The "Prophetia Merlini" of Geoffrey of Monmouth: a fifteenth-century English commentary 9780910956741, 9780910956734

Citation preview

SPECULUM ANNIVERSARY MONOGRAPHS EIGHT

The Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth A Fifteenth-Century English Commentary

SEZ SPECULUM ANNIVERSARY MONOGRAPHS

Gg = apy EIGHT

BOARD OF EDITORS

Robert Brentano Howard Kaminsky John Leyerle Fred C. Robinson Luke Wenger

The Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth A Fifteenth-Century English Commentary

edited with an introduction by

Caroline D. Eckhardt

THE MEDIEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA 1982

The publication of this book was made possible by funds contributed to the Medieval Academy during the Semi-Centennial Fund Drive. Copyright © 1982. Cambridge, Massachusetts By the Medieval Academy of America LCC: 80-82034 ISBN: 910956-73-1 (cloth); 910956-74-X (paper) Printed in the United States of America

In memoriam N.

BLANK PAGE

Contents

List of Illustrations 1x Acknowledgments xl THE PROPHETIA MERLINI THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY 17

TEXT 67 Bibliography 87 Index of Manuscripts and Medieval

Prophetia Merlini Commentaries 97 Index of Proper Names 101

Vil

BLANK PAGE

Illustrations

1. Merlin prophesying before Vortigern. British Library, MS Cotton Julius A.V, fol. 53v. Facing page 1.

2. The English commentary on the Prophetia Merlini. The Pennsylvania State University, Pattee Library, MS PS. V-3, fol. lr. Facing page 67.

1X

BLANK PAGE

Acknowledgments

A number of colleagues, at my own institution and elsewhere, have generously contributed their time and advice to facilitate various aspects of this study. I should like to thank the Reverend Romano Stephen Almagno, of the Collegio S. Bonaventura, Vatican City, for providing a transcript of the Vatican Library’s unpublished catalogue entry on Codex Reginensis Latinus 807; Dr. Molly Barrett and Miss Ruth Vyse of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, for their aid in locating a signature of the schoolmaster Thomas Widdowes; Charles J. Ermatinger, Vatican Microfilm Librarian of Saint Louis University, for examining microfilm materials in the Vatican Film Library of Saint Louis; Julian G. Plante, Director of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library of Saint John’s University, for responding to inquiries and informing me of a Merlin reference in a Leiden catalogue; Jeremy Griffiths, of St. John’s College, Oxford, for commenting upon Oxford manuscripts and for alerting me to another manuscript probably copied by the same scribe as that edited here; Brynley F. Roberts, of the University College of Swansea, for describing a Welsh Prophetia Merlini commentary in three Peniarth manuscripts; Clifford Maggs, of Maggs Brothers, London, for meeting with me to discuss the provenance of MS PS. V-3; Rossell Hope Robbins, of the State University of New York at Albany, for sharing his information on unpublished Merlin prophecies; Joseph Gildea, O.S.A., of Villanova University, for writing to let me Know of a Merlin reference in L’hystore Job; Angus McIntosh, of the University of Edinburgh, for commenting upon the dialect of the English commentary; and my colleagues at the Pennsylvania State University—Gerard J. Brault, Charles W. Mann, Ronald E. Buckalew, Noelene P. Martin, Samuel P. Bayard, James Ross Sweeney, and Stanley Weintraub—for help of various kinds. For permission to consult and cite from manuscripts, I am pleased

to acknowledge the generosity of the Pennsylvania State University Libraries; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the Parochial Church Council of Woodstock; the Keeper of the Archives, University of Oxford; the British Library; the Board of Trinity College, Dublin; the Dean Xl

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

and Chapter of Lincoln; the Collegio S. Bonaventura, Rome; the University of Pennsylvania; and Columbia University. For permission to reproduce photographs of manuscripts, I am indebted to the British Library and the Pennsylvania State University Libraries. I should also like to acknowledge gratefully the special contributions of Professor Robert B. Eckhardt, who set aside his own work to assist in palaeographical research in Oxford and London during the summer of 1979; and of Malcolm B. Parkes, of Keble College, Oxford, who gave much palaeographical advice and indeed guided this study throughout.

The final version of this work benefited from the generosity of Siegfried Wenzel, of the University of Pennsylvania, who checked my transcription of the manuscript and made many helpful suggestions to improve it; from the advice of Robert Brentano, who offered guidance on several matters of historical interpretation; and from the expertise of Luke Wenger and Jacqueline Tarrant, whose editorial hands are deft and sure. I wish also to thank the Medieval Academy’s readers for the considerable help I received from their reports. Financial support has been provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities, through a faculty seminar on palaeography at the University of Pennsylvania in 1976; and by the Pennsylvania State University, through its Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies, which granted me a fellowship for the summer of 1979, and its Liberal Arts Faculty Fund for Research, which made several grants for prepa-

ration of the typescript (by Mae Smith) and for related expenses of research. University Park, Pennsylvania December, 1980

Xil

BLANK PAGE

rf | | ;Pa \i . ad. ws 3 4. A ; :

,haif rs b Ae . : |F/)i

é~3f

BEL iy = ¥) ; fie ol ; + @’ °” a ‘ iF i+ rma \ %, 74

\' y_5 ' \ ¥ ee : : Oy > eke | y ae \ fae =

¥a3= )|

ve Pp NS ‘ .¥ . 3! eat 1g | o's i ya a ‘a

’ ~ vt we : “, | A . § eS ~ aa 4wy BO * Ae : |3 .|;‘.:

1SN\yan. ‘, =)©=2ioet4y

, | 7,

ie 7% ae di - \ Ls be Oe CA °Ge |

breegels Seder lonettr. 1. Merlin prophesying before Vortigern. British Library, MS Cotton Julius A.V, fol. S3v. By permission of the British Library.

The Prophetia Merlini Anglorum sempiterni eventus mirabilis spectator et relator, Merlinus —Suger, Vita Ludovici Grossi Regis, 16

Merlin... Li prophetes dist verité —Wace, Brut, lines 13285-87

Nearly at its center, the narrative of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae pauses to record the prophecies that the strange child Merlin utters before King Vortigern. This passage presents an extensive metaphorical vision of historical events to come: the conflict between the Britons and the Saxons, the arrival of the Normans, the eventual restoration of Celtic rule (the prophecy known as the Breton hope), and finally an apocalyptic close, indebted to Lucian, in which it is said that the planets will depart from their courses, the dust of the ancients will live again, and the winds will do battle among the stars.! From the Prophetia Merlini, as this section of Geoffrey’s Historia is usually called, derive many other texts. Some of them not only recount Merlin’s prophecies but also offer commentaries upon them. Before December of 1135, Ordericus Vitalis in Normandy was explaining that the ‘“‘leo justicie’” whom Merlin had foreseen was England’s Henry I.? 1. Acton Griscom, ed., The Historia regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth 7.3.4 (London, 1929), pp. 384-97. Although the exact date of the Historia—which evidently underwent revision, perhaps more than once—has been disputed, it was certainly completed within a year or two of 1135. On the debate over whether Geoffrey translated Merlin’s prophecies from older sources-or invented them himself, see J. S. P. Tatlock, The Legendary History of Britain (Berkeley, 1950), pp. 403-21. The primacy of a Celtic version is reasserted by L. Fleuriot, “Les fragments du texte brittonique de la ‘Prophetia Merlini,’” Etudes celtiques 14 (1974), 207-28. Valerie I. J. Flint’s argument for parody in the Historia (“The Historia regum Britanniae of

Geoffrey of Monmouth: Parody and Its Purpose. A Suggestion,” Speculum 54 [1979], 447-68) reminds us that the spirit in which a borrowing is used may be more revealing than the simple fact of indebtedness. 2. Historia ecclesiastica 12.47, ed. Auguste le Prévost, Société de |’ Histoire de France (Paris, 1852), 4:493. I cite from this edition since that of Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford Medieval Texts, 1969-) is not yet complete. Ordericus writes as if Henry I (d. 1 December 1135) were still alive. Lewis Thorpe, however, argues that the passage belongs to ca. 1137 (“Orderic Vitalis and the Prophetiae Merlini of Geoffrey of Monl

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

The work of interpretation, thus begun, continued throughout the me- | dieval centuries. In 1431, Joan of Arc reported to her inquisitors that certain people with the king had associated her with the puella (the “nucelle”) who was predicted to come ex nemore canuto; she herself, she said, put no faith in this prophecy.’ The innumerable medieval references to Merlin constitute only one manifestation of the intense general interest in prophecy. In the later medieval period in particular, prophecy was seen as a means of understanding the significance of past and present events. It was also seen as a valid means, in fact the only certain means, of attaining knowledge about the future. As R. W. Southern puts it, “Prophecy filled the worldpicture, past, present, and future; and it was the chief inspiration of all historical thinking.”* Le Prevost, summarizing the viewpoint of Ordericus Vitalis, remarks that through the Merlin prophecies “‘le passé, le présent et l’avenir de l’Angleterre se trouverent coordonnés,”* and among other writers their scope was not limited to England. Critical thinkers as well as the generally credulous accepted the validity of prophecy. Its systematic explication was a learned science. It now seems a curiosity that Newton, so well-known as an inaugurator of modern empirical science, composed a work entitled Observations upon the prophecies of Holy Writ particularly the prophecies of Danlel and the Apocalypse of St John (1733), but behind Newton lay many centuries during which prophecy was regarded as a reliable source of knowledge when properly understood—as was the empirical world itself. mouth,” Bulletin bibliographique de la Société internationale arthurienne 29 [1977], 201, n. 36). In either case, Geoffrey’s prophecies were very soon known and being interpreted. 3. The incident is discussed by Paul Zumthor, Merlin le prophéte (Lausanne, 1943), pp. 69-70. See the Procés de condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc, 1, ed. Pierre Tisset, Société de |’Histoire de France (Paris, 1960), p. 67: “Item ulterius dicit quod, quando ipsa venit versus regem suum, aliqui petebant sibi an in patria sua erat aliquod nemus quod vocaretur gallice /e Bois chesnu, quia erant prophecie dicentes quod circa illud nemus debebat venire quedam puella que faceret mirabilia. Sed dixit ipsa Iohanna quod in hoc non adhibuit fidem” (interrogation of 24 February 1431). The account is repeated on page 199 (27 March 1431), with the Latin “nemus canutum” being given there. The passage from the Historia is “ex urbe canuti nemoris eliminabitur puella” (7.4, p. 390). For the version of this prophecy then circulating in France, see Zumthor, p. 69. 4. “Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing: 3. History as Prophecy,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sth ser. 22 (1972), 160. See also Mar-

jorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism (Oxford, 1969), pp. viii, 505-8. 5. Historia ecclesiastica, 4:487. 2

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI THE MERLIN TRADITIONS

While Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae may have been conceived as much in the spirit of fiction as of fact, it was surely the most influential history book of the Middle Ages. As T. D. Kendrick once described its popularity: Within fifteen years of its publication not to have read it was a matter of reproach; it became a respected textbook of the Middle Ages; it was incorporated in chronicle after chronicle; it was turned into poetry; it swept away opposition with the ruthless force of a great epic; its precedents were quoted in Parliament; two kings of England cited it in support of their claim to dominion over Scotland; it was even used to justify the expenditure of the royal household; it became the subject of a noisy battle between modernist and medievalist scholars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; even in the eighteenth century there were antiquaries who believed it to be truthful history, and it is still the subject of study and argument.®

One of the main sources of the appeal of the Historia was that it synthesized many individual legends, bits of fact, and stray details into a coherent narrative of the ancient British past, something that had been utterly lacking. But another source of its appeal was that it offered some tremendously exciting sections along the way: the story of Brutus of Troy, founding a new Trojan kingdom in Britain, as Aeneas had done in Italy; the tale of Lear and his three daughters; the saga of King Arthur, presented as conqueror of much of the known world; and the prophecies of Merlin. Paul Zumthor, in fact, has suggested that the special interest of the Historia, “le message sensationnel...la nouveauté...ce qui y piquait avant tout |’ attention et éveillait l’intérét de l’esprit—c’était les prophéties.”’? This assessment may not be fully accurate, given the other extremely attractive materials in the Historia, but certainly the Prophetia Merlini was among the most successful parts of this most successful book. Three separate Merlin traditions originate with Geoffrey. The first and most direct of these traditions, the one on which this study focusses, derives from the transmission of the Prophetia Merlini itself. The prophecy section is to be found in all complete manuscripts of the Historia® and also in the printed versions, the earliest of which seems 6. T. D. Kendrick, British Antiquity (London, 1950), p. 7. The ultimate historicity of some of Geoffrey’s Arthurian material has recently been reasserted by Geoffrey Ashe, “‘A Certain Very Ancient Book’: Traces of an Arthurian Source in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History,” Speculum 56 (1981), 301-23. 7. Zumthor, Merlin le propheéte, p. 47. 8. A list of 185 Latin manuscripts of the Historia is given in Griscom’s edition, pp. 55180. See also Jacob Hammer, “Some Additional Manuscripts of Geoffrey of Mon3

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

to be the Britannie utriusque regum et principum origo et gesta insignia printed at Paris in 1508 and 1517.9 When Geoffrey’s Historia was absorbed into later chronicles, for example the Chronica majora of Matthew Paris, the prophecies were often incorporated too. They appear not only in Latin chronicles, but also in French (for example, in Waurin’s chronicle) and in the Welsh Brut chronicles, whose relationship to one another and to Geoffrey has yet to be made clear.!° Wherever Geoffrey’s Historia is—in toto, in adaptation, in translation—there the Merlin prophecies may well be too. One major exception is the English prose Brut chronicles, which derived indirectly from Geoffrey via a French Brut redaction that lacked the prophecies. The earliest known English prose translation of more than a few lines of Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini is presented in this volume. Complete English prose translations were apparently not made until the seventeenth century.!! In addition to circulating with the Historia and the later chronicles indebted to it, the Prophetia Merlini section circulated independently, perhaps even before the Historia itself was finished. Geoffrey’s prologue to Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, indicates that the prophecies were being sent to Alexander at once, as a separate pamphlet, without mouth’s Historia regum Britanniae,” Modern Language Quarterly 3 (1942), 235-42; Brut y Brenhinedd, ed. and trans. John Jay Parry (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), p. 1x; Historia regum Britanniae: A Variant Version Edited from Manuscripts, ed. Jacob Hammer (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 1-8; Daniel Huws and Brynley F. Roberts, “Another Manuscript of the Variant Version of the ‘Historia regum Britanniae,’”’ Bulletin bibliographique de la Société internationale arthurienne 25 (1973), 147-52; W. G. East, “Manuscripts of Geoffrey of Monmouth,” Notes and Queries, n.s. 22 (1975), 483-84. 9. In the copy in the Bodleian Library, which appears to be from the edition of 1508, the prophecies are on fols. 52r-57v. On the early printed editions see H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, |

(London, 1883), p. 221.

10. On the Welsh versions, see John J. Parry, “The Welsh Texts of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia,” Speculum 5 (1930), 424-31; Margaret Enid Griffiths, Early Vaticination in Welsh with English Parallels, ed. T. Gwynn Jones (Cardiff, 1937), pp. 57-67, 82-83, 195-97; Parry, Brut y Brenhinedd, pp. ix-xviii; Parry and Robert A. Caldwell, “Geoffrey of Monmouth,” in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis (Oxford, 1959), pp. 88-89; Brynley F. Roberts, “Copiau Cymraeg 0 Prophetiae Merlini,” National Library of Wales Journal 20 (1977-78), 14-39; Roberts, “Fersiwn Dingestow o Brut y Brenhinedd,” The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 27 (1976-78), 331-61. 11. Charles Bowie Millican, “The First English Translation of the Prophecies of Merlin,” Studies in Philology 28 (1931), 720-29; Caroline D. Eckhardt, “The First English Translations of the Prophetia Merlini,” The Library, 6th ser. 4 (1982), 2534; see also pp. 17-19 below. 4

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

waiting for completion of the whole work.!? Whether or not a separate pre-Historia edition did in fact exist, it is certain that shortly after the

completion of the Historia the prophecies were known as a distinct text: a version of the Prophetia Merlini without the Historia had been brought to Iceland by about 1200, to give a single example.!? Over sev-

enty manuscript copies of the Prophetia Merlini as a separate article } survive. /4

Furthermore, Geoffrey’s prophecies appear individually as scattered references in Latin and vernacular histories. Taken out of context, and

therefore freed from the chronological sequence that the Prophetia Merlini as a whole assigns to each prediction within it, the metaphorical

boars, wolves, lions, and other such figures could be handily applied in a great many situations, and were. Thus Suger gives a substantial extract in his Vita Ludovici Grossi Regis (ca. 1145).!5 The Draco Normannicus (ca. 1170) repeatedly cites Merlin’s prophecies of Norman affairs and points out their fulfillment.'!© Some two hundred years later, the Gesta Edwardi de Carnavon (a chronicle ending with 1377) draws upon a prophecy of Merlin in complaining about Edward I]; the Annales prioratus de Wigornia (also ending with 1377) refers toa prophecy of Merlin when reporting the death of King John.!’ Such examples could easily be multiplied. Allusions and borrowings also occur in other kinds of texts. In the twelfth century, John of Salisbury, writing to Thomas a Becket, invokes a prophecy of Merlin; in the thirteenth century, Thibaut de Champagne cites in a chanson Geoffrey’s battle of the two dragons; in the fourteenth century, Eustache Des12. Historia7.1, p. 383. The case for prior, separate origin of the Prophetia Merlini has been reasserted by Bernard Meehan, “Geoffrey of Monmouth, Prophecies of Merlin: New Manuscript Evidence,” The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28 (1978-80), 37-46. 13. H. C. Leach, “‘De libello Merlini,’’’ Modern Philology 8 (1910-11), 607-10. 14. I have compiled a list of seventy-nine Latin copies of the Prophetia Merlini, separate from the Historia, in libraries in the British Isles, France, Italy, Vatican City, the Netherlands, and the United States. Based primarily on published catalogues, this list is almost certainly incomplete, but nevertheless indicates the widespread independent circulation of Geoffrey’s Merlin prophecy. See Caroline D. Eckhardt, “The Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth: Latin Manuscript Copies,” Manuscripta 26 (1982), 167-76. 15. Vita 16, ed. Henri Waquet, Suger: Vie de Louis VI le Gros, Classiques de 1’ Histoire de France au Moyen Age 11 (Paris, 1964), pp. 98-104. 16. Draco 1.172, 233-34, 359, 395-96, 421-28, 1652-53, 2.116, ed. Richard Howlett, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 2, RS 82 (London, 1885).

17. Lats Keeler, Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Late Latin Chroniclers, 1300-1500 (Berkeley, 1946), pp. 63, 69. 5

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

champs echoes in several ballades Merlin’s prophecies of the destruction of England.'8 In the fifteenth century, Jean Molinet calls upon the “leo justicie” in his prosimetric Complainte de Gréce and claims that the lion is Philip the Good of Burgundy, making his remarkable “‘vow of the pheasant” to save Greece from the Turks.!9 Individual predictions from the Prophetia Merlini were sometimes repeated without reference either to Merlin or to Geoffrey, as in the case of Joan of Arc noted above. Their contents, particularly the animal images, eventually passed into the general body of medieval prophetic lore. In these three modes of transmission—as part of the Historia regum Britanniae, as a text independent of the Historia, and as individual predictions cited in other works—Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini achieved extremely wide circulation in the Middle Ages and afterwards. The tripartite development of this text I should like to call the Historia tradition, since, whatever the setting, it is Geoffrey’s Merlin prophecy

from the Historia, a limited and generally stable text, that is being transmitted. Whether within the Historia or not, the usual context of these prophecies is in historical writings, and their application, in the many instances where commentaries are supplied, is normally to historical events (although moral and allegorical overtones are certainly not excluded). There are two other medieval Merlin traditions that pertain less directly to Geoffrey’s text. One involves the collection or invention of further prophecies that were attributed to the Merlin figure whom the Historia had popularized. Geoffrey himself participated in this development, since he soon published a Vita Merlini, a poem in which some of the prophecies of the Historia appear in varied form and other ingredients are added.*° This expansion of the corpus of Merlin prophecies continued apace. By the process of centripetal force, as is common in medieval literature, a whole group of originally unrelated materials became attached to Merlin. Sometimes they share with the prophecies from the Historia the penchant for animal symbolism; sometimes they share nothing at all except the name of Merlin. They too are usually historical in their context, being applied to (and, one suspects, written 18. Cited by Zumthor, Merlin le prophéte, pp. 66-67, 85-86, 68-69. Zumthor’s chapter

, 2, pp. 49-114, collects a great many such allusions. 19. Complainte 3.140-60, ed. Noél Dupire, Les faictz et dictz de Jean Molinet, 3 vols., Société des Anciens Textes Francais (Paris, 1936), 1:22, 2:928-29. 20. Basil Clarke, ed., Life of Merlin. Vita Merlini (Cardiff, 1973); see also John Jay Parry’s edition in University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 10,3 (Urbana, IIl., 1925). Ward’s comments (Catalogue of Romances, 1:278-88) are still useful, as are those of Griffiths, Early Vaticination, pp. 67-79. 6

, THE PROPHETIA MERLINI post eventum in response to) historical events of various kinds and in various countries. In about 1276, a Venetian calling himself “Richard of Ireland” wrote in French a Prophecies de Merlin of several hundred pages, a work conceived in the tradition of Joachim da Fiore and inspired by hatred of Frederick II and intense Venetian patriotism.*! In England and France, one of the most widespread texts of the later period is the “Six Last Kings” prophecy, which was composed in the thirteenth century and inserted into the Brut as an utterance of Merlin before King Arthur.22 Thus the English Brut chronicles do include a prophecy of Merlin—but not Geoffrey’s. This whole development of further Merlin prophecies I should like to call the post-Historia tradition. The texts are highly variable and cannot be located (as the main body of prophecies of the Historia can) under any one or two or several “incipits.” At times they blend into the general literature of social comment and complaint, as in this stanza from a poem that refers to events in England in 1456: ffulfyllyd ys be profesy for ay Pat merlyn sayd & many on mo, 21. Zumthor, Merlin le prophéte, pp. 101-7, 261-72; Lucy Allen Paton, ed., Les propDhecies de Merlin, 2 vols. (New York, 1926-27).

22. On the dating see Rupert Taylor, The Political Prophecy in England (New York, 1911), p. 51. Taylor prints a Latin prose version (from British Library, MS Harley 6148) and a French prose version (from MS Harley 746), pp. 157-64. A Latin prose version occurs in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 623. An English prose version is included in The Brut, ed. Friedrich W. D. Brie, 1, EETS OS 131 (London, 1906), pp. 72-76. An English verse version is printed as an appendix in The Poems of Laurence Minot, ed. Joseph Hall, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1897), pp. 101-9. Another English verse version is found in Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MSS Peniarth 26, Peniarth 94, and Llanstephan 119 (Griffiths, Early Vaticination, p. 202). There is a Welsh version in MSS Peniarth 50 and 54 (Griffiths, p. 202). For further copies and editions see Ward, Catalogue of Romances, 1:299, 308, 309, 312, 322; Paul Meyer, “Les manuscrits francais de Cambridge,” Romania 15 (1886), 295; Thomas Duffus Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, 3, RS 26 (London, 1871), p. 199; Carleton Brown and Rossell Hope Robbins, The Index of Middle English Verse (New York, 1943), and Robbins and John L. Cutler, Supplement to the Index (Lexington, 1965), no. 1112; Robbins, “The Merlin Prophecies,” in. A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050-1500, ed. Albert E. Hartung, 5 (New Haven, 1975), pp. 1519, 1715. This prophecy enjoyed an active political use in the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV, particularly in the early years of Henry IV. Griffiths (p. 202) notes a version that would have been used shortly after 1399, since it claims that the Ass (Richard II) is alive and will return to oust the Mole (Henry IV). The “Six Last Kings’”’ is taken to be the prophecy referred to by Shakespeare, / Henry 4; see below, p. 29, n. 23. 7

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

Wysdam ys wel ny away, No man may knowe hys frend fro foo. Now gyllorys don gode men gye; Ry3t gos redles all behynde; Truthe ys turnyd to trechery; ffor now be bysom ledys pe blynde.”3

The third tradition belongs not to historiography or to political lit-

erature, but to medieval romance. In this context the character of Merlin, who appears only briefly in the Historia, is given full narrative development. The germ of the story is indeed in the Historia, where Merlin is said to be a child without a father, but in truth Geoffrey’s Merlin is a mere instrument, “n’est qu’une voix,” as Zumthor puts it.”

The creation of a detailed romance about Merlin’s life was left for other writers, particularly those in France, where the central part of the Arthurian story was provided with a set of surrounding and interwoven narratives. The Merlin of Robert de Boron (of the end of the twelfth century, or beginning of the thirteenth) was composed to fill a gap between the story of Joseph of Arimathea and the story of Perceval; Merlin here becomes the prophet of the Grail. Robert’s poem led to other versions, including some in English, such as the prose romance Merlin or the Early History of King Arthur (ca. 1450-60).* This is the traditional Merlin best known to modern audiences: Merlin the trickster and universal sage; Merlin the enchanter, enchanted at last by Vivian; the Merlin of Tennyson and, recently, of T. H. White. Since the development of Merlin as a personality in his own right, as a literary character, is in a spirit fundamentally different from that of the Historia and its descendants, I should like to call this body of literature the non-Historia tradition of Merlin. Its texts are to be found in the large corpus of medieval (and later) Arthurian romance. References that evidently pertain to this Merlin also occur in other works, such as 23. “The Bisson Leads the Blind,” lines 1-8, ed. Rossell Hope Robbins, Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries (New York, 1959), pp. 127-28. See Ward, Catalogue of Romances, 1:290-338, for a guide to certain post-Historia prophecies and related texts, such as the “Whole Prophecy of Scotland,” in which Merlin is at times cited. 24. Merlin le prophéte, p. 114. There is slightly more information about the experiences of Merlin in the Vita Merlini. Five manuscripts of the Historia contain an interpolated passage about Merlin’s parentage; see Hammer, “Some Additional Manu-

scripts,” pp. 239-40. 25. Ed. Henry B. Wheatley, 4 vols., EETS OS 10, 21, 36, 112 (London, 1865-99). The lytel treatyse of y® byrth & p[ro]phecye of Marlyn printed at London by Wynkyn de Worde in 1510 (S.T.C. 17841) is a verse redaction of this romance. 8

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

the Roman des sept sages de Rome, which mentions “Merlin qui sout doner respouns de totes les choses que lem lui demaundoit.”’”6

This varied growth of Merlin materials did not proceed without opposition. Beginning with the publication of the Historia, there were

sceptics to whom Merlin’s prophecies were mere guesses or fictions—or outright lies, as Geoffrey’s contemporary William of Newburgh accuses.?’ William’s rejection anticipates by some four centuries the proscription of the Prophetia Merlini by the Council of Trent” and the disdain that Shakespeare makes Hotspur express: {Glendower] angers me With telling me of the moldwarp and the ant Of the dreamer Merlin and his prophecies

. . . such a deal of skimble-skamble stuff. CU Henry 4 3.1.148-50, 154)

Yet Spenser includes a long prophecy of Merlin (bearing occasional resemblance to Geoffrey’s) in his Faerie Queene (3.3), and claims that “Merlin had in Magicke more insight / Then euer him before or after liuing wight” (3.3.11). Despite the attack of Polydore Vergil on the whole Arthurian story, the Tudor period made extensive use of the legend.” Thomas Heywood’s Life of Merlin, sirnamed Ambrosius, his Prophesies and predictions interpreted (1641) and Elias Ashmole’s English translation of the Prophetia Merlini (in William Lilly’s astrological treatise The VVorlds Catastrophe, 1647) show the continuing vitality of Merlin in England in the mid-seventeenth century. In fact, it would be difficult to identify the point at which all serious acceptance of Merlin the prophet had been extinguished. The primary strength of his international reputation certainly lay in the medieval centuries, from the twelfth through the fifteenth, when his status as a prophet equaled that of Bede, Edward the Confessor, or the Sibyl; when he

was occasionally placed among the biblical prophets (Daniel, 26. Cited from Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Library, MS Fr. 14, fol. 24r. 27. Historia rerum Anglicarum 1.proem, ed. Richard Howlett, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry IT, and Richard I, 1, RS 82 (London, 1884), pp. 12-13. 28. The Index librorum prohibitorum included ‘Merlini Angli liber obscurarum praedictionum”; see Taylor, Political Prophecy, p. 154, and Zumthor, Merlin le prophete, p. 113. 29. Kendrick, British Antiquity, pp. 34-44; Charles Bowie Millican, Spenser and the Table Round, Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 8 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932); Sydney Anglo, “The British History in Early Tudor Propaganda,” The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (1961-62), 17-48. 9

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

Ezechiel, Isaiah, or David) as a vehicle for the spiritus Dei, as Vincent of Beauvais puts it in the Speculum historiale,;*° and when kings cited him in their quarrels. But the almanac Merlinus liberatus was still being published as late as 1864,3! and it would not be surprising to find Merlin’s name gracing some newspaper astrology column even today. THE MEDIEVAL PROPHETIA MERLINI COMMENTARIES

The above sketch of the Merlin traditions should make it clear that there is a great abundance of material, even for an inquiry limited to the prophecies of the Historia tradition and further limited to medi-

eval commentaries on the prophecies—leaving aside, for example, questions of the prophecies’ sources, Welsh analogues, and textual variants. No complete study of the medieval Merlin commentaries has been made.*” Nor is one likely to be soon forthcoming, since many of the texts remain uncollected and unpublished. To locate all medieval interpretations of the Prophetia Merlini, one would need to look for marginal or interlinear notes in each of the manuscripts of the Historia, of which there are nearly 200 in Latin alone.? One would also need to examine each of the over seventy manuscripts containing the ProDhetia Merlini as an independent text. In manuscript catalogues the existence of annotations often goes unnoticed, which means that acquaintance with the copies themselves is necessary. Furthermore, one would need to examine at least the published versions, and preferably the manuscript copies also, of the later chronicles into which the text of the Prophetia Merlini was incorporated. Finally, one would want to collect every citation to an individual Merlin prophecy in any other

work of medieval historiography or literature. Since in chronicles, 30. Cited in Zumthor, Merlin le prophete, pp. 87-90. 31. William Edward Mead, “Outlines of the History of the Legend of Merlin,” in Merlin or the Early History of King Arthur, 1:1xxx. 32. The most comprehensive studies are Taylor, Political Prophecy, and Zumthor, Merlin le prophéte. See also Hersart de La Villemarque, Myrdhinn ou l’enchanteur Merlin (Paris, 1862); Albert Schulz [San Marte], Die Sagen von Merlin (Halle, 1853); Mead, “Outlines”; Edmond Faral, La /égende arthurienne, 2: Geoffroy de Monmouth, Bibliotheque de |’Ecole des hautes études 256 (Paris, 1929); Griffiths, Early Vaticination; Keeler, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Tatlock, Legendary History; Robert Huntington Fletcher, The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles, 2nd ed. (New York, 1966); Robbins, “The Merlin Prophecies”; A. O. H. Jarman, The Legend of Merlin (Cardiff, 1960). John Webb, “Translation of a French Metrical History of the Deposition of King Richard the Second,” Archaeologia 20 (1824), 250-71, gives details on the political use of the prophecies in England in the fourteenth century. 33. See n. 8 above. 10

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

political poems, and other genres the purpose of alluding to Merlin was precisely to link some contemporary event or theme to one of his

predictions, these scattered references would be a particularly rich source of interpretations. Even postmedieval items listed in library catalogues merit attention, as they sometimes embody earlier texts. Only by a complete investigation of this sort, which is well beyond the limits of the present study, would it be possible to establish definitively what Zumthor calls the “tradition exégétique’’** and all its variations. In the absence of a comprehensive study, for the purpose of editing

the Middle English text that this volume presents I have examined a sampling of the medieval Prophetia Merlini commentaries. They range in date from the twelfth century to the early fifteenth and are written

in Latin or French. Texts to which repeated reference will be made later are listed below (previously assigned sigla are used when available). X A twelfth-century commentary (written probably between 1147 and 1154), in two manuscripts: Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Latin 6233; London, British Library, Cotton Claudius B.VII. In Latin.* A A commentary written between 1167 and 1174, doubtfully attributed to Alanus ab Insulis, known as the Prophetia Anglicana. In Latin.*® J Rhodes James and Claude Jenkins that “there are many references to the prophecies of Merlin” in the Latin chronicle of London, Lambeth Library, MS 527 (14th c.): A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace (Cambridge, Eng., 1930-32), pp. 725-27. 35. Ed. Jacob Hammer, “A Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII), Continuation,” Speculum 15 (1940), 413-31. Hammer calls the British Library copy xX, the Bibliotheque nationale copy Y; they seem to represent the same text. In a later publication (see n. 38 below) Hammer cites this commentary as B. On the date see Caroline D. Eckhardt, “The Date of the Prophetia Merlini Commentary in MSS Cotton Claudius B. VII and Bibliotheque Nationale Fonds Latin 6233,” Notes and Queries, n.s. 23 (1976), 146-47.

