No More Learning

The entire History, frequently revised and
extended, ends with the year 1154. Its earlier portions are
borrowed, with many embellishments, from Bede and the Old
English Chronicle. In many places Henry simply translates from
the old English annals, and among his translations is a metrical
version, though much curtailed, of the famous song on The Battle
of Brunanburh. Henry prided himself on his accomplishments in
verse, and his History is decorated with many poetical passages.
Of his work, as a whole, the best that can be said is that it
shows some sense of design, and of proportion in its execution ;
he treats of the history of England up to his time as dividing
itself naturally into the four periods of the Roman, the Saxon, the
Danish and the Norman occupations. It is when he comes to deal
with the Norman dominion, and especially with the events of his
own time, that he is most disappointing. At the beginning of
the seventh book he states that, after having so far relied upon
either "ancient writers or common report,” he is about to “deal
with events which have passed under” his “own observation, or have
been told to” him “by eye-witnesses. ” Neither in the seventh nor
in the eighth book do we find much to justify the expectation thus
raised. Henry was a facile writer, but a perfunctory historian.
"He was ambitious, but not laborious; literary, but not exact;
intelligent, but not penetrating. He formed large projects, but
was too indolent to execute them satisfactorily? " Henry's
rhetorical pages are brought to an appropriate close with a
glowing peroration, in verse, celebrating the accession of king
Henry II. What appears to have been at one time intended
to stand as the eighth book of the History is a treatise on the
Contempt of the World a letter, addressed to a friend named
Walter, upon the fortunes of "the bishops and the illustrious men
of his age. ” This work, both the title and the motive of which
remind us of more imposing literary achievements by greater men,
contains many vivid portraits of Henry of Huntingdon's famous
contemporaries.
A chronicler who is as great an authority, for the reign of
which he treats, as either William of Malmesbury or Henry of
Huntingdon, is the anonymous author of the Acts of Stephen
(Gesta Stephani). Not even William himself surpasses this writer
Thomas Arnold, preface to Rolls edition.


## p. 168 (#188) ############################################

168
Latin Chroniclers
in accuracy and vividness of detail. He is a palpable partisan of
Stephen, and has been supposed by some to have been the king's
confessor. Nothing, however, better illustrates the general trust-
worthiness and impartiality of the twelfth century chroniclers
than a comparison of the narrative of this historian with those
of William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon. Gesta
Stephani covers much the same ground as the Historia Novella of
William; yet, though the two works were composed from opposite
standpoints, they differ little in their presentment of the essential
facts of the history of the time.
William of Malmesbury claimed, as we have seen, the patronage
of Robert, earl of Gloucester; Henry of Huntingdon that of
Alexander, bishop of Lincoln. The favour of both these magnates,
and, if we are to trust the evidence of a MS preserved at Berne,
that of king Stephen himself, was invoked by the chronicler who
enjoys the dubious distinction of having been among British writers
the greatest disturber of the waters of history. Could he have
foreseen the influence which he was destined to exercise over the
poets of England, Geoffrey of Monmouth would doubtless have
been quite content with the prospect of forfeiting the confidence
of critical historians. Indeed, it is difficult to believe, on any
supposition, that the History of the Kings of Britain was written
as a serious contribution to authentic history. Geoffrey's manner
only too obviously betrays him. Just as William of Malmesbury
is anxious to "fill up the chasm” between Bede and Eadmer, so
Geoffrey professes to explore and map out a still more obscure
period, namely that of "the kings who dwelt in Britain before the
incarnation of Christ," and especially of "Arthur and the many
others who succeeded him after the incarnation. ” It so happened
that a document was placed in his hands which “set forth the
doings of them all in due succession and order from Brute, the
first king of the Britons, onward to Cadwaladr, the son of
Cadwallo, all told in stories of exceeding beauty. ” This docu-
ment was a certain "most ancient book in the British tongue,"
which was supplied to him by Walter, archdeacon of Oxford. No
other contemporary chronicler seems to have had access to this
mysterious book, and no amount of subsequent research has been
able to discover it. Geoffrey himself evidently looked upon its
contents as his own exclusive secret; for, in the epilogue to his
History, he expressly warns William of Malmesbury and Henry of
Huntingdon, who could write competently enough about the kings
of the English, not to meddle with the kings of the Britons,


## p. 169 (#189) ############################################

Geoffrey of Monmouth 169
"inasmuch as they have not the book in the British speech which
Walter brought over from Britanny. "
All this affectation of mystery, however, does not prevent Geoffrey
from openly commending his work to the favourable notice of the
two great men whose confidence and encouragement William and
Henry respectively enjoyed. The main body of his History is
dedicated to earl Robert of Gloucester, while the seventh book,
consisting of the famous prophecies of Merlin, is prefaced by an
almost fulsomely laudatory letter addressed to Alexander of
Lincoln. Geoffrey was thus determined to lose nothing of the
prestige and credit to be derived from aristocratic patronage;
and his dedications only confirm the assumption that he imitates
the practices and assumes the pose of an authentic chronicler with
the deliberate purpose of mystifying his readers. For Geoffrey's
History is, on the last analysis, a prose romance, and, in its
Arthurian portions in particular, a palpable excursion in fiction.
One need not believe that the entire work is, in the words of
William of Newburgh, a tissue of “impudent and shameless lies. ” u
Even the reference to "the British book” cannot altogether be
regarded as a ruse for the deception of the ingenuous reader.
Geoffrey doubtless drew upon some documents, possibly Welsh,
which have since been lost. He borrowed all he could from
Bede and Nennius; he probably borrowed more from floating
British traditions. What is even more certain is that he in-
vented a great deal It is impossible to read the later books of
the History without feeling that Geoffrey, when he had em-
barked upon the history of Merlin and of Arthur, was fully
conscious of his opportunities of romantic dilatation. Arthur
was a British prince capable of being exalted into a heroic figure
who should overshadow both Alexander and Charlemagne. These
two potentates were already the titular heroes of profitably worked
romantic cycles. Why should Britain not have its romantic
“matter," as well as Rome and France? Read in the light of the
general literary history of its time, and of its immediate and
immense popularity, Geoffrey's History can be adequately
explained only as the response of a British writer, keenly
observant of the literary tendencies of the day, to the growing
demand for romance. How well he succeeded in his design
appears from William of Newburgh's complaint that he had
"made the little finger of his Arthur stouter than the back of
Alexander the Great. "
The History of the Kings of Britain was complete in the


