Scribes A and B. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek, MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim., fol. 32v. Note the change of scribes after Column A and the vertical compression toward the end of Column B to accommodate an additional line

206

Caroline D. Eckhardt

booklets seems implied, whereby Scribe A was given the beginning of the chronicle to copy, and Scribe B meanwhile started on a later section.21 The juncture would have worked out smoothly except that somebody forgot to allow for one line and the rubric. There are occasional errors in planning or execution later as well, as on fol. 35v, when a rubric is written in the margin because no space was left for it in the column. Further, a number of rubrics are missing in the early folios. Although the chronicle opens with the heading ‘Her may men her all and sum / Howe this land was fyrst namy[d] Albion’, and on fol. 2r there is a transitional heading between the end of the Albina prologue and the rest of the chronicle (‘Her endys … / … / Nowe her begynnys’, see above), there are then no headings for individual chapters until fol. 8r. As space was not left for them, the explanation might be that they were missing in the exemplar. It is even possible that Scribe A, whose work continues through the first column of fol. 32v, began to copy the chronicle from an exemplar that lacked chapter headings and then switched to one that included them, though I have not observed any other indication that the exemplar has changed. It is also possible that the rubrics that begin on fol. 8r are being newly added to the chronicle by someone who assumed an editorial role at that point.22 In sum, the copying of Castleford’s Chronicle in this manuscript shows the work of two scribes with similar hands, perhaps sharing the same training,23 a rubricator who does not seem to have been either of them, someone who was proofreading and correcting and someone who was supervising. Allowing for some overlap of functions, three individuals (?), or four (?), are likely to have been involved in the production of this copy of Castleford’s Chronicle. However, this situation does not necessarily mean that the manuscript was produced in a shared workplace, such as a shop where several members of the book industry would have performed their tasks within easy access of each other. John J. Thompson’s work on ‘cultural mapping’ and the distribution of copies of the Prose Brut chronicle has emphasized the wide variety of ways in which collaborative manuscripts were produced and circulated among networks of readers, whether in London or elsewhere: ‘… manuscripts produced collaboratively in London contexts can be assumed to have inhabited similar reading networks to those likely to have been made in geographically distant locations and under different circumstances. … Collaborative scribal work does not necessarily have to mean formal institutional I am indebted here to unpublished notes kindly given to me by the late Angus McIntosh, in the form of the annotations he had written in his personal copy of Perrin, ‘Über Thomas Castelfords Chronik’. 22 A further planning error may have been involved in the fact that fol. 111v has been left blank, though no new chapter is begun on fol. 112r; the text, written by Scribe B, is continuous before and after the gap in writing. However, since the parchment of fol. 111 is somewhat thinner than that of other leaves, it is also possible that it was intentionally left blank, to avoid show-through. 23 The Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English describes the scribe of Hand B as ‘a scribe from north Yorkshire (WRY or NRY), trained in the same southerly scriptorium as Hand A’ (I, 89). 21



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

207

production.’24 Similarly, using evidence from London practice, Linne Mooney has recently argued that scribes may often have been freelancers who might have obtained clients ‘by word of mouth’ and worked at home, in their lodgings: ‘… of the crafts involved in book production, textwriting involved the least equipment, so it could most easily be carried out as a “home industry”’.25 Such an informal copying practice could explain the small miscalculation whose result we have seen on fol. 32v in the Castleford manuscript. Yet, even if each of the Castleford scribes worked separately at home, the need to compress the text on fol. 32v implies some shared or supervisory arrangement for organizing the project. It is the imperfection of the arrangement that makes visible their shared collaboration, with Scribe B having copied a subsequent section while, presumably, waiting for Scribe A to finish up the first column of 32v and to make the second column’s writing space available. The early history of the manuscript, other than its Yorkshire characteristics, is unknown, though the erasure of words such as ‘pope’ and ‘saint’ suggests that it was in England during the Reformation. After Thomas Castleford himself, if he were in fact author, reader or owner, the first identifiable reader or owner belongs to the sixteenth century. The text of the chronicle ends on fol. 221r. On the mostly blank verso of this leaf, which was presumably at the end of the manuscript until two unrelated folios were added during rebinding,26 a later hand than those of the chronicle’s scribes wrote an incomplete draft or trial copy of a legal release: Be yt knowne to all men by thesse presents that I Mathew Wentworth of West Bretton in the countie of York esquire and amer burdett of denbye halle on the said countie esquier hav relesed remised for me myne heires decretours or assignes of and for all maner of actions suits tresspass and detts chalanges dewties and demaundes which I the saide Mathew …27

J. J. Thompson, ‘The Middle English Prose Brut and the Possibilities of Cultural Mapping’, in Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts, ed. Connolly and Mooney, pp. 245–60 (p. 256). 25 L. R. Mooney, ‘Locating Scribal Activity in Late-Medieval London’, in Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts, ed. Connolly and Mooney, pp. 183–204 (p. 190). 26 These two folios, consisting of fragmentary Latin legal material from a lost Act Book of the Court of Arches, are edited and discussed in an article forthcoming in Mediaeval Studies by F. D. Logan and C. D. Eckhardt. On this court, see F. D. Logan, The Medieval Court of Arches, Canterbury and York Society 95 (Woodbridge, 2005). 27 I am most grateful to the late Jeremy Griffiths and to F. Donald Logan, each of whom corresponded with me, made a trip to Göttingen to examine the manuscript, generously transcribed this partially rubbed passage and contributed much other assistance; any errors are of course my own. The rubbed words ‘Wentworth’ and ‘West Bretton in’ were confirmed by Donald Logan with ultraviolet light. The existence of this annotation had previously been briefly mentioned, i.e., by Perrin, who noted ‘der Anfang einer Schenkungsurkunde’ (‘Über Thomas Castelfords Chronik’, p. 10), and Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, ‘an indenture relating to Monk Bretton’ (I, 89). Logan indicates (personal communication) that where the text reads ‘decretours’ one would expect ‘executours’ instead. 24

208

Caroline D. Eckhardt

Below this notation, Donald Logan has read with ultraviolet light the words ‘Sandal Magna W.R.’ and has pointed out that this is the name of the parish in the West Riding in which West Bretton was partially located; as Logan indicates, Castleford, West Bretton, Denby Hall and Sandal Magna are all locations near to each other in the vicinity of Wakefield.28 The names in the draft release, taken one by one, occur more than once in their families, but the conjunction of the names together allows this note to be rather narrowly dated: Logan has identified just one Matthew Wentworth who held West Bretton at the same time as an Aymer Burdett held Denby Hall. This Matthew Wentworth lived c. 1500–72, and this Aymer Burdett lived c. 1546–95, so that their lifespans overlapped for about twenty-five years, and indeed Matthew’s sister, Isabella, married Aymer’s brother, Thomas.29 It seems very likely that Matthew Wentworth was the owner of the manuscript at the time when he used the blank space on its (then) last leaf to make a draft of the release. If we assume that Aymer Burdett was not still a small child, but was old enough to be engaged in considerations of ownership, the draft might be dated sometime between around 1560, when Aymer would have been fourteen or fifteen, and 1572, when Matthew died. In any case, this now obscure record of what one hopes was a happy alliance of families, undisturbed by property disputes, shows the continuing association of the manuscript with Yorkshire, now in the third quarter of the sixteenth century. In the second half of the seventeenth century, the Castleford manuscript was owned by a much better-known figure, the political writer and Yorkshire antiquary Nathaniel Johnston, who was born around 1629 and died in 1705. Johnston completed an M.D. in 1656 at King’s College and then practiced medicine in Yorkshire before moving in 1686 to London, where he became a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, though he kept a house in Pontefract as well. A fervent supporter of hereditary monarchy, he wrote treatises in defense of James II, which, given how things turned out, ‘guaranteed Johnston’s ruin at the revolution of 1688’, as Mark Goldie puts it in the ODNB.30 Indeed there are references to Johnston’s Donald Logan, personal communication. For Matthew Wentworth, see J. Foster, Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire, 2 vols. (London, 1874), II, unpaginated and arranged alphabetically. For Aymer Burdett, his brother Thomas and Isabella Wentworth, see: W. Flower, The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564 (London, 1881), p. 45; The Visitation of Yorkshire made in the Years 1584/5 by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald, to which is added The subsequent Visitation made in 1612, by Richard St George, Norroy King of Arms…, ed. J. Foster (London, 1875), pp. 336–8; and Dugdale’s Visitation of Yorkshire, with Additions, ed. J. W. Clay (Exeter, 1899), p. 347. I owe these references, and the identification of Matthew Wentworth, Aymer Burdett and the link that made them almost brothers-in-law, to Donald Logan (personal communication). Prof. Logan in turn thanks Prof. Charles Donahue, Jr., for assistance in identifying Matthew Wentworth’s statement as being the kind that was often used after the settlement of a dispute to prevent it from being opened again, and for suggesting that it might perhaps have been used here to prevent later disputes about the marriage portion of Wentworth’s sister when she married Burdett. 30 M. Goldie, ‘Johnston, Nathaniel (bap. 1629?, d. 1705)’, Oxford Dictionary of National

28 29



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

209

reliance on the charity of others at times when, according to one contemporary description, he was reduced to being ‘little better than buried alive’ or was even ‘forced to skulk. … He dare not let it be openly known where he is.’31 What is important for our purposes is Johnston’s antiquarian role, for he was intensely interested in historical, genealogical and similar materials, especially those pertaining to Yorkshire.32 Indeed, he was avid enough as a collector that it was claimed he would commit theft and even murder to acquire what he wanted: a curious account about Yorkshiremen who were residing in London, while its details are confusing, accuses Johnston of using his position as a physician to poison a man in order to steal the victim’s books.33 That anecdote may be wholly fantastic, but what is definite is that over the course of some thirty years Johnston accumulated a notable collection of manuscripts, especially materials for writing a parish-byparish history of Yorkshire (he never wrote it, though more than 100 volumes of notes survive). He also liked to write in his books, a habit that has sometimes been found annoying. In the 1670s he was given access to a large collection of documents pertaining to the earls of Shrewsbury, who held lands in Yorkshire (his four-volume account of their lives remains unpublished); the British National Archives’ website on these Shrewsbury Papers, now at Lambeth Palace Library, complains about Johnston’s management of these documents, remarking that ‘his habit of scribbling on them in a barely decipherable hand is the least of his sins. … It would have required considerable ingenuity to have arranged [these papers] in any greater disorder.’34 Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008), doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/14946; accessed 15 October 2014. 31 Abraham de la Pryme, quoted in Goldie, ‘Johnston, Nathaniel’. 32 For information on Johnston’s collections, see E. W. Crossley, ‘The Mss. of Nathaniel Johnston, M.D., of Pontefract’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 32 (1936), 429–41, and J. D. Martin, ‘The Antiquarian Collections of Nathaniel Johnston’ (unpublished B.Litt. dissertation, Oxford, 1956). 33 I thank Craig Bertolet for extensive assistance on Castleford’s Chronicle and for pointing out this strange episode, which may testify to Johnston’s reputation if not his actual deeds: ‘In Mr. W. H. D. Longstaffe’s Introduction to the Surtees reprint of Nathan Drake’s siege journal there is a curious reference to the celebrated Dr. Nathaniel Johnston, of Pontefract, from which it appears that the Drakes of later generations treasured a certain parchment memorandum, probably copied from an older one, inscribed as follows: “Samuel Drake … died in the year 1679, being poisoned by his physician Dr. Johnson [sic] of Pomfret, for the sake of some valuable books in which he had privately and most villainously inserted his name, but (on the cheat being detected) he did not get them …”. Here is a mystery which will never be solved. Did Samuel Johnston poison Samuel Drake, or was he wrongfully accused by the Drake family?’ See J. S. Fletcher, Yorkshiremen After the Restoration (London, 1921), pp. 26–8. In the last sentence quoted here, in the question ‘Did Samuel Johnston poison Samuel Drake’, an error has been made, as ‘Samuel’ (Drake’s name) has confusingly replaced ‘Nathaniel’, but other parts of this passage make it clear that Nathaniel is the Johnston who is meant. 34 ‘Shrewsbury Papers MSS/694–710, 15th century–early 17th century’, The National Archives, Lambeth Palace Library, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records. aspx?cat=109-mss_1-2_1&cid=1#1.