36. Prophetia Anglicana et Romana, hoc est Merlini Ambrosii Britanni, ex incubo olim, ante annos mille ducentos in Anglia nati vaticinia . . . (Frankfurt, 1608). On the attribution and dating, see G. Raynaud de Lage, Alain de Lille, poéte du XII* siécle (Paris, 1951), pp. 13-15, and Marie-Thérése d’Alverny, “Alain de Lille: Problemes d’attribution,” in Alain de Lille, Gautier de Chatillon, Jakemart Giélée, et leur temps, ed. H. Roussel and F. Suard (Lille, 1980), pp. 29-36, 42-45.

37. Ed. Carl Greith, Spicilegium Vaticanum (Frauenfeld, 1838), pp. 98-106. The prophecy is edited without the commentary and with a French translation by P. 11

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

E A twelfth-century commentary, anonymous, in Exeter, Exeter Cathedral Library, MS 3514. In Latin.*® R_ A twelfth-century (?) commentary, anonymous, in Vatican City, Vatican Library, Codex Reginensis Latinus 807, fols. 2r-3v. In Latin.*?

LA twelfth-century (?) commentary, anonymous, in Lincoln, Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library, MS 98 (A.4.6), fols. 66v-66v. In Latin.*° M A thirteenth-century commentary, by Matthew Paris, in the Chronica majora. In Latin.*! B A thirteenth-century commentary, anonymous, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 622 (S.C. 2156), fols. 62v-64r. In Latin.* C A thirteenth-century commentary, anonymous, in Lincoln, Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library, MS 98 (A.4.6). In Latin.” P A thirteenth-century commentary, anonymous, in three manuscripts: Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Latin 6233; Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, Latin 4126; London, British Library, Cotton Claudius B.VII. In Latin.“

Flobert, ““La ‘Prophetia Merlini’ de Jean de Cornwall,” Etudes celtiques 14 (1974), 31-41. A new edition by Michael J. Curley, “John of Cornwall and the Prophetia Merlini,”’ appeared in Speculum 57 (1982), 217-49. 38. Ed. J. Hammer, “Bref commentaire de la Prophetia Merlini du ms 3514 de la bibliotheque de la cathédrale d’Exeter,” 1n Hommages a Joseph Bidez et a Franz Cumont, Collection Latomus 2 (Brussels [1949]), pp. 111-19.

39. Examined in photocopy only. I should like to thank the Rev. Romano Stephen Almagno for his courtesy in providing a transcript of the description of this manuscript from the Vatican Library’s unpublished catalogue, and for sending me photographs of the text. 40. Examined in photocopy only. The manuscript is described by Reginald Maxwell Woolley, Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library (London, 1927), pp. 63-65. In the same manuscript as C (see n. 43 below), this is a set of marginal and interlinear notes in the text of the Historia.

41. Ed. Henry Richards Luard, 1, RS 57 (London, 1872), pp. 198-210. 42. The manuscript is described in Falconer Madan and H. H. E. Craster, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 2,1 (Oxford, 1922), p. 234. 43. Ed. Jacob Hammer, “Another Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII),” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America | (1942-43), 589-601. In the same manuscript as L (see n. 40 above), Cis acommentary in a copy of the Prophetia separate from the manuscript’s copy of the whole Historia. The Prophetia thus appears twice in this manuscript, each time with interpretations. In a later publication (see n. 38 above), Hammer cites this commentary as C. 44. Ed. Jacob Hammer, “A Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII),” Speculum 10 (1935), 3-30, and

“A Commentary... Continuation,” Speculum 15 (1940), 409-31. In the first of these articles Hammer argued that this commentary dates from 1155-59, but in the second he revised the dating because an additional section had come to light. Fol12

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

D A fourteenth- or fifteenth-century commentary, anonymous, in Dublin, Trinity College, MS 514, fols. 79v-89v. In Latin.* W An early-fifteenth-century commentary, incorporated into Waurin’s chronicle. In French.*®

In addition, other Prophetia Merlini interpretations, including some found in chronicles or political poems, and some found as brief notes in manuscripts that do not offer extensive commentaries, will occasionally be mentioned. In the aggregate, even this small portion of the materials potentially

, available permits certain conclusions to be drawn. One is that there was certainly no single commentary that was the basis of all the others, no one orthodox exegesis. Despite a very great amount of overlap in

the application of certain predictions, every section of the Prophetia Merlini evidently remained open to reinterpretation. It was a living, changing text, not a fixed one. The commentaries appear to have expressed individual personalities. Some seem conservative, repeating what looks like one of the main traditions of interpretation or chooslowing Faral, Hammer calls this commentary P in these articles, but in a later publication (see n. 38 above) he calls it A.

A commentary in Welsh, similar to X and P, has been edited by Brynley F. Roberts, “Esboniad Cymraeg ar Broffwydoliaeth Myrddin,” The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 21 (1964-66), 277-300; English abstract in Bulletin bibliographique de la Société internationale arthurienne 19 (1967), 80. Professor Roberts has generously sent me the following comments: the manuscripts are Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 16 (mid-thirteenth century), MS Peniarth 27 (late fifteenth century), and MS Peniarth 311 (a seventeenth-century copy from Peniarth 16). The commentary may date from the first half, or the middle, of the thirteenth century. It is a translation from a Latin text, one similar but not identical to those published in Speculum 10 [P] and 15 [X]. One further commentary edited by Jacob Hammer may be mentioned, although the edition does not include the portion corresponding to the English commentary: “An Unedited Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini in Dublin, Trinity College MS 496 E.6.2 (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII),” in Charisteria Thaddaeo Sinko: Quinquaginta abhinc annos amplissimis in philosophia honoribus ornato ab amicis collegis discipulis oblata (Warsaw, 1951), pp. 81-89. 45. The portion pertinent to comparison with the English commentary has been examined in photocopy. It was not everywhere clearly legible. A brief description of the manuscript isin T. K. Abbott, Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (Dublin, 1900), pp. 77-78. 46. Waurin, Chronicle 1.2.56, ed. William Hardy, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories... par Jehan de Waurin, 1, RS 39 (London, 1864), pp. 229-86. On the date and authorship of this commentary, which apparently formed part of the French prose Brut chronicle that Waurin reproduced as books 2 and 3 of his first volume (not the usual French Brut), see Hardy’s introduction, pp. |xiti-Ixxii. 13

THE PROPHETITIA MERLINI

ing from among a few evident alternatives; others seem idiosyncratic, although this impression may be a product of the incompleteness of the materials I have consulted, rather than a true characteristic of one or another commentary. Some reflect regional or ethnic preoccupations, others a larger view. Some tend to be vague, others precise; some laconic, others expansive.

Second, through the centuries the prophecies retain their public and political function. They continue to be understood as foretelling the fates of kings and countries, although there is disagreement as to which kings and countries. At least in this group of commentaries, the Prophetia Merlini functions (as Geoffrey of Monmouth would have intended) as a link between the great historical events of past, present, and future, rather than as the stuff of household prognostications or personal fortune-telling. Geoffrey’s style, which uses an imagery that one might call epic, with its references to great battles and geographical distances and the passage of extensive periods of time, surely facilitated a continuing association with histories, chronicles, and political poems and naturally engendered a historical orientation in the commentaries as well. Even where there is a strong moral thesis, as in the commentary of Waurin’s chronicle, the context is that of public, not private, life.47 The interplay of the Prophetia Merlini interpretations with real events is part of a recurrent cycle. Real events provide material for the elucidation of the prophecies, and the prophecies provide an impetus to real events. Rousseau’s comment is apt: “L’événement n’est pas predit parce qu’il arrivera; mais il arrivera parce qu’il a été prédit.”*® In Wales the Prophetia Merlini was repeatedly used as propaganda to encourage rebellion against the English, exploiting the expectation that Merlin’s “Breton hope” prophecy was about to be fulfilled through one or another Welsh prince. “The people do not know the appointed time,” one chronicler remarks about the failure of these attempts, “and so they waste their efforts.”4? In these and other in47. For example, this commentary warns against flatterers and in other ways shares the themes of the “regimen for princes” tradition. 48. Cited by Webb, “Translation of a French Metrical History,” p. 263. A most curious instance recorded by Froissart (see Webb, pp. 259-63) is that in 1361 or 1362 there circulated at court a Merlin prophecy saying that the crown would next pass to the house of Lancaster; this occurred before the birth of John of Gaunt’s son who became Henry IV. Webb suggests, not unreasonably, that this prophecy may have helped to fuel the ambitions of John of Gaunt on behalf of his son, if not of himself.

49. “Porro ex dictis Merlini prophetae, sperant adhuc Angliam recuperare. Hinc est quod frequenter insurgunt Walenses, effectum vaticinii implere volentes; sed quia debitum tempus ignorant saepe decipiuntur et in vanum laborant.” Monachi cujus14

THE PROPHETIA MERLINI

stances, the interpretation of the Prophetia Merlini, even in a rather indirect way, was likely to have a political component in addition to the disinterested intellectual, religious, or aesthetic value that any medieval person might have found in seeing the relationship between prophecy and its fulfillment. dam Malmesberiensis vita Edwardi IT, ed. William Stubbs, in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward IT, 2, RS 76 (London, 1883), p. 218.

15

BLANK PAGE

The English Commentary

Although the Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey’s Historia circulated throughout Europe, in the commentaries the most frequent applications concern, as one would expect from the place-names mentioned in the text, the political affairs of the British Isles—whether Celtic, Saxon, Norman, or “English.”” Many of the commentaries are English in the double sense of having been written in England, as far as one can judge from the manuscripts, as well as in having taken English (or British) history as their basis for interpretation. It is therefore somewhat surprising that, with the exception of the text printed here and the few items mentioned below, there seem to be no medieval translations of the Prophetia Merlini into the English language, and no commentaries written in English. This is not to say that there is a lack of English-language allusions to the prophecies, or brief citations of them in passing, for these do exist. Layamon, for example, while omitting the Prophetia as a whole (presumably because his source, Wace’s Brut, did so), includes two or three of Merlin’s prophecies pertaining to King Arthur, although not precisely in Geoffrey’s form. One will suffice here: Merlin says of Arthur that “of his breosten scullen zeten adle scopes,” which is clearly an echo of Geoffrey’s “actus eius cibus erit narrantibus.”! A longer excerpt, and a more exact rendering, is given in the Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, of about 1300. After the passage about the red and white dragons and Vortigern’s own fate (the prefatory prophecy, which is all that the English Brut chronicles include; see below), Robert continues: Vor pe bor of cornewaile - ssal helpe pis londe & pe saxons newen - vnder is fet to trede Mani yles winne he ssal - lond & ober stude Louerd he worpb of france - rome ssal is sturnede Douty & quaky pberuore - ac is lif worp in drede pat folc ssal euere speke of him - and is noble dede Worp to hom a suete mete - pat it conne arede 1. Cited in Tatlock, Legendary History, p. 490. 17

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

Sixe bat comep after him - ssollep holde pe seignorie Ac after hom per ssal arise - a worm of germanye & be se wolf him ssal bringe vp. & banne pe religion & holi chirche worp ef sone - ybro3t al adoun Change worp of bissopriches - & pe digne sege iwis Worpb ybro3t to kaunterbury - pat at londone nou is Al pis biuel afterward - as 3e ssolleb ihure Pe cornwelisse bor - of wan he spek - pat was pe king arpure Pat so nobliche huld vp pis lond - & is fon ouercom & poru is nobleye wan - mani a kinedom -

At the close of this short section of translation and interpretation, Robert explains (as did Wace and others before him) that because the prophecies are difficult to understand, he will leave them aside. Of be prophecye of merlin - we ne mowe telle namore Vor it is so derc to simplemen - bote me were pe bet in lore -?

Another part of the Prophetia Merlini, translated or paraphrased in English verse, has been preserved on two fifteenth-century leaves bound into the eighteenth-century diary of Thomas Hearne, the antiquary and librarian. The eleven stanzas of this song draw particularly on Geoffrey’s “Breton hope” prophecy and imply an alliance of various Celtic peoples against the English. The concluding stanza reads: Then schail Cambere loyfulle be, The myght of Cornewayle quycke anon; Thys Englonde bretayne calle may 3e, When thys tym ys commyn & gon.?

Another verse translation of the Prophetia Merlini, more extensive than any so far mentioned and perhaps in fact complete, is included in an unpublished section of Thomas Castleford’s Chronicle, a fourteenthcentury English text based upon Geoffrey’s Historia.‘ 2. Lines 2803-20, ed. William Aldis Wright, The Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, 1, RS 86 (London, 1887), pp. 200-201. For the corresponding Latin, see Fiistoria 7.3, ed. Griscom, p. 385. Further citations from Geoffrey’s prophecies in this chapter are all to Historia 7.3, pp. 385-88, and will ordinarily not be documented individually. Wace’s demurral is ‘Ne vuil sun livre translater / Quant jo nel sal interpreter,” Brut, 1, lines 7539-40, ed. Ivor Arnold, Société des Anciens Textes Francais 80 (Paris, 1938), p. 399. 3. Ed. Rossell Hope Robbins, “Geoffrey of Monmouth: An English Fragment,” English Studies 38 (1957), 259-62. Also printed as “Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Prophecy” in Robbins, Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries (New York, 1959), pp. 113-15. Cf. Geoffrey, “Replebitur kambria leticia. & robora cornubie uirescent. Nomine bruti uocabitur insula.” 4. This verse chronicle of the fourteenth century is known in one manuscript only (Got18

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

It is possible that other translations from the Prophetia Merlini exist in the corpus of Middle English literature, and that in some cases the translations are accompanied, as in the brief passage in Robert of

Gloucester’s Chronicle, by explanations of individual prophecies. However, the fifteenth-century text to be edited below constitutes, to my knowledge, the longest medieval translation of the Prophetia Merlini into English prose (although even it is far from complete). It also constitutes, apparently, the sole continuous medieval commentary on the Prophetia Merlini in English, in contrast to commentaries in other languages or to scattered single interpretations in other English works. I should note again that only the prophecies of the Historia tradition are meant here. There certainly exist many Middle English copies of the later “Six Last Kings” prophecy, along with its explanations, and

of other post-Historia prophecies attributed to Merlin, as well as copies of Middle English romances about Merlin (the non-Historia tradition). Any new medieval text is of some interest, linguistic or historical if not literary, since it adds to our knowledge of language, literacy, attitudes, and ideas —if not to historical data in the narrower sense. Even if the information added by a new text corroborates what has been previously known, rather than leading to new assessments, such reiteration too is useful, since it expands our conception of the norm. The distinctiveness of the epic-and-romance style of a Malory, or of the historiography of a Froissart, is measured against the productions of their more routine contemporaries. This is one of the arguments for presenting the rather pedestrian commentary edited below. It has its own modest importance: it seems to be the only extensive medieval Prophetia Merlini commentary in English; it and its analogues in other languages belong to an important tradition of medieval thought, the tingen University Library, MS Hist. 740) and has not been printed in full. As was pointed out by Marshall Livingston Perrin, Veber Thomas Castelford’s Chronik von England (Boston, 1890), it includes “die Episode von Merlin’s Prophezeihung.” I have examined part of this translation in photocopy. A partial edition of the chronicle, not including the section that contains the prophecies, is by Frank Behre, Thomas Castleford’s Chronicle, Edited in Part with Comments, in Goteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift 46,2 (1940). A complete edition projected by EETS (see Angus McIntosh, ““Middle English ‘Gannokes’ and Some Place-Name Problems,” Review of English Studies 16 [1940], 54, n. 1) has not appeared. ‘““A fragment of the prophecy of Merlin in prose. . . ‘and shall the dragon and he bynde hure tailes to gedre,’” occurs on fol. 76 of London, College of Arms, MS lvii (fifteenth century), according to Thomas Duffus Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, 3, RS 26 (London, 1871), p. 184. 19

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

explication of prophecy; it is not utterly without charm or personality. One would not want to claim too much for it—it is surely not great imaginative literature—but (as Spenser’s Guyon shows us) the pedestrian virtues are of value too. THE MANUSCRIPT

The commentary edited below is the only text contained in MS PS. V-3 of Pattee Library, the Pennsylvania State University.> The manuscript, which is a fragment (one quire, imperfect at the beginning), can be dated on palaeographical grounds to the second half of the fifteenth century, probably the third quarter rather than the fourth. The fragment consists of six parchment leaves, of which the text occupies fols. Ir-Sv. The parchment has a “suede”-like finish on both sides, so that one cannot easily tell hair from flesh by touch. There is no foliation. The dimensions of the leaves are 312 mm x 219 mm; of the written space, 217 mm xX 157 mm increasing to 165 mm at the widest point; of the ruled space, 218 mm xX 158 mm. The ruling is in brown ink, 39 long lines to the page; the vertical bounding lines are single, the hori-

zontal bounding lines double. The quiring is 18 (wanting 1 and 2). Since the extant portion of the commentary starts very close to the beginning of Geoffrey’s work, I think it likely that the first of the two lost folios contained more decoration than text; the point, however, must remain purely conjectural. One letter is visible on the remaining inside edge of the cutoff original second leaf of the quire. On the exist-

ing fol. Ir, in the bottom right-hand corner, there is the letter p ina hand of probably the first half of the sixteenth century, which suggests that at that date this quire was placed sixteenth in a sequence of quires

signed (---), A...O, or fifteenth if the first quire were signed A. At the end of the text, on fol. 5v, several lines were written in a Secretary hand¢ and subsequently erased. Under ultraviolet light, a few letters or parts of words are doubtfully legible. The fact that they seem to be in English, French, and Latin suggests that this erased matter may have indicated the contents of the volume into which this quire was then bound. Script. The text is written in darkish brown ink in a clear Anglicana cursive book hand that shows some influence from other scripts. 5. Briefly noticed in Robbins, “The Merlin Prophecies,” p. 1716. The following palaeographical description is indebted in many ways to M. B. Parkes. 6. In the nomenclature of scripts I follow M. B. Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands 1250-1500 (Oxford, 1969), pp. xiv—xxv.

20

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

Three forms of the letter s appear: the Secretary B-shaped s and the o-shaped s, in final position; the long s and the o-shaped s in initial position; the long s in medial. The y is dotted. When / occurs in the context of other minims, it is distinguished by a slightly curving hairline stroke above. The r is of the short Secretary form, sometimes even after round letters such as 0; the 2-shaped r also occurs after o and Db. Certain characteristics suggest the simplification of mid-fifteenth century Secretary hands: the ascender of d has no loop; the loops on the

ascenders of b, h, and / are small; w is made very simply by adding one preliminary stroke to v. However, the descenders of f and long s do not show the taper or splay of Secretary script; the Anglicana twocompartment closed g is used; the Secretary single-compartment a appears only very rarely, the normal a being the straight-sided a of the Textura script. Also reminiscent of Textura or Bastard Anglicana is the treatment of the minims, which are upright and finished at the foot with a slight turn upwards to the right. The shaft of ¢ extends well

above the headstroke. Final f, g, k, and ¢ are finished with hairline descenders; 4, when final or followed only by v7 or f¢, is given a firm horizontal stroke through the ascender. Thorn (in the wyn-form) and th are both used initially and medially; only fh is used finally. Wyn and yogh do not occur. Corrections (insertions, deletions) are in the same hand as the text. The hand gives a general impression of neatness, plainness, and efficiency. Abbreviations. The common mark of abbreviation occurs in two forms. The less frequent form is the straight horizontal stroke, used

characteristically over i but occasionally over a or n. A horizontal stroke also appears through final //. The more frequent form is the dotted crescent, used over a, e€, m, n, O, p, and occasionally over i and over the Tironian note for and. This form (~’) is often encountered over n in penultimate or ultimate position; in fact, it appears Over most instances of final n, yet there are enough examples to the contrary to prevent its being regarded simply as an expected flourish on that letter. In prophecy no. 8, for example, the first time the name of Merlyn occurs it is written without the abbreviation mark over the last letter, but the second time the name occurs (two lines below in the manuscript) the dotted crescent appears over the n; in prophecy no. 14 the first occurrence of the name of Merlyn is written with the sign, the second without it. Other such pairs—not always proper nouns—

are found: e.g., “prison,” “men,” and “ayen” are written both with and without the dotted crescent over the last letter. Whether over a final nm or not, this form is frequently otiose, especially over the con-

21

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

sonants rather than the vowels; however, in some instances it is not easy to be certain that it indeed has no function.’ As one would expect, p = par or per; p = pro; superscript a = a

or ra; superscript f = ri; superscript ” = ur; w' = with; p' = pat; ~ or = er, ir, or re, anda similar curl may (or may not) represent

final e; the descending stroke 7 marks the genitive or plural. Punctuation. The repertory of punctuation includes the following signs: (1) Paragraph signs, alternating red and blue (occasionally the rubricator loses sequence) except before rubrics, where blue is always used to preserve the contrast. The scribe indicates where paragraph

marks are to be placed by a double virgule, //; the rubricator has missed such indications on fols. 2v and 4v. (2) The punctus, usually set medially in relation to the body of the preceding letter. It is used for pauses within as well as at the end of sentences. (3) The punctus in combination with a following hairline stroke, at first ascending and then descending ( d ). This sign is used to mark major pauses: the conclusion of the rubrics (the prophetic statements to be interpreted, which function as headings); and, frequently, the conclusion of an interpretation before the next paragraph mark or rubric. The form : occurs once. (4) The hyphen, usually but not always double. (5) Capital letters, always after paragraph signs and often for personal names; usage for toponyms varies (e.g., Brytayn but also britayn); capital F is represented by ff. Decoration. Fine red lines, presumably belonging to the decoration of an initial or miniature, are visible on the edges that remain of the original first two folios of the quire. The lines on the first edge match those on the second, which suggests that similar decorated initials appeared on the first two folios now missing. Binding. None: the manuscript now consists of two bifolia and two single leaves kept loose in a box. Six slashes plus smaller holes at the head and tail are visible in the centers of the bifolia. The last leaf is blank and quite darkened and worn. Presumably the quire was written as an independent booklet, and circulated separately in that form long enough for its jacket—the extant last leaf and its conjugate, of which 7. A special case may be the Tironian note for “and,” which, as Siegfried Wenzel has indicated to me, sometimes stands for Latin etiam ‘and also’ or ‘and furthermore’ when it has the curved sign above it in late medieval English manuscripts. There are three such abbreviations in this text. In the edition I have, however, transcribed them as the modern ampersand (&), since in one of these three cases, at least, the emphatic “and also” meaning would certainly be peculiar: in the phrase “be twix seynt Oswald & seint wulston,” the note has the dotted crescent mark, but it is surely the simple “and” concept that is meant. 22

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

only the narrow cut edge remains—to become dirty and worn before being bound into a volume. The size of the slashes raises a possibility that the booklet was stabbed, with parchment tags knotted through, as in Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 220. The small holes at the top

and bottom would then suggest that the booklet was subsequently cased. Against this hypothesis is the fact that for a binding on parchment tags two slashes ought to suffice (in Corpus Christi 220 there are two) while here there are six. Six holes plus head-and-tail holes would be appropriate for a binding on cords of the fifteenth century or later. Given the presence of the quire signature on what is now fol. 1, it 1s possible that when this booklet became quire p of a volume the first part of its text was already present in the preceding quire, and that the booklet’s first two leaves were therefore cut away as superfluous, the remaining text then satisfactorily matching up. Origin and Provenance. A place of origin where the general London dialect was used is likely, given the verb forms: -eth for present indicative third person singular, -ing and -yng for the present participle. The present indicative third person plural does not occur, the commentary characteristically using the past tense. A few linguistic features may suggest a Northamptonshire component of the author’s or the scribe’s language.’ At some point after 1535, the date of Peter’s Pence Act, the word “pope” was erased (twice on fol. Ir, twice on fol. 2r, five times on fol. Sr), as were the words “Thomas of Cauntirbury,” and “martired” (fol. 4v). Hence the manuscript may be assumed to have been in England at this time. There is, in fact, nothing to suggest that it left England until 1960. On fol. 6v, the final and blank leaf, under ultraviolet light one can read the following: “(..)ve God and (.y.. u)pon honour| Thomas Wydowes”—the motto may be “‘Love God and pynk upon honour.” The hand is probably of the seventeenth century. The registers of Oxford and Cambridge’ yield three men named Thomas Widdowes or Wyd8. Henry Cecil Wyld discusses the fifteenth-century use of the general London dialect in other locations—e.g., the abbeys of Godstow and Oseney near Oxford; Coventry; Worcester; Exeter; even Ireland (A History of Modern Colloquial English, 3rd ed. [Oxford, 1936], pp. 64, 70.) A separate study of the language of this text is being undertaken by my colleague Ronald E. Buckalew. On the basis of a necessarily brief examination of the text, Prof. Angus McIntosh, director of the Middle English Dialect Project, has been kind enough to relay to me his tentative opinion that the text shows linguistic traits characteristic of northeastern Northamptonshire—although there is not a large amount of discriminatory material. 9. John Venn and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, 1,2 (Cambridge, Eng., 1927), p. 401; Joseph Foster, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of OxJord 1500-1714, 4 (Oxford, 1892), pp. 1626-27. 23

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

ows: (1) Thomas Wydows, of Leicestershire, who matriculated at Cambridge in 1562; (2) Thomas Widdowes (son of another of that name), of Gloucestershire, who entered Oxford in 1627 and died in 1655; and (3) Thomas Widdowes, of Lancashire, who entered Oxford in 1669. The first is likely to be too early for that hand, the third too late.

The second of these Thomas Widdowes entered Gloucester Hall, Oxford, acquired the B.A. and M.A. from Magdalen College, and became master of the grammar school at Gloucester.!° In about 1640-42 he left that then-Parliamentary stronghold, presumably because of his royalist sympathies. He was subsequently master of the Woodstock Free Grammar School and is said to have been minister at Woodstock.

