A Short English Chronicle

The manuscript is held in Lambeth Palace Library as MS 306,^[4] although other, often more fragmentary copies, exist in other manuscripts.^[5] It is written in English in the neat professional style of a 15th-century scribe.^[6] It is structured in three parts.^[7] The first section briefly relates ancient English mythology—probably from a Brut-style chronicle^[6]—the second, linking section,^[6] contains mangled verse based on John Lydgate's history of the kings of England;^{[note 2]} and the third is the chronicle narrative proper.^[7]

The chronicle's author originally titled it Cronycullys of Englonde; who the author was, though, remains unknown. The name A Short English Chronicle was first bestowed upon it by the historian James Gairdner, when he published it as part of his Three English Chronicles collection, published by the Selden Society in 1880.^[4]

Scholars consider the Short English Chronicle to be what they term a dead chronicle, as it ceases at a definite point with no later continuation,^{[9][note 3]} although the last two (unused) pages in the book have been prepared with ruled lines. McLaren suggests that this may indicate that whoever compiled the chronicle was willing for it to be somehow later continued,^[6] and, indeed, John Stow used some of this space for his own commentary.^[11] Gairdner describes the manuscript in Lambeth Palace in his introduction to the published piece. It is, he says, "a stout folio volume"^[1] composed of 80 leaves.^[12]

Physically, the book has a Tudor period-ornamental binding—itself "very much worm-eaten"^[1]—made of wood. This, in turn, is covered by leather, although the back has been replaced more recently than the front. There were once book clasps holding the tome together, but these have both long-since disappeared. One of the covers, says Gairdner, still possesses the brass nails that once held the clasp embedded within it, while the other possesses some of the clasps' ornamental fittings. The leather covers are imprinted with decorative lozenge shapes—"filled with foliated ornaments and a framework parallel with the edges"^[1]—and the Beaufort family's coat of arms is prominent.^[1] By the mid-16th century, it had come into the possession of the antiquarian John Stow, who added many of his own comments to the manuscript,^[13] although in the event Stow hardly used it as a source for his own monograph—the 1598 Survey of London—as he had most of his material from elsewhere.^[14]

There were, over the course of the 15th century, "hundreds" of chronicles written in London. Since they were all written anonymously, it is impossible to discern the motivation of their authors in creating them.^[15]

Based on the fact that all three of the chronicle's sections are written in the same scribal hand, the historian Mary-Rose McLaren has posited that it was composed by either a single individual or possibly a workshop. It was probably the result of a specific commission; less likely, she says, is that it was created by the author for his own personal use.^[6] It may have its origins in the City of London's own chronicle, as, until it reaches the year 1446, it follows the events recorded in the latter closely,^[16] consisting mainly of lists of bailiffs and keepers of the City, and then mayors and sheriffs,^[13] although the Short Chronicle omits, confuses and transposes^[17] a number of early 13th-century sheriffs and subsequently falls behind.^[18] Thompson suggests that it "adds heavily to the meagre outlines" laid out in William Worcester's chronicle.^[19] The Short Chronicle was not alone in this: all the chronicles which came out of London in this period were built around "an inflexible, historical spine, their listed succession of chief city officials".^[20] It also borrows heavily from the Brut Chronicle in its early sections.^[7] There were multiple chronicles written in London in the early 15th century, and, while they probably shared a now unknown common source, they did not copy directly from each other. This meant that including the Short Chronicle, they generally provide much the same detail—and a low level of it—in their treatment of reigns and events up until around 1377. With the accession of Richard II of England, comments McLaren, they "begin to deviate wildly",^[21] and the Lambeth MS particularly begins to provide fuller descriptors. In 1435, it becomes even more expansive.^[21]

The mythological section of the chronicle has generally not been considered historiographically useful by historians: Gairdner wrote that the portion was "absolutely destitute of historical value"^{[22][note 4]} and in the early-20th century, Charles Lethbridge Kingsford commented that in abridging the Brut as he did, the author of the Short Chronicle omitted "almost all that was of peculiar interest".^[5] From that point the chronicle develops individuality and detail in its descriptions of events,^[16] although Kingsford notes that all the surviving copies that he knew of missed out a couple of years, not re-commencing until 1450,^[5] beginning "This yere the Kynge helde his Parlement at Westmester. And that same yere was all Normande lost".^[23] The main prose of the chronicle is written in a 15th-century hand, but marginalia and, more rarely, factual corrections, have been added in a hand dating from the reign of King Henry VII.^[1] Gairdner suggests the binding's Tudor provenance due to the fact that the hand that has added the marginalia has also added further chronological dates and events from Henry VII's reign after the paper had been cut by the book binder.^[22]

