Archaeological Journal ISSN: 0066-5983 (Print) 2373-2288 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raij20 The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Previously Assigned to Florence of Worcester Sir Henry H. Howorth K.C.I.E. D.C.L. F.R.S. F.S.A. To cite this article: Sir Henry H. Howorth K.C.I.E. D.C.L. F.R.S. F.S.A. (1916) The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Previously Assigned to Florence of Worcester, Archaeological Journal, 73:1, 1-170, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.1916.10853299 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00665983.1916.10853299 Published online: 17 Jul 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raij20 Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 29 June 2016, At: 13:55 THE CHRONICLE OF JOHN OF WORCESTER, PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO FLORENCE OF WORCESTER. By SIR HENRY H. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E. D.C.L. F.R.S. F.S.A. In my analysis of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle1 I have arrived at a point where it is necessary to examine another work very closely connected with the chronicle and in many parts almost a literal translation of that document. It has been universally treated as one of the prime authorities for our history, and in date it heads the list of our post-Conquest Latin chronicles. Notwithstanding this it has never been properly edited, and therefore, apart from its interest as an illustration of the· history of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I have thought it right to analyse its contents in detail, and I hope the laborious work this has entailed may result in a corresponding advantage to those engaged in writing our early history. The work was first published in 1592 by the Hon. William Howard from manuscripts in the possession of Lord William Howard of Naworth. The two manuscripts used by him are now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. One is a small quarto written on vellum in the thirteenth century, in two different hands, one ending in the year 1131, and the other in the year 1137. Like all other copies it contains certain epitomes of local history and lists and genealogies prefixed to the chronicle itself, but there is no narrative mixed with the leaves of the manuscript. It also contains certain discussions on 2 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:55 29 June 2016 chronology which were omitted by Howard. The other manuscript is a duodecimo written in various hands, described as a compilation from different authors, among others from the work we are discussing. It is continued till the year 1141 where it ends mutilated. It has also the lists and genealogies prefixed as in other manuscripts. This edition of Howard's was reprinted at Frankfurt in 'See A.J. lxix, 312-70. 2 See Mon.Hist. Brit. pref. Hardy, Cat. ii, 130, note 1. Χ 8 THE CHRONICLE OF JOHN OF WORCESTER, 1601 but with many faults1; otherwise it was not again printed till the year 1848, when a portion of it forms part of Petrie's Monumenta Historica Britannica. For his text Petrie collated what is doubtless the best existing manuscript and which was not known to Howard. It is preserved in Corpus Christi College, Oxford,2 and formerly belonged to the church at Worcester. It dates from about the middle of the twelfth century, and is written in one hand till near the conclusion. It ends mutilated in 1140. In the continuation (after 1129) are some additions in the margin by a monk of Worcester, chiefly about visions and marvellous tales. It also omits several portions of the text which are in another hand in the margin : some of them come from William of Malmesbury.3 Petrie cites this as MS. A. Besides MS. A, Petrie also collated another manu- script which is in the Lambeth library, number 42, a large folio, very finely written in double columns in a hand of the latter part of the twelfth century, containing the continuation ending in 1131 : it agrees with the copy last cited in most of its variations from Howard's printed text. It has some notices of Abingdon abbey, and doubtless came from there. Petrie also examined a manuscript in the Bodleian (no. 297) also of the twelfth century and also ending in 1131. It incorporates the marginal notes in MS. A with a number of marginalia of its own. Its text seems to be a reproduction of the Corpus Christi manuscript above cited. It contains notices of charters connected with Bury, and probably came from there. At Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, is another manuscript of the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century (no. 92) which contains the so-called Florence down to 1131 with another continuation down Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:55 29 June 2016 to 1295. It incorporates in its text most of the additions of the manuscript at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, as well as of the Lambeth copy, and would seem to have been copied from the Bodleian manuscript. It formerly belonged to Peterborough. At Magdalen College, Oxford, there is a manuscript 1 M.H.B. 85. 3 M.H.B. 86. 8 MS. no. 157, fol. 76. PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO FLORENCE OF WORCESTER. II in small folio of the thirteenth century (no. 36) containing a transcript from 1002 to 1131 with some additions and a continuation to 1226. Lastly the Cotton MS. Vitellius Ε xiii, which is of the thirteenth century, contains the so-called Florence with a continuation to 1225. It ends abruptly and has been much damaged by fire.1 A second manuscript (no. 185) in the same library also contains the continuation to 1225. Returning to Petrie's edition of the so-called Florence we must remember that his theory of editing manuscripts was not that now generally accepted as the best. Although the text he actually published was an accurate transcript of those parts of the manuscripts which he used, he held that inasmuch as mediaeval writers were in the habit of copying largely from each other he was justified in cutting out of his edition what he deemed were iterations containing no new fact or observation or what was a mere abridgment either by extract or compression or in sup- pressing some solecisms in the style. This method of editing left much to the personal equation of the editor and, as we recognise now, often excluded matter which was necessary for tracing the sources of an author or the history of his text. Petrie's famous volume again only professed to give the materials for English history down to the year 1066, so that all the matter in the manuscripts of the so-called Florence after that day was entirely left out by him. So were all the entries in the work before the year 450. He also omitted all the passages which the so-called Florence had copied from Marianus Scotus between 450 and 1000, though between the years 1000 and 1066 these passages are duly given. All this will show how inadequate Petrie's edition is, when measured by modern standards. Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 13:55 29 June 2016 Apart from these drawbacks the text was excellently edited with collations from the then accessible manuscripts. In 1849, shortly after the appearance of Petrie's great volume, the English Historical Society brought out an edition of the so-called Florence edited by B. Thorpe. As far as the year 1066 it is a transcript of the edition of Petrie, whom Thorpe also followed in omitting all the 1 Hardy, Cat. ii, 130. Χ 8 THE CHRONICLE OF JOHN OF WORCESTER, matter before the year 450, without drawing attention to this fact. However, he gives the rest of the work from the year 1066 with its continuation down to 1295 in a complete form. It is clear therefore that Thorpe's edition is also very inadequate. Since then there has not appeared any critical edition of this work which was described by Thorpe himself as the principal source of early English history (next to the Ecclesiastical History of Bede and the Saxon Chronicle). It is especially notable and perhaps even scandalous that the work was not included in the very long list of chronicles and memorials of English history published by the Master of the Rolls. Let us now turn to the contents of the work. It is professedly in large part a compilation and it was formed in a curious way. The basis of the work was a copy of the chronicle of Marianus Scotus in which the compiler in general faithfully follows the earlier writer and inserts a series of entries from other sources and from tradition. As the work of Marianus forms such a large part of tha" we are discussing it will be profitable to describe it shortly here. He was, like many other learned men of his time, an Irish Scot and was born in Ireland in 1028. This appears from a gloss of his own inserted in his chronicle under the year 1028, where we read ' Ego miser Marianus in peccatis fui in hoc anno natus.' His Irish name was Moelbrig.1 In 1056 he left Ireland for Germany, where he entered the Irish monastery of St. Martin at Cologne and there adopted the name of Marianus.