His last post was as master of the grammar school at Northleach, where he died. To him is attributed a pamphlet (sometimes described, rather misleadingly, as a diary) that was printed in 1660 as The just Devil of Woodstock: or, a true Narrative of the several Apparitions, the Frights and Punishments, inflicted upon the Rumpish Commis-

sioners sent thither to survey Manors and Houses belonging to his Majesty. Widdowes is also said to have written a Survey of Woodstock and “certain matters pertaining to the faculty of grammar, for the use of his scholars.” The signature of this Thomas Widdowes in the Ox-

ford subscription book (Oxford University Archives, Subscription Register 1615-1638, S.P./39, register Ac., fol. 125v) agrees in some particulars with the signature on the manuscript, but differs in others: the two versions of the name “Thomas” are more similar than the two versions of the name “Widdowes.” Since the subscription-book signature is that of a student aged about fourteen, while the signature on the manuscript may well be that of a man in his maturity, the differences

do not necessarily mean that the identification is incorrect.!! This 10. On his career see Anthony a Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, 3, ed. Philip Bliss (London, 1817), pp. 398-99; John R. Bloxam, A Register of... Saint Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford, 2 (Oxford, 1876), p. 127; The Victoria History of the County of Gloucester, 2, ed. William Page (London, 1907), pp. 326-27. Although Widdowes is repeatedly said to have been minister of Woodstock, a Thomas Johnes witnesses the Woodstock church accounts as minister from 1643 to 1661 (see Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS D.D. Par. Woodstock C 12, the Woodstock volume of Churchwardens’ Accounts 1613-1863). Sir Walter Scott’s novel Woodstock is supposedly indebted to Widdowes’s pamphlet, The just Devil of Woodstock. 11. Widdowes seems not to have left a will, which would have supplied a later sample of his signature. From 1653 to 1660, during the interregnum, all wills were required to be proved in Canterbury. Wills for 1655 are listed in Index of Wills Proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 7: 1653-1656, ed. Thomas M. Blagg and Jose24

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

Thomas Widdowes seems a plausible person to have owned the manuscript, given the interest in antiquities and local history that the Survey of Woodstock shows (if it is indeed his). The attention of a Woodstock schoolmaster might well have been caught by the fact that the commentary mentions King John’s benefactions to “be Nonnes of wodestoke,” i.e., the nuns of Godstow Abbey. The Pennsylvania State University purchased the manuscript from

Bernard Rosenthal in July 1962; it had been sold to Rosenthal by Maggs Brothers in June 1960. It has not been possible to trace the modern history of the manuscript backwards beyond its acquisition (in its present condition) by Maggs Brothers, or to locate the missing original first two leaves of the quire.!2 THE SOURCES OF THE PROPHECIES

The first thirty-seven prophecies that the commentary explicates (all but the last) are taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Prophetia Merlini. They are rendered into English in terms typically quite close to Geoffrey’s own. For example, Geoffrey’s “predicator hybernie propter infantem in utero crescentem obmutescet” becomes in the English text ‘‘pe prechour of Irlond schall not mow spek for the child in the modir wombe” (prophecy no. 5 in the edition below). Geoffrey’s ‘“‘exinde coronabitur germanicus uermis. & eneus princeps phine Skeate Moir, The Index Library of the British Record Society 54 (London, 1925); Widdowes’s name does not occur. A “Thomas Widdowes, yeo.,” 1s listed in the next volume U/ndex of Wills. .., 8: 1657-1660, ed. Blagg, Record Society 61 [London, 1936] p. 656), but the year (1659) and place (Aston magna als. Hanging Aston, Worcs.) are wrong, and schoolmasters are elsewhere identified as such. The subscription-book signature of the later Thomas Widdowes (entered Oxford 1669) is considerably less similar to the signature in the manuscript; see Oxford University Archives, Subscription Register 1660-1693, S.P./41, register Ae., April 2, 1669. 12. See the brief notice in Louis L. Gioia, “Bibliography of Editions and Translations in Progress,” Speculum 50 (1975), 171. A copy of the Middle English prose Brut that may well have been written by the same scribe, or that in any case probably came from the same workshop, was sold as lot 81 at Sotheby’s on December 8, 1981, and purchased by the Pennsylvania State University Libraries. (It has been given the shelfmark MS PS. V-3A.) According to the auction catalogue, p. 88, it was written in “England, perhaps London,”’ and can be dated “c. 1440-1460,” but since its dimensions are different it is presumably not the missing part of the manuscript under consideration here; in addition, it is said to be complete. The hands look very similar indeed. I would like to thank Jeremy Griffiths, of St. John’s College, Oxford, for having suggested that the two scribes are the same, for having sent me copies of several folios of the Brut manuscript before the sale, and for having informed me of the auction. 25

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

humabitur” becomes “than schall be crowned a worme of Germayn. and the brasen prince schall be troden vndir foot” (prophecy no. 13). “‘Succedet leo iusticie. ad cuius rugitum gallicane turres & insulani dracones tremebunt” becomes “aftir thies ij. dragons schall com a leon of Rightwysnesse. at whos roring the toures of Fraunce. And pe dragons of pe Iles schall tremble for drede” (prophecy no. 23). There are occasional expansions, omissions, rearrangements, and substitutions (for example, of a concrete for an abstract expression), but the sense usually remains very much the same and the general quality of Geoffrey’s style is preserved. The peculiar version of prophecy no. 2 is probably due to understandable uncertainty about a place-name. For Geoffrey’s “dignitas lundonie adornabit doroberniam,”’ the English text gives ‘“‘the dignite of london schall worschipp dovier and Cauntirbury.”’!? In medieval Latin the city of Canterbury had two names: Dorobernia (Darovernon, Durovernon, Dorovernia, Dorubernia, etc.) and Cantuaria (Cantwaraburg, Contwaraburg, etc.). Matthew Paris uses both names indifferently in the Chronica majora. For example, he gives the Cantuaria form in recording the succession to the see in 870, the Dorobernia form in recording the succession to the see in 888.'4 Since the Dorober-

nia form readily suggests Dover instead—the Latin name for which was Dovoria (Doferum, Dobrum, Dubris, Douera, etc.)—the English commentator, as if to be on the safe side, supplies both of the plausible renderings of the place-name, and thus makes it appear that a threeway rearrangement of the episcopal see had taken place. The inversion of meaning in prophecy no. 7, where Geoffrey’s “ut indigene restituantur” acquires the opposite sense, “and straunge men schall be restored,” 1s probably best explained as a mistake provoked by a glance forwards to “alieno semine” (prophecy no. 12) or to “alienigenarum” (no. 20). The prophecy is correctly understood nevertheless, since the interpretation explains that Cadwall’s intention was to restore the land “a yen to bretayns.”’ It is less easy to explain what has happened to muddle the sense of prophecy no. 34, and perhaps the copy of the Prophetia may have been bad at this point. The standard reading from Geoffrey is “principium eius uago affectui succumbet. set finis ipsius ad superos conuolabit.” The English version reads “his begynnyng was vnstable and 13. On the medieval names of Canterbury and Dover, see Eilert Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1960), p. 85; on Dover, also The Victoria History of the County of Kent, 2-3, ed. William Page (London, 1926-32), 2:133; 3:14, 16, 444. 14. Ed. Luard, 1:399, 427. 26

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

wandring. but aftir he draweth to an ende his synne schall flie up to hevyn for to aske vengeaunce of him.” The meaning of the second half of the prophecy has been completely changed, for the king achieves a favorable conclusion in Geoffrey’s version, but seems to remain in a state deserving of punishment in the English. In the absence of a var-

iorum edition of Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini, it is not possible to know what variation of that text might have led to this peculiar rendering. Or perhaps the problem lay not in the exemplar but in a lapse of the translator’s alertness. One conjecture, although of remote prob-

ability only, is that in a state of fatigue or inattention the translator might have taken the / of “finis” for an s, and so have imagined in his Latin copy the English word “sins” instead. Even that degree of departure from the exemplar would not have produced the phrase about asking for vengeance, however. One other prophecy is given in a version that, while unusual, may reflect a conscious alteration in recognition of the fifteenth-century political situation in England. This is the “lynx’’ prophecy (no. 37), which in the standard version of the Prophetia Merlini reads “egredietur ex eo linx penetrans omnia,”’ but in the English text, “‘of him schal come a beeste of a feble sight.” It is again possible that the Latin text was defective. In fact, this prophecy—despite the convention of the keen-sighted lynx, which should have helped to stabilize it—shows textual variation from the beginning. The version of Ordericus Vitalis,

apparently written before the death of Henry I in 1135, reads ues ‘pest’, instead of /inx.!5 The Bern manuscript of the Historia, of about 1136, reads /Jux at this point.'© The Cotton Vespasian manuscript of Guillaume le Breton’s Gesta Philippi Augusti, of about 1214, a chron-

icle that cites this prophecy, also reads /ux.'7 Commentary X offers both /ynx and lux. A later example of the /ux reading occurs in a fifteenth-century copy of the Historia in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.189 (S.C. 11550). Yet a third version of the prophecy is represented by the French verse translation in London, British Library, MS Additional 45103, of about 1300, which reads /une: “Vne lune cerneilz fors de celui istrat / De sa clere ueue ki tuit trespasserat.’’'8

It seems likely that a Latin text reading “egredietur ex eo /una penetrans omnia” lies behind this translation. 15. 12.47, ed. Le Prévost, 4:492. 16. Historia, ed. Griscom, p. 388 for the reading, p. 573 for the date. 17. Ed. H. Francois Delaborde, uvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, 1, Société de |’Histoire de France (Paris, 1882), p. 292. 18. Examined in photocopy; fol. 87r. On the prophecies in this manuscript see John M. Manly, “The Penrose MS of La Resurrection,” Modern Philology 37 (1939-40), 1-6.

2/

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

The variation in the English rendering is primarily in the modifier

“penetrans omnia,” however, rather than in the noun “linx”—for which “‘beeste” is a reasonable, although hardly exact, equivalent. Two motives might be suggested for the fact that the English version assigns to “penetrans omnia” a precisely opposite sense. One motive would involve a peculiar sense of realism. Having decided that the prophecy applied to Henry III, and knowing that Henry had “an impediment in his sight” (see the interpretation of prophecy no. 37), presumably the drooping eyelid noticed by several other sources, the English writer might have modified the prophecy to make it less inconsistent with the reality. Such a procedure would show a particular desire

to ensure acceptance of the identification with Henry III. However, Trevet, Walsingham, Rishanger, and the author of the Eulogium historiarum all note the identification of the (keen-sighted) lynx with Henry, remark also on the drooping eyelid, and show no concern over the discrepancy.!? An alternative motive might have been the wish to avoid any asso-

ciation of this prophecy with the house of Percy, which, in punning fashion, had been referred to as “‘penetrans.” The Prophecy of John of Bridlington (c. 1364), which remained popular in the fifteenth century, predicts, ‘‘SSuspicor et clerus, penetrans cognomine verus, / Viscera Scotorum penetrabunt belligerorum,” and explains in its self-contained commentary that “penetrans cognomine verus”’ refers to ““verus homo habens cognomen Percy, scilicet penetrans.” Elsewhere, this text refers to Percy as “‘penetranti” and “‘penetrativus.’’2° Given the language of

Geoffrey’s prophecy, “Egredietur ex eo [i.e., from the king called Sextus] linx penetrans omnia,” and given this identification of “‘penetrans” with Percy, Geoffrey might have been understood as predicting that the line of succession would at some point arrive at a Percy. The

commentator of P points out that Geoffrey says “egredietur,” not “nascitur”;*! the very indefiniteness of the relationship between the 19. Nicolai Triveti annales sex regsum Angliae, ed. Anthony Hall (Oxford, 1719), pp. 236-37; Walsingham, Ypodigma Neustriae, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, in Chronica monasterii S. Albani, 7, RS 28 (London, 1876), p. 166; William Rishanger, Chronica et annales regnantibus Henrico Tertio et Edwardo Primo, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, in Chronica monasterii S. Albani, 2, RS 28 (London, 1865), p. 75; Eulogium (historiarum sive temporis), ed. Frank Scott Haydon, 3, RS 9 (London, 1863), p. 137. These chronicles do not represent independent texts—the passage is virtually identical in all—but the point is that none of the chroniclers thought it necessary to adjust either the prophecy or the interpretation on the grounds of literal realism. 20. Ed. Thomas Wright, Political Poems and Songs Relating to English History, 1, RS 14 (London, 1859), pp. 156, 158, 178. 21. See p. 12, n. 44, above; Speculum 15:412. 28

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

Sextus and his eventual descendant would have made the prophecy the more dangerous. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, members of the house of Percy were reputed to be seeking the throne. Although the candidate they proclaimed in 1403 was the earl of March, or, according to other reports, Richard II, who was said to be alive and with their party, it was rumored that they actually had designs on the crown for themselves. The chronicler of Dieulacres reports that during the negotiations preceding the Battle of Shrewsbury, Henry IV asserted that the real aim of the rebels was to crown Hotspur or his son. According to Otterbourne

and the Annales Henrici Quarti, Hotspur’s troops raised a cry of “Henry Percy King” at Shrewsbury. The anonymous chronicle printed by Giles remarks that Thomas Percy, earl of Worcester, wanted Henry IV dead so that he might be better governed under his own kinsman. In a treaty of tripartition, it was said, Henry Percy (Hotspur’s father)

agreed with Owen Glendower and Edmund Mortimer to divide the kingdom among them.” This treaty of tripartition was associated with a prophecy of Merlin.” In the later part of the century, the Percys were usually firm supporters of the Lancastrians. Henry Percy (1394-1455), second earl of Northumberland, was killed defending Henry VI at the first Battle of St. Albans; Henry Percy (1421-61), third earl, also died for the Lancastrian cause, as did his brothers Thomas, Richard, and Ralph. The 22. See J. M. W. Bean, “Henry IV and the Percies,”’ History, n.s. 44 (1959), 226; M. V. Clarke and V. H. Galbraith, “The Deposition of Richard II,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930), 135, 179; Chronica regum Angliae per Thomam Otterbourne, ed. Thomas Hearne, in Duo rerum Anglicarum scriptores veteres, 1 (Oxford, 1732), pp. 241, 243; Annales Ricardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti, regum Angliae,

ed. Henry Thomas Riley, in Chronica monasterii S. Albani, 3, RS 28 (London, 1866), p. 368; Incerti scriptoris chronicon Angliae de regnis trium regum Lancastrensium, ed. J. A. Giles (London, 1848), pp. 33, 39-42. 23. Apparently not one from the Prophetia Merlini, but the ‘‘Six Last Kings” instead— although these distinctions may have had no force at the time. Giles’s chronicle reports that Northumberland, Mortimer, and Glendower took themselves to be fulfilling a prophecy (pp. 39-42). Hall says that “a certayne writer writeth that this earle of Marche, the Lorde Percy and Owen Glendor were vnwysely made beleue by a Welsh Prophecier, that king Henry was the Moldwarpe, . . . by the deuiacion and not deuinacion of that mawmet Merlyn’; Holinshed reports that, taking Henry to be the moldwarp, they took themselves as the dragon, the lion, and the wolf who would divide the kingdom among them. From these sources the story passed into Shakespeare’s / Henry 4. See W. G. Boswell-Stone, Shakspere’s Holinshed (London, 1896), p. 139. Hall and Holinshed, although late, are not without value in giving an idea of the way in which these events were interpreted, and Giles’s chronicle provides an early basis. 29

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

agile Henry Percy (1446-89), fourth earl, however, served Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII in turn.*4 Nevertheless, the Percy threat at the beginning of the century would

not have been wholly forgotten. To remove “‘penetrans” from the “lynx” prophecy might have been a wise emendation for a commenta-

tor who did not want to risk its being identified with a remembered Percy claim. Such caution would have been especially appropriate if his Prophetia Merlini exemplar, or another version of the prophecy then circulating, happened to be the type with the reading /una, because the moon, borne on the Percy badge, was commonly taken in the prophecies and other political writings as a symbol of that house. Indeed, if one were to combine two independent bits of evidence, the fact that the Percys were identified by /una and the fact that one Percy at least was called “‘penetrans,” then a version of the prophecy read-

ing “luna penetrans omnia,” with its double Percy reference, could hardly have escaped a Percy interpretation in this period. This double possibility aside, perhaps the desire to avoid even a single Percy reference, and to ensure acceptance of the application to Henry III instead, provided adequate motivation for the English commentator’s change from “linx penetrans omnia” to “a beeste of a feble sight.” It is well to remember the extent to which prophecies and political verse could be dangerous to those who purveyed them. In 1402 Henry IV imposed legislation prohibiting the Welsh poets from circulating

prophecies that, it was claimed, were “the cause of the insurrection and rebellion in Wales.”26 The Merlin prophecy used by Glendower was probably among those ne meant. Other measures were taken later in this reign, and subsequently, to suppress prophecies and similar writings seen as treasonable. Among the charges against the Lollards 24. See the Dictionary of National Biography and Edward Barrington de Fonblanque, Annals of the House of Percy, 1 (London, 1887). 25. E.g., Chronicon Adae de Usk (ca. 1415), ed. Edward Maunde Thompson (London, 1876), anno 1403, p. 80; a passage in Mum and the Sothsegger, M fragment (probably 1403-6), mentions a Merlin prophecy that has people musing “con mone and on sterres” until heads are hewn off—which seems a clear reference to a Merlin prophecy applied to the Percys, and to their defeat (ed. Mabel Day and Robert Steele, EETS OS 199 [London, 1936], lines 1723-33, p. 77); in the Asinus coronatus prophecy in London, British Library, MS Cotton Vespasian E.VII, fol. 88v (fifteenth century), /una in the prophecy is annotated “Percy” in the margin; cf. Gower’s Tripartite Chronicle (early in the reign of Henry IV), ed. Wright in Political Poems, 1:419. In 1572 the /una-Percy equation in a prophecy was used as evidence at the trial of the duke of Norfolk (Taylor, Political Prophecy, p. 114). See Caroline D. Eckhardt, “Another Historical Allusion in Mum and the Sothsegger,” Notes and Queries, n.s. 27 (1980), 495-97. 26. Taylor, Political Prophecy, p. 105.

30

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

in a law of 1406 was the claim that they had published false prophecies

predicting the overthrow of the king and government; legislation against false prophecies was repeated under Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s law, like that of Henry IV, makes it clear that the reason for forbidding the prophecies was that they contributed to “the stirring and moving of factions, seditions, and rebellions within the realme.”?’ Public examples were occasionally made of those who circulated such writings despite the restrictions. In 1456 John Holton was hanged, drawn, and quartered for political verses, and in 1484 William Collingbourne was “put to the most cruel deth at the Tower Hylle” for a couplet against Richard III.28 It is doubtful whether

the enactment of prohibitions or even the harsh punishment of offenders was of much effect in preventing the circulation of prophecies, given the great number of them still extant in manuscripts or referred to in contemporary sources; and if a prophecy were favorable, its publication might in fact be encouraged. Before his accession in 1399, Henry of Lancaster apparently claimed to be Merlin’s Boar of Commerce who would come to unify the people, while a knight who was

among Henry’s companions applied to Richard II another Merlin prophecy about a king who was to be ousted.” From the period of the Wars of the Roses there are Yorkist collections of prophecies, including prophecies of Merlin: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 623 (S.C. 2157) is a miscellany of this sort; London, British Library, MS Cotton Vespasian E.VII is another; such collections were presumably sponsored by Yorkist adherents. But if a person writing a text of political implications had no particular desire to risk his life upon a proph_ ecy, a discreet alteration of a phrase in his source might have seemed only reasonable. This discussion has so far assumed that the translator-commentator was working directly from a copy of Geoffrey’s Historia or from a copy of the Prophetia Merlini as a separate text. However, his relation27. Taylor, Political Prophecy, p. 10S. 28. V. J. Scattergood, Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1971),

.2i.

29. Otterbourne, Chronica, ed. Hearne, 1:210: ‘‘Ut autem dux declararet, se esse Aprum comercii, qui dispersos gregis ad amissa pascua revocaret... .” Cf. Geoffrey, ‘“Superueniet aper comercii. qui dispersos greges ad amissam pascuam reuoca-

bit.” For the prophecy applied to Richard II, see Webb, “Translation of a French Metrical History,” pp. 168-69. Adam of Usk, writing of Henry’s landing from exile, remarks, “Iste dux Henricus, secundum propheciam Merlini juxta propheciam, pullus aquile, quia filius Johannis,” etc. (Chronicon, ed. Thompson, p. 24, cf. pp. 132-33). Whether they actually believed in them or not, Henry and his party were evidently using the Merlin prophecies to their advantage. 31

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

ship to Geoffrey may have been indirect, with the immediate source being a later chronicle that itself incorporated at least the Prophetia Merlini, if not the whole Historia. The English commentator could have found the Prophetia Merlini embedded in, for example, the Flores historiarum formerly attributed to “Matthew of Westminster,’° or in the Chronica majora of Matthew Paris. Without a complete study of the manuscripts of the Prophetia Merlini and those of the chronicles that included it, it is not possible to know whether the English writer used Geoffrey’s text directly or a version transferred into another work.

Inferences about the changes that appear in the English commentary may need to be modified should it eventually become apparent that the source text of Geoffrey’s prophecies was already a revised one. The last of the prophecies, as mentioned, is taken not from Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini at all, but from a post-Historia Merlin prophecy known as the “Six Last Kings of England” or the “Six Kings to Follow King John.”?! This text, which is extant in multiple Latin, French, English, and Welsh versions, borrows animal imagery and some specific details from Geoffrey as the basis of a lengthy description of six future kings: a Lamb, a Dragon, a Goat, a Lion or Boar, an Ass, and a Mole. When the last of these kings is deposed, the prophecy says, the country is to be divided among a dragon, a lion, and a wolf, and then there will be no more English kings. The commentary gives

only the beginning of this prophecy: “a lambe schall come out of Wynchestre in be yere of be incarnacion of our lord Ihesus crist a M.'!CC.xvj. & cetera’ (prophecy no. 38). The “Six Last Kings’? had become a standard ingredient in the Middle English prose Brut (see below, DATE). Since the commentary’s version, as far as it goes, corre-

sponds virtually verbatim with the beginning of the prophecy in the published Brut, it seems nearly certain that the Brut was the commentator’s source here. Other versions are not so close. The corresponding

passage in London, British Library, MS Cotton Galba E.IX, for example, which is in verse, reads: A lamb in Winchestre borne sal be, A white chin haue sal he, & he sal haue, als Merlyn sais, Sothefast lepes in al his dais [etc.]32 30. Ed. Henry Richards Luard, 3 vols., RS 95 (London, 1890). That Matthew Paris was the author of the Flores historiarum (as well as of the Chronica majora) is argued by Richard Vaughan, Matthew Paris, rev. ed. (Cambridge, Eng., 1979), pp. 36-41.

31. See above, p. 7, n. 22; p. 29, n. 23. 32. Lines 13-16, ed. Hall, Laurence Minot, p. 102. 32

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY THE SOURCES OF THE INTERPRETATIONS

The interpretations the English commentator gives of Geoffrey’s prophecies have been compared with those in twelve other Prophetia Merlini commentaries (see above, pp. 11-13). On occasion there is close agreement with one or another of these analogues — although one must allow for differences of language, since this is the only version in English, and also for differences in the fullness of presentation and in details. The notes to the text will indicate these agreements of substance. However, the English text is not a translation of any of these commentaries, since it does not follow any of them consistently. The inter-

pretations assigned to individual prophecies agree most frequently with those in P and C, yet there is a scattering of discrepancies. Only

D and E agree with the English text in supplying the story of Cnut and the waves in interpreting prophecy no. 16. Only pseudo-Alanus (A) agrees closely in identifying the troubles of Cadwalader’s reign with prophecy no. 10. The English commentary seems to stand alone in reporting the rape of Buerne’s wife in explaining prophecy no. 15; in giving its own particular version of the betrayal of the white dragon in prophecy no. 17; in associating prophecy no. 29 (“Ue tibi, neustria” —the “Normandy” prophecy) with Richard I; and in providing exactly its king-list for prophecy no. 31. It is of course possible that a single exact source for all of these interpretations will yet be found, or once existed, but the situation just described suggests that the English commentary is instead an independent work composed by someone who was familiar with many of the

traditional Prophetia Merlini interpretations: for thirty-three of the thirty-seven prophecies deriving from Geoffrey, the commentator supplies explanations that are paralleled elsewhere. However, he was also inclined to substitute, modify, add, and delete. He may be assumed to have had available not only his text of the prophecies and a body of in-

formation (written, oral, or both) representing previous interpretations, but also historical sources that might yield alternative or supplementary material.

Whether the commentator used portions of Geoffrey’s Historia other than the prophecies themselves is uncertain. There are instances in which his interpretation mentions events that are recounted in the Historia but also in numerous other chronicles, including chronicles themselves deriving from the Historia. General resemblances are of course not diagnostic. The closest specific similarities to the Historia consist of discontinuous phrases or brief parallels. For example, on Cadwall’s body encased in a bronze statue (prophecy no. 8), where the Historia reads ‘‘in quadam enea imagine. ad staturze sue mensuram 33

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

fusa,” the English text gives, correspondingly, “in a brasen ymage made aftir his ovne stature.” Geoffrey continues, “Imaginem autem illam super eneum equum mire pulcritudinis armatam. & super occidentalem portam lundoniarum erectam. in signum predicte uictorie. & in terrorem saxonibus statuerunt,”>? which is fairly closely paralleled by the English version’s “this ymage was set vppon a brasen hors. And put vp on the west gate of london in token that he had discomfited and dryven ovte the Saxons.” Yet the two texts then diverge, the Historia mentioning the building of a church on the site, the English commentary reporting the Bretons’ belief that they were safe as long as Cadwall’s statue guarded the gate. There is no instance in which the English commentary agrees both closely and extensively with parts of the Historia other than the Prophetia Merlini itself. Much stronger evidence can be presented to show acquaintance with the Middle English prose Brut. The commentary frequently agrees verbatim with the Brut (as printed by Brie) for several sentences, although explanatory phrases are typically omitted to produce a slightly abbreviated account. Compare the two texts on Buerne seeking vengeance for the rape of his wife (prophecy no. 15):

Brut English Commentary [He] toke leue of his frendes, He toke leve of his freendis

and went to Denmarc, and and went in to Denmark and pleyened to be Kyng Godryn, pleyned him to the king Godryn

& told him of pe dispite how that king Osbright had doon pat Kyng Osbright to him hade done him such a despite. of his wif,

& praiede him of and praied him of

socoure & of helpe, socoure and helpe him to avenge. for to a venge him vp on his king.

qWhen Kyng Godrin of Denmarc qWhan the king of denmark & be Danoys, when pai hade herde and the danes [herd]

be pleynt of bis Buerne & of be this compleynt. praer bat he bade,

pai were wonder glade in hert, thel were wondre glad for-asmiche as bai my3t fynde cause that thei had cause

forto gone into Engeland to come in to Englond. forto werr oppon be

Englisshe-men, & also forto | avenge Buerne of pe despite pat be kyng hade done to his wif, & for-asmiche as Buerne was sib to be Kyng of Denmarc.*4 33. 12.13, ed. Griscom, p. 529. 34. Ed. Brie, 1:104. 34

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

Yet despite many such passages of obvious and close resemblance, the historical information in the English commentary does not always coincide with that in the printed Brut. For example, the legend that St. Patrick was unable to preach in the presence of St. David yet in utero

(see prophecy no. 5) is not in the Brut. The claim that William the Conqueror’s motive in attacking Harold was to avenge Godwin’s murder of Alfred (see prophecy no. 19) is at variance with the explana-

tion in the Brut, which reports that William’s motive was to punish Harold’s faithlessness towards himself. The Brut says that King John was buried at Winchester; the commentary reports, correctly, that John was buried at Worcester (prophecy no. 36). The Brut says nothing about the eyesight of Henry III; the commentary reports that he had “an impediment in his sight” (prophecy no. 37). It is possible that these and other differences are simply due to the commentator’s use of a Brut text somewhat different from the one printed by Brie, who chose MS Rawlinson B.171 (S.C. 11539) as the basis of his edition. Many details vary among the Brut manuscripts. To take the interment of King John as an example, he is said to have

, been buried at Westminster in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.166 (S.C. 11535, fol. 74v); at Worcester in the version known as

Davies’s Chronicle, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lyell 34 (fol. 106v); at Worcester also in the Brut of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS e Mus. 39 (S.C. 3634, fol. 79v). It is equally possible, however, that historical information was borrowed not only from the Brut in whatever version, but also from other sources. The discussion below will identify resemblances to a number of chronicles, such as the Annales of Nicholas Trevet; several sources that report the noticeably drooping eyelid of Henry III have been mentioned; the commentator may well have drawn upon a variety of historical materials.

As for the last of the interpretations, that dealing with the “Six Last Kings” rather than with Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini, the equation of the Lamb with Henry III accords with the treatment of this prophecy in the Brut and elsewhere. In Brie’s and other Brut copies, the Lamb is regularly Henry III, the Dragon Edward I, and the Goat Edward II. The same identifications are made in the verse “Six Last Kings” printed by Hall.*> Very little of the interpretation is given in the commentary: merely a summary phrase, “For this king herry was born at Wynchestre. & cetera.” Brief as it is, this is enough to show that the

source at this point was almost certainly the Brut, where the exposition of the Lamb prophecy begins (in Brie’s edition) “be gode Henry pe Kyng was born in Wynchestre.” The fact that the prophecy itself 35. Laurence Minot, pp. 101-9. 35

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

seems to have been taken from the version in the Brut (see above, p. 32) means that the commentator was, in at least this instance, copying both prophecy and interpretation from the same source. The commentary itself names a source text three times, but each time imprecisely. Near the end of its interpretation of prophecy no. 1, it adds “as the cronicle specifieth.” At the end of its interpretation of prophecy no. 34, it adds “as the coronycle telleth.” And at its close, it

refers to a “booke of Cronycles” as the source of both the Lamb prophecy and its “‘declaracion”’ (fulfillment): Seke this prophecie in the booke of Cronycles wher bat king Artour askid the aventures of vj. last kinges to regne in Englond. Seke the declaracion of this prophecie in the lyff of king henry the thrid among pe seid Cronycles. (prophecy no. 38)

This “booke” must have been an extensive chronicle or compilation of chronicles, since it included the reign of King Arthur, on the one hand, and that of Henry III, on the other. It sounds very much like the Brut

itself, which, according to the above analysis of sources, is exactly what is to be expected. Given the cases in which the commentary does not agree with the Brut as printed by Brie, this “booke of Cronycles”

was presumably a somewhat different text of the general Brut type; or, if it was in fact a copy of the version of Brie, the commentator sup-

plemented and corrected it by other sources. The language of this chronicle was English, for the verbal similarities to the Brut are often so very close as to indicate direct borrowing on the commentary’s part, rather than independent translation from a Latin or French original.

To summarize this discussion of sources: the commentator has used Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini for the prophecies (except the last) and perhaps other parts of the Historia for some historical material through the reign of Cadwalader. He has used a chronicle of the Brut type; he may also have used supplementary historical works. He was familiar with the traditional interpretations assigned to the Prophetia, although no specific previous commentary has been shown to agree with his choices in every case. Nothing suggests that he had at hand any significant historical work hitherto unknown.

DATE, AUTHORSHIP, AUDIENCE

The commentary is manifestly indebted to some version of the Middle English Brut, as has just been demonstrated. Therefore, its date of composition can be no earlier than that of the Brut. Because 36

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

no single date can be assigned to the Brut, it is necessary to look briefly at the development of that chronicle.*6 In its earlier sections, the Brut is one of the indirect descendants of Geoffrey’s Historia, recounting as it does the legend of Britain’s foundation by the Trojan prince Brutus (whence the name Brut), the story

of King Arthur and his court, and other tales systematized and popularized by Geoffrey—the combination of fact and fiction generally known as the “British history.” The Brut chronicle exists in many versions of somewhat different dates. A first version in Anglo-Norman,

not now extant, ended with the death of Harold in 1066; its major sources were Wace’s Roman de Brut and Gaimar’s Lestorie des Engleis.

Further Anglo-Norman redactions ended with the death of Henry III in 1272, the death of Edward I in 1307, and the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333. This last version, the Anglo-Norman Brut extending to 1333 (in what is known as the long, rather than the short, type of the text), became the basis for the translations into English. The oldest AngloNorman manuscript representing this Brut is dated about 1350-1400. Among the sources of the continuations spanning the period 10661333 are the Annales de Waverleia, Pierre de Langtoft’s Rhyming Chronicle, and the Chronicle of William Packington. The “Six Last Kings” was inserted as a prophecy that Merlin made to King Arthur. However, Merlin’s prophecies to Vortigern (the Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey) do not appear, the Brut’s compilers evidently having worked from the standard version of Wace’s Brut, which lacked them. The first English translation was made by about 1400, which is the date of the oldest extant manuscript, or perhaps slightly before. Like its exemplar, it ended with 1333. A continuation to 1377, in briefer and fuller versions, very soon followed; it too is dated toward the end of the fourteenth century or the very beginning of the fifteenth. Most of the extant manuscripts include a further continuation to 1419, composed sometime between that date and about 1450. The subsequent continuations are so variable that a common type can no longer be identified. The work that Caxton printed in 1480 as The Chronicles of England included a continuation to 1461, composed between 1464 and 1470. This Caxton edition became the basis for twelve further editions printed between 1482 and 1528 (after which the Brut was apparently not printed again until 1906). The English continuations past 1333 are 36. This discussion of the development of the Brut is based upon Friedrich W. D. Brie, Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik: The Brute of England oder The Chronicles of England (Marburg, 1905), and Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913), pp. 113-39, 299-337. 37

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

related to the London city chronicles, although other sources too are used. The Anglo-Norman Brut extending to 1333, the basis of the series of English versions just mentioned, was independently translated into English a second time. This version, of much less importance and in-

fluence, 1s attributed to John Mandeville and is dated about 1435. In addition, the Anglo-Norman Brut was translated into Latin; some Latin versions include continuations extending to 1455 or beyond; certain textual variations in the Latin copies suggest independent translations from an English-language original.