## p. 170 (#190) ############################################

170
Latin Chroniclers
form now known to us by 1148 at the latest; but there is evidence
that it existed in some form as early as 1139. A letter from
Henry of Huntingdon, addressed to one Warinus, otherwise un-
known, and prefixed to the Chronicle of Robert de Monte', gives
an abstract of "a big book” by “Geoffrey Arthur," which Henry
discovered in 1139 at the abbey of Bec in Normandy. Henry
himself had long been anxious to know something about the
kings of the Britons; and “to his amazement he found” at Bec
"a written record” of their deeds, including the history of
Arthur, “whose death the Britons deny, and still continue to
look for his return. " Henry's letter contains no mention of
Merlin; but, whether then incorporated in the History or not,
the Prophecies must have been written before 1139, for Ordericus
Vitalis quotes from them in the twelfth book (ch. 47) of his
History, which was composed in 1136 or 1137. By the year 1152
Geoffrey's work seems to have been well known, and to have won
him favour in high places, as he was then consecrated bishop of
St Asaph. He died in 1155. The fame of his History had
spread even before his death; for Wace, and, probably, Geoffrey
Gaimar, had begun to translate it into Anglo-Norman verse before
1155.
In England a long line of chroniclers, in both prose and verse,
from Layamon and Robert of Gloucester down to Grafton and
Holinshed, accepted Geoffrey in all good faith as a revealer of
“the marvellous current of forgotten things”; while a host of
poets, great and small, have been constantly haunted by his fables.
Two hundred years after his death his repute was such that, on the
strength of his use of the Brutus legend, Chaucer gave him a high
place in his Hous of Fame. With Homer and Statius, Dares
and Dictys and Guido delle Colonne, “English Gaufride” stands on
an iron pedestal,
besy for to bere up Troye.
In a later age both Spenser and Drayton sang his praises; while
even Wordsworth could not withhold a tribute to “the British
record long concealed,” where
We read of Spenser's fairy themes,
And those that Milton loved in youthful years;
The sage enchanter Merlin's subtle schemes,
The feats of Arthur and his knightly peers 4.
1 Chronicles of Stephen (Rolls Series), iv, 65.
Artegal and Elidure.


## p. 171 (#191) ############################################

Geoffrey's Fame
171
But Geoffrey has exacted still greater homage from the poets.
Lear and Cymbeline and Sabrina, “virgin daughter of Locrine,"
are names that link his memory for ever with the two supreme
poetical geniuses of England. Here, indeed, is a distinction which
the greatest of the chroniclers might have coveted; and it is enough
to mark the History of the Kings of Britain as the most significant
literary product of the twelfth century.
Geoffrey, however, succeeded in deluding so many honest
chroniclers who followed him that, in modern times, he has been
altogether proscribed from the company of sober historians.
Even before the twelfth century was out, his credit had come
to be gravely questioned. Giraldus Cambrensis, who had him- -
self no mean gift for the artistic manipulation of the legendary
and the marvellous, is one of Geoffrey's severest detractors.
According to Gerald, a certain Welshman named Meilyr was
reported to have an extraordinary familiarity with unclean
spirits, and they never responded to his call in greater numbers
than when Geoffrey's book was placed on his bosom. Gerald,
as is well known, had a strong sense of humour, and, probably
all he means to imply is that Geoffrey had over-reached himself
in the art of romance. It is otherwise with William of Newburgh.
He regarded Geoffrey as one who had deliberately and flagrantly
profaned the sacred functions of the historian, and devotes the
entire preface of his chronicle to a vehement denunciation of
Geoffrey's motives and to an exposure of his fabrications.
This severe preface has contributed as much as anything to the
high repute in which William of Newburgh is held as a critical his-
torian. Freeman's description of him as “the father of historical
criticism? ” has often been repeated, but scarcely seems deserved when
we compare his actual achievement with that of his greater namesake
of Malmesbury. For William of Newburgh belongs to that group
of modest chroniclers who are content with treating a limited period,
and describe, mainly, the events of their own lifetime. His History
extends from the Conquest to the year 1198; but the narrative
down to the time of Stephen is so compressed as to make the work,
in effect, an account of the reigns of Stephen and Henry II. For
the latter reign there are few better authorities. His work, as a
whole, forms the best single commentary upon the history of the
twelfth century left us by any writer of his day. For William's
chronicle is no mere bare record of events, but an ordered and
critical presentment of the affairs of his time, with due regard to
* Contemporary Review, Vol. XXXIII (1878), p. 216.
VOUS.


## p. 172 (#192) ############################################

172
Latin Chroniclers
their cause and effect. His remoteness from the court and the
metropolis doubtless enabled William of Newburgh to maintain
an attitude of impartiality impossible to chroniclers thrown
into close contact with the greater actors in the drama of con-
temporary events. At any rate, the work of no twelfth-century
chronicler is marked by a more transparent honesty of purpose,
by greater independence of judgment, or by more acute estimates
of men and their motives. William writes in a clear, straight-
forward style; less studious of artistic effect and literary ornament
than his namesake of Malmesbury, he is inspired by a similar, if
not a greater, desire for accuracy. Like his predecessor, he venerates
the memory and the example of Bede, “whose wisdom and integrity
none can doubt ”; and, following that historian's pious motives, he
hopes that his own labours will form some “contribution, however
scanty, to the treasure-house of the Lord. ”
William of Newburgh was a contemporary of the brilliant
galaxy of scholars who flourished in the full light of the encourage-
ment given to learning and letters at the court of Henry II. But,
living in the comparative seclusion of his monastery, he is not quite
of them, and may be regarded rather as a continuator of the
honourable traditions of the historical school of the north. In
particular, he is one of the most trustworthy authorities for a
period of some twenty years, after the turn of the twelfth century,
of which we have scarcely any contemporary record'. For the
English history of the years 1153–4, and especially for the
foreign policy of the early years of Henry II's reign, our best
contemporary authority is a chronicler who lived and wrote in
Normandy, Robert de Monte or, as he calls himself, Robert of
Torigni. He compiled a comprehensive record of events from
the close of the first Christian century down to 1186, and is in-
debted for much of his account of purely English affairs to Eadmer
and Henry of Huntingdon. The troubles of king Stephen's reign
appear to have had a paralysing effect upon the chroniclers in
England; and it is not until the height of Henry Il's power that
they begin once more to give us a full and vivid account of con-
temporary affairs. The historian's art flourished anew in the
warmth of the general enthusiasm for learning which made the
England of Henry's time the paradise of scholars. In palace and
abbey, in the full glare and bustle of the court no less than in the
bookish atmosphere of the monastic cell, men were infected by a
common ardour of intellectual enterprise and literary achievement.
* See Stubbs, Preface to Roger of Hoveden, Rolls Series, p. sh.


