286 SOGEB OF WENDOVEB April

Notes and Documents.

Roger of Wendover and the Chronicle. Downloaded from

KALFH, abbot of Coggeshall from 1207 until his resignation in* 1218, is said' to have begun his share of the monastic chronicle •with the account of the capture of the Holy Cross (1187). He took a special interest in the stories which came from the Holy Land, and his narrative is very valuable. It tells us what http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ Englishmen at home knew of the . The captivity of Eichard gave Ralph a fresh opportunity, for Anselm, the royal chaplain, brought the report of an eye-witness, which was inserted in the new chronicle. The personal history of the king is the central theme during these years. A period which finds a unity and completeness outside , in which other English and even European events are of secondary importance, closes with by guest on August 11, 2015 Richard's return from captivity and Count John's submission in 1194. Now it is significant that just here, after a supplementary account of the Saracens in Spain, the ink and style of writing change in the original manuscript. Down to this point, with the exception of a few corrections and additions the manuscript and all its various alterations are the work of the same scribe. The entries under the year 1195 are in another hand.1 It would be quite in accord with monastic usage if copies of this earlier portion were sent elsewhere. Such was the case, for example, with Robert of Torigny's chronicle. And when we turn to Roger of Wendover, who borrowed largely from Coggeshall, we find that his extracts end exactly at this place, with the account of the Saracens in

1 On a pa#e inserted in the Cottonian MS. (ed. J. Stevenson, pp. 162-8), a. 1207 obiit domnus Thomas, abbas quintus dt Cogeshal, cui tuccessit domnus Radulfus, monaehus eiusdem loci, qui hanc chronicam a captions Sanctat Crucis usque ad annum undecimum Benrici regis tertii, filii regis Iohannis, descripsit The entries on this page cover the years 1206-1213, when Balph was evidently unable to go on with his work. It is difficult to estimate hli responsibility for the rest; the Cottonian MS (Vesp. D. x.) which is accepted as the first or autograph is written in different hands and is fall of corrections. * See Stevenson's note (p. 67). The' writing changes again in 1198 (p. 89), and there is a decided change early in 1202 (p. 135). The existing St. Victor MS. breaks off in 1201, and does not resume ontil 1213. This manuscript is not a first copy, bat a note, hie deficit, is added at the point where it breaks off in the Cottonian MS. 1906 AND THE COGGESHALL CHRONICLE 287 Spain.8 After 1195 there are no long quotations from Goggeshall in the St. Albans chronicle, and the resemblances which Luard has pointed out in his edition of do not seem to me to prove that Wendover used Coggeshall after that date. With these I shall deal later. It is natural that Wendover should rely upon a contemporary, who was somewhat older than himself, for these early years. Although he may be regarded as an original authority for Bichard's reign, in the sense that he probably remembered its events, he does not begin to write as an independent witness until 1201. is still his mainstay in the first years of King John.4 But neither Boger of Howden nor could give him snch a full and vivid account of Bichard's exciting, Downloaded from complicated story as he could find in the Coggeshall chronicle. The view that Boger of Wendover used an early copy of the Coggeshall manuscript for the years 1187 to 1195 gains support from the following considerations. Here and there Wendover seems to give older readings of the Goggeshall chronicle which http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ are erased in the Cottonian manuscript. The most striking in- stance is also of some historical importance. It refers to John's attempt to gain the kingdom in 1193. Wendover copies a passage from Goggeshall almost word for word under the rubric, Ut Iohannet, /rater regis, regmtm AngUae sibi subiugare voluerit. But there is one strange difference.

