The Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Tradition
Latin was the standard language
in which one wrote historical literature in England through the fifteenth
century, although chronicles, annals, histories, and poems on contemporary and
past events were sometimes written in the vernacular. The fourteenth century is
commonly seen as the point in which the vernacular of choice shifted from
Anglo-Norman French to Middle English. While the latter has received a huge
amount of attention over the past few centuries, in no small part due to
nationalism and it being more justifiably studied in the classroom, Anglo
Norman has been neglected. This is immediately evident when one seeks to
examine the historical literature written in the fourteenth century, this
supposed transitional period. Gransden, in her widely used reference work, discusses
many Latin texts but only three in Anglo Norman (the Anonimalle Chronicle,
the French Chronicles of London, and Thomas Gray’s Scalacronica),
each of which survives in a single manuscript each.[1] However,
Dean and Boulton’s standard resource lists nearly every piece of Anglo-Norman
literature and includes a large number of historical writings from this period.[2] A
Manual of the Writings in Middle English likewise lists Middle English
literature and has a much-cited volume dedicated solely to historical
literature.[3]
A quick glance at Dean and Boulton, however, will make it evident that most
Anglo-Norman historical literature of the fourteenth century remains unpublished,
with a few texts in mostly-inaccessible PhD theses of sometimes dubious
quality. Accordingly, the bulk of attention on vernacular historical literature
in the period is given to writings in Middle English, especially the Middle
English Prose Brut. Indeed, the MEPB is often examined over its immediate
source, the Anglo-Norman Prose Brut, in no small part due to it being
available in a convenient (and now digitised) Early English Text Society
edition, but also because the tradition is incredibly complex and not yet fully
worked out.[4]
The
prose Brut chronicle, narrating Britain’s history from its legendary
foundation to the later Middle Ages, was the most widely read secular text in
late medieval England. Originally written in French, it soon received
continuations and was developed into many versions in English and Latin, thanks
to England’s multilingual environment. In total these survive in well over two hundred
manuscripts. Its popularity was partly due to its genre defying style,
colourful stories, and propagandistic attitude. These traits, however, have
driven editors to ignore the Brut in
favour of explicitly literary and historical texts. A few manuscripts of the
English and Anglo-Norman texts after the Oldest ANPB have been edited, but none
are representative and their editors do not examine them in relation to the
others (see diagram below).[5] The
textual traditions have similarly been studied only in isolation and without
proper cross-language examination. Brie knew of only two-thirds of the
manuscripts and examined them briefly. Matheson, while he created the standard
resource on the English manuscripts, was not interested in the Anglo-Norman or
Latin manuscripts and only briefly mentioned them. Marvin has inspected some
manuscripts of the Short and Long ANPB texts in detail, but has not performed a
comprehensive examination of the textual tradition.[6]
Subsequent studies of thematic elements of the Brut texts, such as genealogy, prophecy, and Arthurian stories,
have been severely limited due to our poor understanding of the development and
dissemination of the Brut.
The Brut tradition
*click here for a larger image*
While the development of the
various versions of the MEPB are fairly linear, the ANPB’s tradition remains
tangled and has yet to be properly worked out. The Oldest ANPB (to 1272)
survives in five manuscripts, with another peculiar manuscript not used in
Marvin’s edition and an abridged text in a manuscript edited by Pagan and De
Wilde. After this, however, it gets difficult. The Short and Long ANPBs (in 16
and 32 manuscripts) both use the Oldest ANPB as their base text through 1272,
then have a very similar continuation for 1272–1307, but have independent
continuations for 1307–33. The Short ANPB copies over its –1272 text fairly
closely, but the Long ANPB makes many changes, most notably the inclusion of
prophecies on the reigns of English kings. To make things worse, there are two major
recensions of the Long ANPB that have many differences throughout, not only in
choice of words or paraphrasing, of which there is plenty. The most troubling
element is the 1272–1307 continuation, based on Pierre de Langtoft’s chronicle,
as it prevents any sort of linear or otherwise straightforward relationship.[7]
Was there an Intermediate ANPB that carried on through 1307 but no longer
survives?[8]
Was the Short ANPB written through 1333 first and then the writer of the Long
ANPB took its text up to 1307 only, modified it, and then added on a
continuation of his own to 1333 (or vice versa)? Were the Short and Long ANPBs
written independently, with both of them coincidentally drawing on the Oldest
ANPB to 1272 and Langtoft for 1272–1307? Or is the tradition more labyrinthine,
like that of Piers Plowman?