## p. 173 (#193) ############################################

Benedict of Peterborough 173
In close touch with the court were men like Gilbert Foliot and
Richard Fitz-Neale; Ralph of Diceto, who was dean of St Paul's
during Fitz-Neale's episcopate, and Ranulf de Glanville, whose
name is associated with one of the earliest and most valuable
treatises on the laws and customs of England, though the real
author of it was, more probably, his nephew, Hubert Walter ;
Giraldus Cambrensis and Walter Map, Gervase of Tilbury and
Peter of Blois. In remoter haunts, though having frequent oppor-
tunities of intercourse with men of action and of affairs, were
Gervase of Canterbury and Nigel Wireker, John of Salisbury and
Richard of Devizes, Benedict of Peterborough and William of
Newburgh and Roger of Hoveden. Altogether, there was in the
country, as Stubbs says, “such a supply of writers and readers as
would be found nowhere else in Europe, except in the University
of Paris itself. ”
Several of these names are of the first importance in the list of
our Latin chroniclers. That of Benedict of Peterborough is
associated with the most authoritative chronicle of the reign of
Henry II, but only (as is now known) on the strength of the fact
that one of the extant MSS of the work was transcribed under
his order. Benedict, however, was by no means a mere director
of other men's literary labours, for he is known to have either
written or edited accounts of the passion and the miracles of Becket.
The author of the chronicle long ascribed to him still remains
undiscovered. Begun about 1172, the work bears in the main
all the marks of a contemporary narrative, and includes several
important documents. Stubbs holds that the internal evidence is
sufficient to prove not only that the chronicle was not by Benedict,
but that it is not the work of a monastic writer at all.
It has not even in its most disjointed portion the disorderly form, the dis-
proportionate details, the unimportant memoranda, the generally undigested
character, of monastic annals. It displays no propension to monastic institu-
tions, or to those principles and persons that were especially favoured by
monks. The author did not even trouble himself to compose an original
account of Becket's martyrdom. Whatever positive indications are to be
found point to a member of the king's court rather than to a monk, or even a
secular churchman? .
Stubbs's conjecture that the chronicle may have been the work
of Richard Fitz-Neale, and is a transcript of that writer's lost Trico
lumnis,“ merely altered from its inconvenient tripartite shape,” has
not found much acceptance among scholars. Fitz-Neale, who was
* Preface to edition in Rolls Series, p. lvi.


## p. 174 (#194) ############################################

174
Latin Chroniclers
treasurer of England from 1168—98, and bishop of London from
1189—98, is best known as the author of the famous Dialogus de
Scaccario, or Dialogue of the Exchequer. That work, written in
the form of a dialogue, in two books, between master and pupil, is
one of the chief sources of our knowledge of constitutional prin-
ciples and practice in England before the Great Charter; it "stands
out as an unique book in the history of medieval England, perhaps
in the history of medieval Europe? . ”
The chronicle ascribed to Benedict forms, with some slight
alterations and additions, one of the most substantial portions
of the ambitious historical compilation attempted by Roger of
Hoveden. The chroniclers generally had little scruple about thus
transcribing, and embodying in their own works, the writings of
their predecessors; it was, indeed, held among the monastic
annalists to be a perfectly legitimate, not to say a necessary,
practice. Thus, Matthew Paris, the greatest monastic historian
of the thirteenth century, makes the compilations of two of his
predecessors at St Albans the nucleus of those parts of his
Chronica Majora which deal with events before his own time.
Roger of Hoveden not only borrowed the so-called Benedict
chronicle almost in its entirety, but made use of everything that
he could find from the hands of the northern chroniclers. In the
first part of his work, extending from 732 to 1148, he copies from
a Durham compilation, based upon the narratives of Simeon and
of Henry of Huntingdon, which is known as Historia post Bedam.
His main source from 1148 down to 1169 is the chronicle of Melrose.
The third part, extending to the year 1192, is substantially
“Benedict of Peterborough," illustrated by several new docu-
ments; the final portion, ending with the year 1201, is Roger's
own work. Roger was a man of affairs, and had exceptional
opportunities for watching the development of public events. He
was at one time in attendance upon Henry II in France; he sub-
sequently held public office, as justice itinerant of the forests. It
is disappointing, however, to find in Roger's Chronicle few of the
intimate personal revelations which might be expected in the narra-
tive of one who had such opportunities of intercourse with the
leading men of his time. Roger makes up to some extent for this
reticence by the compass of his narrative; for the later portions of
his chronicle include not only a survey of English affairs during
the reigns of Henry II and Richard I, but a fairly comprehensive
history of Europe during the same period.
· Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, Vol. I, 2nd ed. p. 161.


