This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]On: 02 May 2013, At: 16:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Medieval HistoryPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmed20

Propaganda in English medieval historiographyAntonia Gransden

To cite this article: Antonia Gransden (1975): Propaganda in English medieval historiography, Journal of MedievalHistory, 1:4, 363-381

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4181(75)90012-3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drugdoses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for anyloss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

edieval istori

Antonia Gransden

Propaganda occurs sporadically in the chronicles of medieval England, mainly in oficial histories (that is those commissioned by authority) and quasi- oficial ones (those not actual@ commissioned but representing the authority’s point of view). It ranges from mere eulogy to forceful argument which may even involve deliberate misrepresentation. In monastic chronicles the propaganda is generally on behalf of the monastery itself, and is rarely that of the central government; in fact such chronicles tend to be critical of king and government. Government propaganda oc :urs nr.qre frequently in chronicles by other groups of- writers, notably secular clerks. Although very few non-monastic chronicles were uctually commissioned by the king (the only in- disputable examples belong to the reign of Edward IV), a few aye quasi-o$icial, written probably to attract patrona,Te and/or in c. literary, mode, especially that of romance literature, which tended to favour the king.

Clearly government-span sored hjtory established no continuous tradition in England, comparable to that, for exc.m.ple, in France. Nor were quasi-

o#cial histories numerous. Therefore it seems that government propaganda was not congenial to most chroniclers in England, an impression conjrmed by the fact that it only left a sign$cant mark on the chronicles in exceptional circumstances, for instance at times of political crisis. Moreover, the chronicles containing it were by foreigners and/or were written when continental inJuence was particularly strong at court. The historiographical genre most characteristic of medieval England was the monastic chronicle, with its strong local attachments and generally independent attitude to the central government.

Governments and local institutions used propaganda to disseminate their views and rally support in the middle ages as they do in the present day. Their means of propaganda were both verbal and written. Propaganda may occur for example in official records, in directives to subordinates - and in chronicles.

Propagandist chronicles fall into two main groups, official histories and quasi-official histories. An official history can be defined as one commissioned by a person exercising authority, to represent the point of view of his office. In the middle ages besides justifying the acts of the authority, it may well be written in a eulogistic style. Some histories are auth- oritative and may also be eulogistic, but have no specific evidence ofcommission: such works are classed below as probably official.

A number of works express the official pain; of view and are eulogistic, but were either definitely not or probably I:,tJt commissioned by the authority con:crned, PosLibiy they reflect spontaneous love of or admiration for the person or the place. Alternatively, or in addition, they may belong to a literary genre ofwhich eulogy is an esse:J.tial part, and at lfzast some were written to attract favour from a patron (for example, the king) and so to help

Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975), 363-382. 0 North-Holland Publishing Company. 363

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

the author’s career: these histories have much in common with official histories and may be termed quasi-official. It should also be noted that propaganda issued by an outside auth- ority may occur as an isolated passage in a chronicle which in other respects does not reflect the vie,ws of that authority; possibly the author inserted the propaganda fortuitously, or because he approved of it, or because the outside authority tflld him to.

It should be noted that the term propa- ganda can have only a very limited appli- cation for most of the middle ages, because it could not dissemir,ate a view widely ; until at earliest the late fourteenth century it would initially have reached only a small circle of

men. “‘he intentions of an ofhcial history produced in a monastery were partly to gratify corporate pride and to improve the es/wit de corps, intentions accentuated by the presence of propaganda. Through well-in- formed monks the community’s point of view might influence others, for example pilgrims who, persuaded of the ancient Christian tradition of the place, would give more gen- erously. If the monastery’s rights were in dispute, propaganda in its official history would serve as a reinforcement against op- ponentr,. Government-sponsored history was probably intended to please the king and his circle. But it would also inform the clerical elite, and it might be hoped that through this influential group tjne propaganda would reach awider audience.1 Often the first impact would have ‘been on those who already ac- cepted the government point of view, but ultimately the propagianda might increase the loynlty of the king’s subjects and even rally support abroad.2 With the spread of literacy in the fifteenh century the lumber of people

whom propaganda could reach at first hand increased. 3

In medieval England government-spon- sored official histories,, and even quasi-offi- cial histories, were rare. Much commoner were oflicial histories of local institutions, usually monasteries. These, as the more characteristic group, will be discussed first.

Local histories produced by monasteries range from those intended merely to reinforce the monks’ love of their own home, through those written with an eye to the pilgrim trade and to the house’s general reputation, to those with a justificatory purpose in relation to a legal dispute. Some explicitly state that the author wrote in obedience to a command from his monastic superior;4 others contain no such statement, but their contents indicate that they too were commis#sioned.

An example of a history intended primarily for the author’s own community is the chron- icle of Ramsey abbey written soon after the accession of Henry II. It has no evidence as to who commissioned it, but its official nature is suggested by the eulogistic tone and by the theme. The author praises Ramsey in fulsome terms: he describes the marshes in which the abbey was situated, the lakes with abundant fish and waterfowl, the islands with woody glades, fruit trees, rich arable and pastures which in the spring were so bright with flowers that they looked as if they were the work of an artist - and of all the islands of the fens Ramsey was the most fertile (Macray 1886:7-l 1). The chronicle, however, is more than a eulogy: it is also a record. The author’s declared purpose was to establish the abbey’s right to its estates, its titles to which had been threatened during the anarchy of Stephen’s reign (Macray 1886:4). The chronicle has copies of the abbey’s early charters, so that if anarchy ever recurred, there would be no doubt what it owned.

364

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

Probably the Ramsey chronicler intended his work to be used primarily for reference within the abbey. On the other hand the History of the church of Durham written by a

monk of Durham, prcbably Symeon, at the command of his superiors in about 1100 (Arnold 1882:3), must have been intended to have a wider influence. In the generation after the Norman Conquest the monks of St Cuthbert’s were concerned for their pros- perity which had been impaired by the politi- cal insecurity and the military devastations in the north. Moreover, they feared that their powers of recupera tion would be undermined by any diminution in the reputation of their house as the heir to an ancient and holy tradition (Gr ansden 1974a:ll.5,116-20). Therefore, one purpose of the History was without doubt to attract the generosity of pilgrims and to deter potential depredators. It demonstrates the continuity of that tradition before and after the Norman Conquest, em- phasising the abiding power of St Cuthbert to protect his community,5 and stressing, even at the expense of Xstorical accuracy, the an- cient associations of its treasures - for instance by ‘proving’ that its precious gospel book (the Lindisfarne Gospels) had travelled with St Cuthbert’s body on the evacuation of Lindisfarne in 793 (Kendrick 1960 :2 l-3). The post-Conquest monastery had of course dnly been founded i;l 1183, but the History purports to link it with the pre-Conquest secular community, by the assertion that some of the monks descended from the very bearers ofSt Cuthbert’scoffin (Arnold 1882:97-80).

The propagandist purpose of the History of the church qf Durham led to thle distortion of historical fact. In William of Malmesbury’s De antiquitate Glastoniensis ecclesiae it led to more extensive falsification. William dedi- cated the work to Henry of Blois, bishop of

Winchester, who had a close connec’ion with Giastonbury abbey, ruling it together with his bishopric from 1126 until his death in 117 4 (Hearne 1727: 1; Robinson 1921:3, 4). Hc wrote to meet ::he challenge to the abbey’s reputation presented by Osbern, the hagi- ographer of Christ Church, Canterbury, who had recently asserted that Dunstan was the first abbot of Glastonbury (Stubbs 1874:92). To defend Glastonbury’s reputation as a holy place of great antiquity, William proved, by sound historical research, that the abbey’s history stretched back well into the seventh century. Lamentably, to further substantiate his conclusions, he inserted one or two forged charters (Hearne 1727 :61-2, 73-5, 78-82; Sawyer 1968: nos. 257, 499, 783). Un- doubtedly the monks of Glastonbury wel- comed the De antiquitate in their anxiety to preserve their pilgrim trade. However the revenue from pilgrims became even more im- perative in 1184 when a serious fire in the abbey necessitated expenditure on rebuilding. Soon afterwards the monks enveloped the early history of Glastonbury in legend: they inserted into the De antiquitate the story of Joseph of Arimathea’s visit and much other legendary material, and the forged ‘charter of St Patrick’, all designed to show that Glaston- bury was the most holy place in England (Robinson 1921:3-25).