To summarize, for our purposes: the prose Brut chronicle was available in English, in a variety of versions at times bewildering, from about 1400 (or just before) and onwards through the fifteenth century. The latest historical event or personage that the English commentary mentions is the Battle of Lewes (1264) in the reign of Henry III. Un-

fortunately for the present inquiry, all versions of the English Brut cover that period, and this reference shows only that the commentary must have been written after about 1400. A comparison of the manuscripts of the English Brut might lead to the identification of the par-

ticular redaction upon which the English commentary drew, since differences of detail certainly occur. But such an analysis of the Brut manuscripts (there are more than a hundred and sixty)?’ is beyond the scope of this study. One can say with reasonable certainty, then, that the commentary was composed between about 1400, which is the terminus a quo established by its indebtedness to some redaction of the English Brut, and about 1450-1500, more probably 1450-1475, the terminus ad quem established by the date of the manuscript. More narrow dating cannot be confidently assigned until the exact Brut version that served as the major source is known. There is some evidence, however, to permit one or two further inferences. The variations in the wording of the “lynx” prophecy, it was suggested above, may have been made in order to avoid a dangerous or misleading reference to the Percy family. If so, this motive would entail a date during or after the alleged Percy attempts on the throne, i.e., not before 1403. In the other direction, the 37. Brie lists 121 manuscripts (Geschichte und Quellen, pp. 3-5), a list that Kingsford remarks is not exhaustive (English Historical Literature, p. 135). The checklist provided by Lister M. Matheson, ‘‘The Middle English Prose Brut: A Location List of the Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions,” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography 3 (1979), 254-66, identifies 166 copies; the one recently purchased by the Pennsylvania State University Libraries (see n. 12, above) may be distinct from any of these. 38

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

absence of any apparent Yorkist or Lancastrian bias may imply a date of composition prior to the first explicit Yorkist attempt on the throne, perhaps prior to the parliamentary discussions of October 1460, when Richard of York formally presented his claim (although it is of course possible that a commentary composed later might show no partisanship). The most likely range of dates, according to these considerations, would be 1403-60. The manuscript may be contemporaneous with the text, or may date from half a century or more later. About the auctor ignotus very little can be said. He was presumably also the translator of the prophecies, since no antecedent English prose version of the Prophetia Merlini is known.*® He seems to have been a reasonably competent Latinist, yet not immune to confusion or carelessness. Some of his political viewpoints will become clearer when the

“slant” of the interpretations is considered below. For the moment suffice it to say that he is partial to King John and antagonistic to Henry III, and that his claims for the validity of Merlin’s prophecies are insistent: after recording each prediction, and before interpreting it, he pauses to reiterate that Merlin spoke the truth (“And he seyde soth,”’ ““And Merlyn seid soth,” etc.). Even if this refrain is a conventional tag, drawn from the overall tradition of explication or from the “Six Last Kings” interpretations in the Brut,* it is effective in conveying the commentator’s absolute faith in his task.

He wrote for an audience that presumably shared his belief in propriecy and his familiarity with Merlin, for (in the extant portion of the text, at least) no attention is given to who Merlin was, or when he delivered his prophecies, or any other explanatory matters. The audience was English and not of the scholarly elite, as the choice of the vernacular language implies, but in the fifteenth century the use of the English language was becoming so generally accepted that it would 38. Some caution in identifying the translator with the commentator is nevertheless appropriate. Some versions of the Brut in French restore the prophecies; see Brian Blakey, “The Harley Brut,” Romania 82 (1961), 44-45; Zumthor, Merlin le prophéte, p. 52, n. 2; Tatlock, Legendary History, pp. 460-62. At least two English versions do so also—but in Latin; see Robert A. Caldwell, ‘“‘The ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ in College of Arms MS. Arundel XXII,” PMLA 69 (1954), 65354; and Brie, Geschichte und Quellen, p. 104. It is just possible that the commentator’s copy of the Brut was one whose compiler had not only restored the prophecies ~ but also, taking the next evident step, translated them. If so, my comments on the commentator as translator apply to that person instead. 39. Cf. Wace, ‘Merlin... Li prophetes dist verité” (Brut, ll. 13285-87; ed. Arnold, 2:693-94). The English Brut chronicle repeatedly uses the tag in its “Six Last Kings” interpretations; e.g., on Henry III, Merlin “‘saide sop,” “‘and he saide sop,”’ “and he saide ful sop,” “and he said sob” (ed. Brie, 1:177-78). 39

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

be wrong to picture a specifically uneducated or “popular” audience for this text.“ On the basis of the handling of place-names, one might impute to the audience a rather narrow English orientation or experience of the world. Although the author assumes that Nottingham, Lincoln, Lindsey, Holland, “the Castell of Framyngham,” Guildford, Reading, Woodstock, Worcester, Gloucester, and Lewes will be recognized (as well as London, Canterbury, York, and other major points : of reference), he feels it necessary to explain that the town named St. David’s, where Patrick preached, is in Wales. Very little detail is supplied about continental geography. Henry I is said to have fought simply in “Fraunce” for two years; Normandy is simply Normandy, Germany simply Germany, and so forth. An exception is made in specifying that the death of Richard I, which is said to have taken place in Normandy, occurred at “the Castell gaylyard,” but the overall impression given is that the interest of the audience was firmly in England and particularly in the Southeast and Midlands. Wales or Ireland or Scotland—which is said still to be full of Danes and Saxons, who are regarded as outsiders (as ‘‘them’’)—constituted unfamiliar territory. Such a localization agrees in general with that of the language. An Oxfordshire connection is possible since in the seventeenth century the manuscript seems to have belonged to a Woodstock schoolmaster, and since the text refers to ““be Nonnes of wodestoke,” who must be the nuns of Godstow Abbey (prophecy no. 35). However, Thomas Widdowes might well have acquired the manuscript elsewhere, for only part of his career was spent in Oxfordshire, and the reference to Woodstock is hardly decisive. The hand of the manuscript shows some similarities to the first of the hands that wrote the English cartulary of Godstow Abbey (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B.408 [S.C. 11755]) and to the hand that wrote the Latin chronicle of Godstow from the creation to 1431 (MS Rawlinson C.234 [S.C. 15405]); but all that can really be said is that the three hands reflect the same type of mid-fifteenth-century script.*! That the original audience was at Godstow or elsewhere in Oxfordshire (or that the author was) remains only a conjecture, particularly since the language may point towards Northamptonshire instead. THE ‘‘SLANT’’ OF THE INTERPRETATIONS

This commentary, like most others, is selective: it interprets only some, not all, of Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini (plus the first section of 40. A convenient brief statement on the increasing use of English is given by Scattergood, Politics and Poetry, pp. 13-14. 41. The hand is in fact closest (in my experience) to that of the prose Brut copy recently purchased by the Pennsylvania State University Libraries; see n. 12, above. 40

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

the “Six Last Kings”). A principle of selection can in itself give shape and implication to a text, although any attempt to ascertain what that principle was requires the assumption that the commentator was working from an exemplar that was complete. Merlin’s prophecies as Geoffrey gives them may be divided into five sections: 1. Prophecies concerning the red and white dragons (i.e., the Britons and Saxons)

2. Prophecies concerning the populus in ligno et tunicis ferreis (1.e., the Normans of the Conquest) 3. Prophecies concerning the succession of two dragons, the lion of justice, the eagle, the Sextus, the lynx, etc. (i.e., the Norman and Angevin rulers) 4. Prophecies concerning the restoration of Celtic rule, the Boar of Conan, the Goat, the Boar of Commerce, the North Wind, the Ass of Wickedness, and various other nature- and monster-figures 5. Prophecies concerning the Apocalypse.

The English text draws from Geoffrey’s sections 1, 2, and 3 only. At the point where the “Breton hope”’ prophecy begins, it turns to the “Six Last Kings” material instead. There may have been two reasons for this choice. One is that if the commentator were writing before the accession of Edward IV in 1461 or before that of Henry VII in 1485— as the above dating suggests he was—the “Breton hope” prophecy would not have seemed to be fulfilled. (After those dates it was possible to think that this prophecy had in fact come true, since claims

were made that Edward IV was true heir to Cadwalader,* and the Tudor monarchs welcomed an identification with Merlin’s predicted new Celtic dynasty.) The second reason is that the commentator may have been intentionally filling a gap in the contents of the prose Brut. He knew that text; he also knew Geoffrey’s prophecies. Like whoever inserted the Prophetia Merlini in Latin into an English Brut,“ he may have realized that Merlin’s prophecy to Vortigern belonged in the Brut but had somehow been lost from it. Since the Brut commonly included an interpretation of the “Six Last Kings,” or at least of the first three of those kings, the apparently missing section would be that part of the prophecies whose interpretation would stop with Henry III, first of the six last kings. That is exactly what the English commentator supplied. Even within Geoffrey’s sections 1, 2, and 3, the commentary does 42. For example, the Yorkist collection of historical materials in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 623 repeatedly presents Edward IV as the new “British” king, heir to the line of Cadwalader. See p. 58 below. 43. See n. 37 above. 41

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

not include every prophecy. Nearly all of Geoffrey’s section 1, on the Britons and Saxons, is interpreted (from the point at which the acephalous manuscript now begins). All prophecies in Geoffrey’s section 2, on the Conquest, are interpreted. Of those in section 3, on the reigns

after that of William I, about two-thirds are interpreted. The few prophecies omitted from 1 are descriptions of conditions—a rain of blood, a famine, desolation—and general forecasts about the contending peoples. The prophecies omitted from 3 are of these types, as well as of another: details about events that are not presented as bearing directly on the royal succession. What all of the omitted material has in common is its irrelevance to the simple question of who was to next hold the throne. In the last and longest omission, for example, the predictions that piety will wound someone who is impious, that Albany

will be wrathful, that the Eagle (Maud) will enjoy her third nesting, and that the roaring whelps will make war in the towns are, from this viewpoint, expendable. Without them, one progresses directly from the supremacy achieved by the “new man” to the king-list couched in numerical form. Given a focus on the succession to the throne—repeatedly a fighting matter, it hardly needs to be pointed out, in the fifteenth century— one might expect the commentator to omit even more prophecies than

he does. Some material merely reporting general conditions, or recounting ecclesiastical (rather than dynastic) history, or concerning itself with events not evidently bearing upon the succession, remains. Perhaps the commentator was balancing an intention to trace the paramount matter of the succession against a desire to demonstrate that about other matters also “Merlyn seid soth.” The sequence of prophecies and of rulers to whom interpretations are assigned (see table) shows an overall chronological movement from

the sixth century A.D. to the thirteenth. However, the commentary is not a historical synopsis. There is no intention of giving proportional representation to all the important kings. Alfred the Great, for example, appears only as the name “Alrede” in the king-list in the interpretation of prophecy no. 14. The commentary violates chronology in its treatment of the “Normandy” prophecy. It differs fundamentally from the annals and chronicles in not regularly giving the basic data of the deaths and accessions of rulers, although at times a transition of that sort is provided (e.g., “king hardeknoght bat regned aftir king knoght,” prophecy no. 17). It supplies dates only occasionally. Its preference is not for the external details of events, but for motivations and consequences, as in the treatment of the Conquest (prophecy no. 19). Here virtually nothing is said of the battle itself. Harold ‘‘faught with the 42

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

duke. but harold and his men were discomfited. and this bataill was endid at Tonbrigge & cetera’’—what the “‘et cetera” covered we may only surmise. But we are told that William’s motive was to avenge himself upon Godwin’s son “for the despit that Godwyn had doon to Normannes” in killing the companions of Alrede; we are told of William’s offer to avoid battle if Harold would agree to marry William’s daughter, or to “hold Englond of him in trewage”; and we are told, in language that suggests a warning, that “this king harold trustid mekil . vpon his strengthe,” and so fought and lost. The emphasis in the narrative falls upon aspects of the event that are susceptible of a pragmatic moral interpretation. The political sins of Godwin the father cause revenge to be visited upon Harold the child. Harold’s excessive pride in his bodily strength, a matter of poor judgment, leads to his downfall. Such sentiments are of course common enough, and in conveying

them the commentator is following the dominant historical understanding of his time, although his work is not intended to function primarily as history per se.

Sequence of prophecies* Sequence of persons to whom the prophecies are assigned

1. The wolf of the sea Gormond, Cortiff, Gregorye, seint Austyn; or Adelbright

2. First sees shall be changed seint Austyn 3. The bishop of York in Little seint sampson Britain

4. St. David’s in Wales seint Austyn, Adelbryght, Elfride 5. The preacher of Ireland seynt Patryk, seynt Dauid 6. 7 kings who shall be slain Edwyne, Edfride, Offryk, Peanda, Gofride, Offride, Oswalde

7. The great torment Cadwall 8. The man of brass Cadwall

9. The red dragon resorts to his Cadwaladre old conditions

10. The vengeance of God Cadwaladre

11. The blessed king Cadwaladre 12. The white and red dragons pe saxons, quene sexburga, the bretons

13. The worm of Germany Egbrite 14. The white dragon’s term Egbryt, Adeldulph, Athewalde, Ethelbrit, Alrede, Edwarde, Adthelstan, Edmond, Edrede, Edwyn, Edgare, seint Edmond the martir

15. The north wind Osbright, Buerne, Godryn, seint Edmond 43

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

16. Gold in the temples Knoght [Cnut] 17. The white dragon betrayed hardeknoght, Alrede 18. The tithe of Normandy Godwyn, Alrede, Edward the confessour

19. The people in iron coats william duke of Normandie

20. The aliens destroyed william

21. The white dragon’s pain william, Malcolyn king of Scottes

22. The two dragons william Rous, hery his brothir, Robert Curthose

23. The lion of justice henry the first

24. Gold out of lilies henry

25. Diversity in clothing Normannes 26. The feet of barking hounds herry first 27. The lion’s cubs, the lion’s Richard and Williaym [sons of Henry

eagle I]; Maude Thempervice

28. Cornwall slays 6 brothers Reynold

29. Woe unto Normandie Richard the first 30. The new man is enhanced stephin, Maude, henry the emperice sone

31. The thumb rolled in oil Stephin, herry be secound, Richard be first

32. The “Sextus” Iohn

33. The “Sextus” reduces diverse Iohn portions into one

34. Beginning and end of the John “Sextus”

35. The ‘‘Sextus”’ does holy Iohn works

36. The “‘Sextus’” among the Iohn saints

37. The beast of feeble sight henry pe thrid 38. The lamb of Winchester henry pe thrid *:The numbers refer to the numbers (in square brackets) of the prophecies in the text as printed below, pp. 69-85.

So many of the commentary’s interpretations are quite conventional—frequently found among other Merlin explications—that for the greater part of the text no distinct principle of interpretation emerges. For example, the red dragon is said to refer to the British, the white dragon to the Saxons (nos. 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21; in 17 and 21 the white dragon includes both Saxons and Danes). This symbolism had been standard for some three centuries, having been made explicit in the Historia itself. As Merlin there explains to King Vortigern, ‘‘albus draco...saxones quos inuitasti significat. Rubeus uero gentem designat britannie,”’ or, as the Brut puts it, “‘the rede dragoun bitokenepb 44

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

3oure-self, & be white bitokenepb pe folc of Saxoine, pat ferst 3e toke and helde in pis lande. .. .”’4 Similarly, the people in iron coats and in

timber (no. 19) are taken to be the Normans in many other texts, as well as in this one. The lion of justice (no. 23) is almost always Henry I,

and its cubs transformed into fish of the sea (no. 27) are, correspondingly, Henry’s children who drowned when the White Ship went down in the Channel. These and other interpretations show the commentator’s acquaintance with the general tradition of explication that had been developing since the Prophetia Merlini was written. In its overall tendency to follow this tradition, the commentary gives the impression of being (except for its English language rather than the more usual Latin) quite thoroughly commonplace, a compendium of unremarkable interpretations. This impression is in complete contrast to that given by texts such as the more idiosyncratic commentary embedded in Waurin’s chronicle, which explains (to give only one example) that the lion’s cubs transformed into fish are meant to stand for malicious flatterers who, like cats, both caress their masters and snarl at them, and who will be banished for their wickedness and become pirates on the sea.* On occasion the English commentary is in error, but its errors are usually not surprising ones. The account of the death of Richard I, which took place in 1199, is an example. The commentary follows the Brut“ in placing the death of Richard at Chateau-Gaillard (“Castell gaylyard”). There was indeed a connection between Richard and Chateau-Gaillard, which is on the Seine in Normandy, for in 1196 Richard had that fortress constructed to guard the access to Rouen.*’ However, he died not there, but at the siege of the castle of Chalus, a few miles from Limoges in the Limousin.* The story of his death soon became confused, although (or perhaps because) there exist at least eleven near-contemporary accounts. In various medieval sources Richard is 44. Ed. Brie, 1:58. 45. “Par les chats qui sont malignes bestes plains de staties proditoires car ilz festoient leurs maistres de la queue et leur groucent des dens, sont entendus les flatteurs traytres qui tousjours invocquent par blandissemens proditoires le cuer du lion a mal faire, sy seront muez en poissons marins, car par leurs vices ilz seront exillies de leur pays, sy devendront escumeurs de mer ou les poissons les devoureront et mengeront,” Recueil des croniques... Waurin, 1:238. 46. Ed. Brie, 1:153. 47. Kate Norgate, Richard the Lion Heart (London, 1924), pp. 310-13, 316-17; Austin Lane Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216 (Oxford, 1955), p. 375; John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart (London, 1978), pp. 262-65. 48. For the details see John Gillingham, “The Unromantic Death of Richard I,” Speculum 54 (1979), 18-41. 45

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

said to have died at Chalus, at Chateau-Gaillard, at Chinon, at Nontron.”? Given the widespread influence of the Brut, the commentator may well have chosen to follow its version even if he had access to sources that placed Richard’s death elsewhere. In fact, the Brut’s localization of Richard’s death may have led the commentator to assign to Richard the important Normandy prophecy: “Ue tibi neustria quoniam in te cerebrum leonis effundetur & dissipatis menbris a natiuo solo eliminabitur,” “Merlyn seid also woo to Normandie. For in the schall the leons brayn be spilt. and his othir parties schall be dolven in his ovne contre” (no. 29). The application of this prophecy to Richard breaks the historical sequence that the commentator otherwise observes, as the table above shows, and is paralleled by none of the other commentaries examined. The typical choice is Henry I, who, like Richard, is associated with the symbolism of the lion, and who indeed died in Normandy. The commentator himself seems to have hesitated between these two interpretations, for at the end of the passage he explains that (aside from the brain) the king’s body was “‘broght to Reding wher pat he was buried.” As the Brut reports, correctly, Richard was buried at Fontevrault: it was Henry who was buried at Reading; the commentator seems to have combined details of the two accounts. It is also possible that Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s famous lament for Richard I (which was parodied by Chaucer) exerted an indirect influence here. The version of the lament embedded in Trevet’s Annales begins “Neustria sub clypeo Regis defensa Ricardi, / Indefensa modo, gestu testare dolorem.”*° As the notes will indicate, the English text shows occasional correspondences to the Annales. If this chronicle were indeed used by the commentator, its call to Normandy to express her sorrow over Richard, in combination with the Brut’s placement of Richard’s death in Normandy, may have suggested the peculiar interpretation of “Ue tibi neustria.” A more puzzling interpretation is that of prophecy no. 28, which reads “domus corinei. sex fratres interficiet. Nocturnis lacrimis madebit insula. unde omnes ad omnia prouocabuntur,” in the Latin of the 49. On the various legends about the location of Richard’s death, see Antoine Perrier, “De nouvelles précisions sur la mort de Richard Coeur de Lion,” Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique du Limousin 87 (1958), 37-50. 50. Another text of the lament calls upon England, not Normandy (inc. “Anglia sub clypeo”). See the Poetria nova, line 368, ed. Edmond Faral, in Les arts poétiques du XII° et du XIII® siécle, Bibliotheque de |’Ecole des hautes études 238 (Paris, 1923), p. 208; Trevet, Annales sex regum Angliae, ed. Hall, 1:135. Chaucer’s parody is in the ‘“‘Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” where a lament is raised for Chantecleer the rooster.

46

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

Historia; or “Merlyn seide also. that Cornewaille schall slee vj. brethrin. and pe Ile schall be moysted with many wepinges,”’ in the English of the commentary, which joins the first two clauses and omits the last. A good many of the annotators of the Prophetia Merlini leave this Cornwall prophecy unexplicated, presumably because its significance is not easily evident. One problem may be that Geoffrey leaves it unclear whether the “domus corinei” clause is related to “nocturnis lacrimis madebit insula,” etc. Perhaps the prophecy is simply generally

ovscure, although the others of this section are not. Commentary M (Matthew Paris) annotates only the “nocturnis” part, supplying “hoc completum tertio anno Stephani regis. Respice cronica Henrici Archidiaconi, unde versus: ‘Quis mihi det,’ etc.,”—which simply refers, in Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum, to the troubles in the reign of Stephen.*! Where more explicit interpretations are offered, they concern either the reign of Henry I and the vicecomes Frewin, on the one hand; or the reign of Stephen and the comes Reginald, on the other. The Frewin interpretation is given by commentaries A, J, and R.°? The Reginald interpretation may be represented by P: “domus Corinei est familia Cornubiensis; quae videlicet Cornubia cuidam Reginaldo filio regis commissa est quia sex fratres interfecit, vel sic Cornubienses sex fratres interficient ut intelligas gentem pro domo.” 53 The English commentary too refers to Reginald: “For be king Coryn be toke to Reynold his sone al Cornewaille. and made him Erle of it. which Reynold aftirward slew .vj. of his brethryn wherfor all that contre was soore annoyed. and euery man was provokyd vnto werre. and the Englysch men conspired a geyn the Normannes.” What is un-

expected here is the claim that Reginald was son to King Coryn and 51. Chronica majora, ed. Luard, 1:203; Henrici archidiaconi Huntendunensis historia Anglorum, ed. Thomas Arnold, RS 74 (London, 1879), p. 267. 52. According to A, the six brothers “Cornubienses filij fuerunt Freuiuni, qui erat ipsius Cornubiae Vicecomes, sub praefato Rege Henrico” (Prophetia Anglicana, p. 23). However, in J the two parts of the prophecy are separate, with the six brothers being “sex francigenis . . .i.e. filiis Ludovici,” and the Frewin episode being associated with the next section, “Frowinus Vicecomes et caeteria Cornubienses conspirarunt in ultionem ejus et istos interfecerunt apud villam quae dicitus tervf .. .” (Prophetia Merlini cum expositione, ed. Greith, p. 101). R annotates more briefly. A Frawin is mentioned in The Domesday Survey for Cornwall, ed. William Page, trans. Thomas Taylor, in The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of the County of Cornwall, 8 (London, 1924), p. 93. “Frawinus de Cornualia” appears in The Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, Michaelmas 1130, Reproduced in Facsimile from the Edition of 1833 (London, 1929), p. 160. On the name Frewin see P. H. Reaney, A Dictionary of British Surnames, 2nd ed. rev. by R. M. Wilson (London, 1976), p. 135. 53. Ed. Hammer, Speculum 10:16. 47

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

that the brothers he slew, causing general warfare, were his own. This commentator, like others, probably had in mind Reginald, illegitimate son of Henry I (by Sibil, daughter of Robert Corbet of Shropshire), who was born in approximately 1110 and died in 1175.54 He became earl of Cornwall in 1140 or 1141. An active supporter of his half sister Mathilda and his nephew Henry II, he participated in the wars of Ste-

phen’s reign and in later disturbances. Certainly Reginald could be said to be a son of the house of Cornwall in a metaphorical sense, since he had been made earl of Cornwall, which itself was equated with Corineus, its legendary eponymous founder. However, the commentary seems to regard Coryn as Reginald’s literal and immediate, not metaphorical and distant, progenitor.*> As for Reginald’s brothers, he in-

deed had six or more, counting half brothers on both sides, but he is not said to have caused their deaths. Two of them died on the White Ship; two others survived him to be offered a grant by Henry II in 1177. Yet despite these oddities, the English commentary is not very far distant from the overall tradition of interpretation of this prophecy, since the events are placed in the period chosen by other commentators (the reigns of Henry I and his successor) and are associated with one of the two individuals elsewhere named (Frewin and Reginald).

The most notable distinction between the interpretations in this commentary and those in other commentaries and chronicles is the favorable attitude expressed here toward King John, who is identified as Merlin’s Sextus (nos. 32-36). Virtually all of the thirteenth-century chroniclers are thoroughly ill-disposed toward John. As one student of the historical texts of that period remarks, “John was condemned by the standards of all of his contemporaries. The ecclesiastics hated him for his treatment of the church. The author of the History of William 54. Biographical information is from the Dictionary of National Biography. 55. One or two highly speculative suggestions as to why the commentator links Reginald directly with Coryn might be made. The mother of Reginald, as the daughter of Robert Corbet, bore ‘“‘Cor” in her family name. Cornish historians report that at the time of the Conquest the earl of Cornwall was named Condor(us); and that his son, named Caddock or Condor(us) II and likewise styled earl of Cornwall—although in fact the Normans were in possession—had a daughter Agnes or Beautrix, who mar-

ried Reginald (Richard Polwhele, The History of Cornwall [Falmouth, 1803], 2: , 56). Thus Reginald would be son-in-law to Condorus, a fact that might in the course of time have been transmuted into the idea that he was son to Corineus, particularly as there is some variation in the medieval versions of the name given to the legendary founder. For example, the English chronicle in Nicholas Bishop’s “Collectanea” (fifteenth century) gives the name as “Corneus” (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Top. Oxon. d. 72, p. 460 etc.; this manuscript is Hurst’s 1906 transcript of the “Collectanea,” which was written at Oxford in 1432). Brie’s Brut gives the name as “Coryn” (1:8 etc.). 48

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

the Marshal condemned him for his lack of chivalry (his treachery and cowardice). And all condemned him for involving the country in civil war.’’** Later chroniclers repeat such judgments. One fifteenth-century

writer remarks, “In helle, Ich hope, he hab his meede.”*’ Another fifteenth-century assessment neatly sums up the whole viewpoint: “Thys

kyng was lothsom to god and man.” 58 To Merlin’s Sextus are attributed certain achievements that commentators antagonistic to John might be willing to grant him nevertheless: the conquest of Ireland (no. 32) and the unification of diverse areas under his rule (no. 33). He is also said to be unstable in his behavior (no. 34), and with this description, too, John’s critics might well agree. But the Sextus is further credited with renewing the sees of blessed men, ordaining pastors, supplying two towns with the pallium, and giving presents to virgins (no. 35); and with deserving the love of God and finally being counted among the saints (no. 36). The king who was “lothsom to god and man” seems ill suited for these parts of the prophecy. Yet the English commentator, explicating these statements, explains that after John

was reconciled with the pope he restored the church’s goods; that archbishops of Canterbury and York were appointed in his time; that he

provided for the nuns of Woodstock in remembrance of his father’s mistress Rosamond’? (thus the three provisions of no. 35 are fulfilled); that he rebuilt the monasteries and abbeys he had formerly destroyed; and that he was buried between Saints Oswald and Wulstan (thus the provisions of no. 36 are fulfilled). The account of John’s reign seems designed to present him in the most favorable light possible. For example, in explaining the contro-

versy between John and Pope Innocent III over the election of the archbishop of Canterbury, the commentator writes, “the priour and pe covent chosen a yenst pe kinges will to be bisschopp Maister stephin langton. and sent hir eleccion to be pope.” This summary, which combines several distinct stages of the affair, tacitly favors John by omitting all reference to his manoeuverings in an effort to get his own can-

didate elected. The effect is to imply that the monks of Canterbury, 56. Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550-c. 1307 (Ithaca, New York, 1974), p. 322. 57. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Top. Oxon. d. 72, p. 437. 58. New York, Columbia University, MS Plimpton 261, fol. 88r. 59. Rosamond Clifford, Henry II’s mistress (“Fair Rosamond”), who was buried in Godstow Abbey; on the legends that grew up about her see Virgil Barney Heltzel, Fair Rosamond (Evanston, Ill., 1947). 60. See Sidney Painter, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), pp. 164-71, fora convenient summary of the events of 1205-7; M. D. Knowles, “The Canterbury Election of 1205-1206,” English Historical Review 53 (1938), 211-20.

49

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

acting “a yenst be kinges will,” chose Langton immediately and did so completely on their own initiative; while in fact theirs was only one of a lengthy series of irregular, self-interested, or questionable actions that preceded the election, on the pope’s recommendation and in Rome, of Langton.

Much of this compression may already have taken place in the commentator’s source if the English Brut was used for historical information at this point, as the similarity of language suggests. The Brut reads: And pe Priour & be Couent of Kaunterbery chosen, a3eynes be Kyngus wille, to bene Erchebisshop, Maistre Stephen of Langeton, a goode clerc pat wonede at be court of Rome, & sende to be Pope here elleccioun.®!

The italicized words are those common (allowing for minor variations of spelling and word order) to the Brut and the commentary. But it 1s

perhaps significant of more than a need for further brevity that the commentator omits the phrase describing Langton as “a goode clerc”’:

the Brut’s implication that John was wrong to oppose a good man thus disappears. Similarly, the commentator maintains a neutral tone in other passages that describe John’s quarrel with the pope, his subjection of Ireland, and so forth. Much is left in silence, and the silence itself tends to make John’s behavior, even in the days of his alleged wrongdoing, seem unremarkable. Upon his reformation he is praised as having ‘‘deserved a yen pe loue of god”’ (prophecy no. 36) and is represented as having made full and ready restitution to those he had previously wronged: “‘he restored a yen all be goodis of be chirche to

euery man aftir his degre” (no. 35). The commentator seems to approve even of John’s submitting his realm to the papacy. It is not that this favorable attitude toward John is absolutely without precedent. A brief thirteenth-century chronicle extends to him what sounds like a note of sympathy: “Allas, tant com il uesquist il out asez de tribulacions et trauayles.’’® In addition, parts of the association of Merlin’s Sextus prophecy with John are recorded—although not necessarily accepted—elsewhere, for example, in other commentaries,© in Trevet’s Annales, and in the chronicle of Thomas Wykes. Trevet, noting John’s benefactions to religious houses, points out that hic Rex Abbatiam Cisterciensis Ordinis in Wintoniensi dioecesi, quae Bellus-Locus dicitur, & Monasterium Virginum apud Godestowe in Lincol61. Ed. Brie, 1:154. 62. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Add. E. 14 (S.C. 29579), a genealogical roll, with a brief accompanying chronicle, to Edward I.