210

Caroline D. Eckhardt

Fortunately, Johnston did not disorder the Castleford manuscript, though he did scribble summaries in the margins. His annotations, some of which were later trimmed at the edge, begin on the verso of the first folio, where he wrote ‘Breviary of this history by N. Johnston, 1654’ (see Plate 2). That Johnston would have been interested in this chronicle for his Yorkshire history project is not surprising, for, as mentioned, the chronicle refers to Yorkshire many times, though its perspective, as with other Brut chronicles, is primarily that of national history. However, it is puzzling that he apparently found the early, legendary, part of the chronicle to be most useful, as his annotations are more frequent and extensive there; but perhaps he shifted to a pattern such as using a separate notebook to gather the chronicle’s information about later events pertinent to his Yorkshire projects. Some of Johnston’s books remained in his house in Pontefract when he came to London in 1686,35 but others were brought with him, and it is of course possible that individual books, perhaps like Johnston himself, may have traveled back and forth more than once. A listing of 135 of his books was included in an inventory of various collections, the Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae, that was published in 1697 under the editorship of Edward Bernard. The first of Johnston’s books in this catalogue is a Brut chronicle, which may have been the Castleford manuscript, but if so, the brief description is inexact, nor would its presence in the inventory necessarily have reflected its location.36 Johnston’s will indicates that he was living in Westminster at the time of his death,37 and two Latin annotations on the mostly blank verso of fol. 221 of the Castleford manuscript make it very probable that it was in Westminster too – though perhaps it was in someone else’s possession rather than still being among Johnston’s household goods, given that the writing on this folio is not his. One of the Latin notations is simply the phrase ‘in ecclesia sancti Petri Westmonasterij’. The second consists of two lines on King Sebert, the seventhcentury Anglo-Saxon king who was traditionally regarded as having founded the first church of Saint Peter on the later site of Westminster Abbey: The date is given in Goldie, ‘Johnston, Nathaniel’. ‘Librorum manuscriptorum Nathanielis Johnsoni’, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae in unum collecti, ed. E. Bernard (Oxford, 1697), II, 99–102, nos. 3815–3959; when Johnston saw the proofs, he asked that the spelling of his name be corrected, but this was not done. The first item in his section of this catalog, identified as number 3815.1, is ‘A Manuscript in Vellum containing an History, in old English Verse, from Brute to the 18th. Of King Edward II’ (p. 99). It is likely that this entry refers to the Castleford manuscript (among all the Johnston books inventoried, it is the only entry that could so refer), but the description is not quite accurate, for the Castleford manuscript begins with the Albina prologue, not with Brutus, and it extends beyond the eighteenth year of Edward II’s reign (July 1324–July 1325). Thus it is possible that the catalogue is describing a different book, such as another Brut manuscript, and also possible that by 1697, when Johnston would have been in London for more than a decade, the Castleford manuscript had been given or sold to someone else. 37 ‘His will notes that he was of the parish of St Margaret, Westminster’ (Goldie, ‘Johnston, Nathaniel’). 35 36



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

211

Plate 2 Marginal annotations by Nathaniel Johnston. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staatsund Universitätsbiliothek MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim., fol. 1v. Nathaniel Johnston’s name appears at the upper left; his brief summary of what the chronicle says at this point runs along the left and lower margins

212

Caroline D. Eckhardt Hic rex Seberte pausas, haec condita per te, Haec loca lustraui, demum lustrando dicaui.

(‘Here, King Sebert, you lie at rest, amid these places founded by you. These places I have purified by a propitiatory offering and have thus consecrated at last’.38) In other accounts, including that in Camden, these verses (with the variation ‘mihi’ rather than ‘haec’ in the first line) are cited as appearing in a painting or inscription that formed part of Sebert’s monument in Westminster Abbey.39 They could have been copied onto the blank page on the spot, if the Castleford manuscript were for some reason taken to the Abbey – did someone have it at hand, and write the verses on the final folio in order to remember them? Or, of course, the verses could have been copied from another source that had already recorded them, or they could have been jotted down from memory, as the substitution of ‘haec’ for ‘mihi’ might suggest. In either case, as of the end of the seventeenth century the Castleford manuscript has added associations with Westminster to its earlier locations in Yorkshire. Further, after Johnston wrote in the manuscript, the edges of folios containing his marginal annotations were trimmed for rebinding. The fact that during the rebinding process two folios of material from London’s Court of Arches were added as flyleaves at the end, strengthens the likelihood that the manuscript was in the London area in the latter part of the seventeenth century.40 A sea change was soon to come. After Nathaniel Johnston’s death in 1705, his books passed through family members until 1756, when many of them were bought by the antiquary Richard Frank (1698–1762). Nearly two centuries later, in 1942, much of the Frank collection was purchased by the Bodleian Library.41 However, The monument remains, but the verses are no longer visible. Their context is that Saint Peter, or perhaps an angel, is addressing the long-dead Sebert, who is supposedly buried there. On this couplet and its translation I am indebted to an unpublished note by the late Angus McIntosh and to Michael Kulikowski. The legend that Sebert had founded or refounded the first Christian religious house on this site, which was consecrated by Saint Peter, evidently arose in the twelfth century; its first known version occurs in a Life of Edward the Confessor composed c. 1141 by Osbert of Clare, a monk of Westminster. See The History of Westminster by John Flete, fl. 1421–1465, ed. J. A. Robinson (Cambridge, 1909), pp. 2–11. 39 Perrin, ‘Über Thomas Castelfords Chronik’, p. 9; W. Camden, Reges, Reginae, Nobiles et alii in ecclesia collegiata Beati Petri Westmonasterii sepulti usque ad annum 1600 (London, 1606), p. 2; J. Weaver and W. Toke, Ancient Funeral Monuments of Great Britain, Ireland and the Islands Adjacent (London, 1667), p. 233 – I thank Donald Logan for this reference; J. S. Hawkins, ‘An Account of the Painting … over the Monument of Sebert, King of the East Saxons, in Westminster Abbey’, in J. Schnebbelie, The Antiquaries Museum, Illustrating the Antient Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture, of Great Britain …. (London, 1791), pp. 1–10. When the first line of the couplet reads ‘mihi’ rather than ‘haec’ the sense of that phrase would be ‘[in these places] built for me by you’ and the speaker would definitely be St Peter. 40 See n. 26 above. 41 See the Bodleian Library’s ‘Collection Level Description’, at http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/ dept/scwmss/wmss/online/1500-1900/johnston/johnston.html, and M. Clapinson and 38



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

213

the Castleford manuscript did not pass from the Frank family to the Bodleian, for in 1786 it was sold at an auction in Hanover and purchased by the university library in Göttingen, where it has remained ever since. What was the Castleford manuscript doing in Germany? The key lies in an eighteenth-century bookplate pasted into the front of the manuscript; another copy of this bookplate appears in a collection of bookplates in the British Library (Plate 3). The calligraphy makes the spelling debatable – the name’s last letter might be read as ‘n’ – but ‘Sullow’ corresponds to other evidence that points to the identity of the owner.42 The matriculation roster of the university in Göttingen shows that Christian Johann Sullow, Londinensis, enrolled there on 5 May 1756, after studying law at the University of Helmstedt.43 Further, at Göttingen Sullow left his trace in the Stammbuch or autograph album of one Carl Sievers, an eighteenth-century naturalist who was investigating, among other things, the growing of rhubarb in Siberia (Plate 4).44

T. D. Rogers, Summary Catalogue of Post-Medieval Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Oxford. Acquisitions 1916–1975 (Oxford, 1991), II, 1337–45, nos. 55290–390. A more detailed description and index are provided in The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts: Catalogue of the Collections of Richard Frank (c. 1698–1762) including the Collections of Nathaniel Johnston (1629–1705), comp. by M. Clapinson and T. D. Rogers (Oxford, 1975). 42 The bookplate occurs as No. 28540 in the Franks collection of bookplates in the British Library; see E. R. J. Gambier Howe, Franks Bequest: Catalogue of the British and American Book Plates Bequeathed to the Trustees of the British Museum by Sir Augustus Wollaston Franks, 3 vols. (London, 1903–4), I, 95. I thank Amy Eckhardt for examining Sullow’s bookmark in the British Library’s collection and confirming that it is the same as the one in the manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle. The Niedersächsische Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek in Göttingen holds two other books that also include this bookplate and were purchased at the same time: a copy of Cursor Mundi and a copy of Holinshed’s Chronicle. Sullow thus owned two versions of the ‘British history’, Castleford and Holinshed. 43 Die Matrikel der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1734–1837, ed. G. von Selle, Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Hannover … (Hildesheim, 1937), p. 116. I thank Dr. Helmut Rohlfing, director of the department of manuscripts and rare books at the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek in Göttingen, for many forms of assistance and generosity in providing advice, expertise and facilities during my work on the manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle, and I thank him in this context in particular for having found C. J. Sullow in the university’s matriculation records 44 The album is in Göttingen, in the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbiliothek; its shelfmark is 8° Cod. MS. Hist lit. 48w. On Sievers and his album, see O. Deneke, ‘Ein niedersächsischer Naturforscher in Sibirien um 1790’, Veröffentlichungen des Geschichtsvereins für Göttingen und Umgebung 1941.4, 14–34. On albums of this sort, particularly in German universities, see M. A. E. Nickson, Early Autograph Albums in the British Museum (London, 1970), pp. 9–11. I thank Helmut Rohlfing for having found Sullow in Sievers’s autograph album, for having contacted the Hameln city archivist for her assistance in documenting Sullow’s presence there, and for extended correspondence with me about Sullow and the library’s acquisition of the Castleford manuscript.

214

Caroline D. Eckhardt

Plate 3 Bookplate of C. J. Sullow. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbiliothek, MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim., bookplate



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

215

Plate 4 C. J. Sullow’s entry in the autograph album of Carl Sievers. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbiliothek, MS 8o Cod. hist. lit. 48w, fol. 104r Sullow’s entry in the album offers a conventional caution about the transitoriness of human life: All is but Vanity !!! Too soon we find that all those joys   for which life’s flame we waste are but delusive empty toys   which vanish ere we taste. Let Virtue then our Pilot prove,   through the hard toilsome Way then we’ll like autumn’s Spoils remove   and gently glide away. When this you see remember me who constantly shall prove to be Your Friend and Servant C. John Sullow of London Comptroller of Kings Tolls   at Hameln. A design that appears to be a Masonic symbol is shown at the lower left, along with the location and date, Hameln, 16 April 1783. The verses entitled ‘All is Vanity!’ are not original; they had been printed some thirty years earlier (April 1751) in a