R. COGGESHALL, p. 61. R. WENDOVEB, L 229. by guest on August 11, 2015 De eius [Richard's] regressn De eras regressu diffidena foedns diffidens, foedns amiciti&e iniit onm amicitiae cam Philippo, Francornm rege Philippo. Savarinus ad rege, iniit, sinistroque usus consiUo episcopum Bathonicensem eligitur in Anglia pro fratre disposuit et consecratur. Rex autem Philip- £oronari, ted Anglorum virtute pas &c laudabili fait impeditus. Rex Francorum PhUippus

(p. 129).. This looks as though the original of the St. Victor MS. was composed of different oopies. • Bog. Wendorer (Boll* Series), L 388-9. • See Hardy's remarks in his Descriptive Catalogue, m. xxrrii $qqn 317 tqq. Wendover, it is agreed, began his work after 1215, probably after 1280, and based the later part on the materials and compilations already existing at SI Albans (Hardy, pp. inil-xnvi; Madden's Introduction to Matthew Paris, Hutoria Anglorum). • Stevenson's note. If the second hand is really coeval we get an early date for the original of the St. Victor MS., lines the insertion about the bishop is not given there, although the erasure was made before this copy was written (Siitor. de France, xvili. 74). See below, p. 292 note 34. 288 ROGER OF WENDOVER April quite in accord with Coggeahall's other reflexions upon John's conduct, though more outspoken than was usual with. him. It •would fill about two lines in the Cottonian original. Two other cases deal with the same theme, John's relations with Eichafd. Nearly the whole of Coggeshall's account of the crusade, from Richard's quarrel with the French king to his capture, is copied by Wendover. He uses his authority freely and omits a good deal. At times he gives additions which had been made to the Coggeshall chronicle. Thus Anselm'B account of Eichard's capture, which is a later insertion in Goggeshall, is also "found in Wendover.8 At times, on the contrary, we are forced to believe that some of the Coggeshall additions and corrections were Downloaded from made after the copy used by Wendover. Thus the latter omits a page inserted in a different and larger hand by Coggeshall.7 And in a passage more faithfully copied than usual comes another Variant reading, again an accusation against John. http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ E. COGGESHAIIII, p. 62. B. WBNDOVBB, L 217. TTin autem omnibus illnd infor- T-fin autem omnibus potissimum tunium secundum quosdam, potis- illnd praevaluit, quod rntimabatar flimam accessit, quia nunciabatur ei quod comes Iohannes frater eius, ei quod comes Iohannes, frater quern in Anglia reliquerat, molie- eius, quern in Anglia reliquerat, batur Angliam subingare; quod se sibi A ngliftm subiugare moliebatur v«Ue facere, rex postmodum com-

quia oancellarium swum dtiecerat probavit eventus. Et quia tanti by guest on August 11, 2015 et nimiam eius tyrarmidem. Et principis Ac. quia tantd principis 4c. Again, the Coggeshall variant8 is written upon an erasure, while Wendover's text asserts John's treachery. Taken by itself this instance might be regarded as an illustration of the relentless hatred of John, which became traditional at St. Albans. Wendover would then brush aside the excuse of Longchamp's excesses. But the other instances made it even more "likely that Coggeshall added the excuse later. Wendover's reading is of about the same length as the erasure; and, it should be noted, the later chronicler was not in the habit of tampering in this way with his authority. He did not alter facts in passages which he quoted textually; and if he wished to copy some statement, even in the middle of a narrative taken from another source, he generally used the words of his authority. It is with reflective or narrative passages written in general terms that he took liberties. He loved to make changes in such cases, though he never altered the sense. The following passages illustrate both his exactness and his * Coggeshall, p. 54; Wendover, i. 218. ' Coggeshall, pp. 44-6; Wendover, L 215. Wendover omits Vm> folios and resumes •with Coggeshall, p. 49. * This variant is found in the St. Victor MS."(-Hutor. de France, xviii. 71). 1906 AND THE COGGESHALL CHRONICLE 289 freedom in transcribing. The context of the first is compiled from ; that of the second is based on Ralph de Diceto:— B. COGGHBHALL, p. 27. B. WENDOVEB, i. 166. Quae persecutio Iudaeorum, in Hate persecutio in ortu iubUaei ortu iubUaei sui, in qno aliquid sui, quern annum remisaionis appel- divinae clementiae edgnum ant diu- lant, inchoata vix per annum con- turnae captdvitatis remissionem sibi quiescere potuit. Nam contraria fore coelitus venturam interpreta- ratione, qui debnit eis annns ease bantnr, vix per annum nee terrore remissionis, factus eat eis iubilaeus regis neo imperiali eius edicto con- confnaionis. quiescere potuit. Downloaded from P. 81. InUrdixit etiam9 ne quit i. 192-8. Interdixit insuper ne suorvm exerciiui regis victualia quit ntorum exercitui regis venderet, out res venalet exponeret. Anglorum victualia venderet aui CoiuB animositatem ao detestandam exponeret res venalet, unde regis