At the furthest extreme is a tract written during the quarrel between Herbert Losinga bishop of Thetford and the abbey of Bury St Edmunds, when the bishop tried to move his see to Wury in the early twelfth century. (The abbey successfully resisted the attempt on legal grounds.) The tract was by one of Losinga’s party and its purpose was to rein- force his claim (V. H. Galbraith 1925 :222-B). It is a pike justijicative, a fighting document, presenting the bishop’s case. The historical

365

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

falsification in it is all pervasive. It contains a fabricated history of Bury St Edmunds design- cd to prove that, contrary to the monks’ contention, the place had once been the seat of a bishop. It suppresses the very existence of St Edmund the king and martyr, the abbey’s patron, and states that the abbey grew out of a secular cathedral founded by Felix bishop of the East Angles from about 630 to 647. This cathedral was dedicated to St Mary: King Cnut made the secular community attached tothecathedral intoapriory, and KingHarold elev;rted it into an abbey. In fact, ofcourse,the pre-Conquest history of the abbey, founded by King Cnut in honour of St Edmund, is well authenticated and there is no evidence sup-

porting the assertion th.at Bishop Felix had previously establishcd his see on the site.

The same local attachment, the same esprit de corps, which permeates the local histories, moulded th? general histories composed in monasteries. These too were probably often commissioned by a monastic superior.6 One of the chroniclers’ purposes was to represent the abbey in a favourable light against the back- ground of national history. Writing in strong- holds of local privilege, chrcniclers tend to be critical of, even hostile to, the king and govern- ment. Particularly .In the thirteenth century iheir houses were engaged in a bitter struggle against the expar: iing claims of the king and his government ,and of the papacy). How- ever, sometimes they rase above local con- siderations and identified with *.he interests of the people of the realm. Already the author of the Anglo-Saxon chrowdcle in the early eleventh century criticized King Ethelred for the loss of the English fleet, deploring the damage done to the national cause: “thus the toil of all the nation was lightly brought to nought - no better than this was the victory which all

the English people had expected” (Whitelock 1961:89). And as late as the end of the four- teenth century Thomas Walsingham, the St Albans’ chronicler, was censuring Richard II who, led astray by evil counsellors, betrayed his subjects’ interests (Thompson 1874:354; Riley 1864:149,152).

The monastic vocation itself supplied the chroniclers with weapons of criticism. Ideas of democratic control existed in the monasteries and religious orders,’ and these could be applied by analogy to the central government. Already in the late twelfth century Gervase of Canterbury had r&oted that the division of property between The convent and archbishop should only be varied “by common counsel, not by presumption or tyranny” (Stubbs 1879 :43), and remarked with satisfaction that when Archbishop Theobald had appbinted a prior of Christ Church, he did this with the convent’s consent (Stubbs 1879:48, 141). He also emphasised that the convent clung to its charters to secure its rights against the arch- bishop (Stubbs 1879 :467, 470-l). Gervase’s continuator writes of the baronial opposition to King John in analogous terms. He states that in 1204 preparations for the defence of England against French invasion were made “with the assent of the king and of all the magnates” (Stubbs 1880:96), and that in 120#5 “all the magnates...compelled the king to swear that he would preserve, with their counsel, the laws of England” (Stubbs 1880: 97-8).

The thirteenth-century Waverlcy chron- icler reflects the consultative and rcpresenta- tive element in the Cistercian order. He notes that a decision was made at Wavcrley (in 1263) “by the counsel of the seniors of the house” (Luard 1865 :354), and records that in 1256 the English Cistercians ltefused Henry III’s financial demands without licence of the

366

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

general chapter and “the consent of all the abbots” (Luard 1865 :348-g). Th< chronicler was an ardent partizan of the barons in their conflict with Henry III, who, he claims, had either perverted or quashed the ancient laws and c&toms of the realm, acting as if by ‘?yrannical will” (Luard 1865 :351)) .s

Of all the thirteenth-century writers, Matthew Paris most consistently and elo- quently abused the king and his ministers and officials. He considered that all consti- tutional problems would be solved if the privileges of every group of society, as defined by custom and charter, were observed, and their obligations fulfilled. He saw the monas- tery as a microcosm ofthe kingdom. Just as the abbot, the head of the monastery, should take the advice of the senior monks and observe the precepts of the Rule, so the king should take the magnates’ advice and observe the custom- ary and written limitations on the exercise of his authority.9

Despite the fact that monastic chronicles in general have an independent attitude to the central government, on occasion traces of government propaganda can be found in them. The earliest examples are the Anglo- Norman chronicles written in the geroration after the Norman Conquest. Eadmer, William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis give the Norman justification for the Conquest, that Edward the Confessor had promised the succession to Duke William, and that Harold had sworn to uphold the agreement (Rule 1884:7; Stubbs 1889:279-80; Chibnall 1969; xxiv, 134-6, 1702,369). Their acceptance of the official version was apparently voluntary, Fut in later instances chroniclers included government propaganda in response to an order.

Edward I was well aware of the value of

history for propaganda He made extensive use of it to support his claim to the overlord- ship of Scotland (Stones 1969:11-21). Pre- paratory to hearing the claims of the com- petitors to the throne of Scotland at Norham in 1291, h;_ ,*rrote to the monasteries in- structing the monks to search their chronicles for evidence of his right, and his clerks used the material supplied to concoct a historical justi- fication for his claim, which was cited in the course of the trial Edward must have hoped that this piece of propaganda would stir the enthusiasm of his own supporters and perhaps even help persuade the Scats of his right. It formed part of the official record of the pro- ceedings (F&era, 1: 762-84) :u-rd was also used to disseminate Edward’s case further afield; it appears in the letter which Edward address- ed to Pope Boniface VIII in 1301 (Stones 1965: no. 30). And in order to spread the knowledge throughout England of his over- lordship of Scotland, Edward sent copies of the competitors’ letter:, of submission to his judgment to various monasteries, where, in accordance with the king’s instrucions, they were copied into their chronicles (fcr example Howlett 1885:576-8; Gransden 1!,64:100-3; compare Palgrave 183 7 : xcvi-xc. vii ; Bain

1884: nos. 503-4). Similarly some chronicles of the early

fifteenth century bear the impri.nt of royal propaganda, Henry IV’s clerks compiled an account of the deposition of Richard II, the so-called “record and process”, tc justify his coup. This official record, which was entered on the parliament roll (Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3 :416-32)) gives the articles condemning the last years of Richard’s rule and purports to describe the deposition itself, representing it as a voluntary abdication? Copies of it were sent to important monasteries, where the chroniclers incorporated extracts into their

367

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

works (Hearne 1729: 157-61; compare Stow 1973:71-Z; Haydon 1863:582-4; Riley l&66:252-82). The chroniclers also seem to have had access to Lancastrian propaganda tracts, written in favour of the Lords Ap- pellant;ll these tracts are now lost and their previous existence can only be inferred from what appear to be extralzts fkom them in the chronicles.

The historical work of Thomas Walsingham may be cited as an example of the possible effects of the 1399 revolution on a monastic chronicler. Walsingham began his great work, the Chronica major-a, during the reign of Rich- ard II ; he bitterly criticised the government, particularly Henry Bolingbroke’s. father, John of Gaunt. He stopped writ:ing the Chronica during his period ofoffice as prior of Wymond- ham from 1394 until late in 1396 or early in 1397. After Richard’s deposition he, again resident at St Albans, revised the Chronica, modifying the criticism of John of Gaunt (Galbraith 1932 :24-5). He also added a hostile accotint of Richard II’s last years,12 for which he made use not only ofthe “record and process” hu,. also apparently of Lancastrian prc paj;anda tracts.