## p. 175 (#195) ############################################

Ralph of Diceto
175
“Well illustrated as the reigns of Henry II and Richard are,”
says Stubbs”, “one side of their character would be imperfectly
known, and some of the crises of their policies would be almost inex-
plicable,” without Ralph of Diceto. Ralph was another chronicler
whose public life and position brought him into close contact with
the great men of his time, and gave him access to the best sources of
information. He was for many years archdeacon of Middlesex, and,
from the year 1180 until his death, about 1202, held the deanery of
St Paul's. “Diceto" appears to have been an artificial Latin name
adopted by Ralph to signify his association with some place,
probably French, which had no proper Latin name of its own.
His chief work is entitled Imagines Historiarum, or Outlines
of Histories, extending from the year 1148 down to 1202. Robert
de Monte's chronicle forms the basis of his narrative down to
1172; from that year begin his own original memoranda, which
are of especial value as contemporary records from 1183 onwards.
Ralph is one of the most sober and straightforward of the
chroniclers, and is little given to gossip or rhetorical decoration.
His work is somewhat deficient in orderly arrangement, and its
chronology is not always to be relied upon. Ralph, however,
had much of the insight of the historian who seeks to analyse
and to account for, as well as to record, public events and move-
ments, and he was a shrewd judge of character and motive. His
chronicle is illustrated by many important contemporary documents,
to which his position gave him special means of access.
Of several of the other chroniclers who wrote during the latter
part of the twelfth, and the opening years of the thirteenth, century,
only a passing mention need be made. Gervase of Canterbury, who
died about 1210, is chiefly remembered as an ecclesiastical historian,
and as one of the standard authorities on the contemporary history
of the see to which he belonged. One of his works, entitled Gesta
Regum, which is of some value as illustrating the reign of John,
perpetuates the Brutus legend to which Geoffrey of Monmouth
had given a startling currency. A more important authority for
king John's reign is Ralph, abbot of the Cistercian abbey of
Coggeshall, whose Chronicon Anglicanum (1066—1223) contains,
among other things, a full and well-informed account of
Richard I's crusade. That crusade has been described by several
chroniclers, but by none more graphically than by a monkish
writer whose History of King Richard I is one of the briefest
of the many contemporary narratives penned in the twelfth
1 Preface to Vol. of edition of Ralph de Diceto in Rolls Series,


## p. 176 (#196) ############################################

176
Latin Chroniclers
century. Its author, Richard of Devizes, has, however, stamped
upon his modest essay in history the impress of a personality
which is altogether absent from many more ambitious productions.
His work has a real literary interest, on account both of the
author's fondness for classical quotations and rhetorical ornament
and of the vivid and picturesque force of his narrative. In a
flowery letter of dedication, addressed to Robert, prior of the
church of Winchester, Richard states that he has deliberately
chosen a limited period for himself, leaving a more comprehensive
survey of events to those "who produce greater works. " "My
narrative," he says, “is for the living"; and he writes with a
dramatic instinct and an eye to pictorial effect not unworthy of
a modern journalist. No chronicle gives us a more vivid picture
of the general social condition of England in Coeur de Lion's time,
or of the pageant of events in which the king took paramount part.
The persecutions of the Jews, in particular, are described with a
terrible faithfulness which reflects the author's own avowed hatred
of the race.
Social life in England at the end of the twelfth century, and
especially the internal life and economy of the monasteries, are
portrayed with intimate knowledge in the celebrated chronicle of
Jocelin of Brakelond. Jocelin has had the good fortune, denied to
the more ambitious chroniclers of great affairs of state, to engage
the attention of a brilliant modern writer, and will continue to
be known through Carlyle's Past and Present to thousands of
readers who will never have the curiosity to read his actual
Latin record. Quite apart, however, from the adventitious im-
portance it has thus gained, Jocelin's account of the deeds of
Abbot Sampson and his community at St Edmundsbury is of unique
historical value for the light it throws upon the organisation of
monastic institutions and of their relations to the social and
industrial life of the common people.
The life and habits of a different section of society have been
illustrated, in an almost equally vivid way, by several of the
scholars who flourished in and around the court of Henry II.
John of Salisbury and Peter of Blois, Gervase of Tilbury
and Nigel Wireker, and, above all, Walter Map and Gerald of
Wales, have left behind them documents which bear, in some
respects, even more of the very “form and pressure” of the time
than the chronicles themselves. The Policraticus of John of
Salisbury, the letters of Peter of Blois, the Otia Imperialia of
Gervase and the poems of Nigel Wireker, throw a flood of light


## p. 177 (#197) ############################################

Giraldus and Map
177
upon the studies and the pastimes, the intrigues and the scandals,
the humours and the passions of those who dwelt in the high
places of both state and church. Of all these writers none
has contrived to blend information and entertainment more
successfully than Giraldus Cambrensis. A scholar trained
at Paris, an insatiably curious student of men and books and
every form of odd lore, a fighter and an intriguer to his
finger-tips, an inveterate gossip, yet a man capable of high
ideals and far-reaching schemes of public policy, the intimate
friend of kings and statesmen, popes and prelates, yet withal
a passionate lover of his own native little Wales-Gerald is
one of the most romantic figures in all medieval literature.
The most stirring episode in his life was the struggle in which
he engaged, "for the honour of Wales? "; and he is still deservedly
beloved among his countrymen as the devoted champion of one
of the most creditable of lost causes and impossible loyalties,
But his enduring title to fame rests upon the writings which,
alike for brilliancy of style and for variety of interest, remain
unsurpassed among the Anglo-Norman literature of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries.
A greater renown, however, in literary history generally has
been enjoyed by Gerald's friend, and, probably, fellow-countryman,
Walter Map? Were it possible to prove to demonstration Map's
authorship of the great Arthurian romances commonly associated
with his name, there could be no question about his claim to
rank as the greatest literary genius who appeared in England
before Chaucer. But the claim made on behalf of Map to
the authorship of these imaginative works rests on very slender
evidence. Even the authenticity of his equally celebrated
Goliardic poems is open to grave question. The De Nugis -
Curialium, or book Of Courtiers' Trifles, is, undoubtedly, his.
It was probably composed by instalments, and forms a sort
of common-place book in which Map seems to have jotted down,
from time to time, both shrewd reflections upon men and things,
and pleasant anecdotes to divert the vacant mind. Of the strictly
historical portions of the work, the most valuable are the accounts, in
the first book, of some of the heretical sects which had sprung up in
the twelfth century, and the reflections, which take up the whole of
the fifth book, upon the character and achievements of the Anglo-
Norman kings. The fourth book includes, in company with some
lively tales, the celebrated letter, well known to the Wife of Bath's
fifth husband, from Valerius to Rufinus, upon the folly of marrying
1 Op. (Rolle Series), 1,129. See also post, chap. 2, p. 196. See post, chap. 2, pp. 188 ff.
E. L. I. CH. IX.
12