inhuman!tatem rex Bioardus non ftnimnTn ad iraoundiam provocans http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ aequo animo ferens, praedictam compalit ilium ut praefatam ei Lnsnlam annata manu virfliter ininriam irrogaret. aggressus eat. The third reference to John's treachery is found in a detailed account of Philip's invasion of Normandy in 1194, a simple and straightforward narrative which is copied by Wendover from Cogges- hall almost word for word. The variant reading comes at the end of the passage. by guest on August 11, 2015 B. OOGGKSHAIJ,, p. 62. B. WBNDOVBB, i. 280. Civitatem vero Ebroicensem idem Crvitatem Ebroicensem idem rex eepit, et multam tyraimidim rex cepit, et earn etiam oomiti exercwiL [Iohanni] ad custodiendum oom- mifiit. The words in italics are written upon an erasure in CoggeshalL10 This fact presents no difficulty in the case of the proper name,11 but it is otherwise with the other words. No English chronicler except Wendover tells us that Philip put John in possession of Evreux; " and on a priori grounds this fact would be more likely to be known by the well informed Essex chronicler. Wendover nowhere else depends upon private or unknown sources for his history of these years, nor does he correct his authorities upon such small details. On the other hand reasons can be adduced for the erasure in the Coggeshall manuscript, even apart from the

' SeiL tha lord of Cyprus. « They occur in the 8*. Victor MS. (Hiator. de France, xviii. 74). 11 It should be remembered that Wendorer retains most of the corrections of the • Cottonian autograph, which of oonrae is not like a fair copy, and contains many .changes mads at the time of writing. The word sexaginia is an example (Ooggethall, p. S3; Wendorer, i. 196). Like Ebroiemutm it is written upon an erasure in Coggeshall. 11 See Loard's note to Matthew Paris, ii 403. VOL. XU.—NO. T.« « n. xj 290 ROGER OF WENDOVBB April reflexion cast upon John. Daring Richard's absence the count of Evreux died, and since his son was a minor the honour was fanned by Nicolas de la Londe.11 The bishop also was dead, and the bishop elect went ta Germany, presumably to get confirmation from the king. Evreux was without a head, lay or clerical; Philip was preparing to invade Normandy, and the Evrechin lay full in his way. The seneschal of Normandy thereupon sanc- tioned, if he did not actually command,14 the formation of a com- mune by the inhabitants of Evreux. Adam the Englishman (Anglicus) wae the first mayor, and under his leadership the citizens, who were also in league with the neighbouring towns,1* put their city into a state of defence. The men of Evreux were true Downloaded from Normans in spirit, 1B but their efforts were in vain. In February 1194 Philip invaded Normandy a second time, and on this occasion he came west of the Vexin. He captured Evreux, Neubourg, and Yaudreuil.17 Evreux, as Wendover says, was given in charge to

John, though according to William the Breton the castle was ex- http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ cepted.18 William is the authority for what happened. John had already ceded the Evrechin to Philip in January,1' and was in Evreux as his servant. But in May Richard landed in Normandy and marched to the relief of VerneuiL*0 John had deceived his father and brother; he now was traitor to his friend. He made