216

Caroline D. Eckhardt

London periodical called The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure and are attributed there to an unidentified ‘W.W.’.45 This entry in the autograph album shows that C. J. Sullow was a British official in Hameln three years before the auction in Hanover, when the Castleford manuscript and some thirty others of his books were acquired by the Göttingen library.46 It seems likely that he had brought his English books with him when he moved from London to Germany, but perhaps he continued to acquire others on trips back home, or even sent for them; nearly thirty years after enrolling as a student in Germany, he is still signing himself ‘of London’. Further, in linking Sullow to Hameln, the entry in the album points the way towards the town archive of Hameln, which has revealed further records. Christian Johann Sullow is mentioned as being ‘Zollgegenschreiber’ in Hameln between 1774 and 1795; he married Johanne Charlotte Henriette Hund, and their five children were all baptized in Hameln; he died early in 1796 and was buried in Hameln on 7 January 1796.47 ‘To knytte up al this feeste, and make an end’, as Chaucer’s Parson might have said: the evidence of the scribes of the Castleford manuscript suggests some form of collaborative production, perhaps the type of task-sharing that has been well documented in the book culture of the city of York during the fifteenth century. Though nothing absolutely identifies this manuscript as having been written in York or in Yorkshire, a Yorkshire provenance seems amply demonstrated by the name ‘Castleford’ written at the beginning, by the chronicle’s language and that of its two main scribes, and by what is known about its ownership or locations, beginning with Matthew Wentworth of West Bretton in the sixteenth century, and continuing with its seventeenth-century ownership by the antiquary Nathaniel Johnston, who collected materials for his planned Yorkshire history. If it is indeed a Yorkshire manuscript, it supports the work of scholars who have been studying the lively late medieval book culture there, and it augments our knowledge of local or regional interest in English-language historiography. During the latter half of the seventeenth century the manuscript was almost certainly in Westminster or London, where it acquired two Latin notations referring to Westminster Abbey and was bound up with two leaves of legal material from the Court of Arches. Subsequently, the manuscript’s eighteenth-century ownership by a minor English official, who was working and studying in Germany, shows the appeal of this type of historical narrative among late medieval and then post-medieval networks of readers who were educated, and held some type of professional or W.W., ‘Vanitatis Vitae!’ in ‘The British Muse: Containing Original Poems, Songs, &c.’, The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure: containing news, letters, debates, poetry, musick…. 8 (April, 1751), p. 172. The poem as printed there begins ‘How gay at first life’s cheerful dawn / Attracts our ravish’d sight’ and includes fifty-two lines; Sullow’s album entry excerpts lines 29–36 and 46–52. W.W. appears elsewhere in this publication too, i.e., as author of the short poem ‘A Rebus’ a few pages later (p. 175). 46 Information from the library’s 1796 accession book has kindly been provided by Dr Helmut Rohlfing. 47 I am very grateful to the director of the Stadtarchiv Hameln, Silke Schulte, for locating and providing this information about Sullow. 45



The Manuscript of Castleford’s Chronicle

217

civic responsibility, but were not in the most prominent layers of society: Matthew Wentworth, a landowning gentleman in Yorkshire, who hoped to avoid property disputes with family members; Nathaniel Johnston, a physician in Yorkshire and then London, who had the resources and connections to acquire a significant personal library (and was thought to be capable even of murder in his pursuit of books), but was nevertheless vulnerable to financial ruin; and C. J. Sullow, a civil servant and student ‘from London’ who owned old books written in Middle English, though he lived for many years in Germany. Thus Castleford’s Chronicle found a continuing audience over several centuries – although, in terms of cultural presence and impact, despite all the varied and curious information presented here about its circulation and afterlife, this ‘Book of Brut’ remains only a very plain and isolated country cousin of its enormously successful relative, the Prose Brut Chronicle in its French, English and Latin iterations.

chapter thirteen

BRUTS FOR SALE1 A. S. G. Edwards

B

y 1918 Henry Huntington had already laid the foundations of his great collections that were to form the Huntington Library and Art Gallery in San Marino, California. Some of the most important literary treasures, the Ellesmere manuscripts, including the Ellesmere Chaucer and the Chester Plays, had already arrived. But if his collection of Middle English manuscripts included such remarkable high spots, it still lacked range and depth. In November of that year, George D. Smith, the New York book dealer and Huntington’s first agent in the creation of his library, drew his attention to a rather unpretentious manuscript that was about to be included in the Herschel Jones sale: ‘The Brut’s [sic] Chronicle is very important for your library,’ he insisted.2 It was not a work that figured already in Huntington’s collection and he took Smith’s advice: Jones’s manuscript quickly became manuscript Huntington HM 131 when it was sold in December 1918.3 And Huntington himself seems to have been quick to appreciate the implications of Smith’s comment on the significance of the work, as he added three more Bruts to his library before his death in 1927.4 One may wonder how typical in the twentieth century was Smith’s appreciation of the work’s value to a research library and how any sense of the Brut’s significance was reflected in commercial activity involving the Brut, that is, in the various sales of manuscript copies of it in this period. The larger history of the buying and selling of Middle English manuscripts is a neglected subject.5 However, evidence of the For kind assistance I am much indebted to Timothy Bolton, Sandra Hindman, Katherine Lowe, Ryan Perry, Mary Robertson and Jay Satterfield. Some parts of the work for this essay were undertaken while I had the privilege of holding a William H. Helfand Grolier Club Fellowship; I am particularly grateful for the hospitality and support afforded by this fellowship. 2 Quoted in C. W. Dutschke, Guide to Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Huntington Library, 2 vols. (San Marino, 1989), I, xx. 3 For references to descriptions of particular manuscripts, see the references cited after individual shelf marks in the Appendix below; full details of sales histories for each manuscript, insofar as I have been able to recover these, will also be found there. 4 These are San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MSS HM 133 (acquired at some point after November 1919), 113 and 136 (both bought in 1923). 5 For some preliminary observations, see my articles ‘The Selling of Piers Plowman Manuscripts in the Twentieth Century’, Yearbook of Langland Studies 27 (2013), 103–11; 1

218



Bruts for Sale

219

perceived worth of such manuscripts in the market place potentially offers some insight into other aspects of their ‘value’ that extends beyond the simply monetary, to reflect the evolving history of their reception. Such issues have never been surveyed hitherto in their commercial terms. Yet, the number of manuscripts disposed of commercially in the twentieth century and the prices they achieved provide an unusually large body of evidence for assessing this aspect of the Brut’s reception. It is the most widely circulated Middle English historical text.6 Lister Matheson has given a detailed record of surviving copies together with several others that may exist or have existed but cannot now be found,7 and this has been supplemented in a posthumously published article.8 Clearly about 180 or so manuscripts survive.9 These manuscripts form a relatively cohesive group. The great majority of Bruts survive as single text manuscripts. Only occasionally do they occur regularly with appended texts, most notably John Page’s poem, the Siege of Rouen, which survives in part in ten manuscripts of it.10 The poem occurs infrequently in other major manuscript compilations of different kinds, like London, British Library, MS Harley 733311 and Cambridge University Library, MS Ff.1.6.12 And Brut manuscripts rarely have high production values: few are elaborately decorated and even fewer illustrated at all extensively.13 The Brut’s distinctive identity therefore depends ‘What’s It Worth? Selling Chaucer in the Twentieth Century’, Chaucer Review 48 (2014), 239–50; and ‘Selling Lydgate Manuscripts in the Twentieth Century’, in New Directions in Manuscript Studies and Reading Practices: Studies in Honor of Derek Pearsall, ed. K. Kerby-Fulton, J. J. Thompson and S. Baechle (South Bend IN, 2014), pp. 207–19. See also C. de Hamel, ‘The Selling and Collecting of Manuscripts of Nicholas Love’s Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ since the Middle Ages’, in Nicholas Love at Waseda. Proceedings of the International Conference, 20–22 July 1995, ed. S. Oguro, R. Beadle and M. G. Sargent (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 87–97. 6 ‘No gentleman’s library could be without a copy of the English Chronicle called the Brut’, M. R. James, The Wanderings and Homes of Manuscripts (London, 1919), p. 9. 7 The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 180 (Tempe AZ, 1998), pp. xxi–xxxii. 8 ‘Contextualizing the Dartmouth Brut: From Professional Manuscripts to “The Worst Little Scribbler in the World”’, Digital Philology, 3 (2014), 215–39, especially Appendices A–C, pp. 232–6. 9 It is not possible to arrive at a wholly precise number; Matheson includes some post-medieval transcripts of manuscripts that survive and omits at least one manuscript noted here, that owned by Denys Spittle. 10 Cambridge University Library, MS Hh.6.9; Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.9.1; London, British Library, MSS Cotton Galba E. VIII, Harley 266, Harley 753, Harley 2256; London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 331; Norfolk, Holkham Hall, MS 670; University of Chicago Library, MS 254; Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois, MS 116. 11 For a description, see J. M. Manly and E. Rickert, The Text of the Canterbury Tales, 8 vols. (Chicago, 1940), I, 207–18. 12 For a full description and facsimile, see R. Beadle and A. E. B. Owen, The Findern Manuscript: Cambridge University Library MS. Ff. 1. 6 (London, 1977). 13 For discussion of the rarity of illustrated copies of the Brut, see K. Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts 1390–1490, 2 vols. (London, 1996), II, 223–5.

220

A. S. G. Edwards

very largely on the text it contains, and on any specific associations that occur in individual manuscripts, most notably indications of provenance or annotation. It is the relative lack of variables that could skew prices in particular circumstances that mean that there is some possibility of meaningful generalizations about the history of the sales of copies of the Brut in the twentieth century. At least fifty-six separate Middle English Brut manuscripts, or fragments thereof, have changed hands since the beginning of the twentieth century, sometimes more than once; these amount to slightly less than a third of those that survive,14 and more than for any Middle English work with the possible exception of the Wycliffe Bible. Not all the transactions involving the ultimate disposition of these manuscripts were commercial: a number did end up being donated to institutions, but some of these have an antecedent commercial history in the twentieth century.15 The majority of the Brut manuscripts that changed hands in this period were sold at auction, many of them by Sotheby’s, though the London firm of Bernard Quaritch was also active, particularly in the early part of the century. Various factors affected these transactions; chief of these was the sheer number of copies available at particular times. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the gradual emergence of manuscripts from the enormous private collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps, who died in 1872 and whose manuscripts were still being dispersed in the first decade of the twenty-first century. At least nine of the manuscripts of the Brut sold by the early part of the twentieth century were from his collection.16 The emergence of so many copies on to the market in a relatively short time was also swelled, albeit to a lesser degree, by the subsequent circulation of multiple copies dispersed at other sales in this period, such as the three formerly in the Appendix collection of the earl of Ashburnham, sold at Sotheby’s in 1899.17 My calculation of numbers does not take account of the occasional partial dismemberment of manuscripts for further circulation, as happened with the Chapel Hill Heyneman manuscript. 15 Those copies donated to institutions in the twentieth century include: University of Leicester Library, MS 47; Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MSS Peniarth 343A, Peniarth 396D, Peniarth 397C, Peniarth 398D (all deposited in 1904) and Brogyntyn 8 (deposited in 1934); Queen’s University, Belfast, MS Brett 3/12B (bequeathed in 1924); University of Sydney Library, MS Nicholson 13 (presented in 1924); Corio, Geelong Church of England Grammar School, Victoria, Australia (presented in 1938); Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Richardson 35 (bequeathed in 1951); Princeton University Library, MSS Garrett 150 and Taylor Medieval 3. 16 Phillipps manuscripts 191 (now New York, Columbia University Library, MS Plimpton 261), 2307 (now New York, Columbia University Library, MS Plimpton 262), 2706 (now University of Chicago Library, MS 254), 3784 (now Washington, Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.b.106), 8856 (now Denys Spittle), 8857 (now San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MS HM 113), 8858 (now San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MS HM 136), 9486 (now University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 105), 9613 (now Washington, Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.a.198). 17 Lot 57, University of Leicester Library, MS 47 (olim Ashburnham Appendix CVIII); lot 58, Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.11.11 (olim Ashburnham Appendix CIX); lot 59, Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 587 (olim Ashburnham Appendix CX). 14



