Genealogy and John Hardyng's Verse

GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE

Sarah L. Peverley

he two distinct versions of the Middle English verse Chronicle composed by John Hardyng during the Wars of the Roses offer a privileged insight Tinto how genealogy was utilized within a historical narrative to negotiate the politically unstable backdrop of the 1450s/60s and articulate a public desire for unity and stability. At their most basic level, Hardyng’s texts engage with the genealogy of contemporary sovereigns by charting the succession of British and English monarchs from the first founding of Britain down to the late fifteenth century.1 However, rather than settling into the familiar pattern of many other Brut-orientated narratives, whereby the deeds of past kings are recorded and, for the most part, passed over without explicit attention or comment from the author, each of Hardyng’s texts has its own idiosyncratic method of connecting figures and events from his sovereigns’ past with the politically volatile present. Whilst the first version reprocesses history and genealogy in distinctly aesthetic terms, regularly employing literary and thematic devices appropriated from Boethius,

1 The first version survives in London, British Library, MS Lansdowne 204; the second is extant in twelve manuscripts, three fragments, and two printed editions. For a study of the two versions see my PhD thesis, ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle: A Study of the Two Versions and a Critical Edition of Both for the Period 1327–1464’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Hull, 2004). I am currently preparing new editions of both versions: the first with James Simpson for TEAMS Mid- dle English Texts; the second for Boydell and Brewer’s Medieval Chronicle Series. The second version was edited by Henry Ellis as The Chronicle of Iohn Hardyng (London, 1812), but since Ellis’s text is derived from Richard Grafton’s two printed editions (1543), I have taken my quotations from Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Arch. Selden B. 10, one of the earliest and fullest manuscripts of the second version; for the reader’s reference the relevant pages of Ellis’s edition are also given. 260 Sarah L. Peverley

Chaucer, Gower, and Lydgate to enhance Hardyng’s self-referential interjections on kingship and good governance, the second version adopts a more forthright method of conveying the royal lineage of Hardyng’s patrons, which points to a shift in the Chronicle’s purpose and audience. This recension still draws upon visual and self-referential elements to invest additional meaning in the history, but omits the majority of the non-chronicle materials found in the first version to implement a new strategy by which author, text, and genealogy are explicitly aligned with notions of transparency and truth. This case study seeks to address the way in which Hardyng reshaped the later version of his Chronicle to reflect and comment on the fractured political period in which he lived.2 It will therefore focus on two key issues: first, how Hardyng pre- sents himself and his work as truthful and authoritative; and, secondly, how he utilizes his self-styled role as a truth-teller to offer a carefully constructed genealogical history of his patron’s entitlement to the thrones of Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, and Jerusalem at a time when the dissemination of the Yorkist claim to the English throne was of paramount importance.3 Hardyng began compiling the second version of his Chronicle — dedicated to Richard, duke of York, and his family, and rededicated to his son, Edward IV, after York’s death — sometime between 1457 and 1460. Whether he started his revision of the text immediately after presenting the first version to Henry VI in 1457 is unclear, but since the prologue and several interjections in the early part of the Chronicle address York as Henry VI’s legal heir, and refer to how he will ‘rule’ his ‘subgettes’, Hardyng must have been working on these sections between 8 November

2 Unfortunately a discussion of both versions is beyond the scope of this study. For the first version, see my ‘Dynasty and Division: The Depiction of King and Kingdom in John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, in The Medieval Chronicle III: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle Doorn/Utrecht 12–17 July 2002, ed. by Erik Kooper (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2004), pp. 149–70, and ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, pp. 140–95. 3 For Hardyng’s use of autobiographical details, see Peverley, ‘Dynasty and Division’ and ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, pp. 143–51. For early Yorkist propaganda, see Alison Allan, ‘Yorkist Prop- aganda: Pedigree, Prophecy and the “British History” in the Reign of Edward IV’, in Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. by Charles Ross (Gloucester: Sutton, 1979), pp. 171–92; Allan, ‘Political Propaganda Employed by the House of York in England in the Mid- Fifteenth Century, 1450–1471’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales (Swansea), 1981); Allan, ‘Royal Propaganda and the Proclamations of Edward IV’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 59 (1986), 146–54; Colin Richmond, ‘Propaganda in the Wars of the Roses’, History Today, 42 (1992), 12–18; and Charles Ross, ‘Rumour, Propaganda and Popular Opinion during the Wars of the Roses’, in Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces in Later Medieval England, ed. by Ralph A. Griffiths (Gloucester: Sutton, 1981), pp. 15–32. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 261

1460, when York’s title was officially recognized by parliament, and 31 December 1460, when he died at the battle of Wakefield.4 Unlike the opening four-stanza dedication to Henry VI in the first version, the first stanzas of the second version are devoted to connecting Hardyng with previous writers and establishing his role in continuing the tradition of chronicle writing that began long ‘afore Crist did enclyne | In Mary, moder and maiden’.5 His brief summary of the different languages and styles that his scholarly predecessors elected to use is, in many respects, merely a routine example of the practice of translatio studii et imperii, whereby medieval authors saw a ‘relationship between present and past cultures’ and ‘the means by which cultural value and authority was transmitted from one period to another’.6 Nevertheless, Hardyng’s decision to em- ploy the translatio topos before he discusses the legitimacy of York’s ancestry and status as future sovereign underscores a desire to establish his own authority as an author first. By establishing his chronicle’s place in an ancient tradition of historical writings, and his ability to assimilate, inspect, and translate previous histories for the Duke, Hardyng portrays himself as a knowledgeable and judicious individ- ual. Yet at the same time he describes the rich heritage of chronicle writing he has access to, he also acknowledges a potential problem: he does not have the skill to write as eloquently as his predecessors and make his work as ‘glorious’ as theirs.7

4 Eight of the twelve extant manuscripts of the second version contain the prologue addressed to York; of the other manuscripts, three are incomplete at the beginning of the Chronicle and one manuscript — Princeton University, MS Garrett 142 — contains a revised prologue, which omits all of the material relating to York and his titles. This manuscript is unique and appears to have been compiled during Henry VI’s brief Readeption; see my ‘Adapting to Readeption in 1470–1471: The Scribe as Editor in a Unique Copy of John Hardyng’s Chronicle of England (Garrett MS. 142)’, Princeton University Library Chronicle, 66 (2004), 140–72. For direct addresses to York in the early part of the Chronicle, see Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 24rv (reign of Cloten), fols 38 –39r (reign of Carause), fol. 67rr (reign of Gurmonde), fols 78 –79v (reign of Cadwallader); and Ellis, pp. 93–94, 155–56, 179–82. York formally put forward his claim to the throne on 16 October 1460. On 24 October an Act of Settlement was drawn up detailing that York should inherit the English throne upon Henry VI’s death, and he was proclaimed heir apparent on 8 November. For further details, see P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York 1411–1460 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 212–18. 5 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 5r; Ellis, p. 15. For commonplaces in medieval prologues, see Antonia Gransden, ‘Prologues in the Historiography of Twelfth-Century England’, in Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England (London: Hambledon, 1992), pp. 125–51, and David Lawton, ‘Dullness in the Fifteenth Century’, ELH, 54 (1987), 761–99. 6 Jocelyn Wogan-Brown and others, The Idea of the Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory, 1280–1520 (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), pp. 7, 317. 7 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 5r; Ellis, p. 15. 262 Sarah L. Peverley