For example Walsingham borrowed from

the “record and pror.ess” his statement that ard pert.* II&$ Parliament in 1398 to

egate its powers and that he had entries on the rolls altered and deleted [Wiley 1866:222, 263-4; Rotuli Parlianvntorum,, 3 ~418 no. 25; compare Edwards 1925 :62 l-5) .I3 I-Iis account of the earl of Arundel’s {execution at Richard’s command in 1394 seems to be from a propa- ganda tract. It depicts the earl as if he were a saint, giving alms to the poor as he was led

the place of execution, forgiving and kissing e executioner and testing the blade of the

sword. He was beheaded at one blow, “but”, writes Walsingham, “his1 headless trunk raised

itselFto its feet and stood, with no assistance, for the space of time it takes to say the Lord’s Prayer” (Riley 1866 :2 1 G--8). Similarly Wal- singham’s moving account of the arrest of the duhe of Gloucester* (Riley 1866 :203-.-6) may well be part of z~ Lancastrian propaganda tract. If it is, the concluding part of the same tract is probably preserved in the Evesham chronicle, which has a gruesome description of Gloucester’s murder, written. in similar highly coloured prose (Hearne 1729 : 161-Z). Furthermore, it is possible that the dramatic passages relating to Thomas Arlindel, arch- bishop of Canterbury, in the Eul’o$um historlarum (Hayclon 1863 :3 7 l-2, 3 76-4) also derived from a Lancsstr~an source. The story of St Thomas’s holyoil,discovered by Richard II in the Tower and used by Archbishop Arundel to anoint Henry IV, a clear example of Lancastrian propaganda, may have formed part of the same work (it occurs both in the Eulogium and in Walsingham) (Haydon 1863 : 380; Ril(ey 1866:297-300) .14

Only one monastic chron& has any claim to be regarded as an official history. This is a version, with continuation, of the Flows his%-iarum written in Westminster Abbey. The copy of Matthew Pa,ris’s Flows which went to Westminster from St Albans in 1265 was continued there to 1306. F arly in the four- teenth century a revised version of the chron- icle to 1306 (the so-called “Merton Flares) was produced, and later the monk Robert cf Reading added a further continuation covcr- ing Edward II’s reign. The tone and thcmc of the revised rersion and of Robert of Read-

ing’s continuation suggest the possibility that they were government-sponsored, a view which receives some confirmation from the excellent series of pictures of the coronations of the kings of England from William the

368

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

Figure 1. The coronation of Henry III (left) and Edward I (right) from the ‘Merton’ version of the Flares /LS?OY~ZYU~. Eton College MS. 123, ~OS. 19d,23j.

Conqueror to Edward I (see Figure 1 and Gransden 1974b;472-92).

The revised version of the FZores may well have been written to please Edward I or at his command, or perhaps for Edward II at his adcession to commemorate his father’s achievements. Although it is a history of the world starting at the creation, becoming in fact P history of England, it concentrates particularly on Edward I’s reign. At least one of its aims was to praise King Edward for his victories over the Scats ant1 to vindicate his claim to overlordship. Bebides including the letters of submission of the competitors for the throne of Scotland (Luard 1890 : 74, n. 7)) it hss fulsome eulogy of Edward’s military prowess in prose embellished with biblical referen.ccs to emphasise his @rsona as the Lord’s anointed (for example Luard 1890: 316-20). .

In the same degree as the revised Flares

P

ravours the king, the 1307 to 1327 continu- ation vilifies him. The virulence of Robert of Reading’s tone can only be explained in the context of the coup by Queen Isabel and Roger Mortimer; it must have been written to justify the depF)sition of Edward II. Qn the one hand Robert denigrates Edward II al- most hysterically, and on the other he praises Isabel and Mortimer and justifies their acts.

e uses biblical references to lend weight to his prose in the same way as the previous author, even comparing Mortimer with St Peter (Luard 1890:217). Edward was “para- lysed by sloth, and won disgrace, not fame”‘; he was a coward in battle, fleeing terrified from the Scats in 1322, “spurring on his horse, trembling and defenseless”; and so he lost the honour and prestige won by his far-famed ant castors (Luard 1890 : 192-3, 2 10). Queen Isakdel, who had always worked for the peace of t1.e realm, had suffered bad treatment at E is

369

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

hands. Edward had cruelly ‘deprived her of her household and put her from his bed : “Oh !

the insane stupidity ofthe king, condemned by God and man; he should not love his own in- famy and illicit bed, full of sin, and should never have banished, from his side his noble consortand her gentle wifely embraces, in con- tempt of her noble birth.” (Luard 1890:229). The chronicle ends with Edward’s ‘voluntary abdication. The king is represented as saying :

“I greatly lament that I have so utterly failed my people, but I could be no other than I am; I am delighted that rn,~ son, who has been accepted by all the people, should succeed me on the t-none.” l, Luard 1890 :235)

We probably have, therefore, in this version of the FZ0re.s an official history of two reigns. For thisbriefperiod the monksofWestminster, a foundation under royal patronage and close to the seat of government, apparently sup- plied the kings of England with a chronicle compar+le to the Grandes chroniques written by the monks of St Denis for the kings of France.

However, this version of the Flares stands alone : no other chronicle of undisputed monastic origin relects the official viewpoint with sufficient strt.ngth and consistancy to justify its classiffica:jon as an official, or even a quasi-ofFicia1, history. For other possible ex- amples of such histories we must turn to the works of non-monastic writers, notably secular clerks.

The earliest surviving example of a history which may well be official is the Alfredian version of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. Its author is unknown but he is unlikely to have been a monk, or ar: least one resident in a monastery, and he wa Drobably connected with the court of King Alfred.l-5 The propagandist ele. tent in the Chrmicle suggests that he was commissioned by Alfred to record the achievements of the

house of Wessex in general and of Alfred him- self in particular, with especial emphasis on military triumphs.

The Chronicle demonstrates the antiquity of the West Saxon dynasty by giving two ge- nealogies of the royal family, one going bat to Noah and the other to Adam, in glorious unbroken line (Whitelock 1961:14, 44: com- pare Chadwick 1924:56ff, 252-83; F. M. Stenton 1925 :23, n. 3). It exaggerates the par-t played by Cerdic and Cynric, the founders of the dynasty, in the original conquest of Wessex (?Vhitelock 1961: 1 l-1 2) ,16and under- emphasises the successes of the rivals or’ the West Saxon kin.gs, the kings oCMercia.17 Thus the Chronicle? establishe!, King Alfred’s ancient royal lineage which entitled him to lead the English. It records his victories over the Danes, and when it was continued under his son and heir, Edward the Elder, its official character survived. The continuator rewrote part of the account of Alfred’s reign to give greater kudos to Edward. References to Alfred’s activity as army commander against the Danes in 893 are reduced : Edward emerges as hero ; it was he in whom the English soldiers “rejoiced, being set free from care, like sheep brought to the pas- tures by the help of the shepherd” (Campbell 1962 :xxviii-xxix, 49).