Bruts for Sale

221

The George Dunne sale, a decade or so later, included four copies.18 And in subsequent years, some other collections released more than one copy on to the market: for example, two were sold in the First Portion of the Aldenham sale at Sotheby’s in March 1937,19 three more were in the Clumber sale in 1938,20 and the Tollemache auction sales in the 1960s and early 1970s added another two.21 The commercial implications of the emergence of so many fresh copies on the market over a short period were to provide a glut that inevitably depressed prices, particularly in the earlier twentieth century. For example, in June 1908 the John Rylands University Library in Manchester bought four Brut manuscripts, three of them (MSS Eng. 102, Eng. 103, Eng. 104) from the dealers J. &. J. Leighton, for prices that ranged from £36 (for MS Eng. 103), to £22/10 (for MS Eng. 102), to £21 (for MS Eng. 105), to £16/4 (Eng. 104). Five years later, in February 1913, the same library bought another two at the George Dunn sale at Sotheby’s at even lower prices, for £5/5 (MS Eng. 206) and £6/15 (MS Eng. 207).22 These prices indicate clearly how the abundant supply of such manuscripts affected the market. Sales a little later further confirm this tendency. In 1916, Quaritch’s Catalogue 344 included no fewer than six Brut manuscripts, the largest number ever assembled for sale at a single moment, ranging in price from £12/10 to £80.23 Several of these Bruts had already been around for some time; one, no. 5, for at least twenty years.24 And some of these were to enter the market again over time, but with an equal lack of commercial impact. The cheapest in this Catalogue, no. 9, on offer for £12/10, exemplifies the failure of Brut manuscripts to gain in value even over a substantial interval in time. This copy was sold again at Sotheby’s, on 15 June 1959, for £300 to Maggs, who later reacquired it at Sotheby’s, on 12 December 1966, for £320. It is now Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS IV. 461. The most expensive in the 1916 Catalogue, no. 4, was for sale for £80; thirty years later it was resold, admittedly just after the Second World War, for These were sold lots 440–443 in his sale on 11–13 February 1913. The last of these (lot 443), is now Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.11.11 (see n. 17); the other two (lots 440–441) are now Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MSS Eng. 206 and Eng. 207; the other (lot 442) is now Princeton University Library, MS Garrett 150. 19 These were lots 107, sold for £36 to Ellis (untraced), and 108, sold to Goldschmidt for £26 and now in Cleveland Public Library. 20 Two of these are now in the Takamiya collection in Tokyo (currently on deposit at the Beinecke Library, New Haven), his MSS 18, 29; the third is in the Phyllis Gordan collection in New York. 21 These are: (i) Sotheby’s, 14 June 1965, lot 18; £720 to Maggs; now Free Library of Philadelphia, MS Lewis 238; (ii) Sotheby’s, 8 July 1970, lot 66; now Tokyo, Takamiya Collection MS 18. 22 N. R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries III: Lampeter–Oxford (Oxford, 1983), pp. 421–3, gives the invoiced (rather than auction) prices for these manuscripts as £9 and ten guineas respectively. 23 These were nos. 4 (£80), 5 (£60), 6 (£42), 7 (£40), 8 (£18), 9 (£12/10). 24 It seems to have first appeared in Quaritch, Catalogue 164 (1896), no. 31; it is now University of Chicago Library, MS 254. 18

222

A. S. G. Edwards

just over double: £165. It is now Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois Library, MS 116. In both cases the commercial rate of return over decades is exiguous. It might seem possible to point to special factors in relation to some of these transactions, notably two World Wars, which would generally have a negative effect on prices. But it seems questionable whether such factors had any particular impact. The inclusion of six copies of the Brut in Quaritch’s 1916 catalogue suggests the desire to clear a glut that in any circumstances would produce poor rates of return. Over the next thirty or so years all the evidence of the sale of Brut manuscripts serves to confirm the conclusion that forms my general argument: Bruts have been bargains from a buyer’s perspective, from a vendor’s, a drag on the market. Only late in the twentieth century were they to start to achieve significant prices. Before this they could be a dubious asset in a dealer’s inventory. A striking post-First World War demonstration of this tendency is the fate of what is now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lyell 34. This manuscript was sold at Sotheby’s in November 1926 to the London dealers Maggs for £196. It is a substantial manuscript of 214 leaves, well-decorated and annotated by the sixteenth-century antiquary, John Stow. But its charms did not readily commend themselves to a purchaser. Maggs put it into various catalogues starting with no. 500 in 1928, for £450; it appeared last in their Catalogue 687 in 1940 when its price had been reduced to £250. It was not bought by James Lyell until December 1942, some sixteen years after its original purchase by Maggs; one suspects that it was probably sold at a further discount on its original asking price. Allowing for inflation over the period of its time in stock, it cannot have made a profit. Another transaction, this time in the 1930s, provides a further indication of the Brut’s lack of commercial appeal. On 18 April 1932 Sotheby’s sold a copy, on vellum containing seventy-three historiated initials. That this was one of the very rare elaborately illustrated copies did not mean that it fared any better than other copies. It was bought by the London autograph dealer, Winifred Myers, for an extraordinarily modest £60. Myers catalogued it in March 1933 for £140. It was purchased by an American collector, Julius Wangenheim (1866–1942), and passed from his hands into those of his grandson, Robert G. Heyneman, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where the bulk of the manuscript remains.25 Both Maggs and Myers were trying to sell their Bruts at the height of the Depression. Myers seems clearly to have sought to turn a quick, and in the straitened times, highly valuable profit on a copy that ought to have been worth a lot more. Maggs was not so pragmatic and their final sale price, whatever it was, would have been eroded by inflation. Even the most notable of booksellers, E. P. Goldschmidt, did not find it as easy to sell a copy quickly during this period. He bought a Brut at the Aldenham sale at Sotheby’s in March 1937 for £26 and offered it in various catalogues up to 1943 (at $180) before finally selling it to Cleveland Public Library; the final selling price cannot be recovered but is unlikely to have exceeded the initial asking price. Even 25

Several leaves were removed, in the course of the twentieth century; see further Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts, II, 225.



Bruts for Sale

223

though the manuscript was carefully described and contained other Middle English texts, most notably the Siege of Jerusalem, it clearly lacked ready appeal. In 1937, the year that Goldschmidt bought his Brut, two others were sold at Sotheby’s, for £19 and £36 respectively.26 Prices were now lower in real terms than they were when Quaritch sold their copies in 1916. The sale of further copies of the Brut in the immediate post-Second World War years confirms this tendency for prices to remain low, as we have already seen with the sale of the University of Illinois manuscript. The E. H. W. Meyerstein copy was sold at Sotheby’s in December 1951 for £270 to Quaritch, who catalogued it for £400 in 1953; it next appears in the possession of the Seven Gables Bookshop in New York, from where it was bought by the American collector, Robert H. Taylor; it is now Princeton University Library, MS Taylor Medieval 3. In 1961 Quaritch bought another manuscript of the Brut for £400 for Lincoln College, Oxford, which is now MS Lat. 151. These transactions all took place when American universities were still hoovering up medieval manuscripts from British libraries, when the University of Texas, a library that does not, incidentally, own a Brut, had come to symbolize the raw bibliophilic acquisitiveness of the New World. Even at a time when demand for medieval manuscripts was high and markets buoyant, the Brut did not perform: it remained a drag on the market.27 My comments run the risk of oversimplification. Depressed prices were not just a factor affecting Brut manuscript sales in the first sixty or seventy years of the twentieth century, but are a reflection of prices for Middle English manuscripts more generally. The largest single post-war sale of such manuscripts was at Sotheby’s, on 15–16 October 1945, when eighteen such manuscripts were dispersed in the sixth portion of the Harmsworth Sale. Only one of these manuscripts, a Wycliffe Bible, made more than £300. Historically, even the most important of such manuscripts have not performed as well as might have been supposed in the twentieth century. For example, in 1961, the year before Quaritch bought a Brut for £400 for Lincoln College, the American dealer Laurence Witten bought a manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales at Sotheby’s for £12,000. While proportionately this seems a substantial price difference, it may not seem a very high price for a work of foundational literary significance, a manuscript of which, moreover, had not been offered for sale for over twenty years.28 Clearly, the Brut was not seen to hold similar importance in English literary history. It was only in the late 1970s that the tide began to turn, as increasing rarity began to provide its own upward pressure on prices. Indeed, from this period fewer than ten manuscripts of the Brut have come on the market, with a steadily incremental The former is now Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois Library, MS 82; the latter is untraced. 27 It might seem that Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, fMS Eng 938, which was bought for $3,000 in 1958, is an exception to this pattern. But the chief interest of the manuscript lies in its unique translation of Nicholas Trevet’s Anglo-Norman chronicle. 28 On the sale of Chaucer manuscripts, see my article ‘What’s It Worth?’ 26

224

A. S. G. Edwards

increase in price. For example, in December 1977 Sotheby’s sold a copy for what was then a record price of £10,000; it is now in the Takamiya collection in Tokyo, his MS 29. In 1938, in the Clumber sale, it had made £30. In the following year Quaritch bought, also at Sotheby’s, the copy that is now Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 21608D for £9,000; this is a paper manuscript that the firm had bought once before twenty years earlier, in 1959; then they had paid £190. Times were changing, a fact clearly demonstrated, when, in 1983, the New York dealer, Hans Kraus, bought a copy of it in the Bute sale at Sotheby’s for £12,100. When he catalogued it five years later, in 1988, he offered it for $53,000; it is now Berkeley, University of California, Bancroft Library, MS 152. A mark-up of close to a hundred per cent within five years of purchase is a pleasing return on investment. Several copies, complete or fragmentary, have come on the market since the Bute sale. Some have been sold by private transaction, as with the former BradferLawrence copy bought by Toshiyuki Takamiya in 1981; it is now Tokyo, Takamiya Collection, MS 67. The last complete copy to be sold was the Foyle copy, sold at Christie’s in 2000 for a new record price of £75,000 to Sam Fogg, apparently for a private collector. The manuscript was an unprepossessing one and the buyer seems to have found little pleasure in it. It was resold at Sotheby’s four years later but it failed to find a buyer in the room, possibly because of a high reserve. It was bought post-sale by Les Enluminures, who sold it to Dartmouth College in 2006 for $135,000. When William Foyle had bought the copy in January 1944 he paid £76. This transaction shows clearly how things have changed since the beginning of the twentieth century, from a time when Bruts barely reached double figures when offered for sale to a point when they are able to command substantial prices. In part this change is a consequence of new kinds of academic chic. Middle English, in its material forms, is now a subject of serious scholarly study. Dartmouth, for example, held a three-day conference in 2011 to celebrate the acquisition of its copy. And to fashion must be added rarity in considering changes in price. The Brut is no longer a commonly available text, and the scarcity of copies is always likely to be the decisive factor that drives up prices. Since there are now so few Bruts available for purchase, what might the future hold? What prices might the few still in private hands command? And will Geelong Grammar School in Australia ever discover what happened to the copy given to it in 1938 but missing since the 1970s, the only copy not currently accounted for? And, if they did find it, would they sell it? Are there new commercial heights yet to be scaled?

appendix

Manuscripts of the Middle English Prose Brut sold or otherwise disposed of during the twentieth century

This list aims to record all manuscripts sold or donated in the twentieth century, with their current locations and (as appropriate) antecedent commercial histories during this period. Details of these histories are preceded by references to modern descriptions. The following abbreviations are used: de Ricci & Wilson: S. de Ricci & W. J. Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, 3 vols. (New York, 1935–40). de Ricci, Supplement: C. U. Faye & W. H. Bond, Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New York, 1962). Dutschke: C. W. Dutschke, Guide to Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Huntington Library, 2 vols. (San Marino, 1989). Ker: N. R. Ker, et al., Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, 5 vols. (Oxford, 1969–2004). Shailor: B. A. Shailor, Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare Book Room and Manuscript Library Yale University. II. MSS 25I–500 (Binghamton NY, 1987). Sinclair: K. V. Sinclair, Descriptive Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in Australia (Sydney, 1969). Skemer: D. C. Skemer, Medieval & Renaissance Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library, 2 vols. (Princeton NJ, 2013). Voigts: L. E. Voigts, ‘A Handlist of Middle English in Harvard Manuscripts’, Harvard Library Bulletin 33 (1985), 5–96.