## p. 178 (#198) ############################################

178
Latin Chroniclers
a wife. The whole work is a medley of such diverse and curious
ingredients—satire, gossip, fairy-lore, folk-tales and snatches of
serious history—as to make us easily believe that its author was,
as Gerald hints, one of the most versatile and witty talkers in
the court circles of that eager and inquisitive age.
The thirteenth century is, emphatically, the golden age of the
monastic historians. At their head stands Matthew Paris, the
greatest of all our medieval chroniclers; but his work only repre-
sents the crowning literary achievement of an enthusiasm and an
industry that inspired every considerable monastery in the land.
The apnals, most of them nameless, of Burton, of Winchester,
of Waverley, of Dunstable, of Osney, of Worcester-all testify to
the assiduity of monkish scribes in compiling, revising and adding
to the stores of historical material accumulated in their respective
houses. Invaluable, however, as these chronicles are to the student
of political and social history, they possess little interest as
literature.
But, at the powerful monastery of St Albans, there arose
a school of historians as brilliant as that which had, in the
north, closed with Roger of Hoveden. This school produced in
Matthew Paris a writer who, both in his conception of the
historian's art and in the force and picturesqueness of his
style, surpasses all the chroniclers of the twelfth century.
The
historians of St Albans possessed exceptional advantages. The
wealth of the abbey, its accommodation and equipment as an
ideal home of learning, its position on Watling Street and its
proximity to the capital, marked it out as the chief centre of
monastic culture in the thirteenth century; and its inmates
kept up a constant intercourse with the great men of the day
as they passed through it on their way to and from London and
the provinces. Nowhere else, perhaps, in the kingdom could
a historian of contemporary events pursue his task at that
time under more favourable conditions. Moreover, in no other
abbey does the writing of history appear to have been so care-
fully organised as at St Albans. Abbot Simon, who died in
1183, established in the monastery a regular office of historio-
grapher. The first occupant of this office whose complete work
has come down to us was Roger of Wendover; but his chronicle
is based upon materials of which an ample wealth already
existed in the abbey. The actual nucleus of the early part
of Roger's Flowers of History is supposed to have been the
compilation of John de Cella, who was abbot of St Albans from


## p. 179 (#199) ############################################

Matthew Paris
179
1195 to 1214. John's work extended down to the year 1188, and
was revised and continued by Roger down to 1235, the year before
his death. Roger claims in his preface to have selected “from
the books of catholic writers worthy of credit, just as flowers of
various colours are gathered from various fields. ” Hence he called
his work Flores Historiarum-a title appropriated in the four-
teenth century to a long compilation by various hands. Begun at
St Albans, and completed at Westminster, it was based upon the
Chronicle of Matthew Paris and continued to the year 1326.
The work was long ascribed to one Matthew of Westminster,
but it is now known that no actual chronicler of that name ever
existed. Roger of Wendover's work is, however, now valued not
so much for what he culled from previous writers as for its full
and lively narrative of contemporary events, from 1216 to 1235.
Although in accuracy, in range and in subtlety and shrewdness
of insight he falls far short of his great successor as historiographer
of St Albans, Roger largely anticipates him in the fearless candour
of his personal and moral judgments.
Matthew Paris became historiographer of St Albans upon the
death of Roger of Wendover in 1236, and proceeded in his famous
Chronica Majora to revise and continue the work of his predecessor.
Matthew Paris's own narrative is an extraordinarily comprehensive
and masterly survey of both English and continental history during
almost an entire quarter of a century. We know little of the
details of the historian's own life. He became a monk of St Albans
in 1217, and tradition ascribes to him not only a high repute for
scholarship, but the possession of varied gifts as an artist. The
most notable incident in his career was his employment by the
pope, in 1248, on a mission of reform to the Benedictine monks
of Holm, in Norway, which kept him away from England for some
eighteen months. He lived, throughout, in close intimacy with
the court, and, notwithstanding his plain-spokenness, enjoyed a
share of royal favour. He died in 1259. Courtier and scholar,
monk and man of the world, Matthew Paris was, both by training
and position, exceptionally well qualified to undertake a history of
his own time. Moreover, he had the instinct, the temper and the
judgment of the born historian. He took immense pains in the
collection and the verification of his facts, and appears to have
been in constant communication with a host of correspondents
both at home and abroad. Indeed, his work reads like a
stately journal of contemporary European events, where every-
thing is marshalled in due order and proportion by a master
12–2


## p. 180 (#200) ############################################

18o
Latin Chroniclers
the king
clonate exeathe nobles
editorial hand. Great events and small follow each other in quick,
though orderly, succession, just as in some modern review of the
world's work. Simon de Montfort's preparations for his crusade;
a dispute between the scholars and citizens of Oxford; the death of
Llywelyn, prince of Wales; the pope's dealings with foreign clerks
in England; a great storm; the decapitation of certain robbers;
war in Flanders; the burning of heretics by the Milanese; the
irruption of the Tartars-such is a brief selection of topics taken
at random from a few consecutive pages of Matthew's Chronicle.
But he is much more than a mere recorder of events. He is
a fearless critic and censor of public men and their doings.
A thoroughly patriotic Englishman, he is severe upon all mis-
government, openly rebuking the king, denouncing the greed
and rapacity of the nobles, protesting indignantly against the
extortionate exactions of the pope. He is not, indeed, altogether
free from the professional bias of his class; and in nothing is this
more apparent than in his obviously prejudiced references to the
mendicant orders. But his criticisms as a whole are animated
by a transparently honest fervour of moral indignation and by
a patriotic jealousy for the honour of England. The pope's
emissaries are “harpies and bloodsuckers, plunderers, who do
not merely shear, but skin, the sheep. " For his complacent
acquiescence in the deeds of the papal legates the king is de-
nounced as having become to the clergy “as it were the stalk of
a reed-on which those who lean in confidence are wounded by
the fragments. ” The king's own extortionate demands for money
from the clergy are no less boldly condemned, while his foolishness
and extravagance are constantly censured. These outspoken anim-
adversions did not, however, blind Henry to Matthew's skill as
a writer, and the chronicler relates how, during the celebration of
the feast of Edward the Confessor, in 1247, the sovereign himself
bade him take a seat near the throne and write a full account of
the proceedings, so that the facts might stand accurately recorded
for ever. Matthew was, indeed, a ready and a picturesque writer.
Though frequently prolix and rhetorical, he is never tedious or
irrelevant. His narrative, as a rule, is wonderfully direct, clear
and nervous, while his instinct for order and literary effect is such
as to give to his Chronicle, as a whole, a unity and a sustained
interest which belong to the work of no other English medieval
historian.
Matthew Paris quite overshadows every other chronicler of
the time of Henry III. But much of the history of Henry's