Because
of the more than 50 manuscripts involved, in libraries in the United Kingdom,
France, Ireland, Russia, and the United States, scholars have yet to resolve
these problems (although they have been happy to offer their theories without
much supporting evidence), and therefore no proper critical editions have been
produced of the main texts.[9]
Even during the great push to create editions in the nineteenth century the
ANPB texts were skipped over because they straddled the line between historical
and literary text, and were also not in proper continental French or Middle
English. These texts have thus, unfortunately, have languished in relative
obscurity, despite their clear importance in the period.
*click here for a larger image*
The Long Anglo-Norman Prose Brut manuscripts, from
left to right, first row: 1. Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS
5028C; 2. Cambridge, University Library, MS Ii VI 8; 3. Dublin,
Trinity College, MS 501; 4. London, British Library, MS Add 18462; 5.
London, British Library, MS Royal 20 A III; second row: 6. London, British Library,
MS Cotton Cleopatra D III; 7. London, British Library, MS Royal 20 A
XVIII; 8. London, British Library, MS Royal Appendix 85; 9.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1804; 10. Paris, Bibliothèque
Mazarine, MS 1860. Not pictured: Intermediate (?), Lincoln’s Inn,
Continental, and Tiberius versions.
*click here for a larger image*
Besides the main texts there are
several continuations and variant versions that have yet to be properly
studied. The Short and Long ANPBs received further continuations in
Anglo-Norman, only one of which has been edited. The so-called Anonimalle
Chronicle continues a peculiar expanded section of the Short ANPB, which
has also been edited, but cannot be taken as a representative text. One copy of
the Short ANPB and another three copies of the Long ANPB (all independent,
perhaps adapted from a single insular copy) are in continental French, with
changes made throughout that deserve further scrutiny. There are many other
versions of the main text as well, including two peculiar abridgments of the
Long ANPB.
The Anglo-Norman Prose Brut continuation manuscripts,
from left to right: 1. Leeds, University Library, MS Brotherton 29; 2.
London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A VI; 3. New Haven, Yale
University Beinecke Library, MS 86; 4. New Haven, Yale University
Beinecke Library, MS 593; 5. Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 78.
*click here for a larger image*
*click here for a larger image*
The Short ANPB (with prologue,
presumably the second recension) was later translated (and abridged a bit) into
Latin to form the first part of a four-part chronicle, the final two of which
are known as the Canterbury Chronicle (or, Anonymous of Canterbury’s
chronicle). This version of the Brut only goes to 1326 and, while it is
tempting to presume that this was translated from the one copy of the Short
ANPB that ends in the same year (Cambridge, University Library, MS Mm I 33),
the transmission here requires further study. A manuscript of the second
recension of the Long ANPB was translated into Middle English towards the end
of the fourteenth century and soon received a continuation to 1377. This
initial Middle English version only survives in a few manuscripts and likewise
needs to be studied in more depth, especially in relation to its Anglo-Norman source. It has been presumed that a particular copy of the Long ANPB (London,
British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra D III) was the source because it has the
same chapter divisions, but a word-for-word comparison of the MEPB with the
Long ANPB shows this to be unlikely.
The Canterbury Latin Prose Brut manuscripts, from
left to right: 1. London, British Library, MS Cotton Julius B III; 2.
London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 99; 3. Oxford, Magdalen College, MS
Lat. 200; 4. Reigate, Parish Church of St Mary Cranston Library, Item
1117.
*click here for a larger image*
The Middle English Prose Brut (Common Version–1333)
manuscripts, from left to right, first row: 1. Aberystwyth,
National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 398D; 2. Dublin, Trinity College, MS 490; 3.