In presenting himself as an aged, unskilled, ‘symple’ man, wishing to eschew sin through his writing, Hardyng employs another rhetorical commonplace frequently utilized by fifteenth-century writers to ally themselves with ‘political truth-telling’: the humility topos. As David Lawton has pointed out, we are not to take late medieval authors at face value when they profess to being ‘dull’ and devoid of ‘eloquence’ for this is the favourite guise in which [fifteenth-century] poets present themselves: as ‘lewed’, ‘rude’, lacking in ‘cunnyng’, innocent of rhetoric and social savoir-faire, bankrupt in pocket or brain, too young or too old, feeble, foolish and fallen — in a word dull. This is a humility topos of an intensely specific kind [and is employed] to reclaim access to the public world.8 In this instance, the world that Hardyng wants access to, and licence to speak about, is the politically unstable world of late fifteenth-century England, in which the son of Henry VI has been set aside as heir to the throne in favour of the Duke of York. By commencing the Chronicle with a self-deprecating portrait and repeating his claim to be ‘bare naked of eloquence’ just before he moves on to describe the lineage of Brutus, first king of the Britons, Hardyng utilizes the topos to its full potential and calls upon God for ‘help and spede, to bringe this booke to ende’.9 Rather than revealing his ignorance and simplicity as an author in comparison with earlier writers, Hardyng’s espousal of humility instantly associates everything that follows with theological truth: his Chronicle is not the product of an eloquent rhetorician inspired by a classical muse, it is inspired and guided by God: I shal reporte as God will deyne to lede My simple goost with langauge it to fede. For wele I wote withoute his supportacion For to reporte his [Brutus’] genologie, Howe he descent in al generacion From Adam doun to Troian auncetrie, Goten and borne certaine in Italie, Ful herd it is, allethough I wold ful fayne, So simple been my spirites and my brayne.10 The translatio and humility topoi enable Hardyng to begin shaping his audiences’ understanding of his role (honest negotiator of history) and that of his chronicle (divinely sanctioned account of York’s ancestry), long before he attempts to engage with York’s claim to the throne; they underscore his appreciation of the past and its

8 Lawton, ‘Dullness in the Fifteenth Century’, p. 762. 9 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 11v; Ellis, p. 31. 10 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 12r; Ellis, p. 32. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 263 usefulness to the present, and imply that God will furnish him with the ‘language’ to write a historical ‘mirror for princes’ to help York eschew sin and rule well. Pre- senting himself as a conduit for theological and political truth, Hardyng places himself in a position of unquestionable power from which he can comment on contemporary affairs, particularly York’s election, through the stories of the past and, most importantly, discuss York’s ancestral claim to the throne with conviction. As we shall see later, this is precisely what he goes on to do in the rest of the prologue. Whilst the preparatory framework of the prologue provides Hardyng with the authority he needs to speak about the contemporary significance of York’s role as heir apparent, there are numerous junctures throughout the Chronicle, usually coinciding with references to fifteenth-century affairs, where Hardyng sees fit to remind the audience of his discerning quest for truth. Of these, I would like to turn momentarily to two instances, one at the start of the Chronicle and one towards the end, where Hardyng addresses the problem of spurious chronicles and reiterates the ideas associated with the aforementioned topoi. Hardyng’s account of the first founding of the realm by the exiled pagan princess Albyne is deliberately misleading, but brilliantly effective in illustrating the importance of an honest and diligent author. He commences the narrative in a similar manner to that in the first version, but radically reduces the first thirty-one stanzas of his original to just four. The reason for this extreme treatment of the story soon becomes apparent: Hardyng’s revised version is more interested in the legitimacy of the tale he is imparting than the descriptive detail that gave the first version its charm.11 Once the audience has been given enough of the story of Dio- cletian’s daughter, Albyne, to settle them into the seemingly safe relationship between narrator and reader/listener, Hardyng interrupts his account with the revelation that the story the audience has just absorbed is not true: But I dar sey this cronicle is nat trewe, For that ilke tyme in Syrie was no kyng, Ne afterward to the tyme that Saul grewe, Ne no king was in Siry euer lyving That had that name.12 Justifying his reason for this claim with supporting evidence, apparently gleaned from his own sceptical inquiries into the names of kings ruling Syria at the time of the alleged events, serves to disorientate the audience further, shattering the illusionary

11 For a detailed discussion of the Albyne story in the first version, see Peverley, ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, pp. 151–60. 12 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 9v; Ellis, p. 26. 264 Sarah L. Peverley world created over the last four stanzas: Hardyng will not finish this particular version of the story because it is fiction, not historical fact, and, what is more, he can prove it.13 Further evidence is offered in support of his claim in the form of a Latin gloss noting biblical and classical sources, which allegedly corroborate the erroneous nature of the tale.14 The switch from the vernacular to Latin in this recension is fascinating as it relates to the issues of language, legitimacy, and authority already raised in the prologue. Since the authority of Latin auctores was unequivo- cally established earlier with the translatio topos, the language of this gloss alone serves to add authority to Hardyng’s claims, regardless of the fact that the gloss alludes, inaccurately, to the supreme source of written truth: the Bible. Most strik- ing, perhaps, is the fact that a similar English gloss occurs in the first version, but Hardyng refrains from drawing his own conclusions about the sources detailed in it, leaving the audience to decide which version of the story is correct; only in the revised Chronicle for York does he remove this choice and emphasize his personal pursuit of the truth by telling us which version is more historically accurate.15 He also fulfils the promise to ‘translate’ for us, made at the start of the Chronicle, because we do not need to be able to read the Latin gloss to understand why Hardyng rejects the tale referring to Albyne’s father as Diocletian. Proceeding in the spirit of the adage that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ Hardyng continues his explication of the gloss by suggesting that the story of King Danaus and his fifty daughters — the myth of the Daniads — is far more likely to be the source of the legend. He then furnishes us with further evidence of his diligence

13 A comparable case of rejecting false sources is discussed by Andrew Galloway, who believes that the ‘gesture of excluding unreliable stories’ in vernacular chronicles ‘parallels that of many Latin chroniclers after the Conquest’; see ‘Writing History in England’, in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. by David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 255–83 (p. 271). 14 The ‘Hebrew truth’ (‘Hebraicam veritatem’), the compilers of the Septuagint (‘LXX inter- pretes’) and the enigmatic Roman chronicler, Hugh de Genesis (‘Hugo de Genesis nobilis cronica- rius Romanus’) are amongst the authorities cited. For Hugh de Genesis, see Lisa M. Ruch, ‘A Possible Identity for Hugh of Genesis in John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, Notes and Queries, 53 (2006), 150–51. For other scholarship on the pre-Trojan foundation myth in chronicles, see Tamar Drukkers, ‘Thirty-Three Murderous Sisters: A Pre-Trojan Foundation Myth in the Middle English Prose Brut Chronicle’, Review of English Studies, n.s., 54 (2003), 449–63, and Julia Marvin, ‘Albine and Isabelle: Regicidal Queens and the Historical Imagination of the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicles’, Arthurian Literature, 18 (2001), 143–91. 15 See BL, MS Lansdowne 204, fol. 7r. This gloss cites the chronicles of ‘Martyne’ (Martinus Polonus) and Trogus Pompeius in support of the story of King Danaus’s daughters, as opposed to the Bible and Hugh de Genesis, but neither work makes reference to the legend. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 265 by referring to other historical and biblical figures encountered during his research, such as Samuel, Saul, and Alexander.16 More space is devoted to the pursuit of truth behind the myth than to the story, and before providing a long list of chronicles that attest to the existence of King Danaus, Hardyng warns against the dangers of spurious texts: By alle cronicle that I haue enquired. That cronicle sholde nought be desired, Sith that is nought true, ne autentike, By no cronicle into the truthe ought like.17 His emphasis on the desiderium of authenticity and ‘truthe’ in historical writing reminds the audience that they should not believe everything they are told without questioning the validity of the source or employing a trustworthy author to inter- cede for them and discover the truth. Since Hardyng shows that he cares about the credibility of his sources and has seen works that the writer of the misleading tale has not, it follows that the audience should allow him to guide them in all matters, especially in relation to York’s royal lineage.18 Even after Hardyng takes up the story again, explaining how Britain received its former name of ‘Albion’, it is not long before he returns to the subject of truth and discusses the conflicting etymologies he has found: But Bartholomew, De Proprietatibus Rerum, Seith howe this ile of Albyon had name Of the see bankes ful white allee or sum That circuyte this ile [. . .]. But Maryan Scot, the truest croniclere, Seith Dame Albyne was first þat name it so. Bothe two might been togedre true and clere, That shippes so salyng to and fro And at hir come, þey called it bothe two, So bothe þe wayes may ben right sure and true, Fro whiche þere wille no croniclere remewe.19

