[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

~~~~~~~~~~~


You may click on the footnote symbol to jump to the note, then click again on that footnote symbol and you will jump back to the same place in the text.

~~~~~~~~~~~

From The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, Comprising the History of England and of Other Countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, Translated from the Latin with Notes and Illustrations by Henry T. Riley, Esq., Volume I, London: H.G. Bohn, 1853; pp. iii-xii.





THE  ANNALS  OF
ROGER  DE  HOVEDEN.
Volume I.



[iii]

PREFACE

______

THE only printed version of this valuable Chronicle is that contained in the “Scriptores post Bedam” of Sir Henry Saville, London, 1596, and reprinted at Frankfort in 1601. The typographical errors and omissions in both these editions are almost innumerable; so much so, that of necessity the more onerous duties of an Editor1 devolve in a considerable degree upon the Translator of any of the authors contained in the volume.

In the present Translation the text has been carefully examined throughout, and the greater portion, it is believed, of the errors corrected; in many instances on the safest of all grounds — reference to the works of contemporary writers. Attention is called in the Notes to the more important of these iv corrections, in cases where they are a matter of question. It has been thought advisable to retain the ancient names of places where they differ materially from those of the present day, and to add the latter in the Notes.

Of the author of this work but little is known. He is sometimes spoken of as a native of York, but it is more probable that he was born at Hoveden, now Howden, a vill in the East Riding of Yorkshire, which belonged to the bishops of Durham, and where they occasionally resided. Frequent mention is made of this place in the Annals, in connection with those powerful prelates.2 It has been suggested by some writers that our author is the person mentioned by Robert of Gloucester as “Hew of Howdene.”3 Among the various offices held by him, he is said to have been a professor of Theology at Oxford, and to have been employed, perhaps at a later period of his life, by Henry II., in the capacity of chaplain. Like many of the more learned clergy of his day, uniting the study of the Law4 with that of Divinity, v he acted as one of the clerks5 or secretaries of that king; and, probably in such capacity, was employed in visiting monasteries on the death of the abbats or priors, for the purpose of receiving such portions of the revenues thereof as accrued to the crown. This fact will account for the great number of letters, charters, papal rescripts, bulls, and other matters relative to the Ecclesiastical history of his time, which are to be found in his work; while his connection, through the place of his birth, with the sees of York and Durham, will explain why the affairs of those sees are so abundantly treated of.

Hoveden has been charged by Leland with surreptitiously borrowing from Simeon of Durham, the great Chronicler of Northumbria; but it is not improbable that he enjoyed opportunities of free access to the materials from which Simeon compiled his Chronicles, and, as Archbishop Nicolson remarks,6 if he did copy anything from him, he has greatly improved his narrative by carefully identifying the chronology of many matters confusedly related by that author. That in some instances he has closely followed Simeon of Durham and other preceding Chroniclers, cannot, however, be questioned; but the evident universality of the practice among the Annalist of his times, shews that the censure of Leland is misplaced, and that Hoveden was actuated by no sordid motive, or wish to assume the credit of the labours of his predecessors.

The exact periods of his birth and death are unknown; but Tanner, following Leland, thinks that he did not commence vi writing his Annals till after the death of Henry II., in 1189; when probably he devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits.7 It is not improbable that he survived till the time of Henry III.

That he was a man of considerable learning, and, for his time, of extensive knowledge, is evident from his work. We find him frequently, and in some cases8 appositely, quoting Virgil, Ovid (who seems to have been his favourite author), Lucan, and other Latin poets; but it is a curious fact, that he on no occasion mentions the name of the author from whom he quotes, or, indeed, of any Classical writer whatever. Like most of the learned Ecclesiastics of his day, he appears to have found peculiar charms in the jingle of the Leonine or Latin rhyme; a taste which had been recently introduced into this country by its Norman conquerors. His work also bears abundant proof that he was versed in the legal and theological lore of those times.

On the other hand, it is clear, from his easy credulity, that his mind was not at all in advance of his age. Miracles (some of them of a very trifling and silly nature), portents, omens, prophecies, and astrological predictions, are readily, and as a matter of course, copied into his pages; while visits of the Devil in person would almost appear to be considered by him as every-day occurrences. Jews, Saracens, heretics, and Pagans are summarily dealt with in his pages; and amid the pious ejaculations which on some few occasions he utters when depicting the miseries or frailties of mankind, we find not a word of sympathy wasted on their sufferings.