Copies of the Alfredian Chronicle were distributed to various monasteries apparently in the late ninth century, there to be preserved and kept up to date. But although the mon- asteries received continuations for the years 894 to 924,925 to 97!?, and 983 to 1018 from some central source (see Plummer 1899: xxxviii-cxxii ; Campbell 1938 : l-7,34-5), the Chronicle gradually lost its official character and became localized, until by the time of the Norman Conquest it had acquired the in- dependent outlook which was to become characteristic of the monastic chronicles of

370

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

Figure 2. Frontisibiece of the Encom- ium Emmae regitrae. The author pre- sents the book to Queen Emma, who is accompanied by her sons Har- thacnut and Edward. BL Add. MS. 33241, f. Iv.

the po.;t-Conquest period. the Danes and his cultural reforms, perhaps at The Anglo-Saxons had another type of the king’s command (Campbell 1962 :xxxiii) .

historiography closely associated with the Another royal, biography, possibly also com- court; royal biography. The Life of King missioned, was of Alfred’s grandson, Athel- A&d himself was written by Asser, bishop of star-r, praising his heroism as a warrior. Sherborne, to celebrate Alfred’s victories over The two remaining royal biographies

371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

written in the Anglo-Saxon period were com- missioned by queens: Queen Emma com- missioned a Life of her hushland King Cnut (the Encomium Emmae reginae,, see Figure 2), and Queen Edith one of her husband Edward the Confessor. All four royal biographies are in eulogistic vein and exaggerate the virtues of their subjects, and the last two contain pro- paganda which distorts historical truth: for example the Encomium disguises the fact that Cnct was Emma’s second h,usband, the first being Cnut’s enemy King Ethelred (Camp- kJd 1949 : xlvi) ; and the j!@ of King Edward claims that the king had the saintly virtue of chastit;r, probably in order to gloss over his failure to provide an heir to the English throne - his childlessness exposed him to the criticism that he was not blessed by God (Barlow 1962: lxxv-lxxviii) .

However, the pr’opaganda in these royal biographies cannot have been aimed at a wide audience. They were proba’bly intended pri- marily for the court circle and can have had little vogue outside it. This view is corrobor- ated by their w yak manuscript traditions. The Lzfe gf Xi’ng X+ed s;;rvived the Conquest in one orperhaps t x-o ma,mscripts (noncisnow extant) .ls Athelstan’s Life is known only from the passages copied by William of Malmes- bury into his Gesta iregum Stubbs 1889:144- 52 @.nim ; compare Campbell 1938 :45, n. 1, 49 and n. 5). The Encomium k known from only one medieval manuscript, albeit an autograph (Campbell 1949:xi-xiii; Figure 2), and the Li&z ofKing Edward also from one manuscript, of about 1100 (Barlow 1962 :lxxix-lxxxi) . Nor were these works much used by later medieval writers,*9 and this rather tenuous tradition of royal biography did not survive the Norman Conquest.

In the post-CQnques& period romance litcra-

ture began to influence historical wr-rting, and histories were written in Anglo-Norman verse in the form of chansons de geste. Romance lent itself to royal eulogy: a king, like any other lord, could be praised as a hero of chivalry. Moreover, the romance writer loved to describe scenes of war, and the king as com- mander of the army might well attract his attention. In addition the authors who wrote histories in the romance style were secular clerks, a class susceptible to pressure from patrons. Such a clerk might holIe to win promotion in his career through thz influence of his patron - in some instances the king.

The first history to be written iu England in the romance style in Anglo-Norman verse was the Estoire des Engleis by Geoffrey Gaimar, a clerk of Caen, who wrote shortly before 1140. It is the only known twelfth-centur) work to give a favourable account of William Rufus - “a wise and courteous man”, and “Never was a king so well loved ncr honoured by his folk” (Bell 1960: 185, 187). Gaimar’s history was follo\Jed by others in the same style, Jordan F:Lntosme’s Chronique de la guerre entre les Prylois et Zes Ecossois, concc rning the war of I 173-4 between Englanti and Scotland,20 Ambroise’s Estoire de la Guerre Saime (printed Paris 1897) and the Histoire de Guillaume le Markhal, a Life of Willia:n the Marshal earl of Pembroke (died in 12 19) (printed, Meyer 1891-1901). All three works eulogize their heroes, but in only one, Ambroise’s Histoire, is the hero the king.21 Ambroise put Richard I in the centre of the stage; Richard was lavish in hospitality and generous to his followers, and above all he was brave (for example Par:is 189’7 : 17,30,? 10).

The Estoire or its source22 formed the basis of the account in Latin prose, in six books, of the Third Crusade, the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi, by Richard, canon of the

372

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

Augustinian priory of Holy Trinity in London (printed, Stubbs 1864). The relevant section comprises Books 2-6 (Book 1 concerns the crus- ade but without especial reference to King Richard). This part belongs to another histo- riographical genre which was introduced into England after the Norman Conquest, that of tile Gesta regum. A variety of works were so entitled, for example William of Malmes- bury’s Gesta regum, an account ofthe successive kings of England, whom. he treats critically rather than eulogistically. Another is the Gesta Henrici II which goes under the name of Benedict of Peterborough (printed, Stubbs 1867)) but was probably by Roger of Howden, a clerk in rBya1 service (D.M. Stenton 1953: 574-82 ; cdmparc Stubbs 1867a :liii-lv) . In form it resembles a monastic chronicle, but, being the work of a royal clerk, it reflects the outlook of the central government and has numerous copies of official documents - as does the chronicle indisputedly by Roger of Howden (printed, Stubbs 1868-7 1). But most typical of the genre are Gesta regum written under the influence of romance literature: because they subsume chivalric values they tend to treat kings as heroes.23

Romance histories and the ron .ance-type Gesta regum eulogize the king particularly as a military leader, and they favour warfare - they can to some extent be regarded as propaganda in favour of war in general. In some instances their object w as more specific ; both Ambroise’s Estoire and the Itinerarium were partly written to stimulate crusading fervour. Furthermore, if the king’s right to his conquest was in question, a Pesta regum might contain propa- ganda to the point of misrepr~:sentation: three examples of such works survil e from medieval England, William of Poitier ‘s Gesta GuiZZeZmi ducis Jl’brmannorum et regis An& iorum, Robert of Avesbury’s & gestis mirabilibus regis Edwardi

tertii, and the anonymous Gesk Henrici quinti. When Duke William conquered England it

was necessary to establish that he had legal justification for his seizure of the crown. The consequent propaganda is clearly reflected in a number of the historical works of the period,24 but particularly in the Gesta GuiZZeZmi by William of Poitiers, archdeacon of Lisieux and once a chaplain of Duke William.zs The centre piece of the argument proving Duke William’s right to the throne was that Harold, when shi;->wrecked in Normandy, had sol- emnly sworn to Duke William that he, William, should succeed to the English throne on the death of Edward the Confessor. Harold subsequently broke his oath, seizing the throne itself, and thus became a perjuror (Foreville 1952 : 146, 182). William of Poitiers reinforced his argument by demonstrating that William was a good man, a great ruler and a brave warrior (he gives graphic exam- ples of his prowess), while Harold was a bad one, a usurper and a tyrant (for example Foreville 1952 : 114, 180,204,224,230).

Robert of Avesbury, registrar to the arch- bishop of Canterbury,‘6 wrote the Dl! gestis mirabiZibus regis Edwardi tertii, which is virtually a military history, to praise E&ard HI in chivalric terms and JTustify his wars against Scotland and France. He demonstrates Ed- ward III’s rigk Lt to overlordship of Scctland with a flashback composed “from ancient chronicles” recapitulating .4nglo-Scottish re- lations from the time of Brutu!: :o the coro- nationofRobert Bruce (Thompson 1889 :286- 96). He concentrates especially on the war with France, describing the English victories one after another, culminating in the triumph at Poitiers. He justifies Edward’s claim to the

crown of France by right of inheritance and asserts that it had been violently acquired by Philip of Valois (Thompson 1889 :302-3) ?

373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

He praises Edward as magnificent, generous and merciful, always ready to spare a caprive or make a just peace. Above all Edward was brave. His heroism is illustrated, for example, by the dramatic account of the battle near Calais in 1350, when he and the Black Prince fought to save the town from a surprise attack by the French. King Edward, with hardly thirty men-at-arms and a few archers, became separated from the rest of his army. Seeing this, the French prepared to attack: “Then the king, situated in such great danger, did not lose heaft, but like a seasoned and great- hearted warrior, drew his sword shouting “Ah! Eciward, Saint George! Ah! Edward, Saint Geor!;e !” The French were so non- plussed with astonishment that reinforcements had time to rush to Eclward’s help (ThornpEon 18893410).