16 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fols 9vr–10 ; Ellis, pp. 26–28. 17 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 10r; Ellis, p. 27. 18 For Hardyng’s criticism of the false chronicler’s reading habits, see Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 10r; Ellis, p. 30. 19 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 11r; Ellis, p. 30. Like Higden, Hardyng cites Marianus Scotus as a source when he appears to be using John of Worcester’s Chronica Chronicarum, a work based on Scotus’s universal chronicle. 266 Sarah L. Peverley

It is not surprising that he feels compelled to deal with this matter, since his Chron- icle, like the Brut, is infused with etymological explanations of place names, and readers appear to have taken great interest in them. His rather banal conclusion that both ‘Maryan Scot’ and Bartholomeus Anglicanus ‘may ben right sure and true’ helps to reassert the authority vested in chronicles, whilst wisely acknowledging the accuracy of other renowned authors writing outside of this field and showing Hardyng’s assiduous nature at work. The problem of potentially spurious chronicles and contradictory sources also arises at the end of the second version when Hardyng addresses the matter of the forged chronicle circulated in the fourteenth century by John of Gaunt. Supple- mentary prose passages in English describe the ‘grete erroure and controuersi’ that arose due to ‘an vntrue cronicle, fayned in the tyme of Kinge Richard the seconde by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancastre’, which recorded that ‘Edmond, erle of Lan- castre, Laycestre, and of Derby, was, the eldire sonne of Kinge Henry the thirde, crouchebakked, vnable to haue be kinge’.20 A comparable account of the ‘crouchback legend’ occurs in Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, but Hardyng’s rendition contrasts the deceitful machinations of Gaunt and Henry IV with the honest ‘erle of Northumbrelond and his brothir Sir Thomas Percy’, who chose to refrain from any part in the deception, despite the fact that they stood to benefit from the false chronicle ‘for cause they were descent of the said Edmonde [son of Henry III] be a sister’.21 The sister in question, Mary, daughter of Henry, earl of Lancaster, and granddaughter of Edmund of Lancaster, provides Hardyng with an opportunity to show how an important female line can

20 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fols 189vr–190 ; Ellis, pp. 353–54. This incident is also recounted in the body of the revised Chronicle (Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 128v; Ellis, p. 279). The passages attest to what scholars have known for some time, that chronicles from respectable institutions like ‘Westminster and all oþer notable mynstres’ (fol. 190r) were used by medieval authorities to ascertain the truth behind matters of historical importance, such as royal genealogies. On the use of chronicles in this way, see M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (London: Arnold, 1979), pp. 116–47; Antonia Gransden, ‘Propaganda in English Medieval Historiography’, Journal of Medieval History, 1 (1975), 363–81, and ‘The Chronicles of Medieval England and Scotland’, in Legends, Traditions and History, pp. 219–22; and John Taylor, English Historical Literature in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 58. 21 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 190v; Ellis, p. 354. For Usk’s version, see The Chronicle of Adam Usk, ed. by Chris Given-Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 64–67. For the crouchback legend, see also G. T. Lapsley, ‘The Parliamentary Title of Henry IV’, English Historical Review, 49 (1934), 577–606, and Allan, ‘Political Propaganda’, pp. 193, 196–98, 269, who notes a connection between the crouchback myth and the account in the Eulogium Continuation, which details Richard II naming Mortimer as his heir. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 267 be used or abused by descendants. He clarifies that the Percies could have gained from supporting Gaunt, as they too were descended from a female ancestor of Edmund, but that they chose to support the lawful King of England and take no part in promoting the false chronicle. Ironically, although Gaunt’s forgery was meant to oust the legitimate heirs, Hardyng’s description of the conspiracy renders it powerless and reinforces the legitimacy of York’s claim by showing that the Lancastrian dynasty was willing to advocate the right of a female to pass on a claim before they came to power. Har- dyng’s decision to mediate because so many ‘stond in grete erroure’ with regards to what actually happened strengthens his earlier claim to record the truth. Time and again, he proves that he has considered and rejected all counterfeit sources pertaining to historical and genealogical matters that impact on the validity of York’s claim to the throne; the regular emphasis on his own relationship to the Percies similarly serves to add weight to his modified account of fifteenth-century history.22 The difficulties arising from ‘vntrue’ chronicles, then, as evidenced by the account of the first founding of the realm and Gaunt’s manipulation of genealogy, allow Hardyng to establish repeatedly the need for diligent authors and historical accuracy. It is to how he exploits his assumed judiciousness to verify York’s royal inheritance that I would like to turn. Interestingly, the first of York’s royal titles to be taken up in the prologue does not relate to the English throne, but to the throne of France. In the prologue Hardyng justifies the Duke’s right by describing his descent from Edward III, whose mother Isabella, ‘Sister and heire’ to Charles IV of France, initially gave the title to him. For Charles died withoute any child, The right descent vnto his [Edward III’s] moder mylde. Why sholde þe Frenshe forbarre him of hir right, Sith God of heuen in Libro Numeri Gauf to Moyses this lawe that nowe is light, In þe chapitre seuen and twenty

22 Hardyng also constructs his history, or interjects, to absolve the Percies from any blame in the deposition of Richard II and redefine important rebellions in the fifteenth century as the actions of loyal men hoping to restore the disinherited Mortimer heirs. The Epiphany rising of 1400, the battle of Shrewsbury (1403), Scrope’s rebellion in 1405, the battle of Bramham Moor in 1408, Owain Glyn Dwˆ r’s revolt (1400–c. 1415), and the Southampton Plot of 1415 are all explained as, or linked to, revolts in favour of ousting the usurping dynasty. Two of these events, the battle of Shrewsbury and Scrope’s rebellion, are referred to in greater depth in the prose passages at the end of the work, and the treatment of Scrope’s revolt in the main body of the Chronicle is far more engaging than the account in BL, MS Lansdowne 204, where Hardyng states that he does not know why the Archbishop rebelled (fol. 206). 268 Sarah L. Peverley

By these wordes: ‘the doughters rightfully Of Salphaat aske theire faders heritage, Geue theym possessioun among theire cosynnage’?23 By citing the Old Testament precedent of the daughters of Zelophehad inheriting their father’s possessions at God’s behest, Hardyng draws upon the same scriptural evidence utilized by the English in propaganda relating to the Hundred Years War.24 The clever deployment of this example at the beginning of the long list of York’s entitlements is an effective way of preparing his audience for the delayed reference to York’s more crucial claim to the English throne through the female line. In addition to emphasizing the blood ties that York has to the French throne, it also establishes a link between worldly sovereignty and biblical law, which calls to mind the importance of having a divinely sanctioned right to royal supremacy, and a modest author to record that claim. Later the Chronicle repeats Edward III’s hereditary claim to France twice: once in visual form by including a revised version of the more elaborate Pedigree of France found in the first version; and once in the supplementary Latin prose passages at the end of the Chronicle elucidating York’s ancestral claims to England, France, Scotland, and Jerusalem. In both instances biblical precedents are cited to bolster Edward’s claim. The stanzas introducing the Pedigree remind the reader that ‘Crist was kinge bi his modir of Iude’, and one manuscript of the Chronicle even reinforces God’s approval of York’s inheritance by depicting an angel holding the title banner of the Pedigree.25 The Latin prose similarly reiterates the Old and New Testament paradigms of female inheritance cited earlier in the prologue and main text.26 In each of these examples, York’s divine right to France is shown to descend through Queen Isabella’s bloodline, but both draw attention to the fact that York can also claim the kingdom by means other than blood.

