* Wendover is the alleged author of the history which goes under the name of Matthew Paris as far as the year 1234. One copy only of the chronicle so attributed is preserved, viz. in the Douce collection at Oxford, and will shortly be published under the editorial care of the Rev. H. O. Coxe. Another copy was formerly in the Cottonian library (Otho, B. v.), but it unfortunately was destroyed in the fire. We shall afterwards enter more particularly into the subject of the claim of Wendover. The history of Matthew Paris extended to 1259, when it was taken up by Rishanger and continued to 1322. These are termed the great chronicles of St. Alban, by an anonymous writer, in MS. Cotton. Vitell. A. xx. fol. 77, r°. who gives a short abridgment from them.

page v note † It is not, I believe, known when the office of Historiographer Royal was first instituted in this country. Bale (iv. 94) quotes Ponticus Virunnius in an inquiry which bears on the custom of sovereigns having their histories written for the benefit of posterity, and in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of the authors being swayed by the opinions of the reigning monarch. Cf. præf. ad Mat. Par.

page vi note * Vossius de Hist. Lat. p. 790. Cf. Bale, iv. 94, et Pits, 403.

page vi note † St. Alban's was a Benedictine monastery.

page vi note ‡ A fac-simile of this curious note, together with a specimen from the chronicle itself, will be found at the commencement of the volume. See also Casley's Catalogue of the Royal Library, p. 230

page vi note § His words are, “Claruit anno a Christi Jesu natalitio 1312, annos ætatis habens 62, in monachatu vero 41, sub prædicto rege Edwardo secundo, in suo tandem cœnobio sepultus.”—Edit. Basil. 1557, p. 377

page vii note * This statement is followed by Newconie, in his History of St. Alban's, p. 173, probably on the authority of Tanner, though not any is cited.

page vii note † Walsingham seems to say that the chronicles of Rishanger were at St. Alban's in his time:—“Cætera qui voluerit videre plenius, in chronicis Wilhelmi Risanger apud Sanctum Albanum latius poterit reperire, ubi recordatum regis habetur de omnibus memoratis.”—Edit. 1603, p. 116. It may be as well to observe that the MS. Arund. Coll. Arm. N°. 7, p. 121, reads plenius instead of latius, which is the only variation from the printed edition that the MSS. afford. Cf. MS. Bib. Reg. 13 E. IX. fol. 214, r°, α.

page vii note ‡ I may observe that all these are mentioned by Bale, though with several errors. His list is, as usual, copied by Pits; and the mistakes of both are left uncorrected by Tanner.

page viii note * De Scriptoribus, 403 (458).

page ix note * Trokelowe's chronicle is thus entitled in the MS. “Incipiunt annales regis Edwardi filii Edwardi filii Henrici Tercii,”—fol. 192. r°, α; and this may have misled Bale to consider the chronicle as belonging to the time of Edward I. To reconcile the dates, he has printed the incipit a s follows:—“Anno Domini M. ccc, vij. nonas Julii.” Cf. Tanner, p. 634.

page ix note † “Ad sua tempora.”—Vossius de Hist. p. 790. Brian Twyne, with no reason, appears to doubt the authenticity of this work; see De antiquitate Acad. Oxon. apologia, p. 166.

page x note * Tyrrell (Hist. ii. 1017) blames Rishanger for his incorrect dates, but the blame attaches itself properly to his editor; for in most MSS. of this work the dates are correctly given.

page x note † Numerous copies are in MS. It may be sufficient to refer to MS. Bib. Reg. 14 C. I.; MS. C.C.C. C. 292; and MS. Cotton. Nero, E. v; which last is thus entitled,— “Origo et processus gentis Scotorum, ac de dominio et superioritate quæ ex antiquissimis temporibus et a primævo habuerunt incliti reges Angliæ super regnum illud; ita quod ex eorum prerogativa illud sæpius ipsorum fidelibus, prout placuit, libere contulerunt.”—fol. 191, r°, α. The place whence this letter is dated is given “Kemeseye” in both editions of the Fœdera; and Tyrrell is puzzled about this name (iii. 148); but perhaps it should be “Rameseye,” as in MS. Addit. 10,099, fol. 233, v°. Toward the close of the year 1300, Edward sent writs to the abbats of several monasteries, “ut diligenter scrutarentur cronica sua, et omnia gesta reges Anglorum et Scotorum tangentia.” MS. Claud. D. vi. fol. 179, r°, β cf. Nicolas's Synopsis, p. 783. In MS. Claud. D. vi., are given the excerpta “de cronicis sancti Albani,” which form a constituent part of the King's letter. The writ which was sent to the abbat of St. Alban's is copied in the same MS. fol. 179, r°, α. Cf. MS7 Cotton. Claud. A. xii. fol. 148, r°.