United Kingdom Aberystwyth National Library of Wales 21608D: Sotheby’s, 15 June 1959, lot 201 (£190; Quaritch); Sotheby’s, 11 July 1978, lot 27 (£9,000; Quaritch). The following manuscripts were deposited in the National Library of Wales in 1906: Peniarth 343A 225

226 Appendix Peniarth 396D Peniarth 397C Peniarth 398D The following manuscript was deposited in the National Library of Wales in 1934: Brogyntyn 8 Belfast Queen’s University Library Brett 3/12B: Ryan Perry, ‘A Fragment of the Middle English Prose Brut in the Special Collections Dept., Queen’s University, Belfast’, Notes & Queries n.s. 56 (2009), 189–90; bequeathed in 1924. Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum (exhibited 2007) Denys Spittle (olim Phillipps 8856): J. Marrow, S. Panyatova, K. Sutton, C. van Ruymbecke, ed., Private Pleasures, Illuminated Manuscripts from Persia to Paris: The Collection of Denys Spittle (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 50–1; Sotheby’s, 10 June 1896, lot 617 (£20; Quaritch); Thomas Edward Watson and by descent to Denys Spittle (1920–2005). Trinity College O.11.11: Ker II, 261–2 (olim Ashburnham App. CIX); Sotheby’s, 1 May, 1899, lot 58 (£5/10; Leighton); George Dunn; his sale, Sotheby’s 11 February 1913, lot 443 (£3; P. M. Barnard). Edinburgh National Library of Scotland 6128 Glasgow Glasgow University Library Gen. 1671: bought from the estate of John Edwards (d. 1919) in December 1940. Leicester Leicester University Library 47: Ker, III, 99 (olim Ashburnham CVIII); given to the University as part of the Robjohns Bequest in 1922; previously Catalogue of a Portion of the Collection of Manuscripts Known as the Appendix Made by the Late Earl of Ashburnham, Sotheby’s, 1 May 1899, lot 57. Manchester John Rylands University Library

Appendix 227 Eng. 102: Ker, III, 416–17 (£22/10; J. & J. Leighton; 18 June 1908). Eng. 103: Ker, III, 417 (£36; J. & J. Leighton; 18 June 1908). Eng. 104: Ker, III, 417–18 (£16/4; J. & J. Leighton; 18 June 1908). Eng. 105: Ker, III, 418 (olim Phillipps 9486); Sotheby’s, 15 June 1908, lot 361 (£21; Bull & Avranche). Eng. 206: Ker, III, 421–2 (olim George Dunn); Sotheby’s, 2 February 1913, lot 440 (£5/5; P. M. Barnard). Eng. 207: Ker, III, 422–3 (olim George Dunn); Sotheby’s, 2 February 1913, lot 441 (£6/15; P. M. Barnard). Oxford Bodleian Library Lyell 34: A. C. de la Mare, Catalogue of the Collection of Medieval Manuscripts Bequeathed to the Bodleian Library Oxford by James P. R. Lyell (Oxford, 1971), pp. 85–7; Sotheby’s, 15 November 1926, lot 169 (£196; Maggs); Maggs Catalogue 527 (1929), no. 398, and various later Maggs Catalogues until 687, no. 175 (£250). Lincoln College Lat. 151: Ker, III, 642; Sotheby’s, Important Western and Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, 11 December 1961, lot 159 (£400; Quaritch).

Europe Belgium Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale IV.461: Quaritch, Catalogue 344 (1916), no. 9 (£12/10); Sotheby’s, 15 June 1959, lot 183 (£300; Maggs); Sotheby’s, 12 December 1966, lot 183 (£320; Maggs). Switzerland Cologny-Geneva, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana Cod. Bodmer 43: C. de Hamel, ‘Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts from the Library of Sir Sydney Cockerell (1867–1962)’, British Library Journal 13 (1987), 207, no. 106 (olim Sydney Cockerell); Sotheby’s, 3 April 1957, lot 13 (£300; Eisemann).

USA California Berkeley, University of California, Bancroft Library 152 (olim Bute 47): sold Sotheby’s, 13 June 1983, lot 12 (£12,100; H. P. Kraus); Kraus, Catalogue 180 (December 1988), no. 44 ($53,000). San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library HM 113: Dutschke, I, 149–50 (olim Phillipps 8857); bought in 1923 from A. S. W. Rosenbach, who had purchased twenty Middle English manuscripts en bloc from the Phillipps collection; for details of this transaction, see L. A. Morris,

228 Appendix Rosenbach Abroad: In Pursuit of Books in Private Collections (Philadelphia, 1988), especially pp. 38–9. HM 131: Dutschke, I, 174–5 (olim Herschel V. Jones); sold Anderson Galleries (New York), 2 December 1918, lot 242, to G. D. Smith for Huntington ($1,600); sold earlier, Sotheby’s, 21 April 1902, lot 500; property of Henry White (£28; Maggs) and again, Sotheby’s, 17 July 1913, lot 963 (£10; Joyes). In the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch in the nineteenth century. HM 133: Dutschke, I, 177–8; Anderson Galleries (New York), 25 November 1919, lot 65, to G. D. Smith for Huntington. HM 136: Dutschke, I, 181–3 (olim Phillipps 8858); purchased as part of the same transaction as HM 113. Connecticut New Haven, Beinecke Library 323: Shailor, II, 135–6; Quaritch, Catalogue 303 (1911), no. 881; Quaritch, Catalogue 344 (1916), no. 6 (£42); Herschel V. Jones (1861–1928), his sale, Anderson Galleries (New York), 23 January 1923, lot 125. 494: Shailor, II, 478–80; purchased from H. P. Kraus in 1970. Illinois Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois Library 82: de Ricci, Supplement, p. 171, no. 82; sold Sotheby’s, 26 April 1937, lot 250 (£19; Maxwell); bought from C. A. Stonehill in 1947. 116: sold Sotheby’s, 3 December 1908, lot 216; Quaritch, Catalogue 344 (1916), no. 4 (£80); sold Sotheby’s, 15 October 1945, lot 1951 (£165; Halliday). Chicago, University of Chicago Library 253: de Ricci & Wilson, I, 579; Quaritch Catalogue 303 (1911), no 882 again Quaritch Catalogue 344 (1916), no. 8 (£18). 254: de Ricci & Wilson, I, 579; Sotheby’s, 10 June 1896, lot 282 (olim Phillipps 2706), (£39; Quaritch); Quaritch Catalogue 314 (1916), no. 5 (£60). Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst College Library Rauner 003183: E. J. Bryan, ‘Rauner Codex MS 003183: The Beeleigh Abbey Brut at Dartmouth’, Journal of the Early Book Society 12 (2009), 207–43; (olim Foyle); bought Sotheby’s, 24 January 1944, lot 126 by ‘Davis’ for William Foyle for £76; sold Christie’s, 11 July, 2000, lot 75 (£75,000; Sam Fogg); sold Sotheby’s, 24 June 2004, lot 56 (unsold); subsequently acquired by Les Enluminures and sold to Dartmouth for $123,000. Cambridge, Harvard University, Houghton Library Eng. 587: Voigts, 22–4 (olim Ashburnham CX); F. S. Ellis, Catalogue 183 (c. 1919?), no. 47 (£75).

Appendix 229 Eng.750: Voigts, 27–9 (olim Wrest Park 18); sold Sotheby’s, 19–22 June 1922, lot 581 (£48; Ellis). Eng. 938: described in Voigts, 39–43; C. M. Rose, ‘The Provenance of the Trevet Chronicle (fMS 938)’, Harvard Library Bulletin n.s. 3 (1992–93), 38–55; sold Sotheby’s, 19–21 June, 1922, lot 633 (£9/5; Ellis); bought privately by Quaritch in 1930; Quaritch, Catalogue 520 (1936), no. 783 (£250); Quaritch, Catalogue No. 594 (1941), no. 37 (£250); sold in 1946 to Dudley Colman; then to Stonehill; sold by him to Harvard for $3,000 in 1954. Richardson 35: Voigts, 60–2; bequeathed by William King Richardson in 1951. Michigan Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Hatcher Library 225: de Ricci, Supplement, p. 289; in Library by 1945 and possibly earlier. New Jersey Princeton University Library Garrett 150: Skemer, I, 348–50; sold Sotheby’s, 28 July 1905, lot 243 (£39; Leighton); sold Sotheby’s, 11 February 1913, lot 442 (£7/15; Leighton); sold, as Leighton’s property, Sotheby’s, 7 November 1921, lot 4122 (£22; desk). Taylor Medieval 3: Skemer, I, 407–10 (olim Wrest Park 5); sold Sotheby’s 21 June, 1922, lot 581 (£48; Ellis); subsequently in the collection of E. H. W. Meyerstein; his sale, Sotheby’s, 15–17 December 1952, lot 466 (£270; Quaritch); Quaritch, Catalogue 713 (1953), no. 467 (£400); subsequently owned by Seven Gables Bookshop, New York, from whom it was bought by Robert H. Taylor in 1955. New York New York City, Columbia University Library Plimpton 261: de Ricci & Wilson, II, 1800 (olim Phillipps 191); Sotheby’s, 27 April 1903, lot 550 (£11/10; Leighton) to Quaritch; Quaritch, Catalogue 240 (May 1905), no. 227 (£40); Quaritch, Catalogue 344 (1916), no. 7 (£40). Plimpton 262: de Ricci & Wilson, II, 1801 (olim Phillipps 2307). New York City, Phyllis Gordan 63: de Ricci, Supplement, p. 400 (olim Clumber); sold Sotheby’s, 15 February 1938, lot 1140 (£70; Maggs). North Carolina Chapel Hill Robert G. Heyneman Collection: de Ricci & Wilson, II, 2243–4; K. Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts 1390–1490, 2 vols. (London, 1996), II, 223–5; Sotheby’s, 18–19 April 1932, lot 8, the property of Major E. W. Macdonald (£60; Myers); Myers, Catalogue 291 (March, 1933), no. 299 (£140); bought by Julius Wangenheim.

230 Appendix Ohio Cleveland Public Library W q091.92-C468: P. Moe, ed., The ME Prose Translation of Roger d’Argenteuil’s Bible en François From Cleveland Public Library, MS W q 091.92 – C 468, Middle English Texts 6 (Heidelberg, 1977), pp. 9–13; Sotheby’s, 22 March 1937, lot 108 (to E. P. Goldschmidt for £26); Goldschmidt, Catalogue 44 [July 1937], no. 4 (£48), Goldschmidt, Catalogue 59 [c. 1940], no. 49 ($180); Goldschmidt, Catalogue 72 [1943], no. 64 (for $180); acquired for the John Glover Collection, Cleveland Public Library in 1944. Pennsylvania Bethlehem, Lehigh University Three fragments from the Heyneman manuscript: see above, North Carolina, Chapel Hill; described in J. C. Hirsh, Medieval Manuscripts Lehigh University: Western Manuscripts of the Twelfth through the Sixteenth Centuries (Bethlehem PA, 1970), no. 7, pp. 11–14. Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia Lewis 238 (olim Tollemache): sold Sotheby’s, 14 June 1965, lot 18 (£720; Maggs). University Park, Pennsylvania State University Library PS. V-3A: Sotheby’s, 8 December 1981, lot 81 (£7,000). Virginia Charlottesville, University of Virginia Library 38-173 Washington DC Folger Shakespeare Library V.a.198 (olim Phillipps 9613): purchased as part of collection. V.b.106 (olim Phillipps 3784): purchased as part of collection.

Elsewhere Australia Corio, Victoria Geelong Church of England Grammar School: now missing; Sinclair, pp. 306–7. Sydney University Library Nicholson 13: Sinclair, pp. 193–5. Japan Tokyo Takamiya Collection (currently on deposit at Beinecke Library, New Haven, CT)

Appendix 231 Takamiya 12 (olim Clumber): Sotheby’s, 14 February 1938, lot 1142 (£18; I. K. Fletcher). Takamiya 18 (olim Tollemache): Sotheby’s, 8 July 1970, lot 66 (£500; John Fleming). Takamiya 29 (olim Clumber): Sotheby’s, 14 February 1938, lot 1141 (£30; Edwards); Sotheby’s, 14 December 1977, lot 50 (£10,000; Quaritch). Takamiya 67 (olim Bradfer-Lawrence): purchased from Quaritch in 1981. Takamiya s.n.: J. O’Rourke and T. Takamiya, ‘Two Hitherto Unrecorded Fragments of the Brut’, Notes & Queries n.s. 52 (2005), 161–2; a fragment of two leaves on vellum purchased from Quaritch c. 2002.1

Untraced Quaritch, Catalogue 211 (1902), no. 125 (£45): vellum, ff. 148(?), copied by ‘Ricardus Bede’. Sotheby’s, 21–22 October 1920, lot 30: Brut, vellum, 404pp. + Siege of Rouen (£75; Bridge). Sotheby’s, 22 March, 1937, lot 107 (olim Aldenham): vellum, ff. 103 (£36 to Ellis).

At the time of writing all the Takamiya manuscripts were on long-term deposit at the Beinecke Library in New Haven.