63. See below, pp. 83-85, nn. 56-60. 50

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

niensi dioecesi, pro anima Rosamundae, quae aliquando patris sui fuerat concubina, fundavit. propter quod putant nonnulli ad illum Merlini fatidici vaticinium referri, quo dixit: Virginea munera virginibus donabit. Promerebitur inde favorem Tonantis, & inter beatos collocabitur.™

Wykes remarks, on John’s death and burial, Corpus ejus inde delatum usque Wigorniam in ecclesia conventuali mona-

chorum honorifice tumulatum est inter feretra Sancti Wlstani et Sancti Oswaldi; quaamobrem vere bruti Britones fabulantur ridiculosas illas vanas

Merlini, quas falso tamen prophetias esse arbitrantur, in eo fulsse completas, dicentis, quod inter sanctos collocabitur.™

Thus such an interpretation of Merlin’s Sextus prophecy was in the air. And yet, as Albert Schulz comments, having indicated that Welsh sources also attach this prophecy to John, it remains an identification “die das allgemeinste Erstaunen erregen musste.’”© One might inquire as to why, given his usual conventionality, this commentator chose it. It has been suggested above (conjecturally and with reservations) that the commentary may be associated with Godstow, or with Oxfordshire in general, If this guess is correct, then the favorable attitude toward John might reflect the continuation of a certain local identification with him. John was born at Woodstock; he made repeated visits to Oxfordshire, and to Woodstock in particular; he had a hunting lodge built near Woodstock Manor and was concerned that Woodstock Park not be disturbed by other users (he arranged for the Godstow nuns, who had formerly been authorized to take wood from the park, to collect it instead from another location). The story that he “founded” or “edified’’ the nunnery seems to be without factual basis, since the English register of Godstow notes no unusual benefactions from him and the nunnery itself had been in existence since 1133. But one might assume that in the intervening centuries local tradition had embroidered 64. Ed. Hall, pp. 166-67. This passage is repeated in Walsingham’s Ypodigma Neustriae, ed. Riley, p. 135; and in the Eulogium historiarum, ed. Haydon, 3:111. 65. Chronicon vulgo dictum chronicon Thomae Wykes, ed. Henry Richards Luard, in Annales monastici, 4, RS 36 (London, 1869), pp. 59-60. Cf. “Johannes rex Angliae obiit apud Newewerke in crastino Sancti Lucae; et sepultus est in cathedrali ecclesia Wygorniae coram magno altari inter Sanctos Oswaldum et Wlstanum: ut verificetur illud quod dictum est in Merelino: Et inter sanctos collocabitur,’’ Annales prioratus de Wigornia, ed. Henry Richards Luard, in Annales monastici, 4, RS 36 (London, 1869), p. 407.

66. Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia regum Britanniae, ed. Albert Schulz [SanMarte] (Halle, 1854), p. 351. 67. The English Register of Godstow Nunnery (ed. Andrew Clark, EETS OS 129-30, 142 [London, 1905-11]) records from John only three charters confirming its privi-

leges and possessions, and one referring to John’s grant of part of Hildesdene 51

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

upon the truth, and that for an Oxfordshire commentator to favor John would not have been so unconventional as it now appears. However, such an assumption is dangerous in view of the hostility to John expressed in Nicholas Bishop’s “Collectanea”—a reminder that one fifteenth-century Oxford historian, at least, shared the prevailing antagonism toward this king.® Probably more significant than a possible Oxford provenance is the fact that the treatment of John stands in noticeable contrast to that of Henry III, who is the next and the last king mentioned in the commentary. Henry is said to be the “‘beeste of a feble sight. which schall cause greete hurt and damage vnto his peple” (the lynx prophecy, no. 37). The attitude of the chroniclers toward Henry III varies; some defend him, but others, if not most, take the baronial side in the barons’ war.®? For example, the Osney chronicle and that of Thomas Wykes, which until 1256 are similar enough to suggest that one is the source of

the other or that they use the same exemplar, then diverge sharply, with Osney favoring the barons, Wykes the king’s party.” The commentary’s negative treatment of Henry III is thus not nearly so unusual as is its positive treatment of John; it may simply be classed with other

writings that show partisanship on the baronial side. However, the juxtaposition of John and Henry seems to enhance the difference between the two, to set them forth as contrasting members of a pair. As indicated above, the commentary was probably composed between about 1403 and about 1460. King John had reigned from 1199 to 1216, Henry III from 1216 to 1272. Thus the commentary was written some two hundred years after the reigns of these kings, and one might

wonder why a fifteenth-century writer should have wanted to praise John in contrast to Henry. The political intention, if any, cannot have been related to the genealogical disputes of the fifteenth-century claim-

ants to the throne, since a general preference for the long-dead John rather than for his son Henry III would not have served any partisan argument in the later dynastic dispute. Even the alleged attempt of the supporters of Henry IV to discredit the legitimacy of Edward III’s rule, claiming that Edmund “Crookback” had really been the elder Wood in place of the abbey’s former rights in Shotover Wood. On the date of the house’s foundation and other details, see The Victoria History of the County of Oxford, 2, ed. William Page (London, 1907), pp. 71-75. 68. See n. 55 above. 69. For an overview, see the chapter “Chronicles in the Reign of Henry III’ in Gransden, Historical Writing, pp. 404-38. 70. Gransden, Historical Writing, p. 464; N. Denholm- Young, “Thomas de Wykes and His Chronicle,” English Historical Review 61 (1946), 157-79. 52

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

_ brother,”! does not take the genealogical question back far enough, and in any case the commentary does not question Henry III’s basic right to rule. However, the commentator may have been interested in John and Henry as contrasted models of conduct. Such a rhetorical technique is certainly found among the chroniclers. V. H. Galbraith, for example, discusses the medieval tendency to see rulers as either “good kings” or “bad kings.” Antonia Gransden, in examining Giraldus Cambrensis’s De principis instructione, notes that John, who is there represented as evil, is set in contrast to the French kings, who are represented as good, and that this contrast is devised not in the spirit of historical accuracy but in the spirit of illustrating moral and political concepts.” Robert Stepsis shows how Pierre de Langtoft selected the details from his sources to emphasize certain concepts of good kingship: “‘What we find in Langtoft’s chronicle are these philosophical principles of kingship shaping his narrative and providing the basis on which he judges contemporary events.” ’4 The use of rulers as models and the use of paired characters as representatives of opposite qualities of good and evil are, of course, widespread devices in medieval literature and in medieval thought generally, so that it is not surprising to find them in _ the writing of history. What exactly is the nature of the contrast here? The events of John’s reign mentioned in the commentary concern his conquest of Ireland and his quarrel with the papacy over Stephen Langton’s appointment as archbishop. The events of Henry III’s reign mentioned in the commentary all concern the Provisions of Oxford: the king’s acceptance of the Provisions, his subsequent rejection of them, and the Battle of Lewes at which the king’s party was defeated. The contrast is not between peaceful rule and troubled rule, since John’s difficulties with the papacy are discussed at greater length than are Henry’s difficulties with “the lordes of the Realme.” The contrast seems to be, instead, between the viewpoint that John permanently resolved his quarrels, for he made a promise to reform and honored it, and the viewpoint that Henry only temporarily resolved his quarrels, for he made a promise to reform and broke it. Of John, the commentator says, ‘‘he deserved 71. Adam of Usk reports and refutes this Lancastrian claim (Chronicon, ed. Thompson, pp. 29-31). 72. “Good Kings and Bad Kings in Medieval English History,” History, n.s. 30 (1945), 119-32.

73. Historical Writing, pp. 321-22. 74. “Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronicle: An Essay in Medieval Historiography,” Medievalia et humanistica, n.s. 3 (1972), 61. 53

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

a yen be loue of god as in byldying monasteries and Abbeys which he had destroied beforn.” It is as the sinner redeemed that John is praised. The sequence is the opposite with Henry, who is regarded as having first done right when he “ordeyned lawes and statutes in amendment of the Realme,”’ and then wrong when he listened to the advice of evil counselors and broke his covenant, provoking the outbreak of war. It is as the sinner relapsed that Henry is faulted. The crucial thing seems to be to keep one’s good promises: according to this account John did, Henry did not. (The St. Albans Continuation of Matthew Paris’s Flores historiarum also stresses the untrustworthiness of Henry III.) Merlin’s Sextus prophecy, which refers to an unstable beginning followed by a favorable ending, had been previously interpreted as signifying the need for self-indulgent princes to reform. Such a use of

the prophecy is found in two related works that the author of this commentary may have known: the Compedium in Job of Peter of Blois and its Old French adaptation, L’hystore Job. The Compedium, based on Gregory’s Moralia in liber Job, was written at the request of Henry II of England; the French adaptation dates from about 1300. In both, Job’s expressions of contrition are illustrated by quoting Merlin’s prophecy, “Erunt vagi in initio gressus ejus, sed finis ejus ad superos convolabit” (cf. prophecies no. 34 and no. 36). This statement is explained in terms of the pride of earthly rulers and their consequent need for repentance. As the Old French text puts it: Fai la prophesie Merlin Qui dist des prinches ensement: “Tl seront au commenchement Vacant et plain de vanite Chil qui sont en grant dignite, Mais li fins ert boinne et moult vault, Car lassus voleront en hault.” Princes, se tu ies entechies, Et as este, de grans pechies Jusques a ore, si retourne Et a penitanche t’atourne Et te va souvent confesser; Si poras de pechier cesser.’®

75. Gransden, Historical Writing, p. 419. |

76. Lines 1740-52, L’hystore Job: An Old French Verse Adaptation of Compendium in Job by Peter of Blois, 1, ed. Joseph Gildea, O.S.A. (Liége, 1974), p. 145. Iam grateful to the editor for having pointed out to me the existence of a Merlin refer- _

ence in this work. The French text is also edited by Robert Chapman Bates, 54

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

If a fifteenth-century English commentator had wanted to associate a ruler with the concept of the sinner repentant, John would have been an excellent choice. Perhaps only Henry II among the English kings had quarreled with the church—and repented—more dramatically. Early in his reign, when John needed papal support, he acknowledged his sins, offered satisfaction for them, and received a letter from Innocent III welcoming him precisely as the traditional peccator poeniten-

tiam agens.” And after the great struggle over Stephen Langton, John’s reconciliation with the church was complete. Having placed his whole realm in the hands of God as represented by Innocent, John was pronounced to have become a “‘new man,” alter homo.” Innocent rewarded him with a series of actions on his behalf: his subjects were called upon to be loyal to him; his person and those of his heirs were taken under the special protection of the Holy See; Philip of France, who had been about to invade England as a crusader against an ex-

communicate king, was told to desist. Practical as well as spiritual benefits thus accrued to the penitent king.” In the characterizations of John as a most welcome penitent, a new man deserving of special favor, there is of course nothing unique. The magnanimous attitude towards those who do wrong, but who then return to the company of the virtuous, simply reflects the widespread Christian theme that is figured in such parables as that of the strayed sheep or that of the prodigal son. The concept itself is a commonplace and as such could have been applied to many an English ruler. How-

ever, the previous use of Merlin’s Sextus prophecy to stand for the need of secular princes to repent, and the previous association of John with the traditional sinner repentant and “new man,” may have helped

to shape the particular interpretation given to this prophecy in the English text. The fact that the remaining parts of the prophecy are very favorable, referring to the Sextus as being received among the saints, apparently did not seem to this commentator to be an unfitting assessment of the end of John’s reign.

In contrast to the commentators on Job, this writer, of a bent L’hystore Job: Adaptation en vers francais du Compendium in Job (New Haven, 1937). The Latin text is in PL 207:795-826.

77. Innocent, writing to John, refers to the traditional concept that “fiat... majus gaudium angelis Dei super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente quam super nonaginta novem justis” (PL 214:972). 78. “Sciant omnes quod dominus Rex effectus est jam alter homo” (“Certificatio absolutionis apostolicae Regis Johannis per dominum Pandulphum, a.p. 1213,” in Foedera, 1, ed. Thomas Rymer, Record Commission [London, 1816], p. 112). 79. See Painter, King John, pp. 193, 198-99. 55

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

rather secular than religious, seems to be more concerned that princes

such as the Sextus and his heirs honor their promises to “the lordes of the Realme,” as he puts it, than that they turn to the confessional. The contrast between the ruler whose promises of reformation can be trusted and who achieves stability (represented by John) and the ruler whose promises cannot be trusted and who persists in his instability (represented by Henry) may have originally been intended as an indi-

rect cautionary or critical reference to some contemporary event. It would be tempting to try to use this didactic theme to date the commentary more closely or to determine its political affiliations.®° But the first half or two-thirds of the fifteenth century saw too many political promises made and broken for the commentary to be identified as an admonition to one faction at one time. It is the general thesis of the contrasted kings that predominates. The king who repents of his wrongdoing, makes restitution, and honors his promises will deserve even the love of God. The king who agrees to repent, make restitution, and reform, but who does not in fact honor these promises, will cause much harm to his people. FUNCTION, HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS, AND FORM: THE COMMENTARY IN ITS CONTEMPORARY SETTING

The political function of prophecy in the late Middle Ages, several times referred to in the course of this study, has been examined in de80. In particular it would be tempting, using the medieval concept of linking different people who happened to have the same name, to see the commentator as intending antagonistic references to some fifteenth-century Henry and praise for some fif-

teenth-century John. Association by name, common enough in the idea of celebrating one’s “saint’s day,” is applied to monarchs in the records of civic pageants, for example. The pageant welcoming Margaret of Anjou (queen of Henry VI) to London in 1445 included a representation of St. Margaret, as did the pageant welcoming her to Coventry in 1456; the welcome for Elizabeth (queen of Edward IV) at Norwich in 1469 included a representation of the biblical Elizabeth; the festivities for Prince Edward at Coventry in 1474 included St. Edward. See Robert

Withington, English Pageantry: An Historical Outline, 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. 148, 150, 153. Most to the point is that when Henry VII entered York in 1486, the pageant with which the city greeted him included six crowned kings representing the six previous Henrys. See the City of York House Book, transcribed by Angelo Raine in York Civic Records, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 98 (Wakefield, Eng., 1939), 1:155-59, and A. H. Smith, “A York Pageant, 1486,” London Mediaeval Studies 1 (1937-39; published 1948), 382-98. If one were to follow this line of interpretation, the commentator’s attack on Henry III might be considered “an attack by inference on Henry VI” (as Robert Brentano has tentatively suggested to me), which would mean assigning a slightly later date to the commentary itself and revising my assessment of the commentator’s wish to avoid a partisan identification. 56

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

tail elsewhere, for example in V. J. Scattergood’s Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century and in Marjorie Reeve’s The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages. As Tatlock puts it, prophecy was “the political and war propaganda of the middle ages.’’®! Instances in which prophecies were used to influence public opinion, and examples

of legal attempts to prohibit their use in that way, have both been mentioned. As a language of metaphors and symbols, prophecy 1s closely related to other medieval forms of politically charged symbolism. The fifteenth century was an era of banners, of badges, of heraldic

signs, and of animal nomenclature. The couplet for which William Collingbourne was hanged and, still living, disembowelled was little more than a collection of animal images.*®? In such a context, it would

have been only natural to interpret Geoffrey of Monmouth’s lions, boars, dragons, and similar figures directly in terms of contemporary political leaders. This English Prophetia Merlini commentary, however, apparently played but a very modest part in the application of prophecy to current events. Its author seems to have been a cautious person who wanted to convey a thesis about the regimen of princes, but who did not seek to

use his Merlin text in support of a particular faction, at least not that we can now perceive. His commentary is fundamentally traditional and conventional. The only dangerous part of what he wrote, if anything at all in it can be said to be dangerous, was the beginning of the “Six Last Kings” explication, for by a simple counting forwards from Henry III one would arrive at Henry IV as the last king—the one who was to be deposed. (Perhaps it was to combat the ill effects of this prophecy that Henry IV claimed an identification with the Boar of Commerce of the Prophetia Merlini instead.) In referring to even the first of the “Six Last Kings,” then, the commentator may have been making an indirect and careful political statement, but it seems much more likely that he was simply fitting his text into that of the English Brut, as has been suggested above. The “Six Last Kings” prophecy appears as a standard ingredient in the Brut, with explications for the first three kings, and in that form seems to have brought no difficulty to those who circulated it. After the death of Henry IV in 1413 and the 81. “Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Date of Regnum Scotorum,” Speculum 9 (1934), 139.

82. “The Cat, the Rat, and Lovel our dog / Rule all England under a hog.” Cited by Scattergood, Politics and Poetry, p. 211. Cf. the complaints against Richard II’s supporters, described by their animal badges, in Mum and the Sothsegger, R fragment, 2.1-66, 113-92, etc.; Scattergood cites many examples of political verse representing individuals by their animal cognizances and similar signs. 57

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

orderly passing of the crown to his son, that prophecy would have lost much of its threat in any case, for a seventh king had succeeded King John. The commentary’s intended function is best thought of as filling

a gap in the most important vernacular chronicle of its time, rather than as participating in factionalism, which, in its alteration of the “lynx” prophecy, it seems to seek to avoid. Its tone is very different from that of other contemporary documents that are more strident and more explicit; many such are cited in Scattergood’s book. They functioned as political literature in a narrowly topical sense, while this text belongs to a broader class of historiography. The place that the commentary (and others like it) might be allotted in historical writing may be clarified by a brief description of the interesting “‘collection of historical articles” in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 623, one of the Yorkist prophetic miscellanies referred to

before. The contents of this collection include a chronology of the world from the Creation to 1464, in the form of a chart, as well as prophecies of Merlin (those from the Historia and later ones), prophecies of Edward the Confessor, of the Sybil, of John of Bridlington, and so forth. For example, Geoffrey’s “Breton hope” prophecy is recorded and is followed by the explanation that from Cadwalader’s time the rule of the Britons has lapsed, but that it has now descended “ad Edwardum 4. verum heredem britanie, francie, hispanie”’ (fol. 23v). A diagram then illustrates the link from Cadwalader to Edward. The chronology of the world in this manuscript is useful as an illus-

tration of the way in which prophecy was integrated into the entire conceptualization of history. At A.D. 448 in the chronology, there appears an entry for Merlin’s prophecy to Vortigern, just below the entry for the accession of Marcianus as emperor. At A.D. 530, there occurs the statement that in this year Merlin told Arthur about the Six Last Kings to come; this entry is immediately adjacent on the page to the entries for the successions of three popes. The angel’s prophecy to Cadwalader (another version of the “Breton hope,” from the end of Geoffrey’s Historia) occurs at A.D. 680, with a reference there to its fulfillment in 1460. After 680, the column that has been labeled “Bri-

tania” is labeled instead “Anglia,” in recognition of the Germanic conquest. It continues to be labeled “Anglia” until the accession of the new “British” king Edward IV, at which point, in tacit fulfillment of the prophecy that “nomine bruti uocabitur insula” (from the Prophe-

tia Merlini), the column is labeled “Britania” once more. In visual space, in the illustrated columns of the chronology, prophecy and its fulfillment are of exactly the same nature as what we would call actual

58

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

historical events. The person who composed the chronology clearly regarded them as indistinguishable in kind. If anything, prophecy seemed to have a double historicity. It existed as an event in time at the moment of its utterance; it could also exist again at the moment of its fulfillment or, in the medieval terms, its

“demonstration” or “declaration.” By virtue of prophecy the year 1460 can occur in the chronology’s entry for the year 680, as well as in its usual place. Similarly, the prose Brut records parts of Merlin’s “Six Last Kings” prophecy twice, once when the predictions are uttered before King Arthur and once again when the predictions are thought to have come true.®3 Prophecy thus provides links between different temporal locations, so that time exists not as one flat extended line but as a series of corresponding points. Such a concept of correspondence in time was central to medieval thought. It is evident in medieval inter-

pretations of many of the basic Christian narratives, such as in the idea that Christ is a “new Adam” who touches simultaneously Genesis and the Incarnation: he is not only himself, but also a remanifestation of the ancestral man. Mary is the remanifestation of Eve, and so forth. The theory of figura,* or the idea that certain events are figurae futurorum, “figures of things to come,” is common in medieval explanations of the Old Testament as history and embodies a concept closely related to prophecy. The distinction is that in figura the earlier event announces the later by their similarity as events; in prophetia the earlier event announces the later by means of language alone. Auerbach calls figura “phenomenal prophecy,” prophecy by means of the antic-

ipatory phenomena of history itself, and shows how important this way of looking at events was to the whole medieval understanding of historical time.*®

The English commentary illustrates, although not in visual terms, the same historiographical assumptions about the nature of prophecy as does the chronology of the world in MS Bodley 623. In the commentary, too, the utterance and the “‘declaracion” of each prophecy are recorded as separate, but linked, events in time. (Only once is the commentator unsure: for prophecy no. 1 he gives two alternative corresponding events, and does not choose between them. Perhaps he thought that a prophecy could be fulfilled more than once.) There is 83. Ed. Brie; cf. 1:72 and 1:177; 1:72 and 1:203; 1:73 and 1:243.

84. On the word and the concept see the important essay by Erich Auerbach, ““Figura,’” trans. Ralph Manheim, in Scenes from the Drama of European Literature: Six Essays (New York, 1959), pp. 11-76, esp. p. 28. 85. “‘Figura,’” pp. 28-60.

59

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

of course no suggestion that the commentator believed that the relationship between prophecy and fulfillment was causal, i.e., that Merlin’s predictions somehow made things happen. Merlin was only enabled to

know the future and to describe it metaphorically. It is probable that the English commentator—like Vincent of Beauvais—would have thought of Merlin as a vehicle for the spiritus dei, although the text itself never addresses this issue. It simply assumes the underlying concept that history is a pattern foreknown to God and to his agents, although mysterious to ordinary people until its gradual unfolding takes place. The concept of history as a pattern divinely foreknown should not be taken to imply a belief that human events are not directed by human volition. As other analyses have pointed out, the medieval chroniclers typically assume that it is people who determine the course of events. Despite occasional statements to the contrary or rhetorical appeals to God, the fundamental world view is often secular.*° The same seems to be true of this commentator. He is not particularly interested in the church; he never brings up theological questions, even where he might

conveniently do so, as in recounting the struggle for power between King John and Pope Innocent. Once, to be sure, he sees a human event as due to the direct intervention of God: on the downfall of Robert Curthose, he comments (following the Brut virtually verbatim): And pis was vengeaunce of god. For whan the duke was in the holy lond. god yaf sich might and honowr to him ther. wherfor he was chosen to be king of Ierusalem. And he wold not but for soke it. / {Ther for god sent him that schame for to be put in his brothirs prison. (prophecy no. 22)

In addition, the commentator naturally accepts the historicity of miracle, as when he recounts the tale that St. Patrick was unable to speak in the presence of the as-yet-unborn St. David (prophecy no. 5), and the tale that Cadwalader, not knowing whether he should return to Britain, asked for God’s guidance and was answered by “a voice from hevyn” (no. 11). But even the most cautious of medieval historians, 86. Robert W. Hanning usefully points out the extent to which prefaces and other parts of historical writings might employ “rhetorical formulae” as forms of expression that exist in tension against the writers’ substance; see his review essay on L’historien au moyen Gge, by Benoit Lacroix, in History and Theory 12 (1973), 427-29. Cf. William J. Brandt, The Shape of Medieval History: Studies in Modes of Perception (New Haven, 1966), p. 73: “In the human world, the initiating disturbance [event] was ordinarily human will, or, even more strikingly, bare human action.” Hanning, incidentally, questions Brandt’s categories of “clerical” and “aristocratic” chroniclers (review essay, pp. 432-34), as does Stepsis (“Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronicle,” p. 67, n. 5).

60

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

such as William of Newburgh, who rejects Geoffrey’s Merlin altogether, report occasional supernatural interventions in human affairs.®’ What is more important is that the normal or typical explanations for

the causes of events are realistically human. Thus the commentator writes that “king Cadwall was so sore annoyed with saxons that he

thought vtterly to distroie hem...and he did slee man woman and childe for to performe his entencion and to enhaunce the bretons” (no.

7)—the cause of the massacre is not said to be the Saxons’ sins, but Cadwall’s “annoyance” against them and his desire to promote the interests of his own people instead. ‘““Godwyn Erle of Westsex fals-

ly bought to slee Alrede the eldir brothir for pis entent to marie his doughter to Edward the yonger brothir for he thought it was not sitting his doughter ne sche was not able to be maried to the eldir sone” (no. 18)—it is easy indeed to see the political machinations in Godwin’s “entent” here as he plans to kill one brother and to control the other through his daughter’s marriage. The commentator does not pause to moralize. He is perhaps even unaware of the touch of irony in

his report that when the messengers came to summon the doomed prince, “whan Alrede herd this tithinges he thanked god.” None of what has been said is at all surprising. The English commentator regards history as pattern. He accepts prophecy as a guide to that pattern. In a limited number of instances, he states or implies a belief in divine intervention in human affairs. In the great majority of instances, he attributes human events to plausible human motivations, although with no great complexity. In all probability he shares the uncritical acceptance of human characteristics or personality traits that is common in medieval chronicles. The commentator evidently perceives in Earl Godwin the characteristic of a lust for power, or the characteristic of treasonableness, but he shows no interest in how or why Godwin became that way, or in how that quality in Godwin relates to any other qualities in him. Perhaps such a concept of action as emanating from one of any number of discreet attributes, expressed separately although all embedded in the same person, explains the matter-of-fact statements about King John, who first despoiled the church and then,

presumably expressing a different trait, restored everything that he had formerly taken away. The interpretation of character, while it rec87. William’s preference for naturalistic explanations, and his reluctance to assume supernatural explanations, are well captured in his remark that ‘I am compelled to believe and marvel at what I cannot reach or unravel with a human mind”; the best analysis of his rationalism is that of Nancy F. Partner, Serious Entertainments: The Writing of History in Twelfth-Century England (Chicago, 1977), pp. 51-140, especially p. 115, where the above remark is cited and discussed. 61

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

ognizes motivation and allows for change, does not necessarily involve consistency or coherence.®® At the basis of such depictions of personality is probably nothing more than the Christian commonplace that a

good man can at any point lapse into sin, while a sinner can at any point repent: the individual personality includes contradictory elements, one or another of which may suddenly come to the fore. As the intellectual underpinnings of this text are commonplace, so is the prose style, which is firmly grounded in the late-medieval chronicle tradition as exemplified by the Brut. In the preface to his edition of the Brut, Brie remarks that “‘as literature, the Chronicle is as worth-

less. ..as a mediaeval Chronicle possibly can be.’”® Although one might feel that this particular judgment is unnecessarily harsh (there are other chronicles more dully or foolishly told), the general viewpoint that one does not find the heights of literary art in the English chronicles is surely valid.” Their intention is often simply to record information as they receive it. When they show what seems to be conscious rhetorical development, it is likely to be in the service of blatant factionalism. No chronicler in English can compare stylistically with Froissart. The short narratives in the English Prophetia Merlini commentary are derived primarily from the Brut, with the relatively limited narrative possibilities of the chronicle tradition further restricted by a very firm sense of purpose. All detail that does not illustrate the prophetic text is vulnerable to dismissal, whatever its other functions or beauties might be. If this principle were rigorously followed, narrative would be nothing more than mere gloss, and many of the Prophetia Merlini

commentaries are, in fact, no more than a set of dispersed glosses. Even this commentary, which permits itself space to tell the story rather than simply alluding to it, typically gives only that core of the 88. Brandt, The Shape of Medieval History, pp. 157, 161-62, 169, discusses character as consisting of “attributes”; cf. Stepsis, “Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronicle,” pp. 59-61, on William I and William II as changing their behavior. 89. Brut, 1:1x-x. 90. Cf. P. J. C. Field: “The chronicle style is a very limited one, unsuitable for reflecting the movement of a sophisticated mind, for organizing complicated material, or delivering ironic judgments” (Romance and Chronicle: A Study of Malory’s Prose Style [London, 1971], p. 35); Kingsford refers to the “immaturity of style” of the Brut (English Historical Literature, p. 135). Yet in another comment Kingsford offers a somewhat more favorable opinion: “Viewed simply as a literary production it is of no great merit, though passages of a good, simple, forceful kind are not lacking” (p. 135), and H. S. Bennett remarks that “for the main part the Brut is written in a clear narrative prose” (“Fifteenth-Century Secular Prose,” Review of English Studies 21 [1945], 262). 62

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

event that proves that “merlin seid sop.” In explaining “the kittelinges of be leon schal be transformed into fisches of the see,” for example, the commentator provides a very meager account. For when king herry pe first had discomfited all his enemyes in Fraunce he retorned a yen in to Englond. and his ij. sones Richard and William wold have come hom aftir hir fadir but or thei myght come to lond. their schipp ranne vp on a Rokke. And there were thei drenchid. (prophecy no. 27)

Here is no space for the drama of the White Ship: no space to tell of the imprudent launching too late at night, of the drunkenness of the sailors, of William’s return to the wreck in an ill-fated attempt to save his sister, of the king’s shock and sorrow and his changed way of life afterwards—details that the historians William of Malmesbury and Ordericus Vitalis report with great interest.?! Here the mere fact of the drownings suffices to validate the prophecy. Moreover, the individual narratives in the commentary are disconnected, since the organization of the work is governed by the sequence of the prophecies, rather than by that of the historical events themselves. Although the overall movement of the commentary is chronological, beginning with the Saxon invasions and ending with the reign of Henry III, each narrative episode is presented in isolation, strung as it were not on the thread of historical continuity but on the thread of Merlin’s prophecy in the Historia regum Britanniae. By the nature of this pendant structure, the narrative development is repeatedly foreclosed by the next incipit, “Merlin seid also,” introducing the prophetic statement from which the subsequent section of the narrative hangs. Forward movement is of brief duration, Just as it typically is in the annals, where the development of cause and effect, or of characterization, or of thematic continuity is soon interrupted by the next year number or the phrase “hoc anno” or “eodem anno.” This episodic style, however, which modern readers may perceive as a disturbing negative quality (a lack of development, an absence of cohesion, a disinterest in clarifying detail, etc.), apparently did not affect medieval readers in the same way. As Auerbach and others have shown, medieval narrative as a whole tended to be far more “paratactic” than later narrative has become: it proceeded by means of ingredients that were juxtaposed against one another, without the explicit causal connections and logical developments that have now come to

seem normal. Auerbach relates paratactic syntax (clauses joined by 91. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum Anglorum libri quinque, 2, ed. William Stubbs, RS 90 (London, 1889), pp. 496-97; Historia ecclesiastica 12.26, ed. Le Prévost, 4:409-20. 63

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

noncausative conjunctions such as ef, or juxtaposed without conjunctions at all) to a world view in which earthly occurrences are linked not so much horizontally to each other, as vertically to God’s will.” Ryding describes certain French narratives as romans a tiroirs, each constructed like “‘a chest of drawers which are explored one after the

other,” forming a “string of juxtaposed, mutually independent episodes.’’93 Galbraith characterizes medieval historiography as “‘just one

thing after another: a series of disconnected acts, each judged separately as good or bad.”™ Partner, writing on the literary context of twelfth-century historiography in England, comments on the “universality of episodic, nondevelopmental, serial organization,” pointing out that this was “the preferred form for narrative of all kinds, the form readers and auditors expected and enjoyed,” and concluding that it should be understood as “symptomatic of a profound difference in taste and not of a failure of mind.” While caution is necessary in relating sentence structure to larger aspects of literary design, in comparing Latin histories or French romans to an English work that is itself a commentary on an antecedent text, or in moving from the twelfth century to the fifteenth, these and similar studies are nevertheless valuable reminders of the pervasiveness of juxtaposition, or parataxis, as a medieval narrative principle. This structure is, moreover, fully appropriate for a text part of whose underlying subject is time itself: the interrelationship of selected

moments from the past, present, and future. The ostensibly disconnected structure, by truncating each episode’s links to its historical setting and so allowing the contemporary context virtually to drop out of sight, leaves the separated moments standing within the larger framework of universal history that prophecy implies. Since in this text no episode or event is of full significance in its own right, but takes its meaning from its function as a link between different moments in time, 92. “The greater the separateness and disconnection of the [Old Testament] stories and

groups of stories...the stronger is their general vertical connection,” Mimesis (Garden City, New York, 1957), p. 14. Cf. Auerbach’s statement on the “represen-

tational technique” of the Chanson de Roland and the Chanson d’Alexis: “It strings independent pictures together like beads” (Mimesis, p. 100). Auerbach’s discussion of hypotaxis vs. parataxis as reflecting different philosophical positions is related to his fundamental distinction between Old Testament and Homeric narrative styles (see chapter 1 of Mimesis, especially pp. 19-20). In this paragraph I am indebted to Partner’s chapter, “The Question of Literary Form,” in Serious Entertainments, pp. 194-211. 93. William W. Ryding, Structure in Medieval Narrative (The Hague, 1971), p. 43. 94. “Good Kings and Bad Kings in English History,” p. 119. 95. Serious Entertainments, pp. 202-3.