11

RottUi Seaccarii Normaitniae, p. 157 ; Stapleton's Observation*, n. clxxi. by guest on August 11, 2015 14 So the reoognikns said later (Stapleton, n. clixiv-v). >* Bound, Calendar of Documents in France, i. 188, no. 414. " This is illustrated by Ambroise's poem on the third crusade, L'Estoirs de la Guerre Sainte. See Gaston Paria's introduction, p. xi; ot Bound, ante, vol. xviii. 479. " CoggeshaU's reference to the capture of Erreui, though made under the year 1193, is in the form of an addition at the end of his narrative. He agrees with Howden (iii. 306-7) in limiting Philip's operations daring 1193 to. Gisora, the Vexin, and Booen, and the Eouen chronicle, whose date most be accepted, implies that the siege of Rouen took up most of the time of this campaign (Histor. de France, iviii. 368). Bigord's narrative is inconsistent as well as opposed to thete authorities (see Delaborde, i. 126-7, notes). On the other hand Bigord is Tery explicit, and as a monk of St. Denis trustworthy in his dates of Philip's departures. In February 1194 the king marched into the Evrechin (L 136-6). Three months later he invaded Normandy again, and laid siege to Vernenil (1.127, rtooluti* autem tribu* mensibtts, vi idus maii, Philippus rex iternm oollecto eieroitu Normanniam intravit). It was daring this interval that John meditated his treachery. " PhiUpp. iT. 446 (ed. Delaborde, U. 116). ' Attamen Ebroicam studio maiore refinnana Armis et rebus et beUatoribns urbem Pluribus instractam donavit amore Iohannl Ut sibi servet earn; tamen arcem nomledit llli. Hie dolo plenns, qui pafrem, qui moda fratrem Prodiderat, neonon et regis proditor esset,' <&o. » Teulet, Layettes du Trttor de$ Charles, I 175, no. 418. CL Howden, iii. 217. This treaty is quite distinct from John's agreement with Philip a year earlier (Howden, iii. 204; Coggeahall, p. 61; B. de Diceto, ii. 106). » Howden, iiL 261. See Miss Norgate, John Lackland, pp. 61-8. 19G6 AND THE COGGESHALL CHRONICLE 291 his peace with Richard, massacred the French in Evreux, and took possession of the town. Philip marched to retake it, and destroyed it. Now, when we remember that an obscure recognition is our authority for what happened in Evreux during the previous years, we cannot wonder that few people knew of all these later hurried events. It was known that Philip had captured Evreux; a few knew that he had put John in charge of the town, but these few would hear almost immediately that Philip had treated the place with great severity. Nearly all the English chroniclers fail to distinguish the events of February and May, so far at least as Evreux was concerned. There is no cause for wonder if the

Coggeshall chronicler corrected what seemed a mistake when he Downloaded from went over his work later. In any case it was a shameful story, to be hushed up if possible. Richard, says William the Breton, felt the treachery to be hateful, even though he benefited by it.11 He must have seen it was as bad as the deed of Gilbert de Vascceuil the year before. It seems incredible that such a story, if known http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ at all, should have been treated so barely, and kept so secretly, at St. Albans; it is far more likely that Roger of Wendover came across the reference to John in his copy of Coggeshall, and tran- scribed it without question, ignorant of the whole episode. An examination of these three passages therefore proves one of two things: either Roger of Wendover goes out of his way, in a manner quite unusual for him, to lay stress upon John's treachery, or, as is much more probable, he preserves some early by guest on August 11, 2015 remarks of Coggeshall, hostile to John, which were erased at a later period. In the first passage quoted the second conclusion is almost certain, partly because of the nature of the narrative, partly because the St. Victor text proves that while the erasure was made at an early date the clumsy addition is later, though by a coeval hand. There is no such proof in the two other cases that the erasures and additions were made after the St. Albans copy, but the first example, together with external considerations, justifies a similar explanation of the curious variations in Wendover. In the preface to his edition of (n. lxxx) Stubbs draws attention to the fact that in his annals of John's reign very seldom ventnres on a criticism of the king's character, although he speaks without any reserve of his acts. The same is true of Boger of Wendover, although he preserves the most severe accusations against him and records some of his most outrageous actions, and true also of the work of the canon of Barnwell. If my view is correct this reticence may perhaps be attributed, so far as Coggeshall is concerned, to more personal reasons, as well as to the political indifference suggested by Stubbs. John's reign