1

Index of Manuscripts Cited

Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 21608D: 96 n. 7, 97, n. 12, 224–5 Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Brogyntyn 8: 220 n. 15, 226 Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 343A: 220 n. 15, 225 Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 396D: 220 n. 15, 226 Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 397C: 98–103, 220 n. 15, 226 Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 398D: 220 n. 15, 226 Amherst College Library, MS Rauner 003183: 228 Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Hatcher Library, MS 225: 229 Berkeley, University of California, Bancroft Library, MS 152: 224, 227 Bethlehem, Lehigh University, MS fragments: 230 Bethlehem, Lehigh University, MS roll (Roger of St Albans): 116–17 n. 46 Bristol, Bristol Record Office, MS 04720: 169 Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS IV.461: 221, 227 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 98 (roll): 105 n. 1, 115 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 98A (roll): 105 n. 1, 116 n. 46, 117 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 116 (roll): 105, n. 1, 113 n. 35 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 174: 167, 170–9 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 182: 167, 168 n. 7, 170–9 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 (roll): 105–24 comparison with the English Prose Brut chronicle ​108–11, 116–24 contents ​105 Cambridge, Peterhouse, MS 190: 50–1, 52 n. 7, 62 contents ​51 n. 5

233

Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.4.32: 152 owners ​158–9 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.9.1: 219 n. 10 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O.11.11: 220 n. 17, 221 n. 18, 226 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.5.43 (II): 142 n. 51 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.7.2: 96 Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.14.7: 15–29 contents ​17, 19–20 date ​19 history of ​19–21 poem about Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester ​17 Robert Talbot, marginal note by ​20 Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 7489: 168 n. 8 Cambridge, University Library, MS Ee.4.32: 139 n. 51 Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff.1.6: 219 Cambridge, University Library, MS Hh.6.9: 219 n. 10 Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 530: 139, 142 n. 51 Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 587: 220 n. 17, 228 Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 750: 152, 229 Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Eng. 938: 30 n. 1, 32 n. 9, 34–47, 223 n. 27, 229 Cambridge MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS Richardson 35: 220 n. 15, 229 Chapel Hill, Heyneman MS: 220 n. 14, 222, 229–30 Charlottesville, University of Virginia Library, MS 38–173: 230

234

Index of Manuscripts Cited

Chicago, Newberry Library, MS Inc. 9827: 143 n. 55 Cleveland Public Library MS W q091.92C468: 221 n. 19, 222, 230 Cologny-Geneva, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, MS Cod. Bodmer 43: 227 Corio, Geelong Church of England Grammar School, MS: 220 n. 15, 224, 230 Dartmouth Brut (formerly Foyle, Beeleigh Abbey, Maldon, Suffolk): 11, 75 n. 2, 107 n. 6, 224, 228 Denys Spittle MS: 219 n. 9, 220 n. 16, 226 Dominic Winter Auctions, genealogical roll sold by: 116 n. 46, 123 n. 73 Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS 6128: 226 Free Library of Philadelphia, MS Lewis 238: 221 n. 21, 230 Glasgow, University Library, MS Hunterian 83 (formerly T.3.21): 51–2, 53–6, 143–4 contents ​51 n. 7 history ​51 n. 6, 54, 62 Glasgow, University Library, MS Gen. 1671: 11–12, 226 Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS 2o Cod. hist. 740 Cim: 200–17 description of the manuscript ​203 Hague, The, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS A 75 2/2 (roll): 78 n. 10, 79 n. 15, 85–7, 91–3, 115 n. 41 Leicester University Library, MS 47: 220 n. 15, n. 17, 226 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Vossius MS Gallici F.6: 152 genealogical trees ​162–3 marginal notations ​161 owners ​160–1 London, British Library, MS Add. 24342 (roll): 117 n. 47 London, British Library, MS Add. 27342 (roll): 115–16 London, British Library, MS Add. 63009 (roll): 116 n. 46, 123 n. 73 London, British Library, MS Arundel 56: 32 n. 9, 34 n. 17, 43 n. 46, 152 owners ​159 readers’ marks ​162 London, British Library, MS Cotton Galba E. VII: 96–8, 142 n. 51 London, British Library, MS Cotton Galba E. VIII: 219 n. 10

London, British Library, MS Cotton Nero C.III: 168 London, British Library, MS Harley 24: 165–80 previous readers ​165 n. 1, 167 underlinings ​166, 170–80 London, British Library, MS Harley 53: 174 n. 18 London, British Library, MS Harley 266: 165 n. 1, 219 n. 10 London, British Library, MS Harley 543: 64–71 London, British Library, MS Harley 753: 219 n. 10 London, British Library, MS Harley 1568: 165 n. 1 London, British Library, MS Harley 2256: 219 n. 10 London, British Library, MS Harley 3730: 52 n. 7, 62 London, British Library, MS Harley 4690: 196 n. 84, 197 London, British Library, MS Harley 7333: 219 London, British Library, MS Royal 14 B. VI (roll): 85 n. 40 London, College of Arms, MS 20/6 (roll): 117 n. 46, n. 47 London, College of Arms, MS 20/8 (roll): 106 n. 4, 112 London, College of Arms, MS 20/27 (roll): 116 n. 46 London, College of Arms, MS Arundel 22: 169 n. 11 London, College of Arms, MS Arundel 58: 196 London, College of Arms, MS Num. Sch. 3/4 (roll): 114 n. 37 London, College of Arms, MS Vincent 435: 64–71 London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 6: 174 n. 18 London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 84: 1, 8, 10, 12 London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 306: 112 n. 30 London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 331: 219 n. 10 London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 491: 142 n. 51 London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 1106: 84 n. 35 New Haven, Yale University, MS Beinecke 323: 228



Index of Manuscripts Cited

New York, Columbia University, MS Plimpton 261: 220 n. 16, 229 New York, Columbia University, MS Plimpton 262: 220 n. 16, 229 New York, Phyllis Gordan, MS 63: 221 n. 20, 229 Norfolk, Holkham Hall, MS 670: 219 n. 10 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 793: 195 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole Rolls 38: 85 n. 40, 87, n. 42 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 754: 98–102 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley Rolls 2: 115–6 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley Rolls 6: 163 n. 53 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley Rolls 7: 117 n. 49 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 185: 201 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 119: 152 owners ​158 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Fairfax 10: 151, 155 n. 24, 159, 162 contents and owners ​157–8 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 50: 197 n. 89 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS James 19: 152 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud misc. 733: 196 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lyell 34: 96 n. 7, 97 n. 11, 222, 227 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.171: 174 n. 18 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.178: 34 n. 17, 151 genealogical trees ​162–3 owners ​158 readers’ marks ​162 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.190: 194–5, 197 owners ​195, 201 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.205: 195–6 Oxford, Lincoln College, MS Lat. 151: 223, 227 Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 45: 151–2 organizational structure and index ​161–3 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds français 9687: 34 n. 17, 151 genealogical trees ​162–3 in Bruges library ​155, 160 owners ​154–6

235

produced for Mary of Woodstock ​154 source for Constance tale in Chaucer and Gower ​155–6 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Nouvelles Acquisitions françaises 4267 N: 202 Princeton University Library, MS Garrett 150: 220 n. 15, 221 n. 18, 229 Princeton University Library, MS Taylor Medieval 3: 220 n. 15, 223, 229 Queen’s University, Belfast, MS Brett 3/12B: 220 n. 15, 226 San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MS HM 113: 218 n. 4, 220 n. 16, 227 San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MS HM 131: 218, 228 San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MS HM 133: 218 n. 4, 228 San Marino, Henry E. Huntington Library, MS HM 136: 218 n. 4, 220 n. 16, 228 Stockholm, Kungliga Bibliotek, MS D.1311a: 152 owners ​160 Sydney University Library, MS Nicholson 13: 220 n. 15, 230 Tokyo, Takamiya MS s.n. : 231 Tokyo, Takamiya MS 12: 231 Tokyo, Takamiya MS 18: 221 n. 20, n. 21, 231 Tokyo, Takamiya MS 29: 221 n. 20, 224, 231 Tokyo, Takamiya MS 67: 224, 231 University of Chicago Library, MS 224: 163 n. 53 University of Chicago Library, MS 253: 228 University of Chicago Library, MS 254: 219 n. 10, 220 n. 16, 221 n. 24, 228 University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 102: 221, 227 University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 103: 221, 227 University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 104: 221, 227 University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 105: 220 n. 16, 221, 227 University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 206: 221, 227 University of Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Eng. 207: 221, 227 University of Manchester, John Rylands

236

Index of Manuscripts Cited

University Library, MS French 64: 15 n. 5, 18–19, 22 University Park, Pennsylvania State University Library, MS PS. V–3A: 230 Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois Library, MS 82: 223 n. 26, 228 Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois Library, MS 116: 219 n. 10, 222–3, 228 Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, MS Barb. lat. 03528: 18–19, 22

Washington, Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.a.198: 220 n. 16, 230 Washington, Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.b.106: 220 n. 16, 230 Wiltshire, Longleat House MS 55 (Liber Rubeus Bathoniae, the Red Book of Bath): 75–93 contents ​75–7 date and provenance ​76 Wiltshire, Longleat House MS 183A: 75 Woburn Abbey MS HMC 181: 165 n. 1

General Index

Battle of Maldon ​183 Æthelred, king of England ​21 Becket, Thomas ​17, 41 Albina Legend ​78–9, 89, 96, 106–8, 117, 132 Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ​ n. 21, 143, 183 n. 11, 199 n. 2, 202–3, 206, 18, 35 n. 21, 151 210 n. 36 Bedford, William, inherited Hearne’s books ​ Alfred, king of England ​111, 119 n. 54 193, 195 founder of Oxford University (legend) ​ Benedictine Order ​16–29, 96 184 Bever, John, chronicle of ​182 Anglo-Norman chronicles Boccaccio ​200 Brut chronicles in prose ​87–9 Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy ​33 in general ​201–2 Books: medieval book culture ​200–1, 216 ownership and readership ​150, 153, bequests ​200 159–60 book history (history of the book) ​1–2, 104 patronage ​153 n. 15 collaborative book production ​200, popularity ​16, 149–50 206–7 prose chronicles ​16–17, 29 The Book of Hunting, Hawking, and the universal chronicles ​150, 160 n. 43 Blazing of Arms ​127 n. 7 Anglo-Norman Prose Brut ​see Prose Brut Bower, Walter, Scotichronicon ​183 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ​91–2, 101 Brute Abregé ​149 Anglo-Saxon Conquest (also the ‘passage of Brutus (legendary founder and conqueror dominion’), representations of ​24–5, of Britain) ​17, 26, 29, 78–81, 85, 87, 89, 110–11, 120–3 91–2, 96–7, 105, 107–8, 118–9, 123, 125, Anonimalle Chronicle ​149, 163 n. 53, 202 127, 138, 143–4, 202–3, 210 n. 36 Anonymous Kings of England (Middle Cadwallader (legendary British king) ​25 n. English poem) ​114 n. 37 59, 78, n. 12, 106, n. 4, 117 n. 46, 120–23, Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle ​ 125 78 n. 10, 112, 203 episode in Prose Brut chronicles ​106 n. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury ​170–2 4, 121–3 and Henry I (also the Investiture Cantilupe, Nicholas, Historiola ​182 Controversy) ​177–9 Castleford’s Chronicle ​199–217 Arthur (legendary British king) ​83, 182 contents ​202 absence of Arthurian material in Le date ​202 Livere de Reis de Engleterre ​25–6 description ​200, 203 account in MS Longleat 55 ​77–8 foundation legends (Albina and Brutus) ​ and Cambridge ​182 202 and Glastonbury ​83, 191 owners comparison with King Edgar ​106 n. 4, 111 Christian Johann Sullow ​213–17 in Castleford’s Chronicle ​202 Matthew Wentworth ​207–08, 216 in royal genealogies ​108, 115 n. 41, 119 Nathaniel Johnston ​208–12, 216, 217 Arthur (Middle English poem) ​77–8 Richard Frank ​212 Ashmole, Elias, collector of manuscripts ​195 provenance ​199, 203 A tous nobles (genealogical history of kings scribes ​204–7 of France) ​115, 116 n. 43 title and authorship ​203–4 Autograph albums ​213–16 University Library Göttingen ​213 Bale, John, antiquarian ​168, 169 n. 11