64

THE ENGLISH COMMENTARY

each episode needs no more internal development than is necessary to establish the firmness and validity of that linkage. What governs the writer’s style, ordaining compression and brevity rather than amplitude, is therefore the concept of prophecy itself. To the illustration of that concept this segmented, abbreviated prose 1s adequate. It seems fitting that the prose style itself should be commonplace, without idiosyncratic tendencies, for the purpose of the work as a whole is to explicate what had originally been stated obscurely, the prophetic utterances of Geoffrey’s Merlin. The writer thus makes both the mysteries of prophecy and the patterns hidden behind history accessible to the ordinary mind.

65

Sretepn pat ciftendom wad deftrored and af ye CSretons dveben ong. and ee

Cone oft wate fAwons- ffor m pat tyme 'y vac A papneme that was ned) Gor

mow pat Wao the Pmiges fone of Affrl of po papnemed fol¥ . and Ge Cote affem Sle paynemedswW out nombre- and > Ge (went r ye fee from duncefR Condes: and

eter for arerfhn ald Him the Wolf of pe fee- And chan He ome tw yrlond and o

qneved that ud. And ~ (ene paynomes to Gormond wher fetwarm pretend

toOo Help & pen theWere bretoneAnd ties Wo of} ata Gumtm forbrratyn Hie Pg for AT AHan paynym As ther «VG an Gormend Gord ala Gi and arryned m Scortond- and come @ y(orejumBbrelond

yor Pe Aone Nvell\d. efan Her cOofermed che Hbenaune Ge stppveri Gem . Shan Fe gan che Cavons. and Pe affrpams to deftrore che Critons as fer Porth af

tier nngfit-And pan fd pene Bpffetlepe Md AGVor” canons WT orfier oF vellgen |

firm im to Cia Seytaya. finn to Comnetoa® CUnd Eimg cozrtF ccodiiiie

moins Goaens (Cetged and affetoand guee the wwivns-¢, nd.vijan

Germend Had Wafted and deftrored al pe (Cond-Ge pa it ay ts

Aim tie cyt che was of Gagey Cooke pat firft Had tie fond of j nd eHhaniWwas Vij Pyndomes 4 enw raay nemos cerned. alte Sngtond tpine patdeynd foynenew Gregorpe, # Pome fadyor fepn bye! at etna ay we fair’ to Ge Hold. cmd aftr pur He Wot yer there of eng”

He fard Wel map tier Ce of vie = beter ed nnvgtit Be anita

rat san Vifages (Re ang > ms aie _ fene ferr Anftpn m to

e . pfones ofand a beltve. ney And maar 1 toAftconticrte cab fash yee WAC mcaenaadi of ford. cnt’ vy ver ashe womde fpeafierff- Ore meclyn tor} may Wel Ge ndt Ge yat Fmg” open pt ener Spied Pmy of Pent. and of tHe Conage of engi did (Tee @ a)- and 5). m thie tobne of (epecftr for

yertbold not turne to soy apr pede ape Ge come peynemes (Pe REE oo’ dyortya fee alp par firt Sas pa’. agmged. And Ge fad =for ferme Auftyn aft Ge Gad ae pephp tes nase by segenien of te

Guffetlape conctiing nivifdrcmen. (je dnd Qon(ea to iborup Be tn fat ynto carmnrdinp SU)cvlew thei ford ayer pn the digtrte of eee Comdyn “s*yerr and camnroiny- Ga rid nerdpn ford aD pat pe ve" Cuff of porke iad

roi Simm Shey Poulet mdorlyentiry: droah haf ayftendom came to engtond. be pe ft ne >) of He

nner ura er sD \ety A 4 rfer tea tu efter died MECH yn (ed allo Pie recone of ra wee cbeied Wwint pe palhon of Carlcon And fe Fede 6 = foe afte: pat

cepat elofene At eg ifeFirty wy Re Was of ofrune Pome and Engtond-Wher Fe

2. The English commentary on the Prophetia Merlini, fol. Ir. The Pennsylvania State University, Pattee Library, MS PS. V-3. By permission of the Pennsylvania State University Libraries.

Text

In view of the increasing interest 1n medieval punctuation, the punc-

tuation of the manuscript has been retained.! The punctus of the manuscript is printed as “ . ”; the punctus with a following ascendingdescending stroke as ‘‘/’’; the red and blue paragraph signs as ‘“4.”’ At the end of a line, the scribe sometimes omits the punctuation that his usual practice would lead one to expect; since layout itself here functions to provide a slight pause in reading, I have supplied the punctus in these cases. These few added punctuation marks and all other editorial insertions, including the numbers assigned to individual prophe-

cles, are enclosed in square brackets. Footnote numbers, however, since they are obvious editorial additions, are not so enclosed. The few words rubbed out in the original and read by ultraviolet light are enclosed in parentheses.

Expansions of abbreviations are italicized. In general, a principle of minimal expansion of abbreviation signs has been followed. In doubtful cases, such as the curl on final r and the lines through final // (which might represent final e, as in an earlier period, or might be simply flourishes), no expansion has been made unless fully written occurrences of particular words support expansion or the sense requires it. In recording compound words such as “into,” “‘until,” and “another,” where either two words or one might be transcribed, I have followed the spacing in the manuscript, which typically implies separation into two words. Initial ff has been transcribed as F. The scribe distinguishes between the prophecies themselves, which are written in red ink, and the interpretations, which are written in darkish brown. To maintain this distinction, the prophecies are printed in boldface type. 1. However, since this is not a line-for-line transcription, the line-end hyphenation of the manuscript is not reproduced.

67

BLANK PAGE

[1...]! Bretayn bat cristendom was destroied. and all be bretons dreven out. and the lond left vnto saxons. For in pat tyme ber was a payneme that was called Gormond pat was the kinges sone of Affrik of be paynemes folk. and he lete assemble paynemes with out nombre. and so he went be pe see from diuersse londes. and 5 therfor Merlyn called him the wolf of be see. And than he come to Irlond and conquered that lond. And pan sent paynemes to Gormond wher he was in Irlond? pat he schuld come to britayn to help hem a yenst the bretons. And thei wold hold him for hir king for he was a paynym as thei were. YWhan Gormond herd this prayer he 10 hastid him and arryued in scotlond. and come to Northumbrelond per that pe saxons dwellid. than thei confermed the covenaunt be twyxen hem. Than be gan the saxons. and the affrycans to destroie the britons as fer forth as thei might. And pan fled bens Bysschops and abbotes chanons with other of religion[.] sum in to litill Bry- 15 tayn. sum to Cornewaill. ¢And king Cortiff fled vnto chichestre wher bat Gormond him beseged. and affterward gate the towne. & cetera. YAnd whan Gormond had wasted and destroied al be lond. he yaff it vnto saxons a gayn which desyrid it. for pat thei were of

Engistes bloode pat first had the lond of britayn./ 4YAnd than 20 was Englond departid into vij. kyndomes a gayn which pat .l. wynter paynemes occupied. til the tyme bat seynt Gregorye (pope o)f Rome had seyn childre of bat nacion. which were wondre faire to be hold. and aftir bat he wist bei were of Englond. he seid wel may 1. As noted above, p. 20, MS PS. V-3 has lost its first two leaves. The surviving portion of the English commentary begins in mid-sentence, and reference is lacking to the opening section of Geoffrey’s Prophetia Merlini, quoted here from Acton Griscom’s edition, pp. 384-85: “Sedente itaque uortegirno rege britonum super ripam exhausti stagni. egressi sunt duo dracones. quorum unus erat albus. & alius rubeus. Cumque alter alteri appropinquasset. commiserunt diram pugnam. & ignem anelitu procreabant. Preualebat autem albus draco. rubeumque usque ad extremitatem lacus fugabat. At ille cum se expulsum doluisset. impetum fecit in album. ipsumque retro ire coegit. Ipsis ergo in hunc modum pugnantibus. precepit rex ambrosio merlino dicere quid prelium draconum portendebat. Mox ille in fletum erumpens. spiritum hausit prophetie & ait. Ue rubeo draconi. nam exterminatio eius festinat. Cauernas ipsius occupabit albus draco. qui saxones quos inuitasti significat. Rubeus uero gentem designat britannie. que ab albo opprimetur. Montes itaque ut eius ualles equabuntur. & flumina uallium sanguine manabunt. Cultus religionis delebitur. & ruina ecclesiarum patebit. Preualebit tandem oppressa. & seuicie exterorum resistet. Aper etenim cornubie succursum prestabit. & colla eorum sub pedibus suis conculcabit. Insule occeani potestati ipsius subdentur. & gallicanos saltus possidebit. Tremebit romulea domus seuiciam ipsius. & exitus eius dubius erit. In ore populorum celebrabitur. & actus eius. cibus erit narrantibus. Set & posteri eius sequentur sceptrum.”

2. “Irlond” covers an erasure. 69

TEXT

25 thei be? called Englissch men. but better pei might be callid angelik men hauyng visages like angelles. {Then be (pope) sent seimt Austyn in to Englond with other xl. persones of goode life and hoolsum conuersacion to conuerte be englysch peple to cristen feith and beleve. And pis was aftir the incarnacion of owr lord .v.C.*ilij*.vij. 30 yere as the cronicle specifieth. Or elles merlynes wordes may wel be vnderstonden be pat king Adelbright which was made king of kent. and of the lenage of Engist did slee a M'. and ij©. monkes in the tovne of leycestre. for bei wold not turne to theire fals beleve.

ne thei wold neuir be come paynemes like as the saxons were./4 35 [2] YMerlyn seide also pat first seis schal be chaunged./ And he seid soth. for seint Austyn aftir he had conceyued and wel vndirstonden be dissension of be bisschops touching their iurisdiccion. he did pe Archebisschoprich of london to be translat vnto Cauntirbury. And therfor’ seid Merlyn the dignite of london schall worschipp dovier 40 and Cauntirbury./6 [3] {And Merlyn seid also pat pe vij."* bisschopp of yorke schall rest him in litill bretayn./ And he seide sooth. For seint sampson which was the vij.'e Archebisschopp of yorke aftir cristendom came to Englond. be be strengthe of heretikes with other vij. bisschopps sogettes vnto him wern dryven vnto litill bretayn.

45 and ther thei dwelled til thei died./” [4] (Merlyn seid also pat pe tovne of seynt dauid in wales schall be clothed with be pallion of Carleon./ And he seide soth. For afftir bat Englond was turned to cristen feith. seint Austyn went in to walis seyng bat he was a legate of? Rome and primat of Englond. wher for bei schuld obey

50 him. 4Thei [fol. lv] seid thei wold not obey but oonly to the bischopp of karleon. And whan seint Austyn had enformed king 3. MS “be” is followed by “of” marked for deletion. 4. The prophecy being explained is Geoffrey’s “sublimabit illum equoreus lupus. quem affricana nemora comitabuntur.” On the /upus as Gormund, cf. A, L, M, C, P, D, and W; also Wace, who says of Gormund, “De lui prophetiza Merlins / Que ¢o serreit uns lus marrins” (Brut, ll. 13401-2, ed. Arnold, 2:699). The alternative interpretation given by the English commentary is used to explain the next phrase of the

prophecy, “delebitur iterum religio,” in M, C, and P. See above, pp. 11-13 for manuscript sigla.

5. MS “for” is inserted as a correction. 6. Geoffrey: “Delebitur iterum religio. & transmutatio primarum sedium fiet. Dignitas lundonie adornabit doroberniam.” On the interpretation, cf. X, A, E, R, L, M, B, C, and D; also Robert of Gloucester, Metrical Chronicle, 11. 4760-62, ed. Wright, 1:336. See also p.. 26 above. 7. Geoffrey: “pastor eboracensis septimus in armorico regno frequentabitur.” On the interpretation, cf. X, A, E, R, L, M, B, C, P, and D. 8. MS “of” is written twice; the second occurrence is crossed out.

70

TEXT

Adelbryght of this answer he was sore annoyed. {And sent to Elfride king of Northumbrelond to come to him with all his power to destroie the bysshopp of karleon. And al hem that refused seynt Austyn. And so be be power of thees kinges was the see of karleon 55 translatid vnto seynt Dauid in walis. which than be thavise of seint Austyn was made an Archibisshoprich.? [5] (Merlyn seid also pat

pe prechouwr of Irlond schall not mow spek for the child in the modir wombe./ And he seide sooth. For whan seynt Patryk [should

have preached]!° the word of god in the town that now is called 60 seynt Dauid in walis he had no power for!! to speke. And at the last

he supposid ther was sum better man or gretter with god ban he beyng at bat tyme in the chirch wherfor he had no spirit to spek. qThan he did oon aftir'? a nothir to passe oute of the chirche. And he assayed for to spek. but he might not til that the modir of seynt 65 Dauid with whom sche was than with childe passid by. Aftir that he be gan for to speke. and had power for to speke what that him lyked./'3 [6] Merlyn seyde also that vij. kinges schall be slayn. And oon of hem schall be a seynt./ And he seyde soth[.] For king Cadwall and his men did slee kinges folowyng. that is to sey Edwyne. 70 Edfride Offryk. Peanda. Gofride. Offride. with king Oswalde. which

that now is called a blessid seynt./'* [7] Merlyn seide also that ther schall be so greete tormentrie that be childer schall be cut ovt 9. Geoffrey: “Meneuia pallio urbis legionum induetur.” A also identifies this prophecy with Augustine. X, FE, L, M, B, P, and D simply identify the two cities, or give different details—as does Giraldus Cambrensis, De invectionibus, ed. J. S. Brewer, in Giraldi Cambrensis opera, 3, RS 21 (London, 1863), p. 46.

10. The clause has no verb, but it can be approximated from other commentaries: “sanctus Patricius qui, cum deberet praedicare verbum Dei in Menevia civitate, non

potuit” (C); “sanctus Patricius qui quando debuit praedicare verbum Dei in Menevia non potuit” (P). 11. MS “for” is an insertion. 12. MS: “aftir afftir.” 13. Geoffrey: “predicator hybernie propter infantem in utero crescentem obmutescet.” On the interpretation, cf. A, R, M, B, and C; the prophecy is applied to Gildas rather than to Patrick in D, perhaps following the version of the episode in Giraldus Cambrensis, De vita S. Davidis, ed. J. S. Brewer, in Giraldi Cambrensis opera, 3, RS 21 (London, 1863), p. 381. X, L, and also Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 355 simply identify the infant as St. David. 14. Geoffrey: “Septem sceptrigeri perimentur. & unus eorum sanctificabitur.” Where the king list is given it is variable; close to the English commentary’s list are those in C, P, and D. The one to be sainted, where identified, is always Oswald: _X, A, R, L, M, B, C, D, and W; also Bodley 355 and London, British Library, MS Additional 45103 (a French verse translation of the Prophetia Merlini), fol. 84v. Although in the manuscript there is no punctuation between “Edfride” and “Offryk,” they are separate kings (presumably the scribe simply forgot the punctus). 71

TEXT

of hir modir wombes. and straunge men schall be restored./ {And 75 he seide soth. For king Cadwall was so sore annoyed with saxons that he thought vtterly to distroie hem. and to restore it a yen to bretayns. and he did slee man woman and childe for to performe his entencion and to enhaunce the bretons./'5 [8] Merlyn seyde

also that he pat schall doo this Rigour schall be come a man of 80 brasse. and he by a long tyme schall kepe london gatis vppon a brasen hors./ And Merlyn seid soth. For king Cadwall aftir he had destroied Saxons he died and was beried in a brasen ymage made

aftir his ovne stature. This ymage was set vppon a brasen hors. And put vp on the west gate of london in token that he had dis85 comfited and dryven ovte the Saxons. and the bretons beleved that thei schuld neuir be put ovt. as long as this ymage kept the portes of london. & cefera./'!*® [9] Merlyn saide also pat be Reede dragon

schall resorte to his oolde condicions a geyn. and he schall wex woode with him self./ And Merlyn seide soth. For in the reigne of 90 king Cadwaladre that was the last king of bretons felle so greete discorde be twix lordis of the londe that euerich werred vppon othir./!’ [10] Merlyn seid also bat vengeaunce of god schal falle on britain. in so mekil pat be feeldes schall disceyue the plowmen. And pe peple schall suffre hungre and greete deeth. and tho pat be

95 lefft o lif schall forsake per natif contre. and passe ouer in til fer londes. And pan schall bretayn be nere hand desolat./ And Merlyn seid sooth. For afftir that king Cadwaladre had reigned xij. yere. per felle so greete derthe of corne and of vitaille in the lond pat a man might goo ij. or ililj. daies from tovn to tovne that he schuld 100 fynde no corne to selle for gold ne for siluer no noon other vitaill. qAnd aftir this mysaventure felle so greete mortalite a mong the peple be corrupcion of the eire. that the levyng peple suffised not to bury pe dede bodies. [fol. 2r] And tho ba might flee fled ovt in

til ober contrees. ¢Than Cadwaladre compleyned him in this 15. Geoffrey: “ventres matrum secabuntur. & infantes abortiui erunt. Erit ingens supplicium hominum. ut indigene restituantur.” On the interpretation, cf. X, A, L, C, P, and D. 16. Geoffrey: “Qui faciet hec. eneum uirum induet. & per multa tempora super eneum equum portas lundonie seruabit.” On the interpretation, cf. .X, A, FE, R, L, B, C, P,

D, and W; also Bodley 355. However, there is variation in the spelling of Cadwall’s name, and in subsequent prophecies there may be confusion among Geoffrey’s three kings Cadvan, Cadwallo, and Cadwalader (grandfather, father, and son in the Historia 12). M reports that the image is King Lud’s. 17. Geoffrey: “Exinde in proprios mores reuertetur rubeus draco. & in seipsum seuire laborabit.” Cf. X, P, and D; more vaguely, e.g., simply referring to the Britons’ warlike behavior, A, R, L, B, and C. 72

TEXT

maner seying. Now is come to vs this mysaventure which hath 105 chaced vs ovt of oure lond and propre soile. From the which som tyme romaynes scottes. saxons ne danes might not exile vs & cete-

ra./'8 [11] Merlyn saide also that a blessyd king schall apparaill schippes and passe over in til a nober contree. And he schall be schryned in the halle of xij. men./ Merlyn seyde soth. For king 110 Cadwaladre with his men passed ouer in til litil bretain to king Aleyn his cosyn with a litle navey of schippes. And he had long dwelled ther. And had knowlech. that the derth of cornes. and deth of peple was come and goon. He thought to repayre a geyn to his ovne lond. {But first he prayed god devoutly to make him 115 demonstracion yf his repaire in to this lond were to god plesaunce or not. 4YThan come a voice from hevyn to him and seide. Cad-

waladre leve thi iornay in til Englond and goo to the (pope) of Rome for it is not the will of god that brentons regne no lenger ne nevir recouer the lond til the tyme the reliques of thi body and of 120

other seyntes be founde and brout from Rome vnto bretayn. {Than king Cadwaladre submitted him to pe disposicion of god. and toke his way to Rome and come to (pope) Sergius and was assoilled of his synnes. and sone aftir he died. and was buried in the chirche of xij. Apostolles. and is a seint./!® [12] Merlyn seid 125 also that the whight dragon schall [rise]*° a yen. and he schall calle

to him pe doghter of Saxonie. Than schall oure gardeyns be replenissched with straunge seede. and pe Reede dragon schall langwyssch and moorne?! in the boordis of a water./ Merlyn seide sooth. For the Englissh peple that were left o lyve aftir the greete 130 derth and deth sent in to saxonie. where thei were boore for men wymmen and childre to stuffe cities and townes with peple a geyn.

Than come pe saxons and multiplied wondir thik. and vsed the langage of hir ovne contree. and chaunged the names of cities townes and castels and held the counties baronages lordschippes as_ 135 bretons had compaced hem be forne. {And a mong hem that come 18. Geoffrey: “Superueniet itaque ultio tonantis. quia omnis ager colonos decipiet. Arripiet mortalitas populum. cunctasque nationes euacuabit. Residui natale solum deserent. & exteras culturas seminabunt.” Cf. A; more vaguely, X, L, B, C, P, and D; also Bodley 355. M associates the prophecy with Cadwallo. 19. Geoffrey: “Rex benedictus parabit nauigium. & in aula duodecimi inter beatos annumerabitur.” Cf. .X, A, E, R, L, B, C, P, D, and W; also, by implication, M; also Wace, Brut, ll. 14792-800, ed. Arnold, 2:775. 20. The clause has no verb, but cf. Geoffrey: “Exurget iterum albus draco.” 21. “Moorne” might be read “movrne” instead: the letterform following the first o is angular at the bottom, like a v, but lacks the leftward ascender of this scribe’s v, being rounded towards the top instead like his o. 73

TEXT

from saxonie to Englond came pe noble quene sexburga with men and wymmen with ovte nombre. and arrivid in Northumbrelond. and toke the lond from scotlond in to Cornewaille for hir and for 140 hir peple. for al that lond was desolate and voide of peple except a

fewe powre bretons that were left in mountayns and in woodis. {Than be gan the saxons for to reigne. and departed be lond be twix hem and made kinges by dyuerse contries. The first was of” westsex. The second of Estsex. The thrid of Estangle called North145 folk and Southfolk. pe iiij.'e king of Merchlond with many oper as king of Northumbrelond & cefera. And the bretons sum of hem fled into walis. vnto be boordis of the see./*> [13] Merlyn seid than schall be crowned a worme of Germayn.” and the brasen prince schall be troden vndir foot./ And he seid sooth. For king Egbrite 150 was than made king of all the lond. for as mekyl as euery king werrid vppon othir. And he that was myghti. toke from him pat was not so stronge. And this king Egbryt deposed the brasen ymage of Cadwall which bat bretons had set vp on londongate for to chace away the saxons.* [fol. 2v] [14] Merlyn seid also pat the whight 155 dragons terme is prefixed which he schall not passe but he schall a bide in troble in angwysch and disese an C.xl. wynter. and iij.© yeere he schall leve in ease./ And Merlyn seide ful soth. For the bretons that were left on lyve aftir be decece of Cadwaladre werred vppon the saxons in Englond an C. yere. xl. than were britons vt160 terly destroied and fled in to walis. 4§Than had pe saxons rest and pees a mong hem self be iij.© wynter vnto pat danes came vpon hem.

And from pe tyme of king Egbryt vnto be tyme of Swayne king of danes regned be Saxons vndir thies kinges folowyng. {Egbrit. Adeldulph. Athewalde. Ethelbrit. Alrede. Edwarde. Adthelstan. Edmond. 165 Edrede Edwyn. Edgare. and seint Edmond the martir & cetera./® 22. MS “of” is inserted as a correction. 23. Geoffrey: “Exurget iterum albus draco. & filiam germanie inuitabit. Replebuntur ortuli nostri iterum alieno semine. & in extremitate stagni languebit rubeus.” On the Saxon settlement, cf. L, C, P, and D; with less detail, X, A, E, B, and W. 24. Here and in the explanation of prophecy no. 27, the form “Germayn” might be read as “Germaynie” instead: the scribe has put the “dotted crescent” abbreviation mark (see above, p. 21) over the 7. However, since the form “Germayn” is attested in the Middle English Dictionary, one need not regard the abbreviation mark as functional here. 25. Geoffrey: “Exinde coronabitur germanicus uermis. & eneus princeps humabitur.” Cf. on the uermis X, P, D; more vaguely, R and B; L and C give other Saxon leaders as the vermis. On Cadwall as eneus princeps, cf. X, A, E, L, B, and D. 26. Geoffrey: “Terminus illi positus est quem transuolare nequibit. Centum namque quinquaginta annis in inquietudine & subiectione manebit. trescentum uero insi74

TEXT

[15] Merlyn seyde also pat the north wynde schall a ryse vp on the Whight Dragon. And it schall destroie be floures engendrid be pe

: Estwynde./ And Merlyn seid sooth. For whan Osbright king of Northumbrelond had for layne the wyf of Buerne thorogh strenghth

which was a greete lorde in north contree. He toke leve of his 170 freendis and went in to Denmark and pleyned him to the king Godryn how that king Osbright had doon him such a despite. and

praied him of socoure and helpe for to a venge him vp on his king. (Whan the king of denmark and the danes [herd]?’ this compleynt. thei were wondre glad that thei had cause to come in to En- 175 glond. And a none thei lete ordeyne a greete peple of danes. and pe king made his ij. brethryn capteyns. that is to sey. Hyngwar and

hubba. and aftir thei had take hir leve of king Godryn. a noone aftir thei arrived in the North contree. thei brent tovnes. and killed peple til thei came to york. Ther also met thei with king Osbright & 180 slewe him. and a noone the Cite was take. and the danes entrid in.

and [did]8 al the sorogh pat thei might. And from york be danes went to Notingham. and pan to lyncoln. and lyndesey. and to holond. for no man might hem withstande. And so ferce”® the danes passed til thei came to thetforde. And in pat contree bei fonde a_ 185 cristen king that was king of Northfolk and Southfolk bat now is called seint Edmond. this king Edmond faught with danes but he was dreven to the Castell of Framyngham. and per he was martired./ And ther for seid Merlyn pat be floure of be Est schal be destroied./ And he seid sooth. For seint Edmond was king [of] Estangle called 190 Northfolk and Southfolk./*° [16] Merlyn seide also pat pe temples debit.” Is the “140 years” of the English version simply a scribal error? On the interpretation, cf. A, R, M, B, C, P, D, and W. However, the king list, where given, is variable; the lists in P and D are close. After “& cetera” there appears the double virgule, the signal to the rubricator to supply a paragraph sign, but the paragraph sign itself is missing. 27. MS: “his” (perhaps influenced by upcoming “this’’).

28. The clause has no verb, but it can be approximated from the Brut: the Danes “deden al be sorwe pat bai myght,” ed. Brie, 1:106. 29. “Ferce” might be read “ferre” instead (as would perhaps be preferable for the sense): the letterform begins like an r at the top, but clearly curves like ac at the bottom. 30. Geoffrey: “Tunc exurget in illum aquilo. & flores quos zephirus procreauit. eripiet.” None of the commentaries compared gives the story of Buerne here, although

X, A, E, R, B, L, C,P, and D relate this prophecy to the Danish invasions. The Buerne story was told in Gaimar’s Estorie des Engles and is included in Waurin’s chronicle and (in a form very close to that of the commentary, see p. 34 above) in the Brut, ed. Brie, 1:103-S. 75

TEXT

schal be replenysched with golde. And he seide sooth. For king knoght had conquered denmark. and Norwey. and held the realme of Englond. he thought him self so greete a lorde pat no man might 195 be comparid vnto him. And vpon a day after he had herd his messe in the palice of Westmynstre. he went dovn to be water of Temse.