The Annals of Hoveden are not merely a Chronicle of vii English affairs, but (in the latter part especially) form a history of the events of the then known world. Scotland, France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Constantinople, Asia Minor, and the Holy Land, all come under his notice, and he sometimes treats of their affairs at considerable length. On two occasions9 he gives an episodical account of the then existing state of Geographical knowledge respecting the West and the South of Europe, which, in spite of the lamentably defective state of the text, cannot fail to be read with interest.

The work is divided into two Parts; the First of which, professing to be a continuation of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, commences in 732 and concludes in 1154. The Second Part commences in 1155, and breaks off in 1201, the third year of the reign of king John. Why this division was made, it is impossible with certainty to say; but it will readily be perceptible to the reader that events are treated in the First Part with much greater conciseness than in the second. This circumstance would perhaps warrant the conclusion that he marked the beginning of the reign of Henry II., in 1155, as the commencement of a period the events of which had passed under his own personal notice. In the concluding portion of the work, from the year 1192, his circumstantiality is such that we might almost imagine ourselves reading a newspaper account of events which happened nearly seven hundred years ago.10

By some writers, among whom Bishop Tanner may be mentioned, his style has been considered defective, but it is nevertheless remarkable for its simplicity and freedom from affectation. From his peculiar position there is no doubt that viii he was able, and from the internal evidence offered by his work, he clearly was desirous, to resort to the most authentic sources of information within his reach; consequently, though his method of compilation is occasionally crude and defective in arrangement, much is to be found, especially in the latter portion of his work, which may be safely depended upon, and which is to be met with in no other of the Chronicles of those times. This high estimate of his authority appears to have been formed at an early period; for we learn from Archbishop Nicolson,11 on the authority of Pitts, that in the year 1291, Edward I. caused diligent search to be made in all the libraries of England for copies of his Annals, for the purpose, on their evidence, of adjusting the disputes as to the homage due to him from the crown of Scotland. In later times, Sir Henry Saville, Selden, Archbishop Nicolson, and others of the learned, have concurred in bearing testimony to his diligence and fidelity as a historian, and, according to Leland, notwithstanding the censure in another place so undeservedly pronounced upon him, he is superior to all the chroniclers who preceded him.

His Annals are his only work the genuineness of which is undisputed. Vossius, however, asserts that he was the author of a History of the Kings of Northumbria, and a Life of Thomas à Becket. In his Annals, he enters fully into the disputes between king Henry and à Becket, and appears, though in a very guarded manner, to sympathize with the sufferings of that prelate, while at the same time he seems desirous to exculpate his royal master from the crime of having been accessary to his base assassination.

The remarks which he makes upon the characters of the illustrious personages of his times are few and cautious; still, the prominence which he gives to certain circumstances ix and characteristics disclose the bias of his thoughts. It is evident that he considered Henry II. a great king, and he manifests a probably sincere sympathy for him in the numerous afflictions, caused to him by the unprincipled conduct of his sons, Henry, Richard, and Geoffrey. After the accession of Richard, Hoveden seems to hint that boundless sensuality was his great failing, and, though in words he does not say so, he affords sufficient grounds for the conclusion that treachery, meanness, and avarice, were in his opinion the striking features of the character of king John. His history does not come down to the time of the death, or “disappearance,” as Roger of Wendover thinks proper to call it, of Arthur, duke of Brittany. He evidently dislikes the crafty and unprincipled Philip Augustus, king of France; and the zest with which he relates, on numerous occasions, how that monarch turned his back in flight before the prowess of Richard is highly amusing.