page xi note * MS. Claud. D. vi. Cf. Tyrrell, iii. 142.

page xii note * It is stated by some that he was drawn, hanged, embowelled while still alive, and quartered. This was the common punishment of traitors at that time, although from the above it would seem that in Wallace's case it was not so severe. See, however, Keightley's History of England, vol. i. p. 488, where will be found some useful and sensible observations on the execution of Wallace.

page xii note † Cf. MS. Bib. Reg. 14 C. I.

page xiii note * Measuring 12⅔ inches by 8½.

page xiii note † In MS. Bibl. Reg. 14 C. I., the first eleven leaves are ornamented with three perpendicular bands of triple colours on each page. In the other manuscript, we find ff. 1–96 and ff. 115–191, distinguished in the same manner. Moreover, the remarkable biographical notice of Rishanger, already copied in p. vi. has been evidently cut off from the first page of the manuscript in Claud. D. vi. from which the present work has been printed.

page xiv note * Collectanea, vol. iii. p. 163.

page xiv note † Joscelin (Catal, Hist. p. 289) mentions an imperfect copy of Rishanger's work in the possession of the archbishop of Canterbury. This MS. is probably in Corpus Christi College,—N°. 348.

page xv note * It is well known that there is very little original matter in the large chronicle of Walsingharn; and as he has taken plentifully from Rishanger, and as much as he could from Blancford, I think that it is a fair conjecture that a share of the writings of the other two may be preserved in the same compilation.

page xv note † It must be remarked too that Walsingham, Chron. p. 118, mentions the MS. chronicle of Blancford, while he does not notice Trokelowe's chronicle at all.

page xvi note * The author of a MS. note in the copy of Paris's history, MS. Cotton. Nero, D. v. fol. 1, r°, was probably the earliest writer who started the conjecture of that chronicler's plagiarism, Hanbury, who compiled a catalogue of the Cottonian library in 1706, adds the following note to the account of the MS. of Wendover,—“Transcripsit fere totum Mattheus Paris, nonnulla tamen addens, a morte Eduardi Confessoris incipiens.”—MS. Sloan. 4996, p. 73, α. Hanbury says that the MS. contained ff. 465.

page xvii note * In MS. Sloan. 1301, fol. 177–184, are some excerpta “ex cronico Rogeri Wendover quem doctor Matheus Carew tenuit, mense Martii 1585.” That Carew's MS. was the same which is now in the Douce collection, there can scarcely be any reasonable doubt, for the transcriber, at fol, 181, v°, in copying the two lines of poetry which occur at the end of the chronicle, not understanding the word “tenuit” as written in the manuscript, has made a kind of fac-simile of the MS. contraction; and this corresponds with that in the Douce manuscript. The Cottonian MS. was purchased of “Mr. Vincent,” as we learn from the original catalogue of the library made in 1621, MS. Harl. 6018, where it is placed under the number 165. Tanner mentions a copy of Wendover formerly belonging to Sir Christopher Heydon. Wendover died on 6th May 1236. See also MS. Bib. Bodl. Collect. James, 28, fol. 121; and MS. Laud, 572.

page xviii note * We should naturally look to Joscelin for some notice of Wendover,—“ Rogeri Windori chronicon mentionem facit catalogus quidam vetustissimus.”—Catal. Hist. p. 286. Whatever his chronicle was, it had no doubt been considered quite superseded by Paris, and the utmost stretch of probability will not permit us to conjecture that, if the latter had been a plagiarist to any great extent, it would have been left unnoticed by his contemporaries. Paris is called “incomparabilis cronographus, et pictor peroptimus,” MS. Cotton. Nero, D. vii. fol. 50, v°, and all the writers of the monastery speak of him as the first historian of that age.

page xix note * Chronicon, p. 2.

page xix note † This MS. is for the most part written in double columns. I may here remark that, in distinguishing the different sides of the same leaf of a foliated manuscript, I use the continental notation, r°, and v°; but in distinguishing the different columns of the same page, I have ventured to introduce the Greek letters, α, β, γ, &c.The advantage and neatness of this plan will be at once perceived, for it will prevent the possibility of mistaking the attributes of a column with the sides of a leaf as denoted by the old method.

page xx note * Casley's Appendix to the Cottonian Catalogue, p. 315. He calls this MS. a “burnt lump.” The leaves were separated and made available to readers about sixteen years ago, but no notice of the repair is indicated in the catalogues in the Reading Room.

