286 SOGEB OF WENDOVEB April Notes and Documents. Roger of Wendover and the Coggeshall 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 third crusade. 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 England, 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 Matthew Paris 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. Roger of Howden is still his mainstay in the first years of King John.4 But neither Boger of Howden nor Ralph de Diceto 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 <fec. In the Coggeshall manuscript the inconsequent entry about the bishop of Bath is written by a ' different but coeval hand' upon an erasure of two lines.6 In Wendover the passage proceeds quite smoothly, and is otherwise an almost verbal repetition of Gogges- hall. Moreover the variation, with its reference to evil counsel, is (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 Benedict of Peterborough ; 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.