## p. 181 (#201) ############################################

Minor Chroniclers
181
reign would remain obscure, were Paris's Chronicle not supple-
mented by the monumental work of Henry of Bracton, or Bratton,
on the laws of England. Bracton scarcely belongs to the chroniclers;
but his writings throw sufficient light upon the social conditions
of his time to entitle him to stand side by side with Matthew Paris
as a contributor to the English history of the thirteenth century.
Following in the footsteps of Ranulf de Glanville (or Hubert
Walter), Henry II's great justiciar, Henry of Bracton compiled,
some time between 1250 and 1258, an elaborate treatise on
the laws and customs of England. Bracton was one of the
many ecclesiastics who held high judicial office under Henry III.
He was, in turn, a justice in eyre, a judge of the king's court,
a Devonshire rector and archdeacon of Barnstaple. In addition
to his legal treatise he left behind him a note-book, containing
some two thousand cases taken from the plea rolls of his time,
with comments which “to all appearance came from Bracton's
hand or from Bracton's head'. ” Indebted though he was for the
form and method of his great book to such foreign works as those
of the celebrated Italian lawyer, Azo of Bologna, Bracton's work
is, in substance, thoroughly English, and is a laborious exposition,
illustrated by some hundreds of decisions, of the approved practice
of the king's court in England. Bracton died in 1268, leaving his
work unfinished, although he appears to have been adding to and
annotating it to the very last; but, even as it stands, his treatise
is not only the most authoritative English law-book of his time,
but, in design and matter, "the crown and flower of English
medieval jurisprudence. ” It “both marks and makes a critical
moment in the history of English law, and, therefore, in the essen-
tial history of the English people. ”
The art of the historian proper, however, gradually began to
decline after the death of Matthew Paris. Among the chroniclers
who take us down to the fourteenth century there are few names
worthy of a place in a history of literature. Prominent among
them are Matthew's own followers at St Albans, William Rishanger
and John of Trokelowe; Nicholas Trivet or Trevet, a Dominican
friar, whose works are of considerable historical importance for
the reign of Edward I and of additional literary interest in con-
nection with Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale ; Walter of Heming-
burgh, a canon of the Yorkshire priory of Guisburn, who not
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, ed. 1898, Vol. I, p. 207.
• Ib. p. 206.
• Bracton's Note Book, ed. Maitland, Vol. 1, p. 1.


## p. 182 (#202) ############################################

182
Latin Chroniclers
unworthily continues the work of the northern school; John de
Tayster, or Taxster, a monk of St Edmundsbury, who adds to a
compilation from previous chroniclers what seems to be an
original narrative for the years 1258–65; and Thomas Wykes, a
monk of Osney, whose chronicle extends down to 1289, and is an
authority of the first importance "for the whole history of the
campaign of Lewes and Evesham, and the events immediately
preceding and following them. " But these, and other writers, are
largely subdued to the monastic atmosphere in which they work, and
possess few of the traits of character and style which interest us
in the personality of the greater chroniclers. The impulse of the
revival of learning had been spent, and neither in literary distinction
nor in accuracy and wealth of information are the chroniclers who
wrote during the hundred years after Matthew Paris's death worthy
of comparison with their predecessors of the twelfth and early
thirteenth centuries. The best of them are those who, by their
industry at least, endeavoured down to the end of the fourteenth
century to retain for St Albaus as a historical school the
supreme repute which had been signally established by Matthew
Paris.
* Luard, Annales Monastici, sv (Rolls Series).


## p. 183 (#203) ############################################

CHAPTER X
ENGLISH SCHOLARS OF PARIS AND FRANCISCANS
OF OXFORD
LATIN LITERATURE OF ENGLAND FROM JOHN OF
SALISBURY TO RICHARD OF BURY
THE university of Paris owed its origin to the cathedral school
of Notre-Dame. It was not until the time of William of Cham-
peaux (d. 1121), that this school began to rival the scholastic
fame of Chartres. Early in the thirteenth century the schools of
Paris were connected with three important churches. On the Ile
de la Cité there was the cathedral of Notre-Dame; to the south
of the Seine, on rising ground near the site of the present Pan-
théon, was the collegiate church of Sainte-Geneviève ; and, to the
east of the walls south of the river, the church of Canons Regular
at the abbey of St Victor. The schools of Notre-Dame and
of Sainte-Geneviève were, successively, the scenes of the ever-
memorable lectures of a famous pupil of William of Champeaux,
the eloquent, brilliant, vain, impulsive and self-confident disputant,
Abelard (d. 1142). The fame of his teaching made Paris the resort
of large numbers of scholars, whose presence led to its becoming
the home of the many Masters by whom the university was
ultimately founded. The earliest trace of this university has been
discovered in the passage where Matthew Paris states that his own
preceptor, an abbot of St Albans, had, as a student in Paris, been
admitted into “ the fellowship of the elect Masters ” (c. 1170)? . In
1136, when John of Salisbury went to Paris, the university was
not yet in existence. The first recorded “town and gown” riot,
that of 1200, led to the grant of a charter to the resident body
of Masters; the approximate date of the first statutes, ten years
later, marks the earliest recognition of the university as a legally
constituted corporation, a veritable universitas ; and, about ten
years later still, the Masters of Arts were first organised into
four nations, namely, the French, the Normans, the Picards and
i Gesta Abbatum, 1, 217, ed. 1867.