23 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 5v; Ellis, p. 16. 24 In the fourteenth century, Salic law in France ensured that the English claim to the throne through the heir general (female) line was officially null and void, but this did not prevent the story of Zelophehad’s daughters (Numbers 27. 1–11) being cited in support of it. See, for example, Political Poems and Songs relating to English History, ed. by Thomas Wright, 2 vols, RS, 14 (London: Longmans, 1859–61), I, 145–47, 167. 25 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 148v; Ellis, p. 336. Other manuscripts containing the Pedigree include Cambridge MA, Harvard University Library, MS English 1054; London, British Library, MS Egerton 1992 and MS Harley 661; New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS Bühler 5; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 378; and Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois, MS-83. 26 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fols 185vr–186 ; Ellis, pp. 337–38. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 269

The next reference to France in the prologue and the prose passages relates to ‘Henry the fifte, the conqueroure | Of Normandie and mekel parte of Fraunce, | That exelled bothe king and emperoure | In marcyal acte by his gouernaunce’.27 Al- though Henry V features only briefly in the prologue, the Chronicle’s account of his reign contains a long description of his French campaign, which is repeated and supplemented in the prose passages by the inclusion of a Latin description of the conflict adapted from the Gesta Henrici Quinti.28 In the prose sections especially, Hardyng juxtaposes the French campaigns of Edward III and Henry V, inviting his audience to see a connection between their conquests. The prologue also achieves this by emphasizing Henry’s conquest of ‘Normandie and mekel parte of Fraunce’ shortly before describing the territories granted to Edward III by the Treaty of Brétigny, a copy of which Hardyng claims to have delivered to Henry VI.29 As with all medieval conquests, such victories are seen as providential, bestowed on the champion as evidence of his ‘just war’. By mentioning England’s military triumphs over France, Hardyng shows that York has a tripartite claim to France: first through blood; second through conquest; third through treaty, or agreement. This threefold structure is designed to leave one in no doubt of the validity of York’s title and is a pattern that Hardyng repeats in his account of the other legacies to which York is entitled. Just as the two aforementioned etymologies of the name Albion are shown to have equal validity in Hardyng’s account of the first founding of the realm, so too Hardyng’s investigation into York’s inheritance has produced disparate but equally legitimate evidence in support of his claim. Following the prologue’s initial discussion of York’s French inheritance through Isabella, Hardyng uses Edward III’s oldest son and heir, Prince Edward, the Black Prince, as a platform from which to launch his meticulous account of the English succession. Charting the expiration of the Black Prince’s line through Richard II, Hardyng turns to Edward III’s second son, Lionel, duke of Clarence, and his sole heir, Philippa, whom, we are assured, ‘he loued as his life’.30 York’s line of descent

27 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 6r; Ellis, p. 18. 28 See Peverley, ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, p. 645. 29 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 7v; Ellis, p. 21. The treaty was signed following the Black Prince’s victory at Poitiers. 30 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 5v; Ellis, p. 17. As there were no explicit laws in fifteenth- century England regulating the descent of the monarchy, it could technically be inherited by either an ‘heir male’ or an ‘heir general’. In practice, the inheritance of the crown followed the rules of primogeniture governing the ‘heir male’ principle, ensuring that the titles and lands passed to the oldest male. Until the later half of the 1450s, when the Yorkist genealogies began circulating with the heir general line of descent, York had traced his heritage through, and bore the arms of, 270 Sarah L. Peverley from Philippa of Clarence via her son Roger, earl of March, and Anne Mortimer (York’s mother) is then presented and fortified with the same biblical paradigm used to justify Edward’s claim to France in the Chronicle’s visual Pedigree and Latin passages: Why sholde ye nought than be hir verray heire Of alle hir lond, and eke of alle hir right? Seth Ihesu Crist, of Iudee land so faire, By very meen of his moder Mary light To be þe kyng claymed title right And so did name himsilf ‘Kyng of Iewes’: So by youre moder the right to you accrewes.31 By citing Jesus’s inheritance of the title ‘King of the Jews’ through Mary and posing a similar question to the one asked earlier in relation to the daughters of Zelophe- had and Edward III’s French inheritance, Hardyng makes it clear that York’s claim is sacrosanct. Consequently, those who accepted Edward III’s right to France via his mother must also accept York’s claim to the English throne through the blood of Lionel’s daughter, Philippa.32 Just as Hardyng’s aforementioned delay in revealing that the story of Albyne and Diocletian is untrue helps to stress his authority as a reliable author, so the delay in revealing York’s entitlement to the English throne until the well-known claim to France via a female line has been presented adds weight to York’s legitimacy. The prologue attaches further substance to this by alluding to York’s recent election as Henry VI’s successor and associating the parliamentary legislation of his title with providence, scripture, and prophecy. In his discussion of Lionel’s younger brother, John of Gaunt, Hardyng underscores the descent of the Lancastrian dynasty from Edward III’s third son by observing that Henry IV ‘wrongfully’ deposed King Richard II and describing his

Edward III’s fourth surviving son, Edmund of Langley, but this genealogical line was a questionable link as far as the English throne was concerned. The Lancastrian kings claimed descent through the third son and heir male of Edward III, John of Gaunt, so in order to claim precedence over Henry VI, York had to exploit his descent through the second son and heir general of Edward III, Lionel, who passed on his claim through his daughter Philippa. 31 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 6r; Ellis, p. 17. Again this example was used in propaganda during the Hundred Years War to justify the English claim to France. Biblical references to Jesus as king of the Jews include Matthew 27. 11, Mark 15. 18, Luke 23. 38, and John 19. 3. 32 The prologue and text similarly draw attention to Lionel’s claim to the earldom of Ulster through his first wife, Elizabeth de Burgh, and Hardyng’s (fictional) claim that he would have become King of Italy through his second marriage to Violante Visconti, daughter of Galeazzo Visconti, lord of Pavia, if he had lived longer. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 271 acquisition of the monarchy as ‘euel gote goodes’.33 Like other pro-Yorkist pieces produced in the wake of York’s election, the Chronicle does not endorse York’s claim to the throne with a venomous rejection of all three Lancastrian kings, but rather through a discreet commentary which casts an unfavourable light solely upon Henry IV as a usurper and perjurer.34 To this end Hardyng makes use of a popular prophecy recycled in this period, which attributes the downfall of the Lancastrians to a divine promise that unlawful claims will not endure beyond the third generation:35 Vt patet per scriptura commune de male quesitis vix gaudeat tercius heres. For whan Henry the fourthe first was crowned Many a wise man said than ful comonly The thrid Henry sholde nat ioyse, but be vncrowned And deposed of alle the regaly; To this reason they did þeire wittes applye, Of euel gote goodes the thrid heires shulde nought enioise, As who seithe thus, who right hath shal reioyse. How the maker of this saithe his aduise in brief for þe duc of Yorke. O my good lord of York, God hath prouyde In this for you, as men sey comonly, Se that no sleuthe you from his grace deuyde ,