" PhiUpp. iv. 472. U 2 292 BOGEB OF WENDOVER April was not altogether a bad time even for Cistercian monasteries; and besides the king was apt to call at Coggeshall." The erasures were probably made before the break in the chronicle in 1206 ; since the St. Victor original was copied early, although later than the St. Albans text." If the latter was copied from an early fragmentary transcript of the Coggeshall manuscript, both the variations in the text, and Wendover's disregard of the chronicle after 1195, would be explained. As has been pointed out the writing of the Cogges- hall manuscript changes at this date. The suggestion that Wendover used a partial copy rests upon distinct evidence, and would not be impaired by the proof that he also used the Coggeshall chronicle for later years. Indeed, the Downloaded from probability is that, as the Coggeshall chronicle was written up from time to time in the ordinary way, copies were made and distributed. Thin seems to have been actually the case with the original of the St. Victor text, printed in the Recueil dea Tlistoriens it France. The break in this text at 1201 is an analogy for a break in the lost http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ St. Albans copy at 1195. The extracts in this text from later sections of the chronicle are paralleled by possible traces of Coggeshall in the St. Albana compilation Flares Historiarum.u During the early years of the thirteenth century the abbots of St. Albans were collecting historical materials in their scriptorium, and were probably compiling a chronicle. Since the Flares seems to show traces of late sections of the Coggeshall chronicle, one might sup- pose that the first compilers received the earlier sections also. Yet by guest on August 11, 2015 neither Wendover, who entered into their labours, nor Matthew Paris,15 who carried on his work, affords clear proof that this was " On 1 Jan. 1203-4 the monks of Coggeshall were granted a licence to enclose a park (Rot. Chart, p. 114 b). John passed through Coggeshall on his way from Col- chester to Hedingham on 16 Oct. 1205; and mast have done so at other times daring his frequent journeys in Essex (cf. Pat. Rolls, p. 172). John's agents too were dangerous (see Coggeshall, p. 102 sqq.) " See above, p. 287, note 5. The St. Victor MS. contains additions not found in Wendover, and disregards erasures (cf. notes in Coggeshall, pp. 63, 65). Only once does it omit an addition known to Wendover (p. 63; Wendover, i. 218), and this is obviously an oversight. " Fiona Historiorum, ed. Luard, i. xxxvii. Of these references I should dispute ii. 180, which, as ii. 168, was probably taken from some official roll; ii. 118, though not quite convincing, adds weight to the theory of a transcript to 1201; the rest are all after 1214, and some at least (ii. 170-2) look like transcripts from official documents. ** Matthew Paris's revision of Wendover is important in this connexion. Before 1195 he mabM one addition from Coggeshall (Chr. Mai. ii. 405). There is only one possible piece of plagiarism, not very obvious, between 1195 and 1201 in his revision, an account of the preacher Fulk of Neuilly (ii. 440). It may, however, be used in support of the existence of a St. Albans copy of Coggeshall from 1195 to 1201. After this date there is, again, only one trace of a Coggeshall manuscript in ParU's revision; this is a summary of events under the year 1204 (ii. 488). One of the incidents is thus given by Paris : ' Abbatia Belli Loci rtgis fundata eat secundum unum hUtoriographum.' This looks like a direct reference to Coggeshall (p. 146). Yet the foundation of Beaulieu, together with other facts introduced by Paris, is also mentioned under 1204 1906 AND THE COGGESHALL CHRONICLE 298 the case. Both cease really to use the chronicle after 1195. It remains to examine possible traces of a Coggeshall text in Wendover after this date. As we have seen56 there is another break in the Coggeshall manuscript early in 1202, just after the place where the St. Victor copy breaks