## p. 184 (#204) ############################################

184
English Scholars of Paris
the English, this last including the Germans and all who came
from the north and the east of Europe. In the thirteenth century
Paris was still the centre of European culture. It is sufficient to
cite as proof a passage from the English encyclopaedist, Bartholo-
mew, who flourished in the middle of that century:
Even as sometime the city of Athens, mother of liberal arts and letters,
nurge of philosophers and fountain of all learning, was the ornament of
Greece; so, in our own day, Paris excelleth in learning and civilisation, not
only France, but also the rest of Europe, and, as the mother of wisdom,
receiveth guests from every part of the world, supplieth all their need and
bringeth all of them beneath her peaceful rule?
The carnival riot of 1229 led to the withdrawal of the resident
Masters and Scholars for two years ; meanwhile, many of them
accepted the invitation of Henry III, and thus reinforced the
rising universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
The first important representative of England in the schools
of Paris was John of Salisbury. He began by becoming a
pupil of Abelard, who had returned to the scene of his early
triumphs, and, at the age of 57, was now lecturing on the hill
of Sainte-Geneviève. That “illustrious and admirable teacher”
was discoursing, as of old, on logic; and “at his feet" John of
Salisbury "acquired the first rudiments of dialectics, greedily
seizing all that fell from his lips. " But his brilliant instructor was
once more opposed, and once more withdrew from Paris; and the
pupil passed into the school of Master Alberic and Robert of
Melun. The first was, “in questions, acute and expansive"; the
second, “in responses, brief and lucid”; and, "if anyone could
have combined the merits of both, he would have been unrivalled
in debate? " Having thus studied logic for two years (1136–8) in
Paris, John of Salisbury spent three years (probably the latter
part of 1138, and a large part of 1139 and 1140) working at
“grammar," or the scholarly study of Latin literature. The place
is not named, but it has, rightly, been identified as the school of
Chartres. In that school the sound and healthy tradition of
Bernard of Chartres was still maintained by his pupils. By John
of Salisbury's time, Bernard had been succeeded as chancellor of the
cathedral school by Gilbert de la Porrée. John of Salisbury learnt
rhetoric from Richard L'Évêque, who was “familiar with almost
every branch of learning, whose knowledge was even greater than
his eloquence, who had more truth than vanity, more virtue than
show. " He had already attended, with less profit, the somewhat
| xv, o. 57.
• Metalogicus, a, 10.
3 Schaarschmidt, Joh. Saresberiensis, p. 22.
4 Metalogicus, loc. cit.


## p. 185 (#205) ############################################

John of Salisbury
185
meagre lectures of Bernard's younger brother, Theodoric, who is
nevertheless described as "a most studious investigator of the
Arts? . " This description was confirmed in 1888, when he was identi-
fied as the author of two large volumes containing a comprehensive
Survey of the Liberal Arts, written in a bold and clear hand, which
may now be seen in the public library of the cathedral town. It
may be added that it was between 1134 and 1150, during the time
when Theodoric was successively "master of the school" and chan-
cellor, that the south doorway of the west front of the cathedral
was adorned with figures of the seven arts, each of them asso-
ciated with the ancient representative of that art, for example,
grammar with Priscian, dialectic with Aristotle and rhetoric with
Cicero.
It was probably early in 1141 that John returned to Paris.
For a short time he attended, not only the lectures of Gilbert, who
had lately ceased to be chancellor of Chartres, but also those of
Robert Pullen, the future cardinal, who had taught at Oxford in
1133. Socially, he saw much of Adam du Petit Pont, who owed
his surname to the school that he had set up on the little bridge
between the Ile de la Cité and the Quartier Latin.
John of Salisbury's student life in Paris, and Chartres, and
again in Paris, probably extended from early in 1136 to late in 1145.
In the spring of 1148, he was present at the council of Rheims.
It was there that he was introduced by Bernard of Clairvaux to
Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, an introduction that had an
important effect on his literary and ecclesiastical career.
About 1150 he returned to England, and resided mainly at
the court of Canterbury, engaged on secretarial and diplomatic
work, which frequently took him to the court of Rome. On the
most celebrated of these visits, during the winter of 1155—6, his
friend the English pope, Hadrian IV, sent Henry II his written
authority to extend his rule over Ireland, together with an emerald
ring in token of his right? . It was probably John of Salisbury's
eager interest in the privileges of the church, while he was still
in the service of Theobald, that led to his soon falling into dis-
favour with the king. During the enforced leisure of 1159, he
revised and completed two of his most extensive works, finishing
Policraticus shortly before, and Metalogicus immediately after,
the death of Hadrian IV (31 August 1159). Both of these were
dedicated to Becket, the warlike chancellor, with whose aid
Henry II was then “fulminating” at the siege of Toulouse. When
i Metalogicus, 1, 5.
16. 11, 42. * Policraticus, VIII, 25.
bishop of Canterbur ecclesiastical career, mainly at