page xx note † Catalogue of the MSS. in the Cottonian Library, p. 369.

page xx note ‡ Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum bibliothecæ Cottonianæ, fol. Oxon. 1696, p. 76. The tract is thus entitled,—“Narratio dissensionum inter R. Henricum iii. et proceres, tarn prosa quam versibus rhythmicis.”

page xxi note * He refers to Matthew Paris for the previous history to 1258:— “cujus (i. e. Henrici) usque ad xlij. annum regni sui, si quis scire gesta voluerit, magistri Mathiæ monachi de sancto Albano cronica digesta requirat; ibi qualiter castrum Bedfordiæ expugnaverit, qualiter sanctus Edmundus archiepiscopus exulavit, qualiter duxerit, et multa alia Angliam suis temporibus contingencia, diligens lector poterit investigare.”—MS. Cotton. Otho, D. viii. Frag. fol. 214, v°, β.

page xxi note † Monasticon, vol. ii. p. 549.

page xxi note ‡ I ought perhaps to remark, that it is on this initial letter alone that I have grounded my assertion that the author addresses himself to Hugh de Solgrave. That the writer was a monk of Ramsey, and that Solgrave is the only abbat of the monastery about that period whose name commences with the letter H. are proofs sufficient.

page xxii note * In Ayscough's Catalogue of the MSS. in Tenison's library in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, MS. Addit. 5017*, p. 7, mention is made of a copy of Matthew Paris's chronicle, with a continuation to the year 1323. On consulting the MS. itself, however, 1 found that it was only a copy of the compilation of Matthew of Westminster to thd year 1307, and a continuation by another hand to the year 1320; which last has the following title:—“Incipiunt gesta temporum Edwardi regis secundi a conquestu, filii regis Edwardi primi a conquestu, qui fuit sextus eorum regum qui a comitibus Andegavensibus duxerunt originem secundum lineam masculinam.”—fol. 6, (v°, β, a fin.) This MS. commences ακεφ. in the history of the year 1058, and is much abridged in the latter part. On fol. 3, (r°, α, a fin.) some one has written, “obiit Rishanger anno 1312,” but this is in a hand of the seventeenth century. It may be as well to remark that Leland does not mention Rishanger at all, which is an additional reason for presuming that the MSS. of his works were not at St. Alban's at the time of his visit to that monastery.

page xxiii note * View of the Life and Reign of Henry the Third, 12mo. Lond. 1658. Very slightly indeed has Cotton referred to our chronicle, but sufficiently to show that he had consulted it. Cotton finished this work on the 29th April, 1614 (MS. Sloan. 3073, fol. 84, r°), and when the state of historical research at that period is considered, coupled with his expressed intention of compiling a mere sketch, it cannot be expected that he should have made any extensive use of minute historical facts. His little work was, however, exceedingly popular, and passed through several editions; there are also numerous MS. copies of it.

page xxvi note * Mackintosh's History of England, vol. i. p. 238.

page xxvi note † “Honour and affection to the memory of that great man! Mysterious providence, indeed, permitted rampant tyranny to glut its eyes with the spectacle of his mangled limbs; and worse—the poisonous breath of historic slander has for centuries infected his name: revolution after revolution has triumphantly reasserted the principles for which he laboured, fought, and fell; yet without reversing the calumnious attainder. But, on our historical, as on our political hemisphere, a new dawn is arising: and among the darkened memories which the coming day shall gild with genial and grateful beams, few shall shine more fairly than that of De Montfort.”— London and Westminster Review, vol. ix. p. 490–1.

page xxvii note * Chronicon de Mailros, p. 228.

page xxvii note † So in Rot. Pat. 17 Edw. II., we find a writ “de inquifendo de illis qui fatso finxernnt miracula fieri circa corpora Henrici de Monteforti et Henrici de “Wellington, rebellium nuper suspensorum.”

page xxviii note † There are also some miracles of Montfort related in the Chronicle of Mailros, p. 232–239. These are, however, altogether different from those which we have here printed. There is mention made, p. 233, of an “editiuncula de bello Lawensi facta,” which may possibly allude to the curious poem printed in Wright's Political Songs.

page xxix note * “De quo fama Celebris quod multis post obitum radiaverit miraculis, quæ propter metum regium non prodeunt in publicum.”— Chronicon Eveshamise, MS. Laud. 529, Bern. 1510, fol. 64, r°. Cf. Chron. Petroburgh. MS. Cotton. Claud. A. v. fol. 35, v°, α.

page xxix note † Spicilegium Luc. Dacher. torn. iii. p. 41.