237

238

General Index

Caxton, William ​126–38, 142–4, 169, 194–8 The Chronicles of England ​8, 126–35, 137–8, 142–4, 169 Morte D’Arthur ​137 n. 42 Polychronicon ​8, 127, 135 n. 35, 137 n. 42, 143, 198 Chaucer, Geoffrey ​1, 10, 151, 163, 182, 198, 199, 216 and language change ​189–90 The Canterbury Tales ​182 n. 4 Canterbury Tales manuscripts ​200, 218 (Ellesmere), 223 House of Fame ​185 Man of Law’s Tale ​32, 150 n. 4, 155 (see also ‘Nicholas Trevet’, ‘Les Cronicles’, ‘Constance story’) occupatio ​189 Troilus manuscript ​200 used a copy of Trevet’s Les Cronicles ​151, 155–6 Wife of Bath ​47 Chester Plays, manuscript ​218 Chrétien de Troyes, Lancelot ​200 Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire ​ 64–71 characterization ​64, 66–8, 69–70 comparison with the Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England ​ 65–71 date ​64, 65 manuscript ​64 use of newsletters ​65 Comestor, Petrus, Historia Scholastica ​33, 35 n. 21, 42 n. 45, 151 Compileison ​19, 28 Constance story ​see ‘Nicholas Trevet’, ‘Les Cronicles’ Constantine (Roman Emperor) ​37, 133, 142 Constantine (legendary British king) ​78, 108, 110, 116 n. 44, 131, 133–4, 142 Croyland Chronicle, continuation of ​194 Curan (legendary king) ​106, 108–10, 116 n. 44, 117; see also ‘Havelock legend’ Cursor Mundi ​213 n. 42 Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia ​27 n. 69, 99–100 Edgar, king of England ​37 comparison with King Arthur ​106 n. 4, 111 Edward I, king of England ​16 n. 10, 20, 28–9, 32, 44, 45, 85, 89, 111 n. 23, 115 n. 41, 149, 151, 153–4, 162, 163 n. 53, 183 n. 12, 191, 193, 196

Edward II, king of England ​34, 45, 149, 152 n. 11, 202, 210 n. 36 deposition of ​45 Edward III, king of England ​32, 34, 149, 162–3, 165 n. 1, 167 n. 7 Edward IV, king of England ​3, 52–3, 55, 58, 113–4, 116, 117 n. 46, 125 n. 2, 126–7, 130–1, 136, 193–94 campaigns of 1470, 1471 ​64–70 Edward the Confessor, king of England ​37, 99–100, 103, 212 n. 38 conflict of 1051–52 ​99 Edward the Elder (Anglo-Saxon king) ​111 Elizabeth I, queen of England ​165, 168, 178–9 Reformist Church of ​166 Elizabeth of Schönau, Revelations ​97 Ethelbert (Anglo-Saxon king) ​25–6, 110, 111 n. 21 Eulogium Historiarum ​with Latin continuation in MS Cotton Galba E. VII ​96 as source for Prose Brut PV–1437/1461 ​ 96–7, 98 n. 15 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica ​35, 151 Fasciculus Temporum (see ‘Quentell, Heinrich’ and ‘Rolevinck, Werner’) Cologne edition of ​135 ‘Florence’ of Worcester ​18 Chronicon ex Chronicis or The Chronicle of John of Worcester ​23, 99 French, (negative) influence on English language ​190 Fruit of Times ​see ‘Schoolmaster’ Frulovisi, Titus Livius, biography of Henry V ​182 Gaimar, Geffrei, Estoire des Engleis ​90–9; 109–111, 116, 149 n. 1 Genealogical chronicles ​78 n. 10, 85 n. 40, 87 n. 42; 193–4 genealogical narratives ​45, 49 the Prose Brut ​119–22, 124, 137 Genealogical rolls and history writing ​118–19 Anglo-Norman ​79 n. 15, 85–7, 92–3, 111 n. 23 n. 25, 115–16 as a genre ​106, 117, 124 fifteenth-century (England) ​113–19, 105, 122–4, 163 n. 53 in general ​105, 107, 114 Roger of St Albans genealogy, comparison with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 ​116–7, 118 n. 51, 122–3



General Index

Genealogical trees in Anglo-Norman chronicles ​163 n. 53 in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 ​108, 114 n. 39, 117–9, 121–4 in the Fasciculus Temporum ​129–30, 137 in London, College of Arms, MS 20/6 ​117 n. 46 in London, College of Arms, MS 20/8 ​ 106 n. 4 in London, College of Arms, MS Num. Sch. 3/4 ​114 n. 37 in Longleat MS 55 ​77 in Roger of St Albans genealogies ​117 in Trevet ​44 n. 48, 162–3 Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae ​18, 24–5, 35 n. 21, 38, 78 n. 12, 80 n. 17, 89–92, 105, 108, 116, 120–1, 123, 125–6, 151–2, 169, 188, 202 Geoffrey of Wroxham ​19, 21 Godstow Chronicle ​183 God-witness testimony, wonders as ​38–9 The Golden Legend ​35 n. 21, 36 n. 23 Gower, John ​163, 200 as reader of Trevet ​151, 155–6 Constance story ​155–6, 163 Grantz Geanz, Des ​see ‘Albina legend’ Gray, Thomas, Sir, Scalacronica ​87, 152–3, 160 n. 43, 168 n. 7 Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks ​36 n. 23, 43 n. 46 Hardyng, John, Chronicle ​53, 83, 88 n. 48, 110–11, 132 n. 21. Harold Godwinson ​105, 108, 113, 124 oath to William, duke of Normandy ​ 99–100, 120 Havelok the Dane (Middle English romance) ​ 109 Havelok legend ​200 comparison with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 ​108–10 in Anglo-Norman genealogical rolls ​116 n. 44 in the Prose Brut ​106 Headless man (barghest) ​55, 60–3 Hearne, Thomas ​181–98 adversaries: Alexander Pope ​185–6; Edmund Curll ​186; John Bilstone ​186 career ​182, 184 editions ​182–3 Hearne’s diaries ​192–3 Hearne’s Fragment ​193–4 Hearne’s Prose Brut manuscripts ​195–6 importance of Robert Mannyng ​190, 191–2

239

importance of Robert of Gloucester ​ 190–1 intended edition of Prose Brut ​194–5 (interest in) biographies ​182, 190 life ​181–82 patrons ​184 purpose ​185, 188 religious and political views ​184 Hengist (Germanic leader) ​24–5, 81, 119 n. 54, 123, 133 Henry I, king of England ​23 n. 44, 166–7, 173–9 Henry II, king of England ​17, 39–41, 106 n. 4, 175 and historiography ​149 Henry III, king of England ​79, 89, 93 n. 55, 111 n. 23, 115 n. 41, 117 n. 46, 153 n. 26 Henry IV, king of England ​53, 96–8, 101 Henry V, king of England ​96, 102–3, 130–1, 160 n. 53, 163 n. 53, 165 n. 1, 167 n. 7, 178–9 lives of ​182–3, 195 n. 78 Henry VI, king of England ​50, 52–3, 55–6, 58–60, 70, 113 n. 37, 114 n. 37, 116, 130–1, 134, 193 Henry VII, king of England ​193 Henry VIII, king of England ​83, 114, 166, 179 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum ​ 18, 26 n. 64, 91–3, 101, 110–11, 116, 151 Heralds ​157 n. 30, 159 Higden, Ranulph, Polychronicon ​43 n. 46, 101, 127 n. 8, 132, 198; see also ‘Trevisa, John, Polychronicon’ Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England ​58, 64–71, 194 characterization ​64, 68–9, 70–1 comparison with the Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire ​65–71 date ​64–5 manuscript ​64 Short Version of the Arrival ​65, 69 use of newsletters ​65 Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicle ​213 n. 42 Hoveden, Roger, chronicler ​182 Howard, Thomas, author of Hearne’s Fragment ​194 Investiture Controversy ​see ‘Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury’ Jacobus de Voragine ​35 n. 21, 36 n. 23 Jewish population of Norwich, massacre of, 1190 ​23 Jewish Witness, doctrine of ​23

240

General Index

John, king of England ​30 John of Fordun, Chronica gentis Scotorum ​ 182–4 John of Glastonbury, Chronicle ​82–4, 182–3 John of Gloucester, and the chronicle attributed to him ​79 n. 15, 80 n. 16, 82 n. 24, 88 n. 48, 110–11, 181, 186–94, 196, 202 discussed by Hearne ​190–1; 194–6 Johnson, Samuel ​189–90 language change ​189 Johnston, Nathaniel, antiquarian, collector of manuscripts ​208–12, 216–17 Joscelyn, John ​168, 169 n. 11 ‘List of Writers on Medieval English History’ ​ 168 Joseph of Arimathea ​82–4, 97 Just cause of war (Tria requirimenta ad iustum bellum) ​77 Lancaster, Roger ​54, 62 Langland, William ​182, 198 Language change ​189, 198 Lai d’Haveloc ​109 Laӡamon, Brut ​88 n. 48, 169, 200, 201 n. 6 Leland, John ​83–4 Itinerary and De rebus Britannicis collectanea ​182 Liber Pontificalis ​151 Liber Ultimus ​8 as part of William Caxton’s Polychronicon ​ 127 n. 8, 143 Lignee des Bretons et des Engleis ​149 Le Livere de Reis de Brittanie ​15 n. 4, 17–18, 87 n. 42, 149 Le Livere de Reis de Engleterre ​15–29, 87 n. 42, 149 as a source for the Scottish Chronicle ​16, 29 as source for the Prose Brut ​16 Benedictine Order ​16–29 ‘Brutus’ prologue ​18, 20 manuscripts of ​18 Robert Talbot, marginal note in Trinity College, MS R.14.7 ​20 sources of ​17–18 sources ​18, 24 summary of contents ​17 ‘Wassail episode’ ​24 London annals ​151 Court of Arches ​207 n. 26, 212 vernacular chronicle ​102 Lydgate, John, Verses on the Kings of England ​113–14 n. 37

Mandeville, John, rector of Burnham Thorpe (translator of an AngloNorman Prose Brut) ​110 n. 20, 196 n. 84, 197 n. 88 Mandeville, John, Travels ​200 Mannyng, Robert, and his chronicle ​79 n. 15, 80 n. 16, 88 n. 48, 181, 183, 186–8, 203 discussed by Hearne ​190–6 Markham, George, The English Housewife ​7 Marvels ​20, 30–48, 49–50, 56, 134 Mary of Woodstock, dedicatee of Trevet’s Les Cronicles ​32–3, 45, 151, 153–5 Matilda, Empress ​17, 178–9 Matilda (Maud), source of confusion ​173–6 Matthew of Westminster, Flores Historiarum ​ 84 Melkinus, prophet ​82–4 Merlin ​26 n. 58, 43 prophecies, in Castleford’s Chronicle ​202 Les Merveilies de Engletere ​20 Metcalf, Thomas ​54, 62 Middelton, Ambrose, author of an English Prose Brut roll ​105, 107–19, 121–4 biography of ​112–13 Miracle, definition of ​36–7 Niger, Ralph, Chronica ​18, 26–7 Norman Conquest, representations of ​26–8, 99–102, 119–22 Norwich Cathedral, conflict at, 1272 ​21 Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica ​ 151 Origin of placenames Totness ​80–1 Dover ​81 Ovid ​200 Page, John, Siege of Rouen ​219, 231 Parker, Matthew, archbishop of Canterbury ​ 165–80 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum ​ 35 n. 21, 43 n. 46 Petit Brut ​78 n. 10, 149 Petrarch ​200 Pierre de Langtoft, Chronique ​20, 28–9, 153 n. 25, 163 n. 53, 183, 186–8, 196, 201 Polistorie ​152 Polychronicon ​see ‘William Caxton’, ‘Ranulph Higden’ and ‘John Trevisa’ Pope, Alexander, adversary of Thomas Hearne ​185–6 language change ​189 Portent, definition of ​36 see also ‘Wonder’ Prick of Conscience, number of manuscripts ​ 201