33 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 6v. Ellis, p. 18. 34 Hardyng’s treatment of the Lancastrian kings in the prologue is comparable with that in the contemporary poem ‘A Political Retrospect’ (c. 1462); see Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries, ed. by Rossell Hope Robbins (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). In this Henry IV is criticized for his ‘fals periury’ and usurpation (pp. 222–26, lines 9–24), Henry V is presented in favourable terms (p. 223, lines 27–30), and Henry VI is said to have returned the country to a state of ‘huge langoure’ through his ‘gret foly’ (pp. 223–24, lines 31–40), a statement which corresponds with Hardyng’s description of his ‘symplenesse’ (Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 6r; Ellis, p. 18). 35 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 6v; Ellis, pp. 18–19. This ‘prophecy’ occurs in many fifteenth-century chronicles; see, for example, Chronicle of Adam Usk, ed. by Given-Wilson, pp. 156–57, where it is cited in relation to the death of the Duke of Milan; Jean de Waurin Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretaigne, ed. by W. Hardy and E. L. C. P. Hardy, 5 vols, RS, 39 (London, 1864–91), II, 393–94; and Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede, ed. by Henry Thomas Riley, 2 vols, RS, 28 (London, 1872–73), I, 414. It is also found in ‘A Political Retro- spect’ (Historical Poems, ed. by Robbins, p. 224, lines 43–45), which, like Hardyng, attributes the prophecy to scripture; Robbins notes that the phrase derives from John Bonif, but is ‘almost pro- verbial’ in nature (p. 383). The idea of divine punishment for sins was a major theme in the political prophecies exploited in the interest of the house of York (see Allan, ‘Political Propaganda’, p. 351). 272 Sarah L. Peverley

But take it as he hath it sent manly And thenke wele nowe ye haue þe remedy. But neuerthelesse lat eueriche man haue his right, Bothe frende and fo, it may encrese youre might. Quia dominus facit heredes et successores secundum doctores. Trete wele Percy, of Marches lyne decended, To help youre right with might and fortifie By tendre meanes to make him wele contented, Remembryng him by witty policye, How, by processe of tyme and destanye, Youre right might alle ben his, as nowe is youres, Thorough Goddes might maketh [heirs] and successours. By attributing the prophecy to ‘scriptura’ and alluding to divine intervention in matters of succession in the accompanying Latin glosses, Hardyng emphasizes the providential nature of York’s restoration to the throne, and even exploits the alleged biblical prophecy in favour of the grandson of his former patron, Sir Henry Percy, third Earl of Northumberland, by petitioning York to ‘trete’ him ‘wele’ because God could have bestowed York’s inheritance on him.36 The reference to Percy’s lineage is not meant to eclipse York’s status, but rather acknowledge his family’s affiliation with the royal line of Mortimer, something the Chronicle develops further in the reign of Henry IV, in the Latin prose passages justifying the Percy and Scrope rebellions of 1403 and 1405,37 and in the aforementioned prose describing the Percies’ refusal to acknowledge Gaunt’s ‘vntrue cronicle’.38 In many respects Hardyng’s request for clemency on Percy’s behalf mirrors his later suggestion that Edward IV should restore Henry VI to the duchy of Lancaster in order to bring peace to the realm, which, although preposterous, is doubtless meant to bolster Edward’s position by reiterating the natural hierarchical order in which he is king and Henry subject.39 Hardyng’s appeal for reconciliation

36 This Henry Percy (1421–61) died fighting against York’s son, Edward IV, at Towton (29 March 1461); however, it is highly probable that Henry Percy (c. 1449–89), fourth Earl of Northumberland, commissioned Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10 to demonstrate his allegiance to Edward IV. See my ‘John Hardyng’ s Chronicle’, p. 131 for further details. 37 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fols 155rr, 193 ; Ellis, pp. 351–53. In these later sections Hardyng describes how the hereditary claim of Edmund Mortimer was overlooked upon the deposition of Richard II because of his age and because men feared Henry Bolingbroke. 38 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fols 189vr–190 ; Ellis, pp. 353–54. This incident is also recounted in the main verse; see Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 128v; see Ellis, pp. 290–91. 39 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 178r; Ellis, p. 411. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 273 between king and magnate is likewise inextricably bound up with the country’s hopes for peace and reunification: once the civil divisions within England have healed, the King can work with his magnates to reclaim Scotland and other territories pertaining to the British crown.40 Only by working with their magnates can York and Edward IV achieve their full potential, for the realm has always been governed ‘with helpe of baronage [. . .] Seth Brute it won in his prioritee’.41 The third royal title pertaining to York addressed in the prologue involves a colourful, if not spurious, story concerning his right to the Iberian kingdoms through his descent from Edmund of Langley and Isabella of Castile. Having pre- viously glossed over how Richard II allegedly named Edmund of Langley, the fourth surviving son of Edward III, ‘Kyng of Portyngale’ in ‘alle his writtes’ — an allusion to his proposed marriage to the Portuguese king’s daughter in 1380 — Hardyng returns to Edmund to discuss York’s claim to Castile and Leon. Begin- ning with the Black Prince’s successful campaign to restore Pedro I of Castile to his kingdom following his usurpation by his half-brother, Henry of Trastamara, Hardyng informs us that Pedro gave the prince his two daughters as a reward: This king Petro to geve him [Prince Edward] to his mede, Hadde nothing els but doughtres two ful faire, Whiche he betoke to that prince indeede For his wages, because þey were his haire. With whom he [Edward] did to Englond so repaire And Constaunce wedde vnto his brother Iohn; Edmond, his brother, the yonger had anon.42 This is a liberal interpretation of events to say the least, for Pedro’s daughters were actually held in Prince Edward’s custody as security until their father could fulfil the terms of the Treaty of Lisbourne and repay his debt to the Prince.43 However,

40 Like the Pedigree of France, Hardyng reasserts this point visually and in prose too. The map of Scotland, adapted from the first version, provides visual evidence of the land that York and Edward IV are entitled to, just as the Latin letter from Edward I to Pope Boniface appended to the end of the Chronicle supports the claim by citing precedents of English suzerainty. 41 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 8v; Ellis, p. 23. The relationship between king, magnate, and kingdom is discussed further in my ‘Dynasty and Division’. 42 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 7r; Ellis, p. 20. 43 The treaty, drawn up on 23 September 1366, stipulated that Pedro would pay back the 56,000 florins he had borrowed from Prince Edward and cover the costs of the campaign against his usurping brother, Henry. Several years later, after Pedro’s assassination, a marriage was arranged between his oldest surviving daughter, Constanza, and John of Gaunt to ensure that Castilian 274 Sarah L. Peverley by acknowledging Pedro’s obligation to the Prince, Hardyng once again allies the notion of a ‘just’ war with inheritance: the Prince saves Pedro’s realm and is effec- tively given it as a reward for his services, for Pedro’s daughters, the progenitors of the next line of Castilian heirs, will accede to the kingdom after his death. The themes of usurpation, civil war, and female heirs underlined in this story would almost certainly have struck a chord with Hardyng’s audience, bringing to mind the problems recently resolved by parliament’s recognition of York’s title. For many contemporary propagandists York’s blood tie to Pedro’s youngest daughter through her marriage to Edmund of Langley was sufficient evidence of his entitlement to Castile and Leon, but Hardyng adds further weight to his claim by elucidating a dubious ‘appointement’ allegedly made between John of Gaunt and Edmund, which stated that the Castilian throne would pass to the first male heir born between them.44 Although it is highly unlikely that such an agreement was ever entertained by Gaunt, who began pressing his right to Castile upon Pedro’s death, Hardyng’s claim to have been shown the ‘munyment’ by Edward, duke of York (Edmund’s son), when he was in London with Sir Robert Umfraville provides another nice example of the way in which he uses self-referential evidence to promote York’s inheritance.45 Since, as we have already seen, Hardyng employs a humility topos to associate his ‘symple witte’ with the revelation of theological