The last propagandist (%sta written as a result of war to be discussed is the Gesia Henrici qyinti by an unidentified chaplain f,f Henry 1’. It has been described by a recent scholar its “an outstanding piece of propa- ganda, designed toJ Jstify the king’s character and policy” (Roskell and Taylor 197 1:428). Its

main object was to stimulate support, in- cluding f’,lancial support, for the Hundred Years’ W ‘ir preparatory to its renewal in 14 i 7, by persu ..ding Henry’s subjects of his l )wn worth an 1 the justice of his cause.28 In ad- dition such a work might increase his prestige abroad.29 The Gesta emphasises that Henry had a 1egii;imate hereditary right to the ter- ritories he claimed in France. He had tried to orbtain recognition of this by negotiation, but lbecause of the duplicity of the French the peace talks had failed (Williams 1850:80,83). Therefore Henry was forced to have recourse to the sword: “ We make war so that we may have peace, because the end of war is peace” Rot&i Parliamentorun?, 4 :94). The -vriter de-

monstrates that God was on the side of the English. He stresses Henry’s piety - his assiduity in attending church services, his religious foundations (for example Williams 1850:7, 41, 47, 49, 72, 90-2, 107). And he represents Henry’s victories, notably at Harfleur and Agincourt, as proof of God’s favour (Williams 1850:47, 59,73--5). The fact that the same arguments occur, though ex- pressed more briefly, on the Rolls of Parlia- ment proves that. they were the official ones (Rotuli Parliamentorum, 4:62,94, 106, 116).

Although these three Gesta regum praise the kin,g, reflect his policy and justify his acts, there is no evidence tha: they were com- missioned. In view of l.he fact that they were by secular cle& (who were no doubt anxious <or promotion) a.nd written in the chivalric . (node, it would be rash to conclude that they are official rather than quasi-official histories. it is not until the Wars of the Roses that there s certain evidences ofofficial history written by

royal servants. By this time the well-to-do laity were literate, and the two parties in the civil war often appealed for support by the use of bills and newsle tters (Armstrong 1948 :43 l- 3). An elaborate example of a propagandist newsletter is The manner and guiding of the Earl of Warwick at Angers from the 15th day of July to the 4th dcy of August, which Warwick and the duke of Clarence addressed to the “discreet and true commons of F viand”. The letter justifies Warwick’s and Claren\*e’s change of side and details their alliarre with Queen Margaret (Ellis 182 7 : 13:!-9) .

At least two h,istorical works were written (both in English:) specifically to support the Yorkist cause. The iirst is the account of the Lincolnshire rebellion of 1479. Thi!; covers the period of three weeks from Zdwat d IV’s de- parture from London on 6 March until his arrival at York :after the suppression of the

374

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

revolt. It must have been written by someone closely connected with the royal adminis- tration, because the author had access to documents preserved there, both official and otherwise, to which he refers (for example Nichols 1847 :6, 10, 13). Its purpose was to implicate the duke of Clarence and the earl of Warwick in the revolt (Kingsford 1913:173- 4). The other tract written in the Yorkist cause was the History of the Arrival of Edward IV in England and thejnal recovery of his kingdom from Henry VI, which gives a full account of Ed- ward’s return to England, in 147 1, from his landing at Ravenspur to his victory at Tew- kesbury, and was written, as it itselfstates, “by a servant of the king’s, that presently saw in effect a great part of his exploits, and the residue knew by true relation of them that were present at every time” (Bruce 1838: 1) . Although the Arrival is principally a factual and accurate military history (King Edward’s success was propaganda enough), its Yorkist bias is evident. For example, in its account of the battle of Tewkesbury, it alludes only briefly to the death of Edward prince of Wales, who was killed in suspicious circum- stances, and to the brutal executions which followed the battle, and attributes Henry VI’s death without comment to “pure displeasure and melancholy” (Bruce 1838:38; compare Kingsford 1913:173).

The Arrival is an official history in the strict sense of the term. One of its purposes was to inform Edwar I IV’s friends abroad of his re- adeption. Twc versions in French, a long and a short one, ga ,ned currency on the continent (Thomson 197 3 :ts4-93). The long version was copied by the F lemish chronicler Jean Waurin into his Recur eil des cronicques d’Engleterre (DuPont 1863:96-147), and the short one was probably used my the French writer, Thomas Basin, for his h: story of the reign of Louis XI

(Thomson 1971: 84). Edward IV sent a copy of the short version, with a covering letter to the burgesses of Bruges; a fine contemporary copy of his letter, and the text of thework it- self, with illuminations is preserved at Ghent (Figure 3) .30 He also sent a copy to Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy.31

The evidence shows that in general the kings of England did not com,mission historical works as vehicles of propaganda. The Anglo-

Saxon chronicle and the ‘Merton’ version of the J’lores historiarum may well be oficial histories, but the only indisputable examples belong to the reign of Edward IV.

Clearly there was in England no traditionof official historiography comparable to that in France, where from the twelfth to the fifteenth century the kings commissioned the monks of St Denis to write an official chronicle, the Grandes chroniques, to praise them and justify their acts (printed, Vial-d 1920-53). Nor was there anything in England to correspond to the abundance of ‘memorials’ and propa- ganda tracts produced in France in the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries in support of the policy of the kiiig or of that of the opposing faction (Hay 1962 ; Lewis 1965). The lack of such a tradition is the more surprising because t host continental neighbours with which Enp!and was most closely associated, Nor- ma2dy and Anjou, both 1-.ad official histories: already in the late tenth century the duke of Novmandy commissiont.d one,32 and the official history of the ccunts of Anjou, the Gevta consulum Andegavorun,, W;LS begun in 1107 and continued throughout the twelfth century (printed, Marchegay anti Salmon 1856, 1871).

Examples of quasi-official histories written

by secular CI arks in search of patronage and in a literary rr9de which tended to favour the

375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

king, are slightly more numerous, and there are a few examples of monastic chronicles which included, sometimes at the king’s order, go\-ernmcnt propaganda.

The evidence forces the conclusion that chronic’es containing government propa-

ganda were atypical of the historiographical tradition of medieval England. All the cx- amplcs cite of which propaganda is a marked feature were written in exceptional circumstances; the monar4y resorted to

da to obtain morA reinforcement at times of crisis -- when it was thrc*atcncd bj encmics at home (during the Dal&h in\.asions or the Wars ofthc Roses), or was expanding its claims ahroad (in Scotland or in France), OI when the king himself had gained the tlrrone lly force (as did William the Conqueror, Ed- ward III and Henry IV).

hloreo\*cr, the impression that government propaganda was not congenial tc the English chronicler is strengthened by t IC fact that all the works cited wcrc written citilcr by forcign- crs or when foi-sign influence was particularly strong at court. Asscr was a Welshn-fan, and the biographers of Cnu t and Edward tllc Con- fessor wcrc Flemish. \2’illiam of Poiticrs was ;l Norman, as were the ‘romance’ historians, GaimarJordan and Ambroisc. (The romanccb mode itself was imported from tile continent.) King Alficd’s court was cosmopolitan -- ;\sscr modcllcd his work on Einhard’s L;Je 01’ UU&V.YUJ,~~P (Schiitt 1957 :2W-20), and the -Iu&-Sn.ro~r &onirle may well liar hccn in-

flucr~~t~l by the Frankish i2nnals (\t’alla~- Hadrill l!V10:2 12 -3). ‘i’hc LiJe of’AI?lg :ith- elstff~~ cz as written ~mder Viking influcncc (Gransdt*n 19743 :5-k 5). ‘I‘hc~ Norman Con- quest l~roirght England intoc~loscI,c~lation with

Normandy, while the courts of Edward I and Edward II were much influenced 1,~ French culture. (Edward I’s mother, Eleanor, was French; his scccbnd wife LTargaret was the sister of Philip IV; and Edward II’s queen, Isabel, was the sister of Philip the Fair). The cultural influence of France was considerable throughout the Hundred Years’ War, and was strengthened at court hy the marriage of Richard II to Isabel, daughter of Charles VI, by Henry V’s marriage to another of Charles’s daughters, Catherine, and by Henry W’s marriage to hlargarct 0fAnjou.