page xxix note ‡ Rishanger compares Montfort to Thomas à Becket, MS. Cotton. Claud. D. vi. fol. 120, v°, β. William de Shepisheved, in his brief chronicle, thus speaks of Montfort and those who died with him at Evesham:—“qui pro justitia et juramento suo servandum legitime agonizantes migraverunt ad Dominum. Sed non est hic breviter (sicut solito) transeundum de dicto comite, qui pro regni libertatibus sicut gigas fortiter dimicans, cum totum robur exercitus adversariorum suorum eum occupaverat, et requisitus ab eisdem quod se redileret, sic fertur respondisse, ‘Nunquam me reddam canibus et perjuris, sed soli Deo!’ Hiis dictis, totus mactatus hilari vultu reddidit spiritum.”—MS. Cotton. Faust. B. vi. fol. 75, v°. This contradicts the generally received account of Montfort's death, and I am inclined to give credence to it; for he was not a man likely at any time to crave quarter from his enemies, much less at a time when he must have known that a momentary mercy would only have been the means of preserving him for an ignominious death. William de Nangis says that “the whole weight of the battle fell upon the Earl of Leicester, who was an old and shrewd warrior, and stood the shock like a strong tower; but, surrounded by few followers, and overcome by numbers, he fell, and thus terminated an hereditary prowess, rendered famous by many glorious deeds.”—Gesta Sancti Ludovici, p. 373. The destruction of the vanquished at this battle must have been very great, as little means was afforded for escape, and “voe victis” was the cry of the conquerors.

page xxx note * I quote from the MS. Calig. A. xi. in the Cottonian library, and not from Hearne's inaccurate edition.

page xxxi note * According to the Evesham Chronicle, his son Simon was prevented from rendering him any assistance owing to the crowded flight of the fugitives, and that he made “vehementissimum dolorem” when he heard of the death of his father, and of the treatment of his dead body; “sancti tamen viri ejusdem loci monasterii sepelierunt illud cum cæteris corporibus nobilium interfectorum in basilica eorum, minus tamen honorifice propter metum.”—MS. Oxon. Laud. 529, Bern. 1510, fol. 63, v°.

page xxxii note * This MS. is preserved in the archives of the corporation of the city of London, and I am indebted to Edward Tyrrell, Esq. City Remembrancer, for a sight of it. Mr. Hunter, in the Appendix to the last Report of the Record Commissioners, p. 465, has described the contents of the volume from a transcript made by order of the commissioners. This transcript is now preserved in the State Paper Office. There is another transcript in the British Museum, MS. Harl. 690, made in the seventeenth century, and which does not appear to be known to antiquaries. It is an excellent and valuable copy. A partial transcript is also in MS. Cantab. Trin. Coll. inter MSS. Gal. O. x. 3.

page xxxiii note * On the margin of fol. 176 of MS. Cotton. Nero, D. ii., which is a fine copy of the chronicle of Matthew of Westminster, is a very curious drawing of the “butchering” of Montfort's remains. A drawing also of his death, in which he is represented as being slain by Henry himself, is in MS. Cotton. Nero, A. iv. fol. 110, r°. It was Prince Edward, and not Henry, as generally stated, who commanded the monks of Evesham to bury the slain at the battle of Evesham,—MS. Cotton. Titus, A. xiii. fol. 55, v°; MS. Cotton. Nero, A. vi. fol. 26, r°; MS. Bib. Reg. 20 A. XVIII; Chronicon Triveti, p. 200, &c.

page xxxiii note † MS. Bodl. 712, Bern. 2619, fol. 370, r°, α and MS. Bibl. Publ. Cantab. Dd. II. 5. This chronicle will shortly be published by the Berkshire Ashmolean Society.

page xxxiii note ‡ Daniel's Collection of the Historie of England, fol. Lond. 1617, p. 152.

page xxxiv note * “As if the King of Kings would now visibly revenge the King's quarrel!.”—The late Warre parallel'd, by Edward Chamberlain, 4to. Lond. 1660, p. 7.

page xxxv note * Cf. MS. Addit. 5444, fol. 74, v°; MS. Cotton. Cleop. D. ix. fol. 55, r°, α; MS. Digby, 168; MS. Cotton. Domitian. XIII. fol. 55, v°; MS. Addit. 6913, fol. 207, r°; MS. Liber de Antiquis Legibus, fol. 94, v°, β.

page xxxv note † According to the Red Book of the Exchequer, the time of war lasted from April 4th,* 1264, to September 16th, 1265.