And the wawes so swyftly came a geyn him that al moost thei touched his feet[.] Tho seide the king with a hasty spirit. I co! mavnde phe water to torne a geyn. The wawes for his commavnde200 ment wold not spare but euer wax more and more. And whan he sawe this he with drewe him. and seid thies wordes in hering of al

the peple. ¢YGod bat maketh the water to a rise on hight. he is king of kinges. for al thing dooth his commaundement. and to him

Obeith. To pat god I praye to be my warant. for I knovlech my 205 self. and of no power?! And per for I will go to Rome my trespasse for to amende. [fol. 3r] And aftir bat he came a yen in to Englond. and never ware crowne of gold. but set his crovne vp on

be ymage of the crucifixe. And than be gan the costom pat now is to offre golde and othir precious thinges to god and to holy 210 seyntes in Abbeys where pei be schryned./*?. [17] Merlyn seid also that the Whight dragon schall not opteyne his covert ne his cave.

for he schall be betrayed./ And Merlyn seid sooth. For this was first a custom be twix Englyssch men and danys. yf thei metten vpon a brigge. the Englysch man schuld not be so hardy to meve 215 ne stere oo foote but stand stille til be dane passed by. And more ovir yf the Englisch man had not bowed. and do reuerence vnto the dane he schuld be bete and sore wounded. JAnd sich maner despites did the danes vntil Englissh men. wher for thei were dryved oute of Englond aftir the deth of king hardeknoght pat regned aftir

220 king knoght. For thei had no lord pat might hem maynteyn. And king Alrede aftir he had weddid Emme the dukes doughter of Normandie:33 did al the danes in oo day to be slayn. and in oo hour be a comen wacchworde a mong pe Englyssh peple. and so be whight

dragon was be trayed./** [18] Merlyn seid also that De whight 31. The idea is incomplete; the Brut supplies the sense: “y knowliche me caitif feble, & of none power,” ed. Brie, 1:124. 32. Geoffrey: “Erit deauratio in templis. nec acumen gladiorum cessabit.” EF and D also give the story of Cnut and the waves here; X, A, and C refer to the Danes’ hanging of gold or golden armaments in the churches; R and B simply note the Danish-Saxon wars. 33. This is the sole use of the colon in this text. 34. Geoffrey: “Vix obtinebit cauernas suas germanicus draco. quia ultio proditionis eius superueniet.” None of the commentaries compared is very close, although C 76

TEXT

dragon. schal encresse a yen but pe tithe of Normandie schal hurt 225 him soore./ And Merlyn seid sooth. For aftir pat king hardknoght was dede pe lordes of Englond be hir comen assent and counseill sent into Normandie to seche Alrede and Edward ij. bretherin which

dwelled with duk Richard bat was hir eme in thentent to crowne Alrede king. bat was the eldir brothir. But Godwyn Erle of West- 230 sex falsly bought to slee Alrede the eldir brothir for bis entent to marie his doughter to Edward the yonger brothir for he thought it was not sitting his doughter ne sche was not able to be maried to the eldir sone. §And whan the messangers came to Normandie pei fonde not but Alrede bat was the eldir brothir. for his broper Ed- 235 ward was goon to hungarie to speke with Edward the ovtelawe pat was king Edmond Irensyde is sone. Whan Alrede herd this tithinges he thanked god. than he passed the see with a greete multitude of Normannes. and arrived at southampton per bat Godwyn was. than went Alrede and Godwyn toward london. And whan thei came to 240 Gildford the traitour comaunded al his men that pei schuld bynde pe Normannes and set him on a rowe. and whan he had sleyn ix. of hem he comaunded pe x.'€ man to be* saved. And for pat he thought to many of hem on lyve. aftir pis tithyng he lete slee euery tenbe man of pies that were left. And afftir bis bei toke king Al- 245

rede. and led him to pe Ile of Ely. and put ovte bope his eyen. And aftir thei put him to pe deth. {And aftir him regned seynt Edward the confessour which was a saxon be his fadir. and a Nor-

man be his modir. And per for said Merlyn the whight dragon schall encrece & cetera.*© [19] (Merlyn seid also. that a peple schal 250

come in yren cootes. and in tymbir. this peple schall take vengeaunce of be saxons for hir wikkednesse./ And he said sooth. For william bastard duke of Normandie[.] for the despit that Godwyn had doon to Normannes as I seid be forn. he came into Englond but with euery x." man of Normandie. to a venge him vp on king 255 harold that was Godwyn sone. ¢YWhen king harold hard thies

tithinges he went towardes [fol. 3v] him with a litle peple. and purposed to geff him bataille. But the duke asked him of thies iij.

mentions Aelred; ZL and P associate the prophecy with Egelred or Ethelred; L and C also with Godwin. The section on meetings on bridges is closely paralleled in the Brut, ed. Brie, 1:126. 35. MS “‘be” is inserted as a correction. 36. Geoffrey: “Uigebit tandem paulisper. set decimatio neustrie nocebit.” On the in-

terpretation cf. A, R, L, B, C, P, and D; also Ordericus Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 12.47, ed. Le Prévost, 4:489. 77

TEXT

thinges. yf he wold wedde his doughter. as he had promysed and

260 sworn. and leyd his seall. Or yf that he wolde hold Englond of him in trewage. Or yf he wyll determyne this thing thorogh Bataill. {This king harold trustid mekil vpon his strengthe. and faught with the duke. but harold and his men were discomfited. and this bataill was endid at Tonbrigge & cefera./*” [20] Merlyn seid also pat pis 265 peple schall restore mansions and dwellinges to hem that dwellid

there of long tyme beforn. and the aliauntes schal be destroied./

And he seid sooth. For aftir this conquest of william duke of Normandie he gaff lordschippes baronages castelles and townes to Normannes. and eke to britons that held Englond of long tyme be 270 forn. which bretons com to socour Normannes in their conquest. and be danes and be saxons were destroied and put a syde which

that Merlyn called alyauntes and peple of a straunge lond./*® [21] Merlyn seid also that be whight dragons kynred schall be digged out our gardyns[.] And pe releff of his generacion schall be

275 tythid. Thei schall bere a yooke of thraldam. and pei schall hurt hir modir with yrens. and with hir plowes./ Merlyn seyd sooth. For ther regned sith the conquest nor dane nor saxon. but that william conquerour did hem slee euerich oon except the x.'© man. qAnd also in thoo daies. Malcolyn king of scottes toke so many

280 prisoners of this forsaide peple. That from that day to this tyme scotlond hath be fulle of hem. than were thei put for their fynaunce

to digge and delfe. ther for seid Merlyn bat pei schuld hurt hir modir for be erthe is modir of all erthly creatures.2® [22] Merlyn seide also. that ther schall come ij. dragons. that on schal be stran37. Geoffrey: “Populus namque in ligno & tunicis ferreis superueniet. qui uindictam de nequicia ipsius sumet.” The populus is regularly the Norman force of William: X, A, J, R, L, M, B, P, and D. The nequicia is sometimes Harold’s failure to honor his oath acknowledging William, sometimes Godwin’s murder of Alfred, sometimes (A, P) both. A quite different interpretation, applying this and the preceding prophecies to the murder of Thomas a Becket, is given by Richard le Poitevin: see Elie Berger, Notice sur divers manuscrits de la bibliothéque vaticane: Richard le Poitevin (Paris, 1879), pp. 125-26. 38. Geoffrey: “Restaurabit pristinis incolis mansiones. & ruina alienigenarum patebit.” Cf. X, J, R, L, B, C, P, and D; both A and the Brut say that William gave the lands back to the English instead. 39. Geoffrey: “Germen albi draconis ex ortulis nostris abradetur. & reliquie generationis eius decimabuntur. Iugum perpetue seruitutis ferent. matremque suam ligonibus & aratris uulnerabunt.” Cf. X, P, and D, who mention Malcolm; more generally, A, J, B, and C; also Giraldus Cambrensis, De invectionibus, ed. J. S. Brewer, in Giraldi Cambrensis opera, 3, RS 21 (London, 1863), p. 27. 78

TEXT

glid with a darte. That othir dragon schall retourne and rest him 285 vndir his own schadough./ Merlyn seide sooth. For aftir the deeth of wylliarm conquerouwr. succedid his 1j. soones oon in Englond an-

othir in Normandie[.] he that regned in Englond was called king william Rous that destroied townes & houses of religion for to make

his forest lenger and brodir §And vpon a day as he huntid in his 290 Forest. oon of his knyghtes callid sir water Tyrell wold haue schot

at an hert. And his arowe glacid vp on a braunche. and thorogh mysauenture smoote the king to pe hert. and so he fell dovne dede. qAnd whan this william Rous was dede. hery his brothir was made king. For william Rous had no childe and in the secounde yere of 295 his regne his brothir Robert Curthose which was duke of Normandie come with an huge navey in til Englond for to chalenge it. thei were accordid in this maner that the king schuld yeef the duke his

brothir a M!. livres. euery yere. And which of hem lengest livid schuld be operis eyr. Than went the duke a gayn in to Normandie 300

aftir pis apoyntment. And with Inne ij. yere aftir Fell a greete debate be twix hem tweyn. so that the king thorogh counseill went ouer into Normandie. to whom al the greete lordes of Normandie turned and helde a yenst the duke hir owne lord and him forsoken. and be came the kinges men of Englond. Than was the duke taken 305

and lad with pe king in til Englond and put in prison. {And pis [fol. 4r] was vengeaunce of god. For whan the duke was in the holy lond. god yaf sich might and honowr to him ther. wherfor he was chosen to be king of Ierusalem. And he wold not but for soke it./

qTher for god sent him that schame for to be put in his brothirs 310 prison. thoo sesid the king al Normandie in til his handes and hilde

it al his lif. And thus he rested vndir his ovne schadough for a schadough is a likenesse. And to his brothir he was moost like in whos prison he died./*# [23] Merlyn seid also that aftir thies ij. dragons schall com a leon of Rightwysnesse. at whos roring the 315 toures of Fraunce. And pe dragons of pe Iles schall tremble for

drede./ And he‘! seid sooth. For whan this king henry the first had regned xvij. yere a greete debat a roose be twix lowes pe king

of Fraunce and him. Than went he ouer pe see with a greete power. | and werred ij. yere vpon the king of Fraunce til that lowes was dis- 320 40. Geoffrey: “Succedent duo dracones. quorum alter inuidie spiculo suffocabitur. alter uero sub umbra nominis redibit.” The dracones are regularly William Rufus and Robert Curthose: A, J, E, R, L, M, B, C, P, and D; less explicitly, X; also Ordericus Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 12.47, ed. Le Prévost, 4:493. 41. MS “he” is inserted as a correction. 79

TEXT

comfited. and vnnethe might escape with mekil peyne[.] And the moost parte of his men were take. and sum were slayn and put to the deeth. FAlso the walschmen and the britons which dwelled in walis he did hem cese from their Rebellion. and put hem in drede

325 of him./4 [24] Merlyn seid also that in tho daies gold schall be tried oute of* lilie and of De Netle. and siluer schall welle from pe feete of bestes./ And he seid sooth[.] For in this king henryes tyme prestes paied a pension of gold and syluer to be king for to pardon

hem of their wyfes & cetera./“ [25] Merlyn seid also pat the 330 compowned peple schall clothe hem with diuerse wollis. and their vitir clothing schall expresse their inward thinking./ And he seid

sooth. For afftir the comyng of Normannes in til Englond thei wox wondir fresch and chaungeable in their array. {This outward chaunge in thair apparaill signified greete vnstedfastnesse in their

335. deedes. and in their wittis.“5 [26] Merlyn seid also pat feete of barking hovndes schall be smyten of and wylde beestes schall have pees./ Merlyn seid sooth. For this king herry first so wel lovid his

forestes and his venarye that he commaunded all the hovndes of the contre a boute his forest ech of hem to leese a foote. And so 340 thei were vnable to renne & cetera./* [27] Merlyn seid also pat the kittelinges of be leon schal be transformed into fisches of the see. and his egle schall nestill vpon De movnt of arrian./ And he seid sooth. For when king herry pe first had discomfited all his enemyes in Fraunce he retorned a yen in to Englond. and his jj. 345 sones Richard and William wold have come hom aftir hir fadir but 42. Geoffrey: “Succedet leo iusticie. ad cuius rugitum gallicane turres & insulani dracones tremebunt.” The /eo is Henry I in_X, A, J, E, R, L, M, B, C, P, and D; also Bodley 355; also in Suger, Vita Ludovici Grossi Regis, ca. 1143, ed. Henri Waquet (Paris, 1964), pp. 98, 100, 102; Ordericus Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 12.47, ed. Le Prévost, 4:493; Etienne de Rouen, Draco Normannicus, ca. 1170, ed. Richard Howlett, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 2, ll. 239, 1652-54, RS 82 (London, 1885), pp. 600, 654. Yet even this very stable prophecy was susceptible of different interpretations: see p. 6 above for an application to Philip of Burgundy. 43. MS “of” is an insertion. 44. Geoffrey: “In diebus eius aurum ex lilio & urtica extorquebitur. & argentum ex ungulis mugientium manabit.” £, C, and P interpret this prophecy in terms of Henry’s exactions of money from clerics who wanted to keep their wives. 45. Geoffrey: “Calamistrati uaria uellera uestibunt. & exterior habitus interiora signabit.” The curling of hair or the wearing of variegated clothing is noted also by X, A, J, E, L, B, C, P, and perhaps D (unclear on microfilm). 46. Geoffrey: “Pedes latrantium truncabuntur. pacem habebunt fere. humanitas supplicium docebit.” On the application to Henry I and his love of hunting cf. A, J, M, and P; less precisely, X and D. 80

TEXT

, or thei myght come to lond. their schipp ranne vp on a Rokke. And there were thei drenchid. his Egle is called his doughter Maude Themperice’’ which aftirward was wedded to the Erle of Angeon. and came a yen in to Germayn. and dwelled nere the movnteyns and

the marches of Englond & cetera./*8 [28] Merlyn seide also. that 350 Cornewaille schall slee vj. brethrin. and pe Ile schall be moysted with many wepinges./ And he seide sooth. For be king Coryn be toke to Reynold his sone al Cornewaille. and made him Erle of it. which Reynold aftirward slew .vj. of his brethryn wherfor all that

contre was soore annoyed. and euery man was provokyd vnto 355 werre. and the Englysch men conspired a geyn the Normannes./” [29] Merlyn seid also woo to Normandie. For in the schall the leons brayn be spilt. and his othir parties schall be dolven in his ovne contre./ And he seid sooth. For aftir king herry pe secounde pat

was [fol. 4v] the emperesse sone regned king Richard the first. 360 which conquered pe holy lond that cristen men had lost. And aftir

he had thus doon he went into Normandie and werred vpon pe king of Fraunce. and put him vnto flyte. {Than went king Rychard to the Castell gaylyard to a vise him how he might it wynne. and a normanne smote him with a quarell in the brayn. the king drewe 365

ovte the schaft but the hede a boode with Inne. Anoon he commaunded hastly all his men to assaille pe castell so pat a, noon pe castell was goten[.] Than seid king Richard he pat died vpon a crosse for al man kynde. he bring me to his blisse for now I am wounded to be deeth./ Therfor seid Merlyn. sorow to Normandie. 370 in whom pe leons brayn was sched./ Be this leon vndirstondith king Richard. Than was be Remiant of his bodie broght to Reding wher pat he was buried./*° [30] Merlyn said also pat aftir be leon 47. MS: “the Themperice.” 48. Geoffrey: “Catuli leonis in equoreos pisces transformabuntur. & aquila eius super montem arauium nidificabit.” The catuli are Henry’s children drowned in the White Ship disaster in A, J, E, L, B, C, P, and D; also in Suger, Vita Ludovici Grossi Regis, p. 100; Etienne de Rouen, Draco Normannicus, ll. 233-34, 1654-55, ed. Howlett, Chronicles, 2:600, 654. The aquila is Mathilda the Empress in X, A, J, E, L, M, B, C, P, and D; also in Etienne de Rouen, Draco Normannicus, line 172, ed. Howlett, Chronicles, 2:597. 49. Geoffrey: “Venedocia rubebit materno sanguine. & domus corinei. sex fratres interficiet. Nocturnis lacrimis madebit insula. unde omnes ad omnia prouocabuntur.” \Cf. P and D on Reginald; see pp. 46-48 above. 50. Geoffrey: “Ue tibi neustria quoniam in te cerebrum leonis effundetur & dissipatis menbris a natiuo solo eliminabitur.” The English commentary has previously identified the /eo with Henry I (prophecy no. 23 above); the /eo is still Henry in A, M, P, and D. On the application here to Richard I, see p. 46 above. 81

TEXT , schall sum peple flee! on high but be new man schall ben enhaunced

375 a boven hem all./ And he seide sooth. For aftir be deeth of king herry be first regned king Stephin. Erle of boleyne. ban be gan a debate be twix king stephin. and Maude the emperice which was come to Englond aftir be Emperoures deeth. for pat sche chalenged

the realme of Englond. Than came barons of Englond pat held 380 with Themperesse* and toke king stephin. and put him in prison at bristowe. And after bat was Maude Themperesse made lady of Englond. ¢But aftir thei were a corded pat henry the emperice sone in whos tyme seint (Thomas of Cauntirbury) was (martired) schuld have half be Realme. and aftir bat king stephin were dede he schuld 385 have al be lond to him and to his eyris. Ther for seid Merlyn pat a new man schal be enhaunced & cefera./*3 [31] Merlyn seid also pat from pe first leon vnto pe fourthe. from be fourthe to pe thrid. from pe prid to the secounde. a thombe schal be rolled in oyle./ And he seid soth. For king stephin which was king anoynted was 390 ~=pe ij." from king herry pe first. for he had a sone called william which was drowned as I seid be forn. wherfor he might [not] occupie pe crowne. and his doghter Maude which was emperice might

not be king for bat sche was a woman. [4]Than felle be crovne to stephin which was iij."° from king henry./ Merlyn seid also from 395 pe iiij.'e to be thrid & cetera./ he seide sooth. For aftir king stephin regned king herry be secound be emperice sone which was thrid from him. For Maude his modir might not occupie be crowne. than was hir son thrid be pis succession./ Merlyn seid also from pe prid to be secounde schall a thombe be wrapped in oyle./ he 400 seid sooth. For be trewe assent aftir henry be secound regned king Richard pe first. which was from him but the secunde in birthe & cetera./*> [32] Merlyn seid also pat pe sexte schall ouerthrowe pe walles of Irlond. and the high woodes he schall all playn./ And he seid sooth. For king Iohn regned aftir king Richard pe conquerour 51.. MS: “slee.” However, the right word must be “flee” (from OE /léogan ‘fly’, not OE fléon ‘flee’); probably the scribe simply forgot the stroke through the letterform. See the text of Geoffrey’s prophecy in n. 53 below. 52. MS: “Thempertsse.” 53. Geoffrey: “Nitentur posteri transuolare superna. set fauor nouorum sullimabitur.” Cf., on the disorders of Stephen’s reign, X, A, J, P, and D. 54. After “woman” there appears a double virgule, the signal to the rubricator to supply a paragraph sign, but the paragraph sign itself is missing. 55. Geoffrey: “Exin de primo in quartum. de quarto in tercium. de tercio in secundum. rotabitur pollex in oleo.” This rather puzzling prophecy is usually interpreted in terms of four kings; cf. the lists in P and D. X lists four peoples (Britones, Picti, Scoti, Angli) instead. 82

TEXT

was ded. and he was the sext king from william the comquerour. 405 and in his tyme pe Iryssch men be gan to werre vpon king Iohn. and he ordeyned him a faire power and went in to Irlond and gate castelles and townes. and destroied be greete men of pat contre pat be gan to werre vp on him. and he made newe castelles many and in especial be castell of develyn. which bat he lovid mekill and 410 dwellid long per inne./** [33] Merlyn seid also pat he schall reduce diuerse porcions in [fol. 5r] til oon. and he schall be crowned with

a leons heede./ And he seide sooth. For king Iohn aftir that he had conquered Irlond and put it in subieccion aftir his entent he made leinster Movnster. vluester. Conacte. & meethe. vndir his 415 obeysaunce. wherfor he allone was called be first lord of Irlond./ And aftir all seith Merlyn he schall be crowned with a leons heed./ And he seid sooth. For aftir al this he was crowned king of Englond which berith leons in his schelde./*’ [34] Merlyn seide also that his begynnyng was vnstable and wandring. but aftir he draweth to 420 an ende his synne schall flie up to hevyn for to aske vengeaunce

of him./ And he seid sooth. For this Iohn which was king herry sone be secunde. at his begynnyng had but litill or noght. For he was called Iohn with ovten lond. and he desired mekill for to haue wher for he came first to Irlond. as I seid before. Fbut aftir pat 425 he was crowned king. and had lost Normandie. he lete assemble be fore him at london. Archibisshopps abbates and prioures. Erles and barons. and asked in his parliament of pe clergie dymes of hir chirches for to conquer and geete a yen Normandie and Angeon pat he had lost. And thei nold graunt him pat thing. wherfor he 430 was sore annoyed. And in that same tyme died the bisschopp of Cauntirbury. and the pviour and be covent chosen a yenst pe kinges will to be bisschopp Maister stephin langton. and sent hir eleccion

to be (pope). Than pe king for wrath draff ovte of Englond and exiled pe priour and his cov(ent) from Cauntirbury. And aftir pe 435 56. Geoffrey: “Sextus hybernie menia subuertet. & nemora in planiciem mutabit.” The Sextus 1S variously interpreted: as John in P, D, Bodley 355, and Giraldus Cam-

brensis (Topographia Hibernica, ed. James F. Dimock, in Giraldi Cambrensis opera, 5, RS 21 [London, 1867], p. 201); as Henry II in E, M, and Giraldus Cambrensis (Expugnatio Hibernica, ed. James F. Dimock, in Giraldi Cambrensis opera, 5, RS 21 (London, 1867], p. 279—Giraldus thus has two different interpretations for the prophecy); as Stephen in_X; and as Henry II’s bastard son the churchman in A. On the group of Sextus prophecies, see pp. 48-56 above. 57. Geoffrey: “Diuersas portiones in unum reducet. & capite leonis coronabitur.” On John’s conquests in Ireland, cf. Pand D. Walsingham reports the application of the second part to John (concerning his capture of Arthur) in Ypodigma Neustriae, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, in Chronica, 7, RS 28, pp. 124-25. 83

TEXT

(pope) had wrytyn to pe king and prayed him to resceyve. stephin of langton for Archibisshop. and to suffre pe priour and pe covent of Cauntirbury to come a yen. he wold no thing doo for be (popes) commaundement. {Than was al Englond entirdited and suspedid.

440 And king Iohn a cursed as the coronycle telleth./** [35] Merlyn seid also pat he schall renewe be dyuerse contries pe sees of blessid

men. and he schal ordeyne schipherdes in diuerse placis. and he schall arraye ij. tovnes with ij. palles. and to maydens he schall gef greete gyftes./ And he seid sooth. For king Iohn aftir he had de445 stroied bisschopriches and abbayes in taking their goodes from hem. Aftir be acordement made be twix (pope) Innocente and him. he restored a yen all pe goodis of be chirche to euery man aftir his degre. And be king Iohn be his letter obligatorie bounde him and his successours euer more for to come to hold be Realmes of En-

450 glond and of Irlond of god and of be (pope) of Rome payng to be pope yeerly a M!. mark of syluer .vij.C. marke for Englond. and iij.© markes for Irlond. And this doon king Iohn was assoilled. and the entirdityng was fordon in Englond. {Also in king Iohn is tyme was per vacant thies ij. Archibisshopriches of Cauntirbury 455 and of yorke./ Ther for seid Merlyn he schall apparayll ij. tovnes with ij. palles[./] And [he] edified be Nonnes of wodestoke for Rosamundes soule which was dere and wel beloved with his fadir king henry be secounde. ther for seide Merlyn he schall gyf gyftes vnto mayndens./ [36] Merlyn seid also pat he schal deserue pe 460 love of god and he shal [be] a covnted a mong ober seintes{./] And Merlyn seid sooth. For afftir that king Iohn had made restitucion of sich goodis as he be[fore] name al holy chirche and was assoiled of be (pope). he deserved a yen pe loue of god as in byldying [fol. Sv] monasteries and Abbeys which he had destroied beforn.

465 Y¥And aftir that he was dede he was buried at Worcestre be twix seynt Oswald & seint wulston. & cefera./™ [37] Merlyn seyde also 58. Geoffrey: “Principium eius uago affectui succumbet. set finis ipsius ad superos conuolabit.” P applies this prophecy to John (referring to the death of Arthur). The basis of the whole identification of the Sextus with John may be the wish expressed by Giraldus Cambrensis, writing during John’s youth, that the prince’s juvenile excesses will be succeeded by a favorable end as this prophecy says (Topographia Hibernica, ed. Dimock, in Opera, 5, RS 21, p. 201). 59. Geoffrey: “Renouabit namque beatorum sedes per patrias. & pastores in congruis locis locabit. Duas urbes duobus palliis induet. & uirginea munera uirginibus donabit.” On John’s appointments and gifts, cf. P and D; see p. 51 above for parallels

to the Rosamond reference. | 60. Geoffrey: “Promerebitur inde fauorem tonantis. & inter beatos collocabitur.” On

84

TEXT

that of him schal come a beeste of a feble sight. which schall cause

greete hurt and damage vnto his peple./ And he seid sooth. For aftir king Iohn regned king henry his sone pe thrid. which had an impediment in his sight and was crowned king at Gloucestre. And 470 aftir that he had regned xvij. yere. he and his lordis went to Oxenford and ordeyned lawes and statutes in amendment of the Realme. And first swore the king him self. And aftir bat al the lordes of the Realme that thei schuld hold pe statutes ferme and stable for euermore. 4But aftir that be counsaill of Edward his sone and Richard 475 his brothir pe Erle of Cornewayll. he repentid him of his ooth and sued to Rome for a dispensacion of his ooth. and in the next yere folowyng be gan werre be twix pe king and the lordis. for bat he had broken couenaumtes made at Oxenford. pan was anoon aftir the bataille of lewes a wennysday before seynt dunstans day. And 480 ther was take king henry him self. and sir Edward his sone. and sir

Richard Erle of Cornwaill and many othir./® [38] And of this king henry pe thrid prophecied Merlyn and seid a lambe schall come out of Wynchestre in be yere of pe incarnacion of our lord Ihesus crist a M.'CC.xvj. & cetera{./] And he seid sooth. For this 485 king herry was born at Wynchestre./ & cetera./® Seke this prophecie in the booke of Cronycles wher bat king Artour askid the aventures of vj. last kinges to regne in Englond. Seke the declaracion of this prophecie in the lyff of king henry the thrid among be seid

Cronycles./ 490

the application to John’s burial between saints Oswald and Wulstan, cf. D; less explicitly (without naming the saints), P. See p. 51 above for other parallels. 61. Geoffrey: “Egredietur ex eo linx penetrans omnia que ruine proprie gentis imminebit.” The lynx is Henry II in Mand D, and Henry (which one unspecified) in Bodley 355; see also p. 27 above. The lynx is the pope in P, King John in B; the latter identification is also found in Guillaume le Breton (Gesta Philippi Augusti, section 200, in @uvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, 1, ed. H. Francois Delaborde, Société de |’Histoire de France [Paris, 1882], p. 292). 62. The prophecy is not in Geoffrey, See pp. 7, 29 , 32, 35-36 above.

85

BLANK PAGE

Bibliography

Abbott, T. K. Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College,

Dublin. Dublin, 1900. , Adam of Usk. Chronicon Adae de Usk. Ed. Edward Maunde Thompson. London, 1876. Alanus ab Insulis. See Prophetia Anglicana. Anglo, Sydney. “The British History in Early Tudor Propaganda.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (1961-62), 17-48. Annales prioratus de Wigornia. Ed. Henry Richards Luard. In Annales monastici, 4:353-564. RS 36. London, 1869. Annales Ricardi Secundi et Henrici Quarti, regum Angliae. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. In Chronica monasterii S. Albani, 3:153-420. RS 28. London, 1866.

Ashe, Geoffrey. “‘A Certain Very Ancient Book’: Traces of an Arthurian Source in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History.” Speculum 56 (1981), 30123.

Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Garden City, New York, 1957.

——. “‘Figura.’” Trans. Ralph Manheim. In Scenes from the Drama of European Literature: Six Essays, pp. 11-76. New York, 1959. Bean, J. M. W. “Henry IV and the Percies.” History, n.s. 44 (1959), 212-27. Bennett, H. S. “Fifteenth-Century Secular Prose.” Review of English Studies 21 (1945), 257-63. Berger, Elie. Notice sur divers manuscrits de la Bibliotheque vaticane: Richard le Poitevin. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome 6. Paris, 1879. Bignami-Odier, Jeanne. Etudes sur Jean de Roquetaillade (Johannes de Rupescissa). Paris, 1952. Blakey, Brian. “The Harley Brut: An Early French Translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae.” Romania 82 (1961), 44-70. Bloxam, John R. A Register of... Saint Mary Magdalen College in the University of Oxford, 2. Oxford, 1876. Boswell-Stone, W. G. Shakspere’s Holinshed: The Chronicle and the Historical Plays Compared. London, 1896. Brandt, William J. The Shape of Medieval History: Studies in Modes of Perception. New Haven, 1966.

87

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brie, Friedrich W. D. Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik: The Brute of England oder The Chronicles of England. Marburg, 1905.

Brown, Carleton, and Rossell Hope Robbins. The Index of Middle English

Verse. New York, 1943. |

The Brut or the Chronicles of England. Ed. Friedrich W. D. Brie. 2 vols. EETS OS 131 and 136. London, 1906-8 (rpt. 1960-71). Brut y Brenhinedd: Cotton Cleopatra Version. Ed. and trans. John Jay Parry. Medieval Academy Books 27. Cambridge, Mass., 1937. Caldwell, Robert A. “The ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ in College of Arms MS. Arundel XXII.” PMLA 69 (1954), 643-54.

Castleford, Thomas. Thomas Castleford’s Chronicle, Edited in Part with Comments. Ed. Frank Behre. 2 vols. In Goteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift 46,2 (1940).

Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 1-2. Ed. Richard Howlett. RS 82. London, 1884-85. Clarke, M. V., and V. H. Galbraith. ““The Deposition of Richard II.’’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 14 (1930), 125-81. Curley, Michael J. “John of Cornwall and the Prophetia Merlini.’’ Speculum 57 (1982), 217-49.

d’Alverny, Marie-Thérése. ‘Alain de Lille: Problemes d’attribution.”’ In

, Alain de Lille, Gautier de Chatillon, Jakemart Giélée, et leur temps, ed. H. Roussel and F. Suard, pp. 27-46. Lille, 1980. de Fonblanque, Edward Barrington. Annals of the House of Percy, 1. London, 1887. Denholm-Young, N. “Thomas de Wykes and His Chronicle.” English Historical Review 61 (1946), 157-79. East, W. G. “Manuscripts of Geoffrey of Monmouth.” Notes and Queries, n.s. 22 (1975), 483-84. Eckhardt, Caroline D. “‘The Date of the Prophetia Merlini Commentary in MSS Cotton Claudius B. VII and Bibliotheque Nationale Fonds Latin 6233.’ Notes and Queries, n.s. 23 (1976), 146-47. —. “Another Historical Allusion in Mum and the Sothsegger.’’ Notes and Queries, n.s. 27 (1980), 495-97. ———. “The First English Translations of the Prophetia Merlini.”” The Li-

brary, 6th ser. 4 (1982), 25-34. ____. “The Prophetia Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth: Latin Manuscript

Copies.” Manuscripta 26 (1982), 167-76. ,

Ekwall, Eilert. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. 4th

ed. Oxford, 1960. ,

The English Register of Godstow Nunnery, near Oxford, Written about 1450. Ed. Andrew Clark. 3 vols. EETS OS 129-30, 142. London, 1905-11. Etienne de Rouen. Draco Normannicus. In Chronicles ..., ed. Howlett, pp. 585-781. Eulogium (historiarum sive temporis), 3. Ed. Frank Scott Haydon. RS 9. London, 1863. 88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Faral, Edmond. La légende arthurienne, études et documents, 1: Les plus anciens textes, 2: Geoffroy de Monmouth: La légende arthurienne a Glastonbury. Bibliotheque de |’Ecole des hautes études 256. Paris, 1929.

Field, P. J. C. Romance and Chronicle: A Study of Malory’s Prose Style. London, 1971. Fletcher, Robert Huntington. The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles, Especially Those of Great Britain and France. 2nd ed. New York, 1966. Fleuriot, L. ‘‘Les fragments du texte brittonique de la ‘Prophetia Merlini.’ ”’ Etudes celtiques 14 (1974), 207-28. Flint, Valerie I. J. “The Historia regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth: Parody and Its Purpose. A Suggestion.” Speculum 54 (1979), 447-68. Flobert, P. “La ‘Prophetia Merlini’ de Jean de Cornwall.” Etudes celtiques 14 (1974), 31-41. Flores historiarum (From the Creation to 1326). Ed. Henry Richards Luard. 3 vols. RS 95. London, 1890.

Foedera..., 1. Ed. Thomas Rymer. Record Commission Edition. London, 1816.

Foster, Joseph. Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford 1500-1714, 4. Oxford, 1892. Galbraith, V. H. “Good Kings and Bad Kings in Medieval English History.” FAftstory, n.s. 30 (1945), 119-32.

Geoffrey of Monmouth. Gottfried’s von Monmouth Historia regum Britanniae. Ed. Albert Schulz [San-Marte]. Halle, 1854. ———.. The Vita Merlini. Ed. John Jay Parry. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 10,3. Urbana, IIl., 1925.

——. The Historia regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Ed. Acton Griscom. London, 1929.

—. Historia regum Britanniae: A Variant Version Edited from Manuscripts. Ed. Jacob Hammer. Medieval Academy Books 57. Cambridge, Mass., 1951. —_———. Life of Merlin. Vita Merlini. Ed. Basil Clarke. Cardiff, 1973. [See Hammer, Jacob, for Prophetia Merlini texts.] Geoffrey of Vinsauf. Poetria nova. Ed. Edmond Faral. In Les arts poétiques du XII et du XIII siécle: Recherches et documents sur la technique littéraire du moyen age, pp. 194-262. Bibliotheque de |’Ecole des hautes études 238. Paris, 1923. Gerould, Gordon Hall. “A Text of Merlin’s Prophecies.” Speculum 23 (1948), 102-3.