Although written in the 15th century, it begins with the accession of King Richard I of England in 1189, and stops in the middle of King Edward IV's first reign in 1465.^[4] It also contains a number of receipts for medical products^{[1][note 5]} and pieces of verse; although these are, comments Flenley, of "varying length and merit".^[25] The oldest portion of the original 15th-century manuscript still extant in the 20th century covers the years 1417–1420;^[5] everything else that is known comes from Stow's own transcripts.^{[note 6]} Beginning with Diocletian—described as King of Syria—the first 17 leaves cover English history up to the Norman Conquest. Leaves 17 through to 31 list successive English monarchs from William the Conqueror to King Henry VI. The historical narrative continues with the reigns of Kings Richard I and his brother John (between 1189 and 1215) up to leaf 38, from there to 47 is covered the reigns of Edward I, II and III (1272–1377). King Richard II continues for the next four leaves, taking the story up until his deposition in 1399 and the accession of the first Lancastrian King, Henry IV whose reign until 1412 covers the next three leaves. The reign of Henry V is between leaves 54-58, until his death in 1422. This is followed by his son, Henry VI, which is also the longest section, covering 20 leaves. The last two leaves of the narrative cover the first four years of King Edward IV.^[12]

The chronicle is at its most detailed regarding the 15th century, particularly Jack Cade's Rebellion and the accession of Edward IV;^[4] Gairdner suggested that this portion of the chronicle was an "original and independent authority"^[13] for the period 1422 to about 1465, with King Edward's clandestine marriage to Elizabeth Woodville being the last event it covers.^[13] Alexander L. Kaufman has also suggested that this indicates that the compiler was contemporaneous.^{[27][note 8]}

The post-1399 versions are notable for their clear pro-Lancastrian bias and focus on King Henry V's victories in France, for example at Rouen, for the purposes of propaganda.^[30][31] However, there is still much of legendary material, such as that of Albina;^[32] indeed, the historian Clair Valente has described it as "enthusiastic"^[33] in its rendition of these aspects of English history;^[34] she has also called it "one of the best records of rumours and propaganda, if not of the event themselves."^[33] The chronicle is less detailed on individuals. The historian Patricia-Ann Lee has commented on how even the Queen is treated "perfunctorily", although also notes that it does take part in laying the foundations for her future stereotyping in the 1450s.^[35]

Kaufman has also commented upon the similarities of the text in the Short English Chronicle and MS Gough 10 at the Bodleian Library, as they both "present fairly objective" and "methodically written" chronologies of summer 1450.^[36] It is one of many 15th-century chronicles that "dwell on...narratives of treason".^[37] The historian Roger Nicholson has suggested that this is not only because chroniclers had an inherent desire to write about evildoers and their acts, but that, in their writings, treason "often seems an index of a more general disorder".^[38] Either way, he says, it is ranked alongside poor weather and concomitant failed harvests in the social significance chroniclers bestowed upon it.^[38] McLaren has argued that, to authors such as that of the Short English Chronicle—who dwelt on a great rain that occurred in 1367 in some detail^[39]—"if the perceived battle between order and disorder can be expressed in the actions of individuals, it is also present in the London chroniclers' accounts of weather, particularly rains."^[40]

The 14th century witnessed a decline in monastic chroniclers, and by the following century there were few monasteries in England—or the rest of Europe—producing the quality and quantity of work that the heyday of monastic writing had seen in the 12th and 13th centuries.^[41] There was, however, a growth in popular demand for literature written in the vernacular; as the historian A. R. Myers put it, by laymen for laymen.^[42] And, since it only took "one literate person to make a text available to an entire household",^[43] a chronicle's circulation could have ultimately been broad.^[43] London, being closer to the royal court and the biggest mercantile centre in the country, was naturally well-suited to become a centre of literary patronage and production.^{[41][note 9]} As a result, many works—like the Short Chronicle—had a London-centric perspective.^[42] This did not mean that they ignored events around the country; on the contrary, says Nicholson, London chronicles provided a "national, central stage" for events which had taken place outside of London but ended up inside London. For example, the execution of Aubrey de Vere—son of the Lancastrian Earl of Oxford—whose final journey began in Westminster Palace but finished on Tower Green, and was thus described in great detail in the Short Chronicle.^[45]

Major events—particularly in the reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV—are chronicled within the Short Chronicle.

The executions of Aubrey de Vere and his father in 1462 are treated as examples of how the new King—sent from God to win his crown in battle—was given instant knowledge of their treason ("the whiche tresonnes God sent the kynge himself knowleche"), and Nicholson suggests that the chronicler is demonstrating the extent of the King's power.^[45]

The Battle of Wakefield on 30 December 1460, which saw the death of Richard, Duke of York and the destruction of his army was suggested to be not a deliberate counter-offensive to the Lancastrian Queen, Margaret of Anjou, but the result of an ambush; the royal army "lay in her wey at Wakefelde to stope hem... [intending to] slowe the Duke of Yorke"; the chronicle may be suggesting that it was less of a battle—knowingly entered into—and more of an ambush.^{[46][note 10]} Likewise, the Chronicle barely discusses the two sides' next encounter the following year at the Battle of St Albans, but the author does dwell floridly on the march of the Queen's army south (having "reysed all the northe and all other pepull by the wey"),^[47] in which southern towns such as Peterborough and Grantham were sacked^[46] ("compelled, dispoyled, rubbed and distroyed all maner of catell vertayll and riches")^[47] by the northern army.^[46]