London, British Library, MS Harley 3945; 4. London, Society of
Antiquaries, MS 93; 5. Manchester, Rylands Library, MS Eng. 103; second
row: 6. Manchester, Rylands Library, MS Eng. 206; 7. New
Haven, Yale University Beinecke Library, MS 494; 8. Oxford, Bodleian
Library, MS Bodley 840; 9. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 323; 10.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson B 171. Not pictured: New York,
Private Collection of J. D. Gordan, MS 63 (unavailable).
*click here for a larger image*
So, as you can see, from the
Short and Long ANPBs sprung a wide variety of continuations, translations, and
further continuations and translations. Indeed, the genre found wide
popularity, thanks in no small part to its clearly political blending of
mythology and history to establish England’s claim over all of Britain. Many
pseudo-Brut chronicles were also written, some crafted from existing
chronicles and others written more or less from scratch, all of which took on
the general form of the Brut: a chronicle starting with the founding of
Britain that methodically traces the line of rulers down to the (then) present
day.[10]
It
is therefore important for the Short and Long ANPBs to have their traditions
sorted out and to receive proper editions (and thus allow work on variant
versions, continuations, and translations to go forward). Since 2015 the
British Library and more and more institutions, thankfully, now allow personal
photography, which makes this sort of work more tenable than it was back in the
days of pencils, notebooks, and microfilms (oh my!) While there are many more
unedited and unknown chronicles from the period written in Latin, none are in
the same level of detail, let alone with such a large readership, as the Short
and Long ANPBs. The dearth of published Anglo-Norman history writing in the
fourteenth century, combined with the almost total editing of all Middle
English historical literature, has encouraged people to consider language,
national identity, and the medieval understanding of the past in the later
Middle Ages in a skewed fashion. This has obvious implications in many other
areas of medieval studies.
I
first came across the Brut and, in particular, the ANPB during my
doctoral studies (2013–17). I was trying to perform a comprehensive examination
of the historical literature written during the reign of Edward III (1327–77)
so that I could arrive at a full(ish) understanding of attitudes towards
various contemporary events at the time. I was shocked to find that the Short
and Long ANPBs, such obviously important texts as they were, remained without
proper editions (I was later more shocked to find so many other valuable
chronicles unedited and almost entirely unknown!) I then sought to understand
the dissemination and intended uses of these texts by listing the manuscripts
and their contents. This led to further nightmarish yet rewarding research,
which soon spiralled out of control despite the best efforts of my supervisors.
All the while I kept thinking about, and doing little bits of work on the ANPB
tradition, as it was the only one of my unedited texts for which the tradition
remained unresolved. In the end I examined 303 manuscripts, almost all in
person, visited 35 manuscript libraries, and wrote a 61-page appendix to my
thesis. Indeed, probably 90% of this work on manuscripts and my appendix had
absolutely nothing to do with the argument of my thesis, but rather stemmed
from a desire to understand what was written and how the different versions of
each text related to each other. This work has helped me move my research in
new and interesting directions that I never would have considered had I not begun
to examine the ANPB.
During
my time at Aberystwyth and the Anglo-Norman Dictionary I was able to examine an
important copy of the Long ANPB and other copies of the MEPB in the National
Library of Wales. I was also able to discuss the above problems with Heather
Pagan and Geerte De Wilde, editors of the Anglo-Norman Dictionary, both of whom
have worked on different versions of the ANPB, and also make use of the
excellent resources of the AND. The Anglo-Norman Dictionary scholarship allowed
me to keep working on this difficult subject so that I could complete my PhD
(and appendix). It has also provided me with invaluable resources to continue
doing research on the difficult problem of the ANPB tradition.
I
am currently preparing applications for three-year postdoctoral fellowships so
that I can carry out and complete this project. My study of the Brut
tradition and the three languages of England will disprove the common assertion
that English identity only properly developed in the Middle English literary
canon, especially from the late fourteenth century onwards. The outputs of the
project will provide valuable insight into the development of the tradition and
how it reflects ideals and attitudes towards the late-medieval world. Most
importantly, however, it will allow critical editions of the various texts to
finally be produced, and also help the ANPB to retake its place amongst the key
writings of late medieval England.