page xxxv note ‡ Mackintosh's History of England, vol. i. p. 244. Cf. Chron. Wykes. “Post hæc Eduardus de Londoniensibus et pluribus aliis triumphans, nee fidem nee spem datam pluribus observavit; sed crudelitatibus inserviens, quosdam in prisione vitam finire fecit, et alios exhæredans, terras eorum suis fautoribus pro parte distribuit.”—W. de Nangis, Spicil. Luc. Dacher. torn. iii. p. 41; “Rex ergo, mortuo domino Symone de Monteforti, ad suos et priorem statum suum reversus est.”—MS. Cotton. Cleop. A. i. fol. 191, r°, α.

page xxxvi note * Cf. MS. Harl. 6359; MS. Cart. Antiq. Cotton, xi. 18. Moat of Leicester's own possessions were given to Henry's youngest son, Edmund; Sir Francis Palgrave's Antient Kalendars and Inventories of the Exchequer, vol. i. p. 68.

page xxxvi note † Rotuli Selecti, &c. præf. p. xxxi.

page xxxvii note * Cf. Chron. Petroburg. MS. Cotton. Claud. A. v. fol. 34, v°, α.

page xxxvii note † “Hie fuit devotus Deo et ecclesiæ, et novum opus Westmonasterii inter alia sua facta laudabilia construxit.” —MS. Arundel. 310, fol. 218, v°. Cf. Hentzner's Travels, p. 255; MS. Cart. Antiq. xv. 7, memb. 7, fr.; MS. Harl. 3860, fol. 13, r°, β; MS. Cotton. Otho, D. viii. fol. 214, v°, β.

page xxxvii note ‡ This prince was murdered in the church of St. Sylvester at Viterbo in 1271, by Guy and Simon, two sons of Simon de Montfort, in revenge for the indignant treatment of the body of their father. Gregory X. issued bulls against the murderers on the application of Edward I. The original bull against Simon de Montfort is preserved in the archives of the cathedral of Orvieto. (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Literature, p. 17.) The original bull against Guy de Montfort is in the library of the Vatican, and is copied in the MS. Bibliotheca Vaticana in the State Paper Office; other copies are in MS. Lansd. 397, and MS. Lambeth. 499. See also Excerpta Historica, p. 267; Devon's Issues of the Exchequer, p. 83; Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 264.

page xxxviii note * Rishanger is so in all his writings, and it is difficult to reconcile the knowledge of this fact with Bale's title of Historiographus Regius.

page xxxviii note † MS. Cotton. Vitell. C. viii. See the New General Biographical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 89. There are also some letters to Grosteste, the Queen, the Countess of Leicester, and others. Cf. MS. Digb. 103; MS. Collect. James, 4, p. 65; Lelandi Collectanea.

page xxxix note * See p. 6 of our Chronicle, and notes.

page xxxix note † Thomas Wykes, p. 66.

page xl note * Mackintosh's History of England, vol. i. p. 246.

page xl note † “From hence the commons, to whom days present seem ever worst, commend the foregone ages they never remembered, and condemn the present, though they knew neither the disease thereof, nor the remedie.”—Cotton's View of the Life and Reign of Henry the Third, p. 3.

page xli note * Rishanger (p. 7) relates a curious anecdote of Grosteste's prophecy of the fate of Montfort's eldest son. All his children, as far as history has left us any account, were unfortunate in after life. He had five sons and one daughter; “Icist Symon qui iert en Engleterre, fu conte de Lincestre, et ont espousée le suer Henri roy d'Engleterre, de la quele il ont v. filz—Henri, Symon, Richart, Gui, et Amauri, et une fille.”—Croniques d'Angleterre, MS. Bib. Reg. 16 G. vi. fol. 425, v°, β. Duchesne (Hist. Norman. Script, p. 1092) has given a pedigree of the Montfort family, and Nichols has given another in his History of Leicestershire, vol. i. p. 212. (See also Langley's Desborough Hundred, Lysons's Buckinghamshire under Hitchenden, and Stothard's Monumental Effigies, for the family descended from Richard Wellysbourne de Montfort, said to have been the Earl's youngest son.) It appears to be uncertain when Montfort was made Earl of Leicester, but one chronicle gives the precise day, viz. Feb. 2nd, 1240.—Chron. Hagneb. MS. Cotton. Vespas. B. xi. fol. 22, r°. I am inclined to believe that the year here given is incorrect, although perhaps the day may be right. The Annals of Dunstaple assert that his creation took place in 1231, and Mr. Russell (in Nichols's Leicestershire) shows that he was Earl in 18 Hen. III. Particulars relative to the family may be found in MS. Lansd. 229, and MS. Bib. Publ. Cantab. Gg. ii. 26.