It must he concluded that the strength of* the historictgra?hy of medie\A England lay in the mon4stcries; the great names, William of Malm&ury, Matthew Paris and Thomas Kalsingham, are all of monks. There the chroniclers, with the partial exception ofthosc at Wstminstcr, writing in conditions ofcom- parati1.c independence, could to some cxtcnt resist external pressure: and produce works free from the o~rall imprint of go\*crnrncnt propaganda.

tes

I ‘l’he 13ridlington chronicle rc’(:ords t;lat in 13% the archbishop of York ordercAd IllassCs and processions throughout his I>rovillce for the success of Edward I I I’s

* l’rcnch camI~aig:n , , Stuhbs 188:1:137. A recent schol<u has Lvrittcn of l%l\rard II I’s propaganda during the Scottish war: “national consciousness.. .was nourished by royal propaganda. Although the king’s ad\*isors lacked some of th: modern media of propagancla the) had little to learn by \vay of technique. Letters to thv clergy, public proclamations. and t hv prcaml~les to

it.rit after kvrit c-on\-eyed the tidings of \fictoric*s and aroused fear of.. .invasion, [and 1 inflanr nd English hearts \vrith tales of Scottish treasons. falsvhooris. and atrocities”; Nicholson 19G3:ti.

Figure 3. ‘l’he battle of Barnet, from the l:rcnch version of the. Hidmy qf thP :1rrird (?f‘ Edwad II’ in EII~INTI~ nkich Edward IV sent to the burgesses of Bruges. Ghent, University Library AIS. 236.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

2 The H&tory of th Arrival of EdwardlV was certain- ly written at least partlv for a foreign audience (see p. 375), and possibly the Gesta Hen&i quinti was also (p. 374). 3 For the means used by the parties during the Wars of the Roses to rally support see pp. 374-5, and note 9. 4 For example the Ely chronicle (Blake 1962 :63) and the History of the church of Durham (see p. 375, and OfHer 1958:6-g). 2 See for example the vengeance visited by St Cuthbert on ;a man who stole from his shrine and on a tax collector who tried to tax his patrimony; Arnold 1882 :96-7,107. 6 The passage in the chronicle of St Swithin’s, Win- chester, which describes how items of news should be collected on separate leaves of parchment attached to the end of the monastery’s chronicle, states that at the end of lthe year someone should be ordered to compile from them the account of that year, which was to be added to the chronicle : Luard 1869 :355 ; compare Gransden 1974a :3 19 and n. 7,320. 7 The Rule of St enedict, 3.12, 13, stipulates: Si qua vero minora agenda sunt in monasterii utilitatibus, seniorurn tantum utatur consilio, sicut scriptum est: Omnia fat cum consilio et post factum non penitueris. Nevert neless, the main emphasis of the Rule is on the supreme power of the abbot under God. For attempts by the monks of Bury St Edmunds and elsewhere to gain some control in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century see Gransden 1975 :25-39. The representative principle existed in tile Cistercian order in so far as the general chapter wi i attended by the heads of all houses; see Knowlt:j 1963:2 13-4. This feature was adopted for the coxzl;.itutions of most of the other new orders. For rhe elective anlrl representative elements in the Dominican constitution see G. R. Galbraith 1925 :5 and pa-km. s As rha passage ti very like one in the annal for 5 2 I5 (Luard 1865 :282),, the chronicler must have had King Johninmind; conpareHolt 1965:98. 9 For Matthew Paris’s political views see Gransden 1974a:371-4. 10 For the “record and process” and its use by chro&clers as a source for the deposition see Clarke and Galbraith 1930 : 125-55 ; Richardson 1937 :40-2 ; Wil- kinson 1939:2 19. Richard II had himself tampered with the roll of the Shrewsbury parliament in 1398; see Edwards 1925 :32 l-33. For examples of propaganda on the Rolls of Parliament in the fifteenth century see Lander 1967:17-28&.&z, 19,n. 77. Jl For a surviving example of a propaganda tract written earlier for the Appellants see McKisack 1926 : I-27. t2 Profmr Galbraith, who concentrates on the textual evidence, does not specifically state that the

section of Walsinqham’s Chronica majora from the end of the annal for 1396 to that for 1399 was written after Bolingbroke’s coup, which is indicated by Walsing- ham’s use (not mentioned by Professor Galbraith) in the annal for 1397 of the “record and process” (see below) : Professor Galbraith demonstrates that Walsingham stopped writing the Chronica majora when prior of Wymondham, but leaves the date when he resumed writing it after his return to St Albans an open question. V. H. Galbraith 1932: 25; and 1937: xi- lviii passim. 13 For other examples of passages in Walsingham’s narrative for 1397 derived from the “record and pro- cess” see Riley 1866:225,264 = Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3 :4 19, no. 27 ; Riley 1866 :226,265 = Rotuli Parliamen- torum, 3:419, no. 28; Riley 1866:236-7,271-2 = Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3:420, no. 44; Riley 1866:239,270 = Rotuli Parliame?ztorum, 3 :420, no. 41. Professor Gal- braith does not mention Walsingham’s probable use of Lancastrian propaganda tracts. It may also be noted that some Lancastriaul handout may well be the source of the account of thr parliament held at Westminster in September, 1397, in the Evesham chronicle and in the chronicle of Adam of Usk. This is suggested by the close similarity between the relevant passages in both works; see Hearne 1729 : 13 l-42 ; Thompson 1904 :9- 17. 14 Pt is pointed o;lt by Professor Sandquist that the story of tht. holy oil never became ‘official’ Lancastrian propagancla; Sa-ldquist 1969 :339-40. 15 The view that King Alfred commissioned the Chronicle was held by Plummer ( 1899 :civ), and has more recently beer; adopted by Professor R. H. C. Davis (1971:173-7). It does not vitiate F.M. Stenton’s hypothesis (1925 : 15-24) that the author was a west- country man - Alfred employed scholars from many places. The possibility should also be noted that the Mercian Register, which covers the years from 902 to 924 (Whitelock 196 1 :xiv, 59-68)) was an official history of Mercia. 16 Archaeological evidence indicates that most of the earliest settlements were in the upper Thames valley; see Myres 196.4 : 1 l- 12 and notes. However, Worthy Park, just north of Winchester, has a burial ground of the sixth and early seventh centuries; see Myres 1969:112-13 andn. 2. 17 These are not given in the list of Bretwaldas under the year 829 (Whitelock 196 1:40- 1) . The Chron- icle also suppresses all reference to the early settlement by the Jutes with is mentioned by Bede (Historia eccle- siastica, 1.15) and Asser (Stevenson 1959 :4; compare Myres P 969 : 13 and notes). 18 The only medieval manuscript of Asser’s Life (of about 1000) to survive into modern times is now BL Cotton MS. Otho A xii, and it was almost totally destroyed in the 173 1 fire in the Cottonian library; see Stevenson 1959 :xii, xxxii-li. P. Hunter Blair, however,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

