Croyland Chronicler
Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 05:48:06
Could someone explain why John Morton doesn't seem to be one of the
people suspected of being the Croyland chronicler who sat in the
marshes of Ely telling all those inside scoops about what was going
on in the royal halls of London?
He seems like the most obvious candidate to me. Croyland was in his
bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, he was on the lam at the time, and some
of the stuff the chronicler wrote reminds me, style-wise as well as
in content, of "More's" History of Jing Richard III, which he almost
certainly cribbed from Morton.
Katy
people suspected of being the Croyland chronicler who sat in the
marshes of Ely telling all those inside scoops about what was going
on in the royal halls of London?
He seems like the most obvious candidate to me. Croyland was in his
bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, he was on the lam at the time, and some
of the stuff the chronicler wrote reminds me, style-wise as well as
in content, of "More's" History of Jing Richard III, which he almost
certainly cribbed from Morton.
Katy
Re: Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 09:39:54
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Could someone explain why John Morton doesn't seem to be one of the
> people suspected of being the Croyland chronicler who sat in the
> marshes of Ely telling all those inside scoops about what was going
> on in the royal halls of London?
>
> He seems like the most obvious candidate to me. Croyland was in
his
> bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, he was on the lam at the time, and some
> of the stuff the chronicler wrote reminds me, style-wise as well as
> in content, of "More's" History of Jing Richard III, which he
almost
> certainly cribbed from Morton.
>
> Katy
Michael Hicks actually brought this up at the Bosworth Day. He's gone
through Croyland trying to ascertain the writer's perspective, to get
some clue as to where he was, and how close to events. For once I
agree with his analysis. He concludes that the author was probably in
London throughout Richard's reign, was probably not at the Tower on
13th June, but amongst the councillors meeting at Westminster, and
had no inside knowledge of Buckingham's plans (these are good points -
compare Crowland and More, for instance, on these aspects). He
concludes that "Crowland" did not fight at Bosworth on either side,
and thinks he may have been in Leicester while the battle was fought
as he says that Tudor "came" (rather than went) there after the
battle. Yet it is odd, since Leicester was Richard's muster-point,
that as Hicks admits Crowland knew far more about Tudor's army than
about Richard's.
Hicks does, however, believe that Crowland's perspective of events
was altered after Bosworth by what he freely admits was "Tudor
propaganda" - eg Tudor's central role as pretender during
Buckingham's rebellion - and suspects he had this 'information' from
none other than Margaret Beaufort, who was a sister of Crowland Abbey
and also had property at Merevale (Crowland names Merevale as the
place of the battle).
He didn't say who he thought the author might have been.
I'd also add (I don't recall if Hicks mentioned it), but the author
does write as if he were present at Westminster at the Christmas
celebrations 1484, and saw those dresses.
However, the good news is that the same exercise suggests Morton as
at least a main source, if not the actual author, of
More's 'History'. Could that be why the things ends where it does?
Marie
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Could someone explain why John Morton doesn't seem to be one of the
> people suspected of being the Croyland chronicler who sat in the
> marshes of Ely telling all those inside scoops about what was going
> on in the royal halls of London?
>
> He seems like the most obvious candidate to me. Croyland was in
his
> bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, he was on the lam at the time, and some
> of the stuff the chronicler wrote reminds me, style-wise as well as
> in content, of "More's" History of Jing Richard III, which he
almost
> certainly cribbed from Morton.
>
> Katy
Michael Hicks actually brought this up at the Bosworth Day. He's gone
through Croyland trying to ascertain the writer's perspective, to get
some clue as to where he was, and how close to events. For once I
agree with his analysis. He concludes that the author was probably in
London throughout Richard's reign, was probably not at the Tower on
13th June, but amongst the councillors meeting at Westminster, and
had no inside knowledge of Buckingham's plans (these are good points -
compare Crowland and More, for instance, on these aspects). He
concludes that "Crowland" did not fight at Bosworth on either side,
and thinks he may have been in Leicester while the battle was fought
as he says that Tudor "came" (rather than went) there after the
battle. Yet it is odd, since Leicester was Richard's muster-point,
that as Hicks admits Crowland knew far more about Tudor's army than
about Richard's.