General Index

Prose Brut as a genre ​106, 117, 124 as distinctive from other chronicles of England’s kings ​107–111 definition ​87–9, 93 passage of dominion (Anglo-Saxon conquest; loss of British dominion) ​ 120–3 sequence of Anglo-Saxon kings (as different from contemporary chronicles) ​106, 110–11 — Anglo-Norman ​9, 16, 35 n. 21, 87–9, 95, 99, 107, 109–12, 116, 121, 160 n. 43, 168, 202, 125 comparison with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 ​109–10, 116 n. 44 Long Version ​88–9 n. 52, 95, 106 n. 3, 108, 110 n. 17 Oldest Version ​77, 78 n. 12, 79, 89–93, 106 n. 3, 109, 120–2, 149, 169 n. 12, 174 Short Version ​108 source for the Middle English Arthur ​77 — Latin ​183 comparison with Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut and Gaimar’s Estoire ​89–91 in Longleat MS 55 ​75–93 — Middle English ​8–9, 49, 75, 79, 107, 168, 125, 129–30, 133, 137–9, 142–4, 146, 168–70 as product of cultural history ​104 Cadwallader episode in ​see ‘Cadwallader (legendary British king)’ development of the text ​94–5 edition planned by Hearne ​194–5 ‘Imagining History Project’ ​88 n. 47, 125 n. 2, 128–9, n. 13 manuscript owners ​195–6, 224, 231 manuscripts ​194–7, 201 number of manuscripts ​8, 201 — Abbreviated versions ​89, 95 ‘Abbreviated Version to 1419: Group A, Subgroup (a)’ ​52 n. 7 — Common Version ​89, 95–104, 106 n. 3, n. 4, 111, 121, 125 ‘Common Version to 1419’ ​51, 75 comparison with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 ​108–11, 116 n. 44, 118–24 comparison with royal genealogical rolls ​ 115–18, 122–3 contrast with Peculiar Versions ​98, 103–4 — Extended Versions ​89, 95, 111–12

241

comparison with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 174 and 182 ​170–79 ‘EV–1419:A’ (Harley 24) ​165–80 purpose ​166, 177 underlinings ​166–80 — Peculiar Versions, in general ​94–5, 106, 111, 124 ‘PV–1419’ (continuation to Middle English translation of Nicholas Trevet’s chronicle) ​31, 45–47 contents of ​34 ‘PV–1419:F’ (Richard Fox’s Chronicle) ​165 n. 1 ‘PV–1422:B’ ​95, 98 date ​98 function of ​100 interpolations on Edward the Confessor, Godwine and William the Conqueror ​99–101 manuscripts ​98 motives for ​102–4 on Henry V ​102–3 sources for interpolations ​99, 101, 102 ‘PV–1437/1461’ ​95–6, 98 n. 15 added theological dimension ​97 Eulogium Historiarum as source for ​ 96–7 interpolations ​96–8 manuscripts ​95 n. 7 sources of ​96–8 ‘Very Short Texts Based on the Brut’ (PV category) ​106, 112 — Printed editions, in general ​119, 126, 128, 146 see also ‘Caxton, William, The Chronicles of England’ — Sale of manuscripts ​218–24 factors affecting sale ​220–4 number sold in the twentieth century ​220 Pynson, Richard, The New Cronycles of England and of Fraunce ​194 Quentell, Heinrich, Fasiculus Temporum ​ 135–6, 139, 142 Ralph Diceto, Abbreviationes Chronicorum ​ 18, 21, 23–4, 27 Rawlinson, Richard, patron of Hearne 184, 196 obtained Hearne’s books ​193, 195 Ricart, Robert, Maires Register (or Kalendar of Bristol) ​169 Rich, Edmund, St, Mirour de seynte eglise ​ 19, 28 Richard I, king of England ​39–40, 131

242

General Index

The Crusade and Death of Richard I, in MSS Trinity College O.4.32 and Fairfax 10 ​ 157, 159 Richard II, king of England ​47, 49, 78, 96 n. 7, 97–8, 101, 103, 131, 163 criticism in Prose Brut ​97–8 portents marking his birth ​47 reburial ​102 Richard III, king of England ​53, 59, 193 Richard Coeur de Lion (Middle English romance) ​197 Robert of Avesbury ​182 Roger of St Albans, friar ​116 Roger of St Albans genealogies, comparison with Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 546 ​116–18, 122–3 Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum ​ 151–2 Rolevinck, Werner, Fasiculus Temporum ​127, 129–39 Roper, William, life of Thomas More ​182 Rowenne (also Rowena), daughter of Hengist ​24–5 ‘Schoolmaster’ (also ‘Schoolmaster printer’ and ‘anonymous printer of St Albans’) ​ 126–7 The Chronicles of England ​127–39, 142–5 Fruit of Times ​127–9, 131–36, 138–9, 142–4 use of woodcuts ​138–9 Scottish Chronicle ​29 Sebert, Anglo-Saxon king ​210–12 Short English Chronicle ​see Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle The Siege of Jerusalem ​223 Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, source of Trevet, Les Cronicles ​35 n. 21, 36, 38, 40–3 Sprott, Thomas, and chronicles attirbuted to him ​182–3, 193 St Albans, anonymous printer of ​see ‘Schoolmaster’ Stephen, king of England ​17 Stow, John ​20, 65, 222 Sullow, Christian Johann, owner of Castleford’s Chronicle ​213–17 Swift, Jonathan, language change ​189 Thomas Aquinas, miracle ​44–5 The Three Kings of Cologne (Middle English romance) ​139 The Three Magi ​139, 142 Tower of Babel (woodcuts) ​138–9, 143 Treaty of Bretigny ​152 Trevet, Nicholas, life and works ​151

Latin works ​31–3 — Les Cronicles ​31–48, 149–64 Constance story ​32, 33–5, 37, 153, 155–6, 163 contents and sources ​35 and n. 21, 151 continental audience ​160–1 dedicatee, princess Mary of Woodstock ​ 32–3, 44 n. 48, 45, 151 focus on biblical history ​152–3 inclusion of historical documents ​162–3 intended audience and purpose ​32–3 justification for ‘sensational matter’ ​33 lost manuscript Y ​156 manuscripts (and families of) ​151–2 marginal notations ​161 non-royal owners ​153–9, 163–4 owned or read by heralds ​157 n. 30, 157, 159 prologue ​154 n. 17 royal owners ​153–6, 163 — Middle English translation ​30–48 audience ​34 contents ​34 different from Prose Brut ​42, 45–7 linked with Prose Brut ​31, 34 manuscript ​30–1, 34, 223 Trevisa, John, Polichronicon ​8, 51–2, 127, 139, 142, 144, 201 see also ‘Higden, Ranulph, Polychronicon’ Vernacularization of historical writing ​ 103–4 Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Historiale ​151 Vortigern (legendary British king) ​24–5, 81, 119 n. 54 Wace, Roman de Brut ​80 n. 16, n. 17, 85 n. 38, 89–90, 149 n. 1, 160 n. 43, 169, 188 Walsingham, Thomas, Chronica Majora, portents ​49 Walter of Coventry ​24–6 ‘Warkworth’s’ Chronicle ​49–63 bleeding corpse of Henry VI ​58–60 date ​53 different types of portents ​55–6 headless man (barghest) ​55, 60–63 manuscripts of ​50–1 natural phenomena ​56–8 possible authors ​51 n. 6, 54 relation to murder of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, duke of York ​ 59–60 Warkworth, John ​51 n. 6, 54 Westminster Abbey, violation of sanctuary of 1378 ​97



General Index

reburial of Richard II ​102 William of Malmesbury, De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae (and lives of saints) ​35 n. 21, 83, 195 n. 78 Gesta Regum Anglorum ​35, 36 n. 23, 38, 40, 41 n. 42, 43, 91–3, 101, 110, 116, 151 William of Newburgh ​182 History of English Affairs, on wonders ​ 39–40 William the Conqueror ​25–8, 99–102, 113 Wonderful Parliament of 1386 ​98 Wonder, categories of: portent, saintly

243

miracle, inexplicable event/marvel ​ 35–8 as God-witness testimony ​38–9 in relation to marvels, miracles, wonders and tokens ​49–50 Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester ​37 poem about ​17 Wycliffite Bible ​220, 223 number of manuscripts ​201 Wynkyn de Worde ​127 n. 7, 138 n. 45 Yogh, cause of confusion ​176 York gild of book makers ​200

Tabula in Memoriam

Joanna Bellis Elizabeth J. Bryan Caroline D. Eckhardt A. S. G. Edwards Dan Embree Helen Fulton Sharon K. Goetz Kate Harris Dominique Hoche Alexander L. Kaufman Edward Donald Kennedy Erik Kooper Françoise Le Saux Julia Marvin William Marx William G. Marx Daniel McCann

Krista A. Murchison Heather Pagan Helen Phillips Matthew J. Phillpott Raluca L. Radulescu Jaclyn Rajsic Christine M. Rose Joel T. Rosenthal Lisa M. Ruch Martha Dana Rust John Scattergood John J. Thompson Livia Visser-Fuchs Michelle R. Warren Neil Weijer R. F. Yeager

245

Manuscript Culture in the British Isles

I

Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts in England, ed. Margaret Connolly and Linne R. Mooney (2008)

II

Women and Writing, c.1340–c.1650: The Domestication of Print Culture, ed. Anne Lawrence-Mathers and Phillipa Hardman (2010)

III The Wollaton Medieval Manuscripts: Texts, Owners and Readers, ed. Ralph Hanna and Thorlac Turville-Petre (2010) IV Scribes and the City: London Guildhall Clerks and the Dissemination of Middle English Literature, 1375–1425, Linne R. Mooney and Estelle Stubbs (2013) V

Robert Thornton and his Books: Essays on the Lincoln and London Thornton Manuscripts, ed. Susanna Fein and Michael Johnston (2014)

VI Middle English Texts in Transition: A Festschrift dedicated to Toshiyuki Takamiya on his 70th birthday, ed. Simon Horobin and Linne R. Mooney (2014) VII The Auchinleck Manuscript: New Perspectives, ed. Susanna Fein (2016)

246

Prose Brut PPC 18/12/2015 08:42 Page 1

he histories of chronicles composed in England during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and onwards, with a focus on texts belonging to or engaging with the Prose Brut tradition, are the focus of this volume. The contributors examine the composition, dissemination and reception of historical texts written in Anglo-Norman, Latin and English, including the Prose Brut chronicle (c.1300 and later), Castleford’s Chronicle (c.1327), and Nicholas Trevet’s Les Cronicles (c.1334), looking at questions of the processes of writing, rewriting, printing and editing history. They cross traditional boundaries of subject and period, taking multi-disciplinary approaches to their studies in order to underscore the (shifting) historical, social and political contexts in which medieval English chronicles were used and read from the fourteenth century through to the present day. As such, the volume honours the pioneering work of the late Professor Lister M. Matheson, whose research in this area demonstrated that a full understanding of medieval historical literature demands attention to both the content of the works in question and to the material circumstances of producing those works.

T

coNTRibUToRs: Elizabeth J. bryan, caroline D. Eckhardt, A.s.G. Edwards, Dan Embree, Alexander L. kaufman, Edward Donald kennedy, Erik kooper, Julia Marvin, William Marx, krista A. Murchison, Heather Pagan, Jaclyn Rajsic, christine M. Rose, Neil Weijer. Front cover: The marriage of king Diocletian’s thirty-three daughters, Albina and her sisters. London, Lambeth Palace Library, Ms 84, fol. 1r. by permission of the Lambeth Palace Library.

RAJSIC, KOOPER, HOCHE (eds)

JAcLyN RAJsic is a Lecturer in Medieval Literature in the school of English and Drama at Queen Mary University of London; ERik kooPER taught old and Middle English at Utrecht University until his retirement in 2007; DoMiNiQUE HocHE is an Associate Professor at West Liberty University in West Virginia.

THE PROSE BRUT AND OTHER LATE MEDIEVAL CHRONICLES

MANUscRiPT cULTURE iN THE bRiTisH isLEs

THE PROSE BRUT AND OTHER LATE MEDIEVAL CHRONICLES

yoRk MEDiEVAL PREss

an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF (GB) and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester, NY 14620–2731 (US)

yoRk MEDiEVAL PREss

Books Have Their Histories: Essays in Honour of Lister M. Matheson Edited by JACLYN RAJSIC, ERIK KOOPER AND DOMINIQUE HOCHE