Trevor Russell Smith
University of Leeds
ego_chronicon@outlook.com
[1]
Antonia Gransden, Historical
Writing in England, 2 vols (London: Routledge, 1974–82), vol. 2. While
Taylor discusses the Anglo-Norman writings in more detail, his work is more of
a synthesis of his previous works than a reference work: John Taylor, English
Historical Literature in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1987).
[2]
Ruth J. Dean and Maureen B. M.
Boulton, Anglo-Norman Literature: A Guide to Texts and Manuscripts,
Anglo-Norman Text Society, Occasional Publications Series, 3 (London:
Anglo-Norman Text Society, 1999), pp. 1–65.
[3]
A Manual of the Writings in Middle
English, 1050–1500, ed. by Burke J. Severs, Albert E. Hartung, and Peter
G. Beidler, 11 vols so far (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and
Sciences, 1967–), vol. 8.
[5]
For texts cited in the diagram see
‘Anonymi chronicon Godstovianum’, in Guilielmi Roperi vita D. Thomae
Moriequitis aurati, ed. by Thomas Hearne (Oxford: Veneunt apud editorem,
1716), pp. 180–246; Robert of Avesbury, ‘De gestis mirabilibus regis Edwardi
tertii’, in Adae Murimuth; Robertus de Avesbury, ed. by Edward Maunde
Thompson, Rolls Series, 93 (London: Eyre, 1889), pp. 279–471; The Brut, or
the Chronicles of England, ed. by Friedrich W. D. Brie, Early English Text
Society, Original Series, 131, 136, 2 vols (London: Paul, 1906–08); The
Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333 to 1381, from a MS Written at St Mary’s Abbey, York,
ed. by Vivian H. Galbraith, rev. edn (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1970); The Anonimalle Chronicle, 1307 to 1334, from Brotherton Collection MS
29, ed. by Wendy R. Childs and John Taylor, Yorkshire Archaeological
Society, Record Series, 147 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1991); The
Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose ‘Brut’ Chronicle, ed. by Julia Marvin
(Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006); Canterbury Anonymous, Chronicon: Chronicle,
1346–1365, ed. by Charity Scott-Stokes and Chris Given-Wilson, Oxford
Medieval Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008); Prose Brut to 1332, ed.
by Heather Pagan, Anglo-Norman Text Society, Annual Texts, 69 (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 2011); ‘The Anglo-Norman Prose Chronicle of
Early British Kings, or the Abbreviated Prose Brut: Text and
Translation’, ed. by Heather Pagan and Geert De Wilde, Medieval Chronicle,
10 (2015), 225–319.
[6]
Friedrich W. D. Brie, Geschichte
und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik ‘The Brute of England’ oder ‘The
Chronicles of England’ (Marburg: Friedrich, 1905); Lister M. Matheson, The
Prose ‘Brut’: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle (Tempe:
Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1998); Julia Marvin, The
Construction of Vernacular History in the Anglo-Norman Prose ‘Brut’ Chronicle:
The Manuscript Culture of Late Medieval England (Woodbridge: York Medieval
Press, 2017).
[7]
Pierre de Langtoft, Le Règne
d’Édouard Ir: Édition critique et commentée, ed. by Jean Claude
Thiolier (Créteil: C.E.L.I.M.A., Université de Paris XI, 1989).
[8]
Two MSS end at 1307, but the first of these is an abridged early
version of the Long ANPB and the latter of these is a peculiar version of the
Short ANPB: Cambridge, University Library, MS Ee I 20; Oxford, Corpus Christi
College, MS 78.
[9]
One MS of the Long ANPB has been transcribed,
but it is not from a representative MS, is not compared to any of the other
MSS, and has many errors throughout: ‘The Anglo-Norman Prose Brut: An
Edition of British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra D III’, ed. by Marcia Lusk
Maxwell (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1995).
[10]
See for example how Tyson
unhelpfully lumps both pseudo-Brut and Brut-proper manuscripts
together: Diana B. Tyson, ‘Handlist of Manuscripts Containing the French Prose Brut
Chronicle’, Scriptorium, 48 (1994), 333–44.
Comments
Post a Comment