Pollard, A. F., 'The Authorship and Value of the ‘Anonimalle’ Chronicle', The English Historical Review 53 (1938), 577-605

-

Quick Summary

The Anonimalle Chronicle lifted its narrative of the Good Parliament of 1376 and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 from an unknown source

  • The Anonimalle Chronicle provides an eye-witness account of events in England between 1376 and 1381
  • The author of the narrative for 1376-81 had an excellent knowledge of parliamentary procedure
  • The author had an intimate knowledge of London
Key Conclusion

Pollard explores the chronicle of St Mary’s, York – or the ‘Anonimalle’ Chronicle – and its importance as a source for our understanding of the Good Parliament of 1376 and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Pollard concludes that the compiler of the chronicle – a monk of St Mary’s – lifted the narrative of these events entirely from another source that has not survived, possibly an unknown ‘London Chronicle’ (p. 577). Pollard focuses on exploring the authorship of this unknown source. The historical importance of the Anonimalle Chronicle for the period 1376-81 is found in its unparalleled detail of parliamentary debates, combined with the fact that the author was an eye-witness to many of the events that he described.

Content Overview

Pollard suggests that a clerk of parliament named John Scardeburgh may have been the author of Anonimalle Chronicle’s narrative for the period 1376-8. Ultimately, however, he concludes that Scardeburgh’s authorship is ‘only a possibility’ (p. 585). Whoever the author was, it is clear that he had an excellent knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Indeed, Pollard observes that the ‘peculiar property’ of the chronicle is its ‘unique information on parliamentary affairs’ (p. 587). The Anonimalle Chronicle provides important information about the discussion and debate that took place among the commons. This is significant because the official record of parliament – the parliament rolls – is usually restricted to reporting what was said in parliament after such discussions among the commons had already taken place.

Further Findings

The author of the Anonimalle Chronicle’s was evidently an eye-witness for many of the events that he recounted during the period 1376-81. Pollard argues that the account of these years was probably completed by 1382, with the narrative being more ‘secular and realistic’ than that provided in another important source – the chronicle of Thomas Walsingham, monk of St Albans (p. 598). Moreover, the Anonimalle Chronicle is particularly important for our understanding of the Peasants’ Revolt, because the author’s ‘vivid and picturesque’ (p. 595) narrative was written with an ‘intimate knowledge’ of London’s topography, as well as familiarity with the personnel of its local and national government (p. 586).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J...
Read more