interests remained connected with England. The couple returned to England along with Constanza’s younger sister, Isabella, who was married to Edmund in 1372. For further information, see P. E. Russel, The English Intervention in Spain and Portugal in the Time of Edward III and Richard II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 173–75; Anthony Goodman and David Morgan ‘The Yorkist Claim to the Throne of Castile’, Journal of Medieval History, 11 (1985), 61–69 (p. 63); and Clara Estow, Pedro the Cruel of Castile 1350–1369 (New York: E. J. Brill, 1995). Hardyng is correct in stating that the first male heir born between the Castilian sisters was Edward of Aumale, duke of York and earl of Rutland (1373–1415). 44 The inclusion of York’s Castilian inheritance is common in pro-Yorkist materials. See, for example, Osbern Bokenham’s introduction to Mary Magdalane’s life written for York’s sister in 1445 (in Legendys of Hooly Wummen by Osbern Bokenham, ed. by Mary Serjeantson, EETS OS, 206 (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), p. 137, lines 5004–19). 45 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 7v; Ellis, p. 20. If Hardyng is telling the truth, this event must have occurred between c. 1403, when he entered the service of Robert Umfraville, and 1415, when Edward of York died at the battle of Agincourt. It may have been before 1412, for by this time Edward ‘tried to enlist the sympathy of the new king of Aragon, Fernando of Antequera, for his claim’ asserting that ‘since neither of Pedro’s daughters Beatriz and Constanza had borne a son, the legitimate right to the Castilian throne pertained to him as the elder son of Isabel’ (Goodman and Morgan, ‘Yorkist Claim’, p. 63). GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 275 and political truth, it follows that the personal experiences he relates here are meant to be accepted as authoritative insights into York’s claim.46 Given Hardyng’s penchant for ‘obtaining’ forged documents to support England’s suzerainty over Scotland, it is possible that the muniment never existed; however, to give him his due, it is also feasible that he is confusing — deliberately or otherwise — the ‘writtes’ mentioned earlier in the prologue pertaining to Edward, duke of York’s proposed marriage with a Portuguese princess and a document relating to his marriage to Isabella.47 What is important is that, for Hardyng, the con- sanguineous link provided by Isabella is only part of York’s threefold claim to the Castilian throne: inheritance, again, does not come down to him solely by blood, but by ‘couenaunt’ and ‘appointement’ — a verbal and written agreement — between two brothers and the providential birth of his uncle as the siblings’ first-born male. This links York’s Castilian title to the aforementioned French and English claims, for each is dependent on a female ancestor and a contractual agreement, which makes it doubly secure. The same is true for the remaining genealogical and anecdotal material addressed in the prologue dealing with York’s entitlement to Jerusalem. As with all of the previous legacies, Hardyng begins by establishing a link between York and a female forebear, Mélisande, the daughter of Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem: To Ierusalem I sey ye haue grete right, For Erle Geffray, that hight Plantagenet, Of Anioye erle, a prince of passing might, The eldest son to Fowke, and first begette, Kyng of Ierusalem by his [Fulk’s] wife [Mélisande] duely sette. Whos son, Geffray forsaid, gate on his wife [Matilda] Henry þe second, that knowen was ful rife.48

46 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 5r; Ellis, p. 16. 47 See Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 6v; Ellis, p. 19. Goodman and Morgan concur with this theory, but appear to have misread Hardyng’s statement, concluding that his ‘wild assertion’ of seeing a muniment with Umfraville referred to a copy of the Treaty of Bayonne obtained in 1444 by Richard, duke of York. In deciding that Hardyng is not ‘to be trusted’ on the grounds that Umfraville died in 1437 and could not have been shown the muniment by Richard, duke of York, they fail to recognize that, even if Hardyng’s personal interjection is fabricated, he is referring to Edward, duke of York, not Richard, and to a date before Edward’s death in 1415; see Goodman and Morgan, ‘Yorkist Claim’, pp. 64–65. For Hardyng’s Scottish documents and forgeries, see Alfred Hiatt, The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England (London: British Library, 2004). 48 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 8r; Ellis, p. 22. In 1109 Fulk V (1092–1143), count of Anjou (1109–29), king of Jerusalem (1131–43), married Eremburg of La Fléche (d. 1126), the 276 Sarah L. Peverley

The syntax used here is confusing since Hardyng fails to mention that York’s ancestor Fulk V married twice, thus implying that Geoffrey Plantagenet, as the eldest son of Fulk’s first marriage, had a claim to Jerusalem. This is not the case, for the terms agreed by Baldwin II and Fulk before his marriage to Mélisande, his second wife, stated that the throne of Jerusalem would descend through the issue of Fulk and Mélisande only, not the issue of Fulk’s first marriage, as Hardyng suggests. To enhance the potentially tenuous link to the throne through Mélisande, Hardyng once again proceeds to assert York’s right with a second example, devoting three stanzas to events from June 1184 when Baldwin IV sent an envoy from Jerusalem in search of support against the Saracen raiders attempting to capture his city: Yit haue ye more, for Baldewyn Paraliticus, Kyng afterward, to þe same king Henry The croun sent and his baner precious, As verry heire of hole auncestry, Discent of blode by title lynyally From Godfray Boleyn and from Robert Curthose, That kynges were therof elect and chose. He sent him als the sepulcre keyes, Resignyng hool vnto him al his right For to defende the lond from Sarizenes, For he was sike and had therto no might. And alle the londe destroied was to sight By the souldan, to grete lamentacion Of Goddes people and alle Cristen nacion. He sent him als the keyes of Dauid Toure With Heraclio, that of Ierusalem Was Patriarke and grettest of honoure, And with Templers, whiche brought them to this ream, Ful humbly axyng supportacion For the citee and Crisþen consolacion.49 What Hardyng fails to mention is that before reaching England the party travelled through Paris, symbolically offering King Philip II Augustus of France (1165–1223) daughter and heir of Elias, count of Maine, and the couple had two sons, Geoffrey Plantagenet (1113–51), count of Anjou (1129–51), and Elias, and a daughter, Sibyl. Three years after the death of his first wife, Fulk married Mélisande; it was decided that upon the death of Baldwin II, Fulk would became the joint ruler of Jerusalem with his second wife. After several years of assisting Baldwin II with the running of the country, Fulk finally became king in 1131. 49 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 8r; Ellis, p. 22. Baldwin IV, king of Jerusalem (1175–85), son of Amalric I, king of Jerusalem (1162–74), was the grandson of Fulk V and Mélisande. GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 277 the kingdom of Jerusalem in the form of the keys to the Holy Sepulchre and David’s Tower in return for his assistance against the Saracens. When Philip declined, the envoys crossed to England, where they stayed from January 1185 until mid-April. It was only then that Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem, met with Henry II and offered him the same keys and Jerusalem’s royal banner. Hardyng likewise fails to indicate that Henry called a council of his barons to determine how to address the envoy’s request, but refused to return to Jerusalem with Heraclius or send any of his sons to champion the cause. The Patriarch left England admon- ishing Henry, and in October 1187 Jerusalem fell to Saladin. Whilst Henry II was indeed a blood relative of Baldwin IV, as Hardyng records (both were grandsons of Fulk V), his failure to help Heraclius and the Holy City meant that England had no claim to it. By being selective about the information he recounts, Hardyng helps substantiate York’s tentative title to the Holy Land. Once again, the main emphasis here is on the concept of obtaining one’s inheritance through election as well as blood. Like Pedro I, Baldwin IV seeks assistance from the English when he finds himself unable to protect his kingdom, and offers his inheritance as a reward. For Hardyng, this is providence at work, as the first stanza of the last quotation shows. In this he notes that York’s claim comes from ‘Discent of blode by title lynyally | From Godfray Boleyn and from Robert Cur- those, | That kynges were therof elect and chose’. The bloodline only becomes important after the initial Christian conquest of Jerusalem and the election of its first Christian king, which the Chronicle discusses in more depth in the reign of Henry I. The reference here, and later, to Robert Curthose, son of William the Conqueror, is interesting because the first version does not discuss his election as king.50 In the reign of Henry I, and in the Latin passages accompanying a visual representation of York’s claim to Jerusalem that occurs at the end of the second version, Curthose is the first elected king, but he rejects the honour because of his ‘couatice’ desire to inherit the English throne:51 he forsoke The realme of alle the londe of Ierusalem Whan he was chose therto, and nought hit toke For couatice to haue this Englysche reem