off. Since Wendover does not write independently till he reaches this year we should expect free use of this section, although we have found that he used a different and earlier copy than the writer of the St. Victor manuscript.47 But there is only one passage which is similar in both Coggeshall and Wendover between 1195 and 1202. Both use like phrases to describe the Downloaded from great storms of the summer of 1201. R. COGGESHALL, p. 129. R. WENDOVER, i. 812. In crastino post nativitatem Hoc anno horrendae tempcstates, aancti Iohannis suborta eat saeva tonitrua, coruscationea, grandines et tempestas tonitruum, fulminom, et pluviarum inundationos mentes http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ grandinum, com pluvia vehementi; hominnm concusaerunt, et damna qaae magnam fecit stragem homi- multa in locis plurimis intulerant. num, animalium, segefcnm, domo- ram incensionem, arborum evul- sionem pluribus in locis. The resemblance seems striking at first sight, and Wendover may of course he summarising Coggeshall. But several considerations forbid us to assert this definitely. Wendover speaks of storms by guest on August 11, 2015 in a context derived from Howden and Diceto, while Coggeshall describes a particular Btorm on a specified day. Other chroniclers in various parts of England notice this violent and impressive tempest. The annals of Waverley, indeed, give a date a fortnight later.*8 Moreover the words are not by any means identical in both Coggeshall and Wendover, and if we think of the limitations of medieval Latin, and especially of the monastic vocabulary, we should find it hard to inquire how Wendover or his St. Albans authority could have described these phenomena except in some such terms. If Wendover had the Coggeshall chronicle by him for these years it is strange that he only used it once to describe a storm which he and his fellows must have remembered perfectly well. The influence of Coggeshall after 1201 is even more doubtful. Luard's view is that after the end of Hoveden's history, or the year 1202, though Coggeshall is occasionally nsed, Wendover is an original authority; at least I can in the annals of Waverley {Ann. lion. ii. 256). On the whole, in the absence of a manuscript like the St. Albans copy of Diceto (Boyal MS. 13, E. 6) it is impossible to prove that even Matthew Paris knew Coggeshall after 1195. ** P. 286, note 8. " See above, p. 292 and note 24. 11 On 8 July tempestas exorta grandinia el pluviae (Ann. Monasi, U. 253). Cf. also one of Wendover'a authorities, Balph de Diceto (ii. 172-3). 294 ROGER OF WENDOVER April. trace his work to no known source. Some of hia facts will be found in the writer published by Mr. Sfcubbs under the name of Walter of Coventry. But I do not think that he was known to Wendover. The only instance in which the language of the two writers is identical is in the account of the council held by the legate Roman us at Lyons or Bourges, which was probably taken by each writer from some other source.29 In the majority of cases it is not necessary to assume even a common origin other than personal information for the similarities between Coggeahall and Wendover after 1202. And Wendover's omissions are more remarkable than any of these similarities. It is almost incredible that, if he had possessed a copy of the Coggeshall account of Arthur's death and other events of John's early years as Downloaded from king, he would not have used it. But for all these he goes to other authorities, often more meagre and much less vivid. The following iB a summary of the parallels detected by Luard. It should be noticed that there are no more passages common to both chronicles :— http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ (a) Instances of Verbal Similarity.—Coggeshall's long account of Arthur differs greatly from the shorter and more positive story told by Wendover; but both say that John shut up his nephew in Rouen, and Luard implies that Wendover here copied from Coggeshall.3" B. COGGESHALI,, p. 148. E. WENDOVEB, i. 816.

