The continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum: some revisionist perspectives *.

OF the numerous chroniclers' accounts of the reign of Richard II one particular narrative provides a unique insight into the King's character and actions during the last years of his reign. Under its account of events in 1398, the continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum describes a rather bizarre scene within the King's chamber that has been consistently cited as indicative of Richard's growing fascination with the theory and practice of royal absolutism. (1)

As well known as it is, and in spite of recent reassessments of the chronicle literature of Richard's reign, the Eulogium remains a rather enigmatic and controversial text. (2) Among the many problems precluding a full understanding of its narrative is the question of the date and manner of its composition. It was at one time thought that the Eulogium represents a composite text, put together well after 1428 from several earlier sources, and therefore not an altogether trustworthy source for the reign of Richard II. In more recent years, however, it has been argued that the Eulogium was written by a single author during the early years of the fourteenth century, that a complete version of its text was in circulation soon after 1413, and that as a consequence, its narrative is highly reliable for the events that it records.

When was the Eulogium composed, how was it composed, and what--if any--indebtedness does its narrative owe other texts? Given its place in Ricardian historiography, and since 'there should be as little disagreement as possible about the admissibility of the evidence upon which are to be founded assessments and reassessments of Richard's personality', (3) a resolution of these problems is long overdue. In order best to accomplish this end, it is necessary to explore in depth both the nature of the Eulogium's text and its relationship to other contemporary chronicles.

It should be noted at the outset that the Eulogium should more properly be referred to as the 'Continuatio Eulogii', since our chronicle is really a continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum, whose text concludes with its coverage of events in 1366. The text of the Continuatio, on the other hand, covers the years 1364 to 1413. The original text of the chronicle has been long lost, and the text as we now have it is extant in only a single manuscript, BL, MS Cotton, Galba E. VII, about which some important critical points must be taken into account.

F. S. Haydon, who edited the Cotton manuscript for the Rolls Series edition of the Continuatio, called attention to the composite nature of the manuscript by pointing out that one part must have been written before 1404, since in its account of events in 1382 Philip the Bold is depicted as still alive, and the Duke died in 1404. On the other hand, in its account of events for the year 1384, an interpolated passage mentions the death of John Wycliffe, along with an accompanying reference to the later exhumation of his corpse, which we know occurred in 1428; therefore the text was compiled at some date after this event. Haydon also pointed out that Galba E. VII is a later copy of the original text, since it 'is written in one hand apparently of the former half of the fifteenth century, and is remarkably free from erasures and interlineations. It is therefore in all probability not the autograph of the author of the Chronicle which it represents.' (4)

The views of Haydon were both endorsed and amplified by C. L. Kingsford, who concurred in the view that the Continuatio 'in its present form is certainly a composite and not an original work'. (5) Kingsford went further and suggested that the completed Continuatio was compiled from two principal component texts: one was a Latin chronicle extending from 1367 to 1401; and the other was a chronicle in either Latin or English that ran from 1402 to 1413. This chronicle was itself compiled from various bits and pieces, including one source that ended in 1405, another (possibly Franciscan text) to 1408, and yet another, a work on papal history that dealt with events from 1407 to 1411. (6) As evidence for the existence of a Latin original ending in 1401, Kingsford called into evidence another, related text, which he named the Southern Chronicle. Just as the Continuatio exists in a late copy (Galba E. VII), the same may be said of the Southern Chronicle, found in BL, MS Additional 11714. From an analysis of the latter text, Kingsford concluded that 'the date of composition cannot have been earlier than 1423, and was perhaps not later than 1426; since the concluding paragraph, which refers to the Parliament of Nov. 1422, does not describe Henry Beaufort as Cardinal, and was apparently written whilst Thomas Beaufort was alive'. (7)

Kingsford observes that proof of the composite nature of the Continuatio is revealed by the fact that both its text and the Southern Chronicle were derived from a shared Latin original. This is confirmed by comparison with the Southern Chronicle, ... that work is from 1367 to 1401 derived clearly from the same source as the Continuation ... the verbal resemblances of the Continuation and the Southern Chronicle seem conclusive as to the existence of a Latin original ending in 1401'. (8) Kingsford then notes that there can be little doubt of this conclusion, since 'the verbal resemblances are so close that in spite of some differences of arrangement there can be no question as to the relationship'. (9)