50 In the reign of Henry II, the first version mentions the envoy sent by Baldwin IV and Henry II’s entitlement to the realm through Geoffrey Plantagenet, but not Curthose’s election; see BL, MS Lansdowne 204, fols 148rr–149 . 51 The Pedigree of Jerusalem occurs in Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, BL, MS Harley 661, and Harvard, MS English 1054. See Ellis, p. 260. 278 Sarah L. Peverley

Agayne Goddis wille and his high ordynaunce, For chosyn he was by alle Crysten creaunce. For at wynnynge of Ierusaleem, Whare prynces feel, kynges and dukes were, He was the worthiest of any reme And bare hym beste in knyghtely dede of were, At alle assautes most knyghtelye ay hym bere, The honoure alle and fame he had euermore And chosyn was ther to be kynge therfore. Men saide that God gauf hym suiche punyschement, His brother to putt hym in grette myserye Vnto his deth agayne his owne entente, For he forsoke Cristis owne monarchie, The Crysten feithe to maynteyne and encrese, For couetice his brother to disencres.52 By detailing Curthose’s rejection of ‘Cristis owne monarchie’, Hardyng shows that although God punished York’s Norman ancestor for declining the Holy Land, he soon bestowed his favour on the Plantagenet dynasty by providing them with two claims to Jerusalem: one through the ancestral line of Godfrey Bouillon, elected King of Jerusalem after Robert; the other through Baldwin IV’s promise to Henry II.53 The inspired inclusion of Curthose’s election in this version and the

52 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fols 108vr–109 ; Ellis, pp. 245–46. 53 Godfrey Bouillon (c. 1060–1100), duke of lower Lorraine, was elected the first Latin King of Jerusalem on 22 July 1099 after the Holy Land was recaptured in the first crusade. According to one version of the legend, the position was first offered to several of the noble lords who had fought well in the crusade, all of whom declined the honour before it was bestowed on Godfrey. Hardyng appears to be referring to one such version of the story by mentioning Robert Curthose (c. 1054–1134) as an elected king. The earliest authority to detail Robert’s refusal of the kingdom of Jerusalem is William of Malmesbury’s Gesta regum Anglorum, ed. and trans. by R. A. B. Mynors, completed by R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998–99; repr., 2006), I, 703. Other later versions, apparently independent of Malmesbury, include the Historia peregrinorum, Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum, Histo- ria belli sacri, Wace’s Roman de Rou, and Geoffrey Gaimar’s L’estoire des Engleis. When Godfrey Bouillon died without an heir, his will decreed that the kingdom should pass to Daimbert, patriarch of Jerusalem and former archbishop of Pisa; however, his wishes were ignored by his Lorraine vassals, who appointed Godfrey’s brother, Baldwin, as the next king. When Baldwin I realized that he would also die without issue, he declared that his brother Eustace III, count of Bologne, should succeed him and that if he declined the honour the vassal kings were to elect his kinsman, Baldwin of Bourcq. Once again the vassals had their will and quickly elevated Baldwin of Bourcq to the kingship before Eustace could be sent for. Although the succession was later considered to be GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 279 imaginary return of Jerusalem to its divinely appointed heirs allow Hardyng to emphasize the obligations of a divinely chosen king and parallel other episodes in the Chronicle where kingdoms have been lost and recovered. God’s pleasure with a king who accepts his lot and remains mindful of His ability to give and take away power is implicit. As we draw to the end of the genealogical prologue it becomes clear that Hardyng has repeatedly shown that York’s composite royal entitlements revolve primarily around God’s favour and female ancestors: women provide a consanguin- eous link by which men can verify and assert their entitlements, whilst men provide the verbal or written agreements which bolster or, in some cases, initiate the claim, either by election, by treaty following conquest, or by reward for military action. This persistent feminization of York’s genealogy in the prologue coincides with an increased emphasis on women throughout the Chronicle, which is plentiful with female patrons, intercessors, heirs, rulers, lawmakers, peacemakers, saints, and characters not witnessed in the earlier version, such as Lady Godiva and Saint Ebba. Arguably, as Sheila Delany has noted, these are merely the components of British history abounding in many chronicles besides Hardyng’s, but in comparison with the first version, the enhanced role of women in the version for York is undenia- ble.54 It is similarly no coincidence that many of the stories and privileges associated with the female characters in the later version are those that Hardyng is seen to investigate most thoroughly, and which allow him to indulge in a literary self- criticism whereby both he and his text are consistently associated with truth. This literary alignment of author, femininity, and truth is undoubtedly a response to the influx of materials promoting York’s descent from Philippa of Clarence in the late 1450s and early 1460s. Such items necessitated the correlation of York’s female ancestors with legitimacy in a manner that convinced those reading and purchasing genealogically orientated texts that York’s imminent accession was in the best

dubious because it neglected the rightful heir, Baldwin II went on to reign for the next thirteen years. When Baldwin’s queen, Morphia, died without providing a male heir, the King decided to settle the succession jointly in favour of his oldest daughter, Mélisande, and her future husband, Fulk V. Upon Fulk’s death the couple’s oldest son became Baldwin III, who in turn was succeeded by his brother Amalric I. Amalric was the father of Baldwin IV, mentioned here as ‘Baldewyn Para- liticus’. Therefore, as grandsons of Fulk V, both Henry II and Baldwin IV could be said to be related to the long line of Jerusalem’s elected kings, although not, as Hardyng suggests, by an unbroken line of descent. 54 Sheila Delany, Impolitic Bodies: Poetry, Saints, and Society in Fifteenth-Century England: The Work of Osbern Bokenham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 158. 280 Sarah L. Peverley interest of the country. Hardyng too seems to have been aware of this, as the concluding stanzas of his prologue demonstrate. Having expressed his hope ‘to please bothe God and man’ with his forthcoming history, Hardyng accentuates York’s lineage alongside the status of his wife, Cecily, as ‘elect’ lady of the land, and declares that his decision to write in English is for her benefit, since she has ‘litle intellecte’ of Latin.55 The first implication of this is that Cecily needs the guidance of a knowledgeable author, like Hardyng, to mediate and translate for her, providing access to historical truths that would be hidden from her in Latin. As elect lady of England she needs to know the history of her realm in order to benefit from its exemplarity, just as York and his son need to know their genealogical rights and how to govern well through the Chronicle’s historical paradigms.56 The second implication of Cecily’s special affiliation with the English language is that the native tongue of England’s future queen is the same as her future subjects’.57 Presenting Cecily as an English speaker, under the ‘rule’ of York, ‘as sholde femynitee’, allies her with all loyal, peace-loving, and submissive English subjects who wish to learn about York’s ancestry and come under his ‘protection’ as Cecily has. Hardyng not only empowers a real and imagined English-speaking audience here, but also subtly invites criticism of Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI’s war-like French queen, who at the time of writing was still at large in Scotland attempting