postulates the existence of another manuscript of it, of about 900, which was US& by the Durham historian after the Conquest ; Blair 1963 : 99- 104,116. 19 Of the three works, Asser’s Life of King Alfed was the best known. It was used by Florence of Worcester, the annalist of St Neots, and Gerald of Wales; Steven- son 1959 :lv-lviii, lxiii-lxiv. It was also used directly by the Durhamchroniclerand Williamof Malmesbury, not indirectly as suggested bs Stevenson ( 1959:lviii- 1ix);seeBlair 1963:99-104,115; Whitelock 1969:91-3. It was used indirectly by a numbe:: of other medieval writers (see Stevenson 1959 :lxiv-? cv), and may have been used by the encomiast and ny the author of the Life of King Edward; Campbell 194.9 :xxxv-xxxvii, and Gransden 1974a : 60-6 1 and notes. The Encomium seems to have had no currency (there is no evidence that it was even used by the author of the Life of King Ed- ward; see Barlow 1962 :xxiv). The L@ of King Edward was used by William of Malmesbury and by the t Westminster writers Osbert of Clare and Sulcard ; Bar- low 1962 :xXx-xli. 20 Fantosm&s references to Henry I I are incidental to the main theme, but he does compare him with Moses and Charlemagne, and claims that no-one in history or fiction excelled him in bravery: Howlett 1886:2 12. 21 Another good example of history in the romance style with the king as hero, is John Barbour’s Bruce. Bar- bour wrote under the patronage of Robert II and re- ceived two pensions from the king shortly after he had completed the Bruce (in 1376) ; see Mackenzie 1909 : xvii. This suggests the possibility that Barbour wrote at the command of Robert II. For Barbour’s chivalric values see Kliman 1973 :477-508 22 For a summary of the views of various scholars on the question of a common archetype behind the Estoire and the Itinerarium see Mayer 1962 : 107-5 1. In places the Itinerarium is even more eulogistic of Richard than the Estoire; for examples of eulogistic passages in it but not in the Estoire see Gransden 1!)“4a:241, notes 17 l-3, 179. 23 An example of a Gesta regum which praises the king, in this case Stephen, although he is not central to the work, is the Gesta Stephani. See 1?otter 1955:3,14,32, 58. For further examples of GestQ regum see below. 24 Notably in William of Jumiege’s Cesta Norman- norum ducum (Marx 19 14), tie Carmen de Hastingae proelio (Morton and Muntz 19; 2), William of Poitiers (see bejaw), and in the Bayeux tapestry (Stenton 1965) l

2s For William of Poitiers’ life and for the com- position of the Gesta see Foreville 1952 :vii et seq. 26 For Avesbury’s life see Thompson 1889 :xxii. 27 Avesbury also asserts that Edward III’s invasion of Brittany was to support the lawful heir, John of Montfort, whose hereditary right he carefully explains; Thompson 1889 : 339.

28 Theargument, which permeates the whole work, is clearly stated in the speech by Henr) Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, opening the parliament at Westminster in March 1416,which is given at greater length in the Gesta (Williams 1850:73-5) than on the Rolls of Parliament (Rotuli Parliamentorum, 4 :94). 29 For the suggestions that the Gesta may have been intended to provide moral reinforcement for the Eng- lish delegation at the Council of Constance see Roskell and Taylor 1972 :22 7-40. 30 Ghent, University Library MS. 236, fos. 1-12~. For an English translationsee Jerningham 1827 : 1 l-23, and for a modern French rendering, Gilts 1849. 31 Paris BN MS. francais 3887, fos. 114-I 6v; printed Dupout 1847 :28 l-9 1.

Dudo of St Quentin’s De moribus f t actis primorum cormanniae ducum (Lair 1865).

Literature Armstrong, C. A. J. 1948. Some examples of the distri-

bution andEpeedof news in Englandat the timeofthe Wars of the Roses. In: Studies in medieval history presented to F. M. Powicke, 429-54. Oxford.

Arnold, T. (ed.) 1882. Historia Dunelmensis ecclesiae. Symeonis monachi opera omnia, 1:3-135. RS. London.

Arnold, T. (ed.) 1885. Historia regum. Symeonis monachi opera omnia, 2 : l-283. RS. London.

Bain, J. (ed.) 1884. Calendar of documents relating to Scotland, 2.1272-1307. Edinburgh.

Barlow, F. (ed.) 1962. The life of King Edward. Nel- son’s medieval texts. London.

Bell, A. (ed.) 1960. L’eseoire des engleis, 14 16. Anglc- Norman text society. London.

Blair, P. H. 1963. Some observations on the Historia regum attributed to Symeon of Durham. In: Ceic and Saxon, N.K. Chadwick(ed.), 63-118. Cam- bridge.

Blake, E. 0. (cd.) 1962. Liber Eliensis. Camden Socie- ty, third series, 92. London.

Bruce, J. (ed.) 1838. Historie of the Arrival of Edward IV. Camden Society. London.

Campbell, A. (ed.) 1938. The battle of Brunanburh. London.

Campbell, A. (ed.) 1949. Encomium Emmae reginae. Camden Society, third series, 72. London.

Campbell, A. (ed.) 1962. The chronicle of Ethel- weard. Nelson’s medieval texts. London.

Chadwick, H.M. 1924. The origin of the English na- tion. Cambridge.

Chibnall, M. (ed.j 1969. The ecclesiastical history of Orderic Vitalis, 2. Oxford medieval texts. Oxford.

Clarke, M.V., and V.H. Galbraith. 1930. The de-

379

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

m&ion of Richard II. Bulletin of the Jolm Rv:and’s Eibrary 14:125-55.

Dzvis, R. H. C. 1971. Alfred the Great: propaganda and truth. History 56: 169- 8%

Dupont, E. (ed.) 1847. MCmoires de Philippe de Commynes, 3. SHF .Paris.

Dupont, E, (ed.j 1863. Anchiennes cronicques d’Engl*terre par Jehan de Waurin, 3. SHF. Paris.

Fdwards, J. G. 1925. The parliamentary committee of 1398. English historical review 40:321-33.

Ellis, H. (ed.) 1827. Original letters illustrative of English history. Second series 1. London.

Foedera, conventiones, litterae.. .2.1816. T. Rymer led.). Record edition. London.

Foreville, R. (ed.) 1952. Guillaume de Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conquerant. Les classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen &ge. Paris.

Galbraith, G.R. 1925. The constitution of the Do- minican order 12 16-l 360. Manchester.

Galbraith, V, ‘iI. 1925. The East Anglian see and the abbey of Bury St Ldmunds. English historical review 40:2228.

Galbraith, V.H. 1932. Thomas Walsingham and the St Albans chronicle, 1272-1422. English historical review 47 : 12-29.

Galbraith, V.H. (ed.) 1937. The St Albans chronicle 1406-I 420. Oxford.

Giles, J. A. (ed.) 1849. La revolte du conte de Warwick. Caxton Society. London.

Gransden, A. (ed.) 1964. The chronicle of Bury St Edmunds 12 12- 1301. Nelson’s medieval texts. London.

Gram&n, A. 19742.. Historical writing in England c. 550-c. 1307. Lo P son.

Gransden, A. 1974b. ‘The continuations of rh _ Flores historiarum from 1265 to 1327. Mediaeval studies 36 :472--92.

Gransden, A. 1975. A. democratic movement in the abbey of Bury St E&mu-& in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. Journal of ecclesiastical studies 26:25-39.

Hay, D. 1962. History and historians in France and England during the fiftheenth century. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 35 : 11 l-27.

Iiaydon,, F. S. ted.) 1863. Eulogium historiarum, 3. RS. London.

Hearne, T. ted.) 1727. Adami de Domerham Historia de yebus gestis Glastoniensibus, 1. Oxford.

Hearne, T. (ed.) 1729. Hlistoria vitae et regni Ricardi secundi. Oxford.

Holt,J. C. 1965. Magna Carta. Cambridge. Htiwlett, R. (ed.) 1885. A continuation of the Historia

rerum Anglicarum to the year 1298, compiled by a monk of Fumess. Chronicles of the reigns of Ste- phen Henry II, and Richard II, 2:503-83. RS. -London.