Hicks does, however, believe that Crowland's perspective of events
was altered after Bosworth by what he freely admits was "Tudor
propaganda" - eg Tudor's central role as pretender during
Buckingham's rebellion - and suspects he had this 'information' from
none other than Margaret Beaufort, who was a sister of Crowland Abbey
and also had property at Merevale (Crowland names Merevale as the
place of the battle).
He didn't say who he thought the author might have been.
I'd also add (I don't recall if Hicks mentioned it), but the author
does write as if he were present at Westminster at the Christmas
celebrations 1484, and saw those dresses.
However, the good news is that the same exercise suggests Morton as
at least a main source, if not the actual author, of
More's 'History'. Could that be why the things ends where it does?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 13:18:39
Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he was
elsewhere?
oregonkaty said:
> Could someone explain why John Morton doesn't seem to be one of the
> people suspected of being the Croyland chronicler who sat in the
> marshes of Ely telling all those inside scoops about what was going on
> in the royal halls of London?
>
> He seems like the most obvious candidate to me. Croyland was in his
> bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, he was on the lam at the time, and some of
> the stuff the chronicler wrote reminds me, style-wise as well as in
> content, of "More's" History of Jing Richard III, which he almost
> certainly cribbed from Morton.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)
elsewhere?
oregonkaty said:
> Could someone explain why John Morton doesn't seem to be one of the
> people suspected of being the Croyland chronicler who sat in the
> marshes of Ely telling all those inside scoops about what was going on
> in the royal halls of London?
>
> He seems like the most obvious candidate to me. Croyland was in his
> bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, he was on the lam at the time, and some of
> the stuff the chronicler wrote reminds me, style-wise as well as in
> content, of "More's" History of Jing Richard III, which he almost
> certainly cribbed from Morton.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 15:21:44
--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he
was
> elsewhere?
Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi,
sush as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've
read do not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator (one
or two suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation was
written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
Richard III was originally in Latin.)
I read about an analysis and comparison of Christopher Marlowe's work
with Shakeseare's a while back. It would be interesting to do a
similar one of that portion of the Croyland Chronicle with the first
porrion of the History of R III.
Katy
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he
was
> elsewhere?
Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi,
sush as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've
read do not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator (one
or two suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation was
written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
Richard III was originally in Latin.)
I read about an analysis and comparison of Christopher Marlowe's work
with Shakeseare's a while back. It would be interesting to do a
similar one of that portion of the Croyland Chronicle with the first
porrion of the History of R III.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 17:28:02
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done,
he
> was
> > elsewhere?
>
>
> Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi,
> sush as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've
> read do not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator
(one
> or two suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
>
> The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation
was
> written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
>
> Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
> Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
> vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
> eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
> Richard III was originally in Latin.)
>
> I read about an analysis and comparison of Christopher Marlowe's
work
> with Shakeseare's a while back. It would be interesting to do a
> similar one of that portion of the Croyland Chronicle with the
first
> porrion of the History of R III.
>
> Katy
It was written in Latin. There has been much debate about the
evidence for the author. I'll have to dig out the relevant articles
on this again, but it ends with a marginal note which says:
"This was done and completed at Croyland, in the year of our Lord one
thousand four hundred and eighty-six, in the space of ten days, the
last of which was the last day of the month of april in the said
year."