55 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 8v; Ellis, p. 23. Compare with York’s ‘gode inspection’ in Latin a few lines later. A similar case is presented in the epilogue addressed to Edward IV and his new queen, Elizabeth Woodville, in which Hardyng states that he has compiled the Chronicle to satisfy the queen because: ‘women haue feminine condicion | To know all thinges longing to thaire husband: | His high worship, and his disposicion, | His hertis counceil also, I vnderstond, | As at weddinge to hir he made his bonde | And most of all his hertis priuetees’; see Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 198r; Ellis, p. 421. 56 Again, the same can be said of Elizabeth in the epilogue, as Hardyng describes her as being ‘elect Souerayn lady [of England], ful worthili protect’ under Edward IV’s ‘rule and noble gouernaunce’ (Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 197v; Ellis, p. 421). The writing of historical works for women seems to have been a regular practice in the Middle Ages. Andrew Galloway cites several examples of noble women patronizing, or being presented with, historical works, including the rhymed chronicle by Froissart presented to Philippa of Hainault (no longer extant) and Wace’s Roman de Brut for Eleanor of Aquitaine; he notes: ‘These instances emphasize how important noblewomen, especially members of the royal family, were for writing history in England’ (‘Writing History’, pp. 261–62, 267). 57 This too is mirrored later in the epilogue by Hardyng’s emphasis on Elizabeth Woodville’s ability to ‘rede vpon’, ‘se and knowe’ the Chronicle (Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 198r; Ellis, p. 421). GENEALOGY AND JOHN HARDYNG’S VERSE CHRONICLE 281 to gather support for her husband’s cause.58 One of Hardyng’s anti-Scottish dia- tribes actually advises Edward IV to bring Margaret and her son home, portraying the Scots as the deceitful harbingers of the fugitive Lancastrians, desirous to join forces with the French and exploit the political importance of their exiled guests: His [Henry VI’s] wiffe and sone gete home bi ordinaunce [. . .] For bettir were to haue hem surte, Thanne lette hem bene with youre aduercite With Scottes or Frenssh that wolde se your distresse, And help to hit with all thaire bisinesse.59 This virulent attack on England’s traditional enemies coincides with Hardyng’s aforementioned plea to Edward IV to use his power as king to bring peace to the realm and restore Henry VI to ‘his owne lyuelode, | The duchie hool of Lancastre his right’.60 In so doing he can begin to assert his sovereignty over other adversaries and reclaim his French and Scottish rights. Given the explicit connections Hardyng makes between Cecily, the English people, and York’s inheritance, the Chronicle seems to point to a dependence on the traditional association of women, or femininity, with peacemaking. Being newly restored to his rightful ancestry and descended from the female line, York and his son are the country’s best hope of peace. Other interjections in the Chronicle support this notion, especially that occurring at the end of the reign of Cad- wallader, where Hardyng repeats all of York’s titles, warns of the perils of civil division, and suggests that York and Edward can bring prosperity to the realm once again if they ‘þe pees euermore mayntene’.61 The positioning of this interjection is loaded with connotations of loss and recovery, as Cadwallader, the last British king and the ancestor from whom York preferred to trace his lineage, is juxtaposed with

58 John Vale’s book contains several items highlighting contemporary xenophobic attitudes at the time; see Margaret Lucille Kekewich and others, The Politics of Fifteenth-Century England: John Vale’s Book (Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1995), pp. 136, 148–51, 166, 170–73; Allan discusses the presence of patriotism and xenophobia in the 1460 manifesto issued by the Yorkists (‘Political Propaganda’, pp. 60–70; see also Allan’s comments about Edward IV harnessing public dislike of Margaret of Anjou on pp. 102, 341); and the Rolls of Parliament depict the Lancastrian exiles and Margaret of Anjou as unpleasant (Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. by John Strachey and others, 6 vols (London, 1767–77), V, 476–78). 59 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 179r; Ellis, p. 411. 60 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 179r; Ellis, p. 411. 61 Bodl. MS Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 78v; Ellis, p. 180. 282 Sarah L. Peverley

York, representing the newly restored British line.62 Hardyng implies that the loss, division, and bad governance of Cadwallader’s reign (or more recently Henry VI’s) can be offset with recovery (of titles), reconciliation, and good governance in York’s reign. Whilst the first version of the Chronicle appears to have been aimed at a small network of readers associated with the King’s affinity, the second version takes great care to appeal to a wider social spectrum.63 Hardyng’s emphasis on the importance of women, peace, and English as the language of the royal family, together with his presentation of history in a more compact and articulate manner than the first Chronicle, points to his adoption of an approach similar to that seen in the popular genealogies that were ‘much sought after, particularly by the casual and less scholarly audience to which the authors were primarily directing their pens’.64 In many respects the genealogical material Hardyng provides in relation to York’s titles is similar to that found in the more succinct genealogical rolls, but the people procuring these were also readers of the Brut, with a taste for Britain’s history, and it is undoubtedly Hardyng’s successful blend of genealogy with historical narrative and topical commentary that made his Chronicle so attractive at a time when history, not just genealogy, needed rewriting to accommodate and justify a change in dynasty.65 Ultimately, the function of Hardyng’s revised text is not to remind York and his immediate family of his illustrious pedigree, but to introduce York’s extended family of future English subjects to their new sovereign and consolidate the common ancestry of people and king.

62 For York’s use of Cadwallader, see Allan, ‘Political Propaganda’; Lesley A. Coote, Prophecy and Public Affairs in Later Medieval England (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2000), pp. 195–234; and Jonathan Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV (Stroud: Sutton, 2002), pp. 119–20, 130–36. 63 For further discussion of Hardyng’s probable audience, see Peverley, ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, pp. 156, 195, 204–05. 64 Allan, ‘Political Propaganda’, p. 260. 65 Allan believes that genealogies were read by ‘the nobles and gentry, and the commercial classes; those who staffed government, led and made up armies, provided finance, granted taxation, and maintained law and order in the localities’ (‘Political Propaganda’, p. 4). The extant manuscripts of the Chronicle appear to have been produced within a short space of time (c. 1470–80), and the majority, if not all, were produced in the metropolis, a hotbed of Yorkist propaganda in the late fifteenth century. All tastes and pockets are catered for by the surviving witnesses, from unadorned paper copies to beautifully illuminated vellum volumes, and one copy, BL, MS Harley 661, is even decorated to make it look like a genealogical roll. For a detailed discussion of the manuscripts, see Peverley, ‘John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, pp. 47–118. John Hardyngâ€™s Chronicle. Edited from British Library MS Lansdowne 204, volume 2, Middle English Texts Series (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, forthcoming). John Hardyngâ€™s Chronicle. Edited from British Library MS Lansdowne 204, volumeâ€¦Â â€˜Genealogy and John Hardyngâ€™s Verse Chronicleâ€™, in Broken Lines: Genealogical Literature in Late-Medieval Britain and France, ed. by Raluca L. Radulescu and Edward Donald Kennedy, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe 16 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), pp. 259-82.â€˜ An edition of The chronicle of Iohn Hardyng (1812). The chronicle of Iohn Hardyng. containing an account of public transactions from the earliest period of English history to the beginning of the reign of King Edward the Fourth, together with the continuation by Richard Grafton, to the thirty fourth year of King Henry the Eighth : the former part collated with two manuscripts of the author's own time, the last, with Grafton's duplicate edition : to which. are added a biographical and literary preface, and an index by Henry Ellis. by John Hardyng. 0 Ratings. 0 Want to read. 0 Currently reading. Free Thinkingâ€”Sicily, The London Library, John Hardyng's Chronicle. Anne McElvoy discusses Sicily. Plus 175 years of the London Library, with Tom Stoppard. BBC Radio 3. Galleries. Portrait of the Artist: KÃ¤the Kollwitzâ€”Kathe Kollwitz, John Ashbery, Social Conservatism in US and Europe. Matthew Sweet Explores London Through Its Archives.â€”Being Human: What the Archives Reveal. Street Furniture Designâ€”Hisham Matar, Street Furniture, Easternisation, Katherine Cooper on Storm Jameson. Superwoman: â€˜Work, build and don't whine'â€”Walter Benjamin, the Soviet Superwoman, Munch.