Arturus a Falesia usque Botho- Audiens autem haec [Arthur's by guest on August 11, 2015 magum produoitur, et in turn protestations of his rights] rex Rothomagensi retruditur sub cus- Iohannes perturbatus est valde, todia Boberti de Veteri ponte. praecepitque ut Arthurus apud Rothomagum mitteretur, et ibi in arce nova retrusus sub arctiori cus todia servaretur. Except for the remark that Arthur was thrust11 into the tower at Rouen sub custodia the chroniclers differ, and Wendover follows quite different authorities. Either the agreement in this respect is a coincidence, the result perhaps of popular talk ; or we have here to assume that Wendover had abandoned Coggeshall as an authority, but took the trouble to pick out small details from his chronicle. It is hard to see why such a favourite author should be discarded. In any case it is a dangerous conclusion when we find that there are but two cases of verbal similarity after 1201. The only other instance is still more accidental. Both writers tell the story of the siege of Chateau-G-aillard quite differently and in different

" Mat Paris, Chron. Mai. u. lii-iiii. " It is not always easy to know whether Lnard implies that Wendover copied, or is simply pointing out a resemblance; bat one cannot do better than follow his careful notes. " Betrusus ' = inclusus) was an early monastic word (see Da Cange, g.v.tncZuti). 1906 AND THE COGGESHALL CHRONICLE 295 language. Each might be compared with the annals of Waverley as profitably as with the other." Both, however, include an explanatory sentence. Coggeshall says, quae castella rex Ricardus cum maximis swnptibua conttruxerot; Wendover Bays, quod rex Ricardus afundamentis construxerat. (b) Details common to both Wendover and Coggeshall.—There are two references to the death of distinguished men; these, if not notorious, as they must have been, would be known from any mortuary roll." The chroniclers sometimes agree in their ac- counts of the details in military campaigns. In one case there is similarity of order as well as episode. This is the narrative of

Philip's invasion of Normandy in 1202. But here it is Wendover Downloaded from who is fuller, and contains details omitted by Coggeshall, such as the capture of Radepont and the flooding of Gournai.** In another case there is a certain similarity of detail, but the stress is laid differently; Wendover gives a bald statement of Philip's

retreat from Arques, while Coggeshall is not only fuller but gives http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ also a description of events at Mirabel which is not in Wendover at all.14 Although both lay stress upon John's proposed expedi- tion in 1205, and give the same date for the capture of Hubert de Burgh at Chinon,1* they refer to it quite differently. All these similarities and variations in combination prove in reality the existence of independent accounts, which gain rather than lose value by this mingling of common fact and individual description. It is only when we can compare two contemporary first-hand by guest on August 11, 2015 authorities that we realise the strength and weakness of the medieval chronicle. It is too essentially incomplete to be accurate; yet it is so near the heart of things, is the result of so many influences, that it is essentially true: If every piece of news that reached an English abbey and is recorded could be traced to its source we should find their errors as natural and instructive as their accuracy.17