This dates it to a visit by Bishop Russell (Croyland, though not so
terribly far from Ely, was in the diocese of Lincoln so was not on
Morton's patch). For a long time it was assumed that the whole thing
was written during that 10 day period by either Bishop Russell or one
of his team. The other things the author of the 3rd Cont. lets slip
are that he was a doctor of canon law and had been on an embassy to
Burgundy in 1471: this alone would rule out Morton as he was still a
Lancastrian at that time. However, it has since been questioned
whether all the Second/Third continuation (whichever system you
prefer) was written at this time or not. Another problem is that what
we have is a copy by one of the Abbey monks, using the stranger's
account and interspersing it with sections on the abbey's affairs,
and there is perhaps no telling how the work may have been edited to
integrate it into the Abbey's chronicle.
The rest of the evidence, as in my previous post, is implied by the
slant of the story. It is a case of how close to which events the
writer was, and how close to the centre of government full stop.
Personally, I just don't think Morton fits the perspective. This
person had no idea what went on in the Tower on 13 June 1483 except
that Hastings met his end, but he did know very well that the Council
was split, and that the other members met at Westminster that day.
Was he one of those? He had no idea of the plans that lay behind
Buckingham's Rebellion, still less what was in the duke's mind. Also
I can't see Morton having been so critical of a wheeze like
backdating the reign - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't
his idea in the first place.
I would say the author was in the south, probably around London, when
Buckingham's Rebellion broke. He may have been at Nottingham and
Scarborough with the King in 1484, but that is less certain. It is
very clear that he was at Westminster for Twelfth Night 1484/5. He
does include some things from the perspective of Richard's enemies
during his reign: ie the experience of getting ship to Brittany, and
the journey to Bosworth. However, both are quite vague and were
probably picked up by speaking to these men afterwards. He has
nothing to offer at all on their life in Brittany or France, his
description of the route to Bosworth is pretty vague and he makes no
attempt at all to describe the battle. He definitely writes as though
he was in Leicester during the days afterwards, though.*
I'm not an expert on the Crowland question, and much has been written
on the subject which I haven't read lately. Perhaps looking for the
authorship of Morton behind either Crowland or More is a blind alley
which distracts from the real issue. The interesting thing to me is
that both these works - even Crowland written so soon after Bosworth
apparently by a member of Richard's government, albeit one outside
the charmed circle (not only his lack of inside info, but his envy of
Catesby & Ratcliffe is palpable) - rely so heavily on an inaccurate
reconstruction of events deliberately put out to legitimise the Tudor
usurpation. 'Crowland' may well have got a lot of this from Margaret
Beaufort - he gives us a lot about Lord Stanley prior to Bosworth -
but we know from richard's counter-measures that Tudor's party were
busy spreading this propaganda even before Bosworth. No doubt the
common belief that Richard had murdered his nephews, as well as his
wife, can be put down to this. So people's minds had been well
prepared to accept all these rumours as true when God gave Tudor the
victory.
*To go back further, David Baldwin notes that Crowland writes as
though present on the French Expedition.
The other reason I suspect the author was not as senior as either
Morton or Russell is that he remained completely anonymous to the
abbey - the monk who took up the story next had no idea who he was.
Marie
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done,
he
> was
> > elsewhere?
>
>
> Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi,
> sush as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've
> read do not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator
(one
> or two suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
>
> The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation
was
> written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
>
> Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
> Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
> vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
> eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
> Richard III was originally in Latin.)
>
> I read about an analysis and comparison of Christopher Marlowe's
work
> with Shakeseare's a while back. It would be interesting to do a
> similar one of that portion of the Croyland Chronicle with the
first
> porrion of the History of R III.
>
> Katy
It was written in Latin. There has been much debate about the
evidence for the author. I'll have to dig out the relevant articles
on this again, but it ends with a marginal note which says:
"This was done and completed at Croyland, in the year of our Lord one
thousand four hundred and eighty-six, in the space of ten days, the
last of which was the last day of the month of april in the said
year."