Gillingham, John. Richard the Lionheart. London, 1978. —_——. “The Unromantic Death of Richard I.” Speculum 54 (1979), 18-41. Gioia, Louis L. “Bibliography of Editions and Translations in Progress.” Speculum 50 (1975), 171-88. Giraldus Cambrensis. Giraldi Cambrensis opera, 3 and 5. Ed. J.S. Brewer and James F. Dimock. RS 21. London, 1863 and 1867. Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England c. 550-c. 1307. Ithaca, New York, 1974. 89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Griffiths, Margaret Enid. Early Vaticination in Welsh with English Parallels. Ed. T. Gwynn Jones. Cardiff, 1937. Guillaume le Breton. @uvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, historiens de Philippe Auguste, 1. Ed. H. Francois Delaborde. Société de |’ Histoire de France. Paris, 1882.

Hammer, Jacob. “A Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII).” Speculum 10 (1935), 3-30. ———. “A Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s

Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII), Continuation.” Speculum 15 (1940), 409-31. —_——. “Some Additional Manuscripts of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae.” Modern Language Quarterly 3 (1942), 235-42. ———.. “Another Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia rezum Britanniae, Book VII).” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 1 (1942-43), 589-601. —___—. “Bref commentaire de la Prophetia Merlini du ms 3514 de la biblio-

théque de la cathédrale d’Exeter.” In Hommages a Joseph Bidez et a Franz Cumont, ed. Jacob Hammer, pp. 111-19. Collection Latomus 2. Brussels, [1949]. ———. “An Unedited Commentary on the Prophetia Merlini in Dublin, Trinity College MS 496 E.6.2 (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, Book VII).” In Charisteria Thaddaeo Sinko: Quinquaginta abhinc annos amplissimis in philosophia honoribus ornato ab amicis collegis discipulis oblata, pp. 81-89. Warsaw, 1951. Hanning, Robert W. Review essay on L’historien au moyen age, by Benoit Lacroix. History and Theory 12 (1973), 427-29. Hardy, Thomas Duffus. Descriptive Catalogue of Materials Relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, \ and 3. RS 26. London, 1862 and 1871.

Heltzel, Virgil Barney. Fair Rosamond: A Study of the Development of a Literary Theme. Northwestern University Studies in the Humanities 16. Evanston, IIll., 1947. Henry of Huntingdon. Henrici archidiaconi Huntendunensis historia Anglorum. Ed. Thomas Arnold. RS 74. London, 1879. Huws, Daniel, and Brynley F. Roberts. “Another Manuscript of the Variant Version of the ‘Historia regum Britanniae.’” Bulletin bibliographique de la Société internationale arthurienne 25 (1973), 147-52. Incerti scriptoris chronicon Angliae de regnis trium regum Lancastrensium, Henrici IV, Henrici V, et Henrici VI. Ed. J. A. Giles. London, 1848. Index of Wills Proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Now Preserved in the Principal Probate Registry, Somerset House, London, 7: 1653-1656. Ed. Thomas M. Blagg and Josephine Skeate Moir. The Index Library, British Record Society 54. London, 1925. Index of Wills Proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Now Preserved in the Principal Probate Registry, Somerset House, London, 8: 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1657-1660. Ed. Thomas M. Blagg. The Index Library, British Record Society 61. London, 1936. James, Montague Rhodes, and Claude Jenkins. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Lambeth Palace. Cambridge, Eng., 1930-32.

Jarman, A. O. H. The Legend of Merlin. Cardiff, 1960. Jehan de Waurin. Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories . . . par Jehan de Waurin, 1. Ed. William Hardy. RS 39. London, 1864. John of Cornwall. “Prophetia Merlini cum expositione Johannis Cornubiensis.” In Spicilegium Vaticanum: Beitrdge zur nadhern Kenntniss der Va-

tikanischen Bibliothek fiir deutsche Poesie des Mittelalters, ed. Carl Greith, pp. 98-106. Frauenfeld, 1838. [See also Fleuriot, L.; Flobert, P.; and Curley, Michael J.] Keeler, Laura. Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Late Latin Chroniclers, 13001500. University of California Publications in English 17,1. Berkeley, 1946.

Kendrick, T. D. British Antiquity. London, 1950. Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge. English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century. Oxford, 1913. Knowles, M. D. “The Canterbury Election of 1205-1206.” English Historical Review 53 (1938), 211-20. La Villemarqué, Hersart de. Myrdhinn ou l’enchanteur Merlin: Son histotre, ses ceuvres, son influence. Paris, 1862. Leach, H. G. “‘‘De libello Merlini.’’’ Modern Philology 8 (1910-11), 607-10. Madan, Falconer, and H. H. E. Craster. A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 2,1. Oxford, 1922. Manly, John M. “The Penrose MS of La Resurrection.” Modern Philology 37 (1939-40), 1-6. Matheson, Lister M. “The Middle English Prose Brut: A Location List of the Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions.”’ Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography 3 (1979), 254-66. Matthew of Westminster. See Flores historiarum (From the Creation to 1326). Matthew Paris. Chronica majora, 1. Ed. Henry Richards Luard. RS 57. London, 1872. McIntosh, Angus. “Middle English ‘Gannokes’ and Some Place-Name Problems.’ Review of English Studies 16 (1940), 54-61. Mead, William Edward. “Outlines of the History of the Legend of Merlin.” In Merlin or the Early History of King Arthur: A Prose Romance (about 1450-1460 a.p.), ed. Henry B. Wheatley, 1:v-ccxlix. EETS OS 21. London, 1899. Meehan, Bernard. “Geoffrey of Monmouth, Prophecies of Merlin: New Manuscript Evidence.” The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28 (197880), 37-46. Merlin. Here begynneth a lytel treatyse of y° byrth & p[ro]phecye of Marlyn. London: Wynkyn de Worde, 1510. S.T.C. 17841. ———. Merlin or the Early History of King Arthur: A Prose Romance (about 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1450-1460 a.pv.). Ed. Henry B. Wheatley. 4 vols. EETS OS 10, 21, 36, 112. London, 1865-99. Meyer, Paul. “Les manuscrits francais de Cambridge.” Romania 15 (1886), 236-357. Millican, Charles Bowie. “The First English Translation of the Prophecies of Merlin.” Studies in Philology 28 (1931), 720-29.

—_—. Spenser and the Table Round: A Study in the Contemporaneous Background for Spenser’s Use of the Arthurian Legend. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 8. Cambridge, Mass., 1932.

Minot, Laurence. The Poems of Laurence Minot. Ed. Joseph Hall. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1897.

Molinet, Jean. Les faictz et dictz de Jean Molinet. Ed. Noél Dupire. 3 vols. Société des Anciens Textes Francais. Paris, 1936. Monachi cujusdam Malmesberiensis vita Edwardi II, Ed. William Stubbs. In Chronicles of Edward I and Edward IT, 2:153-294. RS 76. London, 1883.

Mum and the Sothsegger. Ed. Mabel Day and Robert Steele. EETS OS 199. London, 1936. Norgate, Kate. Richard the Lion Heart. London, 1924. Ordericus Vitalis. Orderici Vitalis . . . historiae ecclesiasticae libri tredecim, 4. Ed. Auguste le Prévost. Société de l’Histoire de France. Paris, 1852. Otterbourne, Thomas. Chronica regum Angliae per Thomam Otterbourne. Ed. Thomas Hearne. In Duo rerum Anglicarum scriptores veteres..., 1:1-283. Oxford, 1732. Painter, Sidney. The Reign of King John. Baltimore, 1949. Parkes, M. B. English Cursive Book Hands 1250-1500. Oxford, 1969. Parry, John J. “The Welsh Texts of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia.’’ Speculum 5 (1930), 424-31. ———, and Robert A. Caldwell. “Geoffrey of Monmouth.” In Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis, pp. 72-93. Oxford, 1959. Partner, Nancy F. Serious Entertainments: The Writing of History in TwelfthCentury England. Chicago, 1977. Perrier, Antoine. “De nouvelles précisions sur la mort de Richard Coeur de Lion.” Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique du Limousin 87 (1958), 37-50. Perrin, Marshall Livingston. Ueber Thomas Castelford’s Chronik von England. Boston, 1890. Peter of Blois. Compendium in Job. PL 207:795-826. ——. L’hystore Job: Adaptation en vers francais du Compendium in Job de Pierre de Blois. Ed. Robert Chapman Bates. Yale Romanic Studies 14. New Haven, 1937. —_— —. L’*hystore Job: An Old French Verse Adaptation of Compendium in Job by Peter of Blois, 1. Ed. Joseph Gildea, O.S.A. Liege, 1974. The Pipe Roll of 31 Henry 1, Michaelmas 1130, Reproduced in Facsimile from the Edition of 1833. London, 1929. 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Political Poems and Songs Relating to English History Composed during the Period from the Accession of Edw. III to that of Ric. IH, 1. Ed. Thomas Wright. RS 14. London, 1859. Polwhele, Richard. The History of Cornwall: Civil, Military, Religious, Etc. 2 vols. in 1. Falmouth, 1803. Poole, Austin Lane. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216. 2nd ed. Oxford History of England 3. Oxford, 1955.

Procés de condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc, 1. Ed. Pierre Tisset. Société de l’Histoire de France, Série antérieure a 1789, 466. Paris, 1960. Prophetia Anglicana et Romana, hoc est Merlini Ambrosii Britanni, ex incubo olim, ante annos mille ducentos in Anglia nati vaticinia. .. . Frankfurt, 1608.

Raynaud de Lage, G. Alain de Lille, poéte du XII® siécle. Paris, 1951. Reaney, P. H. A Dictionary of British Surnames. 2nd ed. rev. by R. M. Wilson. London, 1976.

Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism. Oxford, 1969. Richard le Poitevin. See Berger, Elie. Richard of Ireland. Les prophecies de Merlin Edited from MS. 593 in the Bibliothéque municipale of Rennes. Ed. Lucy Allen Paton. 2 vols. The Modern Language Association of America, Monograph series 1. New York, 1926-27. Rishanger, William. Chronica et annales regnantibus Henrico Tertio et Edwardo Primo. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. In Chronica monasterii S. Albani, 2. RS 28. London, 1865.

Robbins, Rossell Hope. “Geoffrey of Monmouth: An English Fragment.” English Studies 38 (1957), 259-62.

—., Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries. New York, 1959.

—__—. “The Merlin Prophecies.”’ In A Manual of the Writings in Middle En-

glish, 1050-1500, 5:1519-22, 1714-16, ed. Albert E. Hartung. New Haven, 1975. ———, and John L. Cutler. Supplement to the Index of Middle English Verse. Lexington, 1965. Robert of Gloucester. The Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester. Ed. William Aldis Wright. 2 vols. RS 86. London, 1887. Roberts, Brynley F. “‘Esboniad Cymraeg ar Broffwydoliaeth Myrddin.”’ The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 21 (1964-66), 277-300. —_——.. ‘Fersiwn Dingestow o Brut y Brenhinedd.”’ The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 27 (1976-78), 331-61. ———. “‘Copiau Cymraeg o Prophetiae Merlini.”” National Library of Wales Journal 20 (1977-78), 14-39. Ryding, William W. Structure in Medieval Narrative. The Hague, 1971. Scattergood, V. J. Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century. London, 1971. Schulz, Albert [San-Marte]. Die Sagen von Merlin. Halle, 1853. [See also Geoffrey of Monmouth.] 93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Smith, A. H. “A York Pageant, 1486.” London Mediaeval Studies 1 (193739; published 1948), 382-98. Southern, R. W. “Aspects of the European Tradition of Historical Writing: 3. History as Prophecy.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,

Sth series 22 (1972), 159-80. |

Stepsis, Robert. “Pierre de Langtoft’s Chronicle: An Essay in Medieval Historiography.” Medievalia et humanistica, n.s. 3 (1972), 51-73. Suger. Suger: Vie de Louis VI le Gros. Ed. Henri Waquet. Classiques de 1’ Histoire de France au Moyen Age 11. Paris, 1964.

Tatlock, J. S. P. “Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Date of Regnum Scotorum.” Speculum 9 (1943), 135-39. —_——-. The Legendary History of Britain: Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae and Its Early Vernacular Versions. Berkeley, 1950. Taylor, Rupert. The Political Prophecy in England. New York, 1911. Thorpe, Lewis. “Orderic Vitalis and the Prophetiae Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth.” Bulletin bibliographique de la Société internationale arthurienne 29 (1977), 191-208. Trevet, Nicholas. Nicolai Triveti annales sex regum Angliae, 1. Ed. Anthony Hall. Oxford, 1719. Vaughan, Richard. Matthew Paris. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Eng., 1979. Venn, John, and J. A. Venn. Alumni Cantabrigienses, 1,2. Cambridge, Eng., 1927.

The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of the County of Cornwall, 8. Ed. William Page. London, 1924. The Victoria History of the County of Gloucester, 2. Ed. William Page. London, 1907. The Victoria History of the County of Kent, 2 and 3. Ed. William Page. London, 1926 and 1932. The Victoria History of the County of Oxford, 2. Ed. William Page. London, 1907.

Wace. Le roman de Brut de Wace. Ed. Ivor Arnold. Société des Anciens Textes Francais 80. Paris, 1938. Walsingham, Thomas. Ypodigma Neustriae. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. In Chronica monasterii §. Albani, 7. RS 28. London, 1876. Ward, H. L. D. Catalogue of Romances in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1. London, 1883. Waurin, Jehan de. See Jehan de Waurin. Webb, John. “Translation of a French Metrical History of the Deposition of King Richard the Second... .” Archaeologia 20 (1824), 1-442. William of Malmesbury. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum Anglorum libri quinque, 2. Ed. William Stubbs. RS 90. London, 1889. William of Newburgh. Historia rerum Anglicarum. Ed. Richard Howlett. In Chronicles. .., 1:1-583. Withington, Robert. English Pageantry: An Historical Outline, 1. Cambridge, Mass., 1918. Wood, Anthony a. Athenae Oxonienses, 3. Ed. Philip Bliss. London, 1817. 94

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Woolley, Reginald Maxwell. Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library. London, 1927. Wykes, Thomas. Chronicon vulgo dictum chronicon Thomas Wykes. Ed. Henry Richards Luard. In Annales monastici, 4:6-319. RS 36. London, 1869.

Wyld, Henry Cecil. A History of Modern Colloquial English. 3rd ed. Oxford, 1936.

York Civic Records, 1. Ed. Angelo Raine. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series 98. Wakefield, Eng., 1939. Zumthor, Paul. Merlin le prophéte: Un theme de la littérature polémique de l’historiographie et des romans. Lausanne, 1943.

95

BLANK PAGE

Index of Manuscripts and Medieval Prophetia Merlini Commentaries

Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales Llanstephan 119: 7 n Peniarth 16: 13 n Peniarth 26: 7 n Peniarth 27: 13 n Peniarth 50: 7 n Peniarth 54: 7 n Peniarth 94: 7 n Peniarth 311: 13 n Bern, Burgerbibliothek 568 N 1.8: 27 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Library 26 (Commentary M): 12, 47, 70 n-73 n, 75 n, 78 n-81 n, 83 n, 85 n Commentaries (medieval) on the Prophetia Merlini A: see Paris and Valenciennes

B: see Oxford C: see Lincoln D: see Dublin E: see Exeter J: see Vatican City L: see Lincoln M: see Cambridge P: see London and Paris R: see Vatican City W: see Paris

X: see London and Paris Dublin, Trinity College Library 496: 13 n 514 (Commentary D): 13, 33, 70 n-85 n Exeter, Cathedral Library 3514 (Commentary £): 12, 33, 70 n-76 n, 79 n-81 n, 83 n

97

INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS AND COMMENTARIES

Gottingen, Niedersdchsische Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek Hist. 740: 18 n-19 n Lincoln, Cathedral Chapter Library 98 (Commentaries C and L): 12, 33, 70 n-81 n London British Library Add. 45103: 27, 71 n Cotton Claudius B. VII (Commentaries P and_X): 11-12, 27, 33, 47, 70 n85 n Cotton Galba E.IX: 32 Cotton Julius A.V: facing 1 Cotton Vespasian D.IV: 27 Cotton Vespasian E.VII: 30 n, 31 Harley 746: 7 n Harley 6148: 7 n College of Arms Ivu: 19 n Arundel XXII: 39 n Lambeth Palace Library

527: ll n New York, Columbia University Library Plimpton 261: 49 Oxford Bodleian Library Add. E.14: 50 n Bodley 355: 71 n-73 n, 80 n, 83 n, 85 n Bodley 622 (Commentary B): 12, 70 n-81 n, 85 n Bodley 623: 7 n, 31, 41 n, 58-59 D. D. Par. Woodstock C 12: 24 n e Mus. 39: 35 Lyell 34: 35 Rawlinson B.166: 35 Rawlinson B.171: 35 Rawlinson B.189: 27 Rawlinson B.408: 40 Rawlinson C.234: 40 Top. Oxon. d. 72: 48 n-49 n, 52 Corpus Christi College Library 220: 23 University Archives Subscription Registers: 24, 25 n Paris, Bibliotheque nationale fr. 74-85 (Commentary W): 13-14, 45, 70 n-75 n lat. 4126 (Commentary P): 12, 33, 47, 70 n-75 n, 77 n-85 n lat. 6233 (Commentaries P and X): 11-12, 27, 33, 47, 70 n-85 n 98

INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS AND COMMENTARIES

lat. 7481 (Commentary A): 11, 33, 47, 70 n-83 n Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Library

Fr. 14: 9n University Park, Penn., Pennsylvania State University Pattee Library PS. V-3: 20-25, facing 67, 69-85 PS. V-3A: 25 n, 38 n Valenciennes, Bibliotheque municipale 792 (Commentary A): 11, 33, 47, 70 n-83 n Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1474 (Commentary J): 11, 47, 78 n-82 n Reg. Lat. 807 (Commentary R): 12, 47, 70 n-80 n

99

BLANK PAGE

Index of Proper Names

Most medieval names are indexed under the first element (e.g., Thomas a Becket under Thomas). Modernized spelling is used when there can be no doubt about the modern equivalent (e.g., John rather

than Iohn but Merchland rather than Mercia). Names of modern scholars are not included; see Bibliography. /talicized numbers refer to line numbers in the text printed on pages 69-85. Adam of Usk, 30 n-31 n, 53 n Britons, /, 9, 14, 77-78, 85, 90, 119, 141, Adelbright, see Ethelbert, king of Kent 146, 153, 158-59, 269-70, 323

Adeldulph, see Ethelwulf Brittany (Little Britain), 15-16, 41, 44,

Adthelstan, see Athelstan 11

Africa, 4 Buerne, 33-34, 43, 169 Africans, 1/3

Alan, king, ///-J2 Alanus ab Insulis, 11; see also Commen- Cadvan, king of Gwynned, 72 n

tary A in Index of Manuscripts Cadwalader, king, 33, 36, 41, 43, 58, 60,

Alexander, bishop, 4 90, 97, 104, 110-11, 117-18, 122, 158

Alfred (“Alrede”), king, 42-43, 164, 221 Cadwall (Cadwallon), king of Gwynned, Alfred (“Alrede”), son of Ethelred II, 35, 26, 33-34, 43, 61, 69-70, 75, 81, 73 n, 44, 61, 228, 230-31, 235, 237, 240, 245- 153

46, 78 n Canterbury, 26, 40, 49, 38, 40, 432, 435,

Alrede, see Alfred and Ethelred II 438, 454

Anjou (“Angeon”), 429 Carleon, 47, 51, 54-55

Arrian, Mt., 342 Castleford, Thomas, 18 Arthur, king, 17, 36-37, 58-59, 487 Caxton, William, 37 Arthur of Brittany, prince, 83 n-84 n Chateau-Gaillard (“Castle Gaylyard”),

Ashmole, Elias, 9 40, 45-46, 364

Athelstan (“Adthelstan”), king, 43, 164 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 46 n

Athewalde, see Ethelbald Chichester, /6

Augustine, St. (“Austin”), 43, 26-27, 36, Clifford, Rosamond, 49, 51, 457

48, 51, 54-57 Cnut (“Knoght”), king, 33, 42, 44, 193,

Austin, see Augustine 220

Collingbourne, William, 57

Bede, 9 Connacht, 4/5 Bishop, Nicholas, 48 n, 52 Cornwall, 47-48, 16, 139, 351, 353, 476 Bristol (“Bristowe”), 38] Cortiff, king, 43, 16

Britain, /, 8, 20, 93, 96, 121 Coryn, king, 47-48, 352 101

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

Danes, 107, 161, 163, 174, 176, 181-82, | Englishmen, English people, 25, 28, 130,

277 Essex, 144 Daniel, prophet, 9 Estangle, see East Anglia

184, 187, 213, 215, 217-18, 222, 271, 213-14, 216, 218, 223, 356

David, biblical king, 10 Ethelbald (“Athewalde”), king, 43, 164 David, St., 35, 43, 60, 65-66; see also Ethelbert (“Adelbright”), king of Kent,

Saint David’s, city 43, 31, 52

Denmark, /71, 174, 193 Ethelbert (“Ethelbrit”), king of Wessex,

Deschamps, Eustache, 5-6 43, 164 Develyn, see Dublin Ethelbrit, see Ethelbert, king of Wessex Dover, 26, 39 Ethelred II (“Alrede”), king, 44, 22]

Dublin (“Develyn”), 4/0 Ethelwulf (“Adeldulph”), king, 43, /63-

Dunstan, St., 480 64 Etienne de Rouen, 80 n-81 n East Anglia (“Estangle”), 144, 190 Ezechiel, prophet, 10 Edfride (Eanfrith?), 43, 7/

Edgar, king, 43, /65 Framingham, 40, /88

Edmund, king, 43, 164 France, 316, 319-20, 344, 363

Edmund Ironside, king, 237 Frederick II, emperor, 7 Edmund the Martyr, king, 43, 1/65, 187, Frewin, 47-48

190 Froissart, i4 n, 19, 62

Edred, king, 43, /65

Edward, son of Edward IV, 56 n Gaimar, 37, 75 n Edward I, king, 35, 50 n, 475, 48] Gaylyard, castle, see Chateau-Gaillard

Edward II, king, 5, 35 Geoffrey of Anjou, 348 Edward III, king, 52 Geoffrey of Monmouth, passim Edward IV, king, 30, 41, 56 n, 58 Geoffrey of Vinsauf, 46

Edward VI, king, 31 Germany, /48, 349 Edward the Confessor, king, 9, 44, 58, Gildas, 71 n

61, 228, 232, 235-36, 247-48 Gildford, see Guildford Edward the Elder, king, 43, 164 Giraldus Cambrensis, 53, 71 n, 78 n,

Edward the Outlaw, 236 83 n-84 n

Edwin (“Edwyne”), king of Deira, 43, 70 Glendower, Owen, 9, 29-30

Edwy (“Edwyn”), king, 43, 165 _ Gloucester, 40, 470 Egbert (“Egbrite,” “Egbryt”), king, 43, Godrin, king, 43, 172, 178

149, 152, 162-63 Godstow, abbey of, 25, 40, 49-51

Egbrite, see Egbert Godwin, earl, 35, 43-44, 61, 230, 239-40,

Egbryt, see Egbert 256, 78 n

Elfride, king, 43, 53 Gofride (Gotfried?), king, 43, 7/ Elizabeth, queen of Edward IV, 56 n Gormond, 43, 3, 7-8, 10, 17-18, 70 n

Elizabeth I, queen, 31 Gower, John, 30 n

Ely, 246 Gregory I, pope, 43, 22

Emma, queen, 22/ Guildford (“Gildford”), 40, 241 Engist, see Hengist Guillaume le Breton, 27, 85 n England, 2/, 24, 27, 43, 47, 49, 118, 159,

175-76, 194, 207, 219, 227, 254, 260, Hardecnut, king, 42, 44, 219, 226 269, 287-88, 297, 305-306, 332, 344, Harold, king, 35, 37, 42-43, 256, 262-63 350, 379, 382, 418, 434, 439, 449-50, Hearne, Thomas, 18 451, 453, 488; kings of, see individual _Hengist (“Engist”), 20, 32

names Henry V, emperor, 378

102

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

Henry I, king, 1, 27, 44-48, 63, 294, 317, London, 40, 38-39, 80, 84, 87, 153, 240,

327, 337, 343, 81 n, 376, 390, 394 427 Henry II, king, 44, 48, 54-55, 359, 382, Louis VI, king of France, 1, 80 n, 3/8

396, 400, 422-23, 458 Lud, king, 72 n Henry III, king, 28, 30, 35-39, 41, 44,

52-54, 56-57, 63, 469, 481, 483, 486, Malcolm, king of Scotland, 44, 279

489 Mandeville, John, 38 Henry IV, king, 14 n, 29-31, 52, 57 ows © Onn, Malory, Thomas, 19

Margaret of Anjou, 56 n Henry VI, king, 29, 56Mathilda, n see Maud

Henry VII, king, 30, 41,Matthew 56nParis, ; 4, 12, 26, 32, 54; see

Henry VIII, king, 31 also C tarv Min Ind eM Henry of Huntingdon, 47 0 © Oramentary Min *neex of NlanuHeywood, Thomas,of 9 scripts , ‘ “Matthew Westminster,” 32

Holland, 40, 183-84 Hubba. 178 Maud (Mathilda), daughter of Henry I,

Hun ary 236 42, 44, 48, 347, 377, 381, 392, 397 HW bary; ki 177 Meath (“Meethe”), yngwar, King, Meethe, see Meath475 Merchland (Mercia? Innocent III, pope, 49-50, 55, 60, 436, erchiand (Mercia?), 145

438. 446. 463 Merlin, passim; named in the commen-

, ’ tary, 6, 30, 35, 39-40, 45, 57, 68, 72,

ane 58, 403, 407, 414, 416, 425, 78, 81, 87, 89, 92, 96, 108, 110, 125,

Irish 406 129, 147, 154, 157, 166, 168, 189, 191, Teal 10 210, 226,286, 249-50, 264,329, 272-73, sara, het. Propet, 276, 212, 282-83, 314, 325, 335, Jerusalem. 309 337, 340, 350, 357, 370, 373, 385-86, , Joachim da Fiore. 7 394, 398, 402, 411, 417, 419, 440, 455,

.| Joan , 458-59, 461, 483 of Arc, 2, 6466, . Job, 54-55 Molinet. J 6 John, king, 5, 25, 35, 39, 44, 48-56, 58, 0 EN? Minot, Laurence, 32 n

60-61, 404, 406, 413, 422, 424, 440,

444, 447, 452-53, 461, 469 Moncter “Movnetes”). AIS

John of Bridlington, 28, 58 unster (“Movnster"), John of Cornwall, 11; see also Commen- Newton, Isaac, 2

tary J in Index of Manuscripts Norfolk, 144-45, 186, 191

John of Gaunt, 14 n Normandy, 1, 40, 42, 46, 22/-22, 225, John of Salisbury, 5 228, 234, 253, 255, 268, 288, 296-97, 300, 303, 311, 357, 362, 370, 426, 429

Kent, 32 Normans, 239, 242, 248-49, 254, 269-70,

Knoght, see Cnut 332, 356, 365

Northumberland, 29, //, 53, 138, 146,

Langtoft, Pierre de, 37, 53 169

Langton, Stephen, 49-50, 53, 55, 433, Norway, 193

436-37 Nottingham, 40, 183

Layamon, 17

Leicester, 33 Offride, see Osfrith Leinster, 4/5 Offrik, see Osric

Lewes, 38, 40, 480 Ordericus Vitalis, 1-2, 27, 63, 77 n, 79 n-

Lilly, William, 9 80 n Lincoln, 40, /83 Osbert (“Osbright”), king of NorthumLindsey, 183 bria, 43, 168, 172, 180

103

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES

Osbright, see Osbert Sergius, pope, /23

Osfrith (“Offride”), son of Edwin of Sexburga, queen, 43, 137

Northumbria, 43, 7/ Shakespeare, William, 7 n, 9, 29 n

Osric (“Offrik”), king of Deira, 43, 7/ Sibyl, the, 9, 58 Oswald, king, 43, 49, 51, 7/, 466, 85 n Southampton, 239

Otterbourne, Thomas, 29, 31 n Spenser, Edmund, 9 Oxford, 23-25, 40, 471-72, 479 Stephen, king, 44, 47-48, 376-77, 380, 384, 389, 394-95, 83 n

Packington, William, 37 Suffolk, 745, 186, 191

Patrick, St., 35, 40, 43, 60, 59 Suger, 1, 5, 80 n-81 n

Peanda, see Penda Swein (“Swayne”), king, 162

71 Temse, see Thames

Penda (“Peanda”), king of Mercia, 43,

_ Percy, house of, 28-30, 38 Thames (“Temse”), 196

Peter of Blois, 54 Thetford, 185

Philip II, king of France, 363 Thibaut de Champagne, 5

80 n Tonbridge, 264

Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, 6, Thomas a Becket, 5, 23, 78 n, 383 Trevet, Nicholas, 28, 35, 46, 50-51

Reading, 40, 46, 372 Tyrell, Walter, 29/ Reginald (“Reynold”), earl, 47-48, 353-

j4 Ulster (“Vluester”), 4/5

Reynold, see Reginald

Richard, son of Henry I, 44, 63, 345 Vergil, Polydore, 9 Richard I, king, 33, 40, 44-46, 360, 363, Vincent of Beauvais, 10

368, 372, 401, 404 Vluester, see Ulster |

Richard II, king, 29, 31, 57 n Vortigern, king, 1, 17, 37, 41, 44, 58 Richard III, king, 30-31

Richard, duke of Normandy, 229 Wace, 1, 17-18, 37, 70 n, 73 n

Richard, duke of York, 39 Wales, 46, 48, 147, 160, 324 Richard, earl of Cornwall, 476, 482 Walsingham, Thomas, 28, 83 n

Richard of Ireland, 7 Waurin, Jean de, 4, 13-14, 45; see also Richard le Poitevin, 78 n Commentary W in Index of Manu-

Rishanger, William, 28 scripts Robert de Boron, 8 Welshmen, 323

Robert Curthose, duke, 44, 60, 296 Wessex, 144, 230-31 Robert of Gloucester, 17-19, 70 n Westminster, 35, 196

Romans, 107 Widdowes (Wydows), Thomas, 23-25, 40 Rome, 23, 49, 119, 121, 123, 205, 450, William, son of Henry I, 44, 63, 345, 390

477 William I, king, 35, 42-44, 253, 267, 278,

Rosamond, see Clifford 287, 405

William II, king, 44, 289, 294-95

Saint David’s, city, 40, 46, 56, 61 William of Malmesbury, 63

Samson, St., 43, 42 William of Newburgh, 9, 61

Saxons, 12-13, 19, 34, 75, 82, 85, 107, Winchester, 32, 35, 44, 484, 486 133, 142, 154, 159-60, 163, 248, 252, Woodstock, 24-25, 40, 49, 51, 456

271, 277 Worcester, 35, 40, 465

Saxony, 127, 131, 137 Wulstan, St., 49, 51, 466, 85 n

Scotland, J/, 139, 28] Wykes, Thomas, 50-52 Scots, 107, 279

Scott, Sir Walter, 24 n York, 40, 49, 4/-42, 180, 182, 455 104