Howlett, R. (ed.) 1886. Chronique de Jordan Fantos- &me. Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 3 : 202-377. RS. London.

Jerningbam, E. 1827. Account of King Edward IV’s second invasion of England in 147 1. Archaeologia 21:1 l-23.

Kendrick, T. D., and others (ed.) 1960. Codex Lindis- farnensis, 1. Oltun and Lausanne.

Kingsford, C. L. 1913. English his;.orical literature in the fifteenth century. Oxford.

Kliman, B.W. 1973. The idea of chivalry in John Barbour’s Bruce. Mediaeval studies 35 :447-508.

Knowles, M. D. 1963. The monastic order in England. Second edition. Cambridge.

Lair, J. (ed.) 1865. De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum. Caen.

Lander, J. R. 1967. The treason and death of the duke of Clarence: a reinterpretation. Canadian journal of history 2 : l-28.

Lewis, P. S. 1965. War propaganda and historiography in fifteenth century France and England. Trans- actions of the Royal Historical Society 15 : l-2 1.

Luard, H.R. (ed.) 1865. Annales monasterii de Wa- verleia. Annales monastici, 2. R.S. London.

Luard, H. R. (ed.) 1869. Annales prioratus de Wi- gornia. Annales monastici, 4:355-564. RS. London.

Luard, H. R. (ed.) 1890. Flares historiarum, 3. 1265- 1326. RS. London.

Mackenzie, W. M. (ed.) 1909. The Bruce by -John Barbour. London. . ’

. -

McKisack, M. (ed.) 1926, Historia sive narracio dr modo et forma mirabilis parliamenti apud Wesr- monasterium anno domini millesimo ccclxxxvi.. . Camden miscellany 14 : l-2 7.

hlacray. W. D. (ed.) 1886. Chronicon abbatiae Ram n- seiensis. RS. London.

Marchegay, P., and A. Salmon (eds.) 1856, 187 1. Chroniques de comtes d’Anjou. 2 ~01s. SHF. Paris.

Marx, J. (ed.) 1914. Gesta Normannorum ducu 1. SociCtC de 1’Histoire de Normandie. Rouen.

Mayer, H. E. (ed.) 1962. Das Itinerarium peregrin>- rum. MGH Schriften, 18. Stuttgart.

Meyer, P. (ed.) 1891-1901. L’Histoire de Guillaun e le MarCchal. 3 ~01s. SHF. Paris.

Morton, C., and Muntz, H. (ed.) 1972. The Carmen de Hastingae proelio of Guy bishop of Amiens. Oxford medieval texts. Oxford.

Myres, J. N. L. 1964. Wansdyke and the origin of Wessex. In: Essays in British history presented to L:ir Keith Feiling, London.

Myres, J.N. L. 1969. Anglo-Saxon pottery and the settlement of England. Oxford.

Nichols, J. G. (ed.) 1847. The chronicle of the rebellion in Lincolnshire, 1470. Camden miscellany 1. Lon- don.

Nicholson, R. 1963. Edw;:rrd III and the Scats. Oxford.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3

Offler, H. S. 1958. Medieval historians of Durham. Durham.

Palgrave, F. (ed.) 1837. Documents and records illustrating the history of Scotland. Record com- mission. London.

Paris, G. (ed.) 1897. L’estoire de la guerre sainte.. .par Ambroise. Paris.

Plummer, C. (ed.) i899. Two of the Saxon chronicles parallel, 2. Oxford.

Potter, K. R. (ed.) 1955. Gesta Stephani. Nelson’s medieval texts. London.

Richardson, H. G. 1937. Rich.rrd II’s last parliament. English historical review 52 : $9-47.

Riley, H.T. (ed.) 1864. Thomae Walsingham, quondam monachi S. Albani, Histo: ia anglicana, 2. 1381-1422. RS. London.

Riley, H. T. (ed.) 1866. Johannis de Trokelow , . .Chro- nica et annales. RS. London.

Robinson, J. A. 192 1. William of Malmesbury “On the antiquity of Glastonbury”. Somerset historical essays. Oxford.

Roskell, J. S., and F. Taylor, 197 1. The authorship and purpose of the Gesta Henrici quinti : part 1. Bulletin of the John Ryland’s library 53 :428-64.

Roskell, J. S., and F. Taylor, 1972. The authorship and purpose of the Gesta Henrici quinti : part II. Bulletin of the John Ryland’s Library 54:223-40.

Rotuli Parliamentorum. R. Blyke and others (eds.). 1767-77. London.

Rule, M. (ed.) 1884. Eadmeri Historia novorum in Anglia. RS. London.

Sandquist, T. A. 1969. The holy oil of St Thomas of Canterbury. In: Essays in medieval history presented to Bertie Wilkinson, 330-44. Toronto.

Sawyer, P. H. 1968. Anglo-Saxon charters. London. Schtitt, M. 1957. The literary form of Asser’s Vita

Alfredi. English historical review 72 :209-20. Stenton, D. M. 1953. Roger of Howden and ‘Bene-

dict’. English historical review 68 :574-82. Stenton, F. M. 1925. The south-western element in the

Old English chronicle. In : Essays in medieval history presented to T. F. Tout, 15-24. Manchester.

Stenton, F. M. (ed.) 1965. The Bayeux tapestry. Second edition. London.

Stevenson, W. H. 1959. Asser’s Life of King Alfred. Reprint. Oxford.

Stones, E. L. G. (ed.) 1965. Anglo-Scottish relations 1174-l 328: some selected documents. Oxford medieval texts. Oxford.

Stones, E. L. G. 1969. The appeal to history in Anglo- Scottish relations between 1291 and 1401: part 1. Archilres9:l l-21.

Stow, G.B. 1973. The Vita Ricardi as a source for the reign of Richard II. Vale of Evesham Historical Society research papers 4:63-75.

Stubbs. W. ted.) 1864. Itinerarium peregrinorum et

gesta regls Ric ardi. Chronicles and memorials of the reign of Richard I, 1. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1867. The chronicle of the reigns of Henry II arid Richard II, A.D. 1169-l 192, corn. monly known under the name of Benedict of Peter- borough. 2 ~01s. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. (ed..) 1868-71. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houdene. 4 ~01s. RI;. London.

Stubbs, W. (ed.) t874. Memorials of St Dunstan. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1879. Chronica. The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, 1. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1880. Gesta regum. The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, 2 :3-106. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. (cd.) 1883. Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon auctore canonico Bridlingtoniensi. Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward I;, 2 :25-l 5 1. RS. London.

Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1889. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis regum Anglorum, 1. RS. London.

Thompson, E.M. (ed.) 1874. Chronicon Angliae, 1328-1388. RS. lAondon.

Thompson, E.M. (ed.) 1889. Adae +trimuth Conti- nuatio chronicarum, Robertus de Avesbury De gestis mirabilib, :: regis Edwardi tertii. RS. London.

Thompson, E. M. (ed.) 1904. Chronicon Adae de Usk A.D. 1377-142 1. London.

Thompson, J, A. F. 197 1. ‘The Arrival of Edward IV’ - the development ofthe text. Speculum 46:84-93.

V’iard, J. (ed.) 1920-53. Grandes chroniques de France. 10 ~01s. SHF. Paris.

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. 1950. The Franks and the English in the ninth century. History 35 :202-l 8.

Whitelock, D., and others (ed.) 1961. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle. London.

Whitelock, D. 1969. William of Malmesbury on the works of King Alfred. In: Medieval literature and civilization : studies in memory of G. N, Garmons- way. London.

Wilkinson, B. 1939. The deposition of Richard II and the accession of Henry IV. English historical review 54:215-39.

Williams, B. (ed.) 1850. Henrici quinti P. _gliae regis gesta. English Historical Society. LOX -ion .

_I

381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:28

02

May

201

3