This dates it to a visit by Bishop Russell (Croyland, though not so
terribly far from Ely, was in the diocese of Lincoln so was not on
Morton's patch). For a long time it was assumed that the whole thing
was written during that 10 day period by either Bishop Russell or one
of his team. The other things the author of the 3rd Cont. lets slip
are that he was a doctor of canon law and had been on an embassy to
Burgundy in 1471: this alone would rule out Morton as he was still a
Lancastrian at that time. However, it has since been questioned
whether all the Second/Third continuation (whichever system you
prefer) was written at this time or not. Another problem is that what
we have is a copy by one of the Abbey monks, using the stranger's
account and interspersing it with sections on the abbey's affairs,
and there is perhaps no telling how the work may have been edited to
integrate it into the Abbey's chronicle.
The rest of the evidence, as in my previous post, is implied by the
slant of the story. It is a case of how close to which events the
writer was, and how close to the centre of government full stop.
Personally, I just don't think Morton fits the perspective. This
person had no idea what went on in the Tower on 13 June 1483 except
that Hastings met his end, but he did know very well that the Council
was split, and that the other members met at Westminster that day.
Was he one of those? He had no idea of the plans that lay behind
Buckingham's Rebellion, still less what was in the duke's mind. Also
I can't see Morton having been so critical of a wheeze like
backdating the reign - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't
his idea in the first place.
I would say the author was in the south, probably around London, when
Buckingham's Rebellion broke. He may have been at Nottingham and
Scarborough with the King in 1484, but that is less certain. It is
very clear that he was at Westminster for Twelfth Night 1484/5. He
does include some things from the perspective of Richard's enemies
during his reign: ie the experience of getting ship to Brittany, and
the journey to Bosworth. However, both are quite vague and were
probably picked up by speaking to these men afterwards. He has
nothing to offer at all on their life in Brittany or France, his
description of the route to Bosworth is pretty vague and he makes no
attempt at all to describe the battle. He definitely writes as though
he was in Leicester during the days afterwards, though.*
I'm not an expert on the Crowland question, and much has been written
on the subject which I haven't read lately. Perhaps looking for the
authorship of Morton behind either Crowland or More is a blind alley
which distracts from the real issue. The interesting thing to me is
that both these works - even Crowland written so soon after Bosworth
apparently by a member of Richard's government, albeit one outside
the charmed circle (not only his lack of inside info, but his envy of
Catesby & Ratcliffe is palpable) - rely so heavily on an inaccurate
reconstruction of events deliberately put out to legitimise the Tudor
usurpation. 'Crowland' may well have got a lot of this from Margaret
Beaufort - he gives us a lot about Lord Stanley prior to Bosworth -
but we know from richard's counter-measures that Tudor's party were
busy spreading this propaganda even before Bosworth. No doubt the
common belief that Richard had murdered his nephews, as well as his
wife, can be put down to this. So people's minds had been well
prepared to accept all these rumours as true when God gave Tudor the
victory.
*To go back further, David Baldwin notes that Crowland writes as
though present on the French Expedition.
The other reason I suspect the author was not as senior as either
Morton or Russell is that he remained completely anonymous to the
abbey - the monk who took up the story next had no idea who he was.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 21:12:09
The work on the chronicler is interesting. You can of course contact the Foundation who has copies of the talks from their event in question, and I've noted on their website that they have an extensive article on the Chronicler with a forward from the original writers. I believe one is now at the University of Leeds
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he
was
> elsewhere?
Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi,
sush as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've
read do not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator (one
or two suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation was
written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
Richard III was originally in Latin.)
I read about an analysis and comparison of Christopher Marlowe's work
with Shakeseare's a while back. It would be interesting to do a
similar one of that portion of the Croyland Chronicle with the first
porrion of the History of R III.
Katy
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he
was
> elsewhere?
Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi,
sush as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've
read do not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator (one
or two suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation was
written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
Richard III was originally in Latin.)
I read about an analysis and comparison of Christopher Marlowe's work
with Shakeseare's a while back. It would be interesting to do a
similar one of that portion of the Croyland Chronicle with the first
porrion of the History of R III.