" Coggeshall, p. 144; Wendover, i. 818; Ann. Mon. ii. 256-6. " The death of Geoffrey of Winchester, and the succession of Peter des Roches (Coggeshall, pp. 151, 162; Wendover, ii 9; Mat. Paris, ii. 489; also the Barnwell chronicler in W. Coventry, ii. 197, and the Waverley annals in Ann. Mon. ii. 266); the death of Hubert of Canterbury at Tenham (Coggeshall, pp. 166-61; Wendover ii. 10 ; Mat Paris, ii. 492). " Coggeshall, p. 186 ; Wendover, i. 318; Mat Paris, ii. 477. Cf. Eigord, L168,168. *» Coggeshall, p. 138; Wendover, i. 816; Mat. Paris, ii. 479. 8ee Ann. Mon. U. 264. " Coggeshall, pp. 164-6; Wendover, ii. 10 ; Mat. Paris, ii. 490. " Separate accounts of .the hard frost and dearth of 1204-6, with local variations, are given by Coggeshall (p. 161) and Wendover (ii. 9 ; Mat. Paris, ii. 490). The annals of Winchester point out what one would expect in winter, that the cold was felt in pluribus locia Angliae (Ann. Mon. ii. 79 ; see also p. 266). The accounts of Philip's negotiations with Norman towns in 1204 also invite comparison. They are suggestive and interesting, because of their differences, which might be traced to their causes. Coggeshall here is undoubtedly more correct (Coggeshall, p. 145; cf. Layettes, no. 716, p. 260. Wendover, i. 819 ; cf. Delisle, Cartulaire Normand, no. 74, p. 14). 296 ROGER OF WENDOVEB April

As years went by Wendover of course became more inde- pendent. But he had some independent authority for the first years of the century. I will refer, in conclusion, to th,e appear- ance of Robert fitz Walter in the pages of Coggeshall and Wend- over in connexion with two critical episodes in the life of that great baron. A reader of the story in 1212 which describes the Welsh invasion, John's activity at Nottingham, and the supposed baronial conspiracy must feel that the parallel narratives of Cogges- hall and Wendover, with their general agreement, are yet absolutely independent of each other.*8 And at an earlier time we get a hint of how this independence could exist under less likely conditions. Both chronicles describe the surrender of Vaudreuil by Robert fitz Downloaded from Walter and Saer de Quinci, but in quite different language. Coggeshall adds a comment, Ex qua re facti sunt in deriswn it in opprobrium omni populo utriueque regni, canticum eorum tola die.39 There is a quotation from the Vulgate here, and the words cannot be pressed very far.40 On the other hand the constant Norman http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ French wars had intensified the feeling that treachery was the blackest of all crimes. The traitors of these times were the theme of all men; their memory was perpetuated in strange ways. Gilbert de VascoeuiTs treachery is recorded in a Norman law book.41 King John, whose betrayal of Evreux was so well forgotten, dates a charter ' in the year in which Count Robert of S6es betrayed us at Alencon.'4* There is no cause for wonder if the surrender of Vaudreuil aroused similar suspicions, if the names of Robert fitz by guest on August 11, 2015 Walter and Saer de Quinci were given an evil place in popular doggerel. We know that indignation was so general that the two leaders found it expedient to procure a testimonial to their good faith from the king.43 And who would hear the jeers at the prowess of a great Essex baron*4 sooner than the monks of Coggeshall ? As the news was carried along the great north-west road who would record it more willingly than the curious scribes of St. Albans ? F. M. POWIOKB.

n Coggeshall, pp. 164-5 ; Wendover, ii. 61; Mat Paris, ii. 684. If Ooggeshall was copied at all he was copied by the Barnwell chronicler (W. Coventry, ii. 206-7). Cf. also Ann. Mon. ii. 26S; Rot. PaL p. 10X. » Coggeshall, p. 143; Wendover, i. 317 ; Mat. Paris, U. 481. u Lament, iii. 14. The Editor of this Review kindly called my attention to this. 41 Tardif, Coutwniers de NornandU (Soc de l'Histoire de Normandie), i. 108, and o. lxiv. 41 Bound, Calendar of Documents, i. 181, no. 891. ° Rot. Pal. ed. Hardy, p. 31. Miss Norgate seems to me to take this opprobrium too seriously. There was no need for John to buy back the friendship of men with whom he had not quarrelled. The letters patent say that John advised them to surrender the castle, and are at least as likely to be true as English gossip. If they were traitors John's policy was sorely to seize their English lands, as he did in other cases, not to take them back into favour because they had no lands in Normandy, certainly not to tell each an extraordinary lie. Bee John Lackland, p. 292. " Bound, ants, voL xix. 710.