## p. 186 (#206) ############################################

186
English Scholars of Paris
Becket became archbishop in 1162, John of Salisbury entered his
service, and, soon afterwards, composed a Life of archbishop
Anselm with a view to the canonisation which was not conceded
until three centuries later. On the king's return early in 1163,
John of Salisbury found it safest to leave the country, staying for
six or seven years with Peter de la Celle, then abbot of Rheims,
under whose roof he wrote Historia Pontificalis. His exile,
like that of Becket, lasted till late in 1170. On the fatal 29th
of December he was at Canterbury with the archbishop, who
unhappily disregarded the counsels of moderation suggested by
his devoted friend. They entered the cathedral together. In face
of the murderous attack on the archbishop's person, John of Salis-
bury seems to have fled at first, but to have soon returned to the
post of peril. He was probably present at the end. He was
certainly believed by his friend Peter to have been “sprinkled
with the precious blood of the blessed martyr? . "
He immediately urged the inclusion of his master's name in
the calendar of martyrs, wrote his Life, and loyally served his
successor. In 1176, his devotion to the memory of St Thomas and
his friendship with the archbishop of Sens led to John of Salisbury
being made bishop of Chartres. For the last four years of his life
he was the most prominent personage in the place where he had
spent three of the most fruitful years of his youth. In the
necrology of his cathedral church he is described as vir magnae
religionis, totiusque scientiae radiis illustratus.
His Letters give abundant proof of his wide influence as a
sagacious counsellor, an able politician and a zealous ecclesiastic.
They were collected and edited by himself soon after 1170.
Of the 326 comprised in the modern editions, some were
written after the above date, and some by other writers. His
Entheticus, an elegiac poem of no less than 1852 lines, was,
apparently, intended as an introduction to Policraticus, which
is now preceded by a short set of verses bearing the same title as
the above poem. In both of these poems, which are written in a
strong and solid but not particularly elegant style, Becket is
warmly eulogised. He is the king's right hand, the embodiment
of all excellence, the refuge of the oppressed, the light of the
church, the glory of the nation?
Policraticus is a work in eight books. The primary title
has led to its being regarded as a "statesman's handbook. ” The
alternative title, De Nugis Curialium, et Vestigiis Philosophorum,
1 Petrus Cellensis, Ep. 117.
• Migne, P. L. cxcix, 379, 993.


## p. 187 (#207) ############################################

John of Salisbury.
Peter of Blois 187
is suggestive of a satire on the vanities of courtiers, followed by a
set treatise on morals ; but the latter half deals with the prin-
ciples of government, and with matters of philosophy and learning,
interspersed with many digressions. It is, in fact, an “encyclopaedia
of miscellanies," reflecting the cultivated thought of the middle
of the twelfth century. It includes an interesting chapter on
Aristotle', and a satirical account of the scholastic controversies
of the age.
Metalogicus, in four books, contains a defence of the method
and use of logic, vindicating the claims of "grammar," and
pleading for an intelligent study of logic. It includes an analysis
of the whole series of Aristotle's treatises on that subject, being, in
fact, the earliest work in the Middle Ages in which every part of
Organon is turned to account.
Historia Pontificalis is only preserved in an incomplete form
in a single manuscript at Bern; it was not printed until 1868,
and was not identified as the work of John of Salisbury until
1873. It gives an account of the ecclesiastical history of the years
1148 to 1152, but is really as much a satire as a history.
In his attitude towards the ancient classics, John of Salisbury
is far from regarding Aristotle as infallible; he is opposed to
Plato, though he is fully conscious of Plato's greatness. His
favourite author is Cicero, and the purity of his own Latin prose
has been justly praised. Caesar and Tacitus he knows solely by
name; but, in all the literature accessible to him, he is obviously
the best-read scholar of his time. A humanist two centuries in
advance of his age, he is eager to give the widest possible interpre-
tation to “whatsoever things were written aforetime for our
learning"?
In his day the first period in the medieval study of logic was
drawing towards its close, and with the degenerate type of the
professional dialectician he has no sympathy. The earliest of all
the medieval theories on the nature and the functions of the
state is due to John of Salisbury. He is the first of modern
writers on the philosophy of politics, and he founds his own theory
on the records of the Old Testament and on the annals of the
ancient Roman empire.
As a representative of literature and learning, Peter of Blois
is only a pale reflection of John of Salisbury. Born at Blois,
he was probably educated at Tours; he learnt and taught at
Bologua and Paris, settled in England about 1175 as secretary
1 yu, C.
• Cf. prologue to Policraticus, vu.


## p. 188 (#208) ############################################

188
English Scholars of Paris
to Richard of Dover, archbishop of Canterbury, and was suc-
cessively archdeacon of Bath (c. 1177) and of London (C. 1204).
He was repeatedly entrusted with diplomatic duties by Henry II,
and the Letters ascribed to him purport to have been originally
collected at the request of the king. But some of them—for
example, those on the capture of Damietta in 1219—could not
possibly have been written during the life of the king, who died in
1189, or during that of Peter of Blois, who died in or before 1212.
Peter of Blois, on his appointment as secretary to the archbishop
in 1175, obviously made a diligent study of the Letters of John of
Salisbury, who had edited his Letters soon after 1170, while Peter
did not begin to edit his own until 1181, the year after John of
Salisbury's death. Many of Peter's Letters are enriched with
quotations from the classics, but most of those quotations are
borrowed from John of Salisbury. Thus, in a letter to the arch-
deacon of Nantes, we have a list of ancient grammarians, and a
second list of ancient historians? . Both of these are borrowed from
John of Salisbury? ; but, while John of Salisbury modestly refers
his readers to Tacitus, without professing to have read that author,
Peter of Blois pretends to have “frequently looked into” Tacitus,
-an author never mentioned by such well-informed contempo-
raries as Giraldus Cambrensis and Ralph of Diceto. Criticised
for his constant quotations, he defends a manner of composition
which places him “like a dwarf on the shoulders of giants"); but
this very comparison is tacitly taken from John of Salisbury, who
honestly quotes it from Bernard of Chartrest. It is improbable
that Peter was ever an actual pupil of the scholar to whom he
owed much of his borrowed erudition; but, curiously enough,
he held preferment at Chartres, and also at Salisbury. His brief
Sermons call for no comment. Of his few poems the longest deals
with the sacraments in twenty-six chapters of riming hexameters;
while two others, written in a different metre, have for their
themes the life of the clergy, and the conflict between the flesh
and the spirit.
Walter Map', who was born about 1137 on the marches of
Wales, and, accordingly, called England his mother, and the Welsh
his fellow-countrymen, studied in Paris from about 1154 to 1160.
He returned to England before 1162, was frequently one of the
king's itinerant judges and, after holding other preferment, was
appointed archdeacon of Oxford in 1197. About 1209, when
1 Ep. 101.
? Policraticus, viii, 18.
: Ep. 92.