Katy
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-17 23:44:42
--- In , Murron Wallace
<middleham04@y...> wrote:
> The work on the chronicler is interesting. You can of course
contact the Foundation who has copies of the talks from their event
in question, and I've noted on their website that they have an
extensive article on the Chronicler with a forward from the original
writers. I believe one is now at the University of Leeds
That is good, Paul. Just an add-on, that you can find the chronicle
itself on the Society's American Branch website (online libray).
Marie
<middleham04@y...> wrote:
> The work on the chronicler is interesting. You can of course
contact the Foundation who has copies of the talks from their event
in question, and I've noted on their website that they have an
extensive article on the Chronicler with a forward from the original
writers. I believe one is now at the University of Leeds
That is good, Paul. Just an add-on, that you can find the chronicle
itself on the Society's American Branch website (online libray).
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-18 03:37:47
oregonkaty said:
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>> Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he
> was
>> elsewhere?
>
>
> Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi, sush
> as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've read do
> not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator (one or two
> suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
I'm fairly sure he was pretty busy in London at that time.
> The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation was
> written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
Someone else can jump in and correct my memory, but I believe it was noted
in the continuation itself that it was completed in a short time in April
1486, something corroborated by internal evidence -- things the writer
noted as being in progress but with the outcome undecided.
> Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
> Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
> vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
> eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
> Richard III was originally in Latin.)
This I can answer: it was all written in Latin. The Pronay & Cox edition
gives a nice en face edition -- Latin on one side, English on the other.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)
> --- In , "Laura Blanchard"
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>> Possibly because in 1486, the time at which the update was done, he
> was
>> elsewhere?
>
>
> Was he? That's what I was wondering -- does Morton have an alibi, sush
> as eing somewhere else at the time? I know most writers I've read do
> not discuss Morton as a possibility for the continuator (one or two
> suspect John Russell) but don't say why not Morton.
I'm fairly sure he was pretty busy in London at that time.
> The other thing, though -- do we know just when the continuation was
> written? Could it have been postdated, in effect?
Someone else can jump in and correct my memory, but I believe it was noted
in the continuation itself that it was completed in a short time in April
1486, something corroborated by internal evidence -- things the writer
noted as being in progress but with the outcome undecided.
> Was it (the continuation in question) written in English or in
> Latin? I'd think that would be significant. Fluency and a large
> vocabulary in Latin would indicate higher education. (The first,
> eloquent, vivid, graceful, portion of "More's" History of King
> Richard III was originally in Latin.)
This I can answer: it was all written in Latin. The Pronay & Cox edition
gives a nice en face edition -- Latin on one side, English on the other.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Croyland Chronicler
2004-07-18 06:41:57
In a message dated 7/17/2004 9:12:12 PM Mountain Standard Time,
lblanchard@... writes:
This I can answer: it was all written in Latin. The Pronay & Cox edition
gives a nice en face edition -- Latin on one side, English on the other.
Thanks for the mention of Pronay & Cox, Laura! Checking it out led me right
back to the American Branch website! What a great resource!
LML, Pam
_Richard III Society- Bosworth sources_
(http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chronicl.html)
... A new edition has been published since Bennett's inventory, edited by
Pronay and
Cox (1987) and published with the assistance of a grant from the Richard III
...
www.r3.org/bosworth/chronicl.html - 22k -
lblanchard@... writes:
This I can answer: it was all written in Latin. The Pronay & Cox edition
gives a nice en face edition -- Latin on one side, English on the other.
Thanks for the mention of Pronay & Cox, Laura! Checking it out led me right
back to the American Branch website! What a great resource!
LML, Pam
_Richard III Society- Bosworth sources_
(http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chronicl.html)
... A new edition has been published since Bennett's inventory, edited by
Pronay and
Cox (1987) and published with the assistance of a grant from the Richard III
...
www.r3.org/bosworth/chronicl.html - 22k -
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.