We may remark, in conclusion, that among the most interesting portions of the work, may be reckoned the following: the account of the contests between king Henry and Thomas à Becket; the first persecution of the Albigenses; the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton; the Laws12 of William the Conqueror, as re-enacted by Henry II.; the Coronation of Richard I.; the Journal of that king’s voyage to the Holy Land, and of his adventures during his stay in Sicily; the contest between Hugh, bishop of Coventry, supported by the other prelates, and the chancellor, William, bishop of Ely; and the lengthened disputes between Geoffrey, archbishop of York, and his dean and chapter; which latter are not yet brought to a conclusion, when the work somewhat abruptly ends.

x

The following remarks, relative to this Chronicler, are extracted from the Introduction to the “Monumenta Britannica,” commenced by the late Mr. Petrie, and recently published under the care of Mr. Hardy:

“Hoveden’s Annals extend from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. Pars Prima: from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1154. From the commencement to the death of Egbert, in 837, his history is taken from Simeon of Durham, sometimes literally transcribed, at others condensed. Occasionally, however, Hoveden changes the collocation, and makes slight verbal alterations. He then returns to 751,13 and takes up Henry of Huntingdon, who is followed, with a few verbal changes, to the death of Ethelred I., in 872. Then follows a recapitulation14 of the history of the West Saxon Kings from Cerdic, continued to Henry I.; not always, however, agreeing with Huntingdon’s History. He then returns to the year 849,15 and again transcribes or abridges Simeon of Durham to the year 1122,16 making a few insertions from other sources. From 1122 to 1148, Huntingdon’s History is again resorted to, abridged or transcribed, with a few additions. From 114817 to 1154 Hoveden’s History is very brief and confused, and that part of it relating to Scotland is apparently derived from the same source as the Chronicle of Melrose.

Pars Secunda: from A.D. 1154 to A.D. 1201. From 115418 to 116419 it is of the same character: thence to 117020 it xi chiefly relates to à Becket, inserting twenty-eight of his epistles, three of which are not found in Lupus’s edition. From Christmas 1169 to 1192, Hoveden either abridges or transcribes Benedictus Abbas, or had access to the same materials. When he abridges, it is by compression, or by changing the order of the transaction, relating the events belonging to the same transaction connectedly; whereas Benedictus Abbas, by observing a stricter chronological arrangement, frequently separates them. Hoveden, however, has inserted entire many letters and charters which are either omitted or abridged by Benedictus Abbas; and when he gives the journal of the expedition of Richard the First’s fleet to Messina, he appears to have had the original document before him, as his account is fuller than that of Benedictus Abbas. He also speaks in the first person, as if he were transcribing the narrative of one that was present, which is not the case with Benedictus Abbas. Hoveden has also exclusively several particulars relating to Spain, Portugal, and Scotland. Under the year 1192 he gives an account of Richard the First’s captivity and deliverance, with a journal of his transactions from his return to England in March, to his landing in France in the following May. From that period to the conclusion, his History is very diffuse, containing many papal bulls and letters, chiefly Ecclesiastical, relating, as might have been expected, to the province of York, or to the Northern parts of England, regulations for courts of law, &c.

21  Some persons have thought that Hoveden continued his History to the year 1226; but this mistake seems grounded on the continuation which has been ascribed to Walter of Coventry, who borrowed both from Hoveden and Benedictus Abbas, and yet refers to Hoveden alone.

xii

“It is remarkable that Benedictus Abbas should twice (pp. 93, 108) mention Hoveden, and that Hoveden, although he appears to transcribe or abridge Benedictus, should omit all mention of himself.”

H. T. R.



FOOTNOTES

 1  This was sensibly felt to be the case by Mr. Sharpe, in his translation of William Malmesbury. Archbishop Nicolson says, in his “English Historical Library,” p. 59, “Hoveden’s History was published by Sir H. Saville; but (as Sir H. Spelman observes in his Glossary, on the word Frithborga) there are many errors in that foreign Edition of this, and all our other Historians, and, therefore, he well cautions the English reader attentively to consider the spelling of such words as are of our own growth, as very frequently mistaken by printers, that are strangers to our country and language.” It is but just to remark that, in the present instance, the errors in the English edition are almost as numerous as in the foreign one.

 2  For the first time, at p. 389 of this Volume. We learn from our author that Hugh de Pusaz, or Pudsey, bishop of Durham, died at Howden.

 3  Mr. Hardy says, in the Introduction to the “Monumenta Brittanica,” p. viii., “The Burton Annals (Gale I.) mention a Hugh Hoveden, as does Robert of Gloucester, but Roger is certainly the person intended. The mistake arose probably from the practice of indicating an author’s name by the initial letters only, and the scribe hastily inserted H instead of R.” The lines of Robert of Gloucester alluded to are the following. (he is speaking of Richard I.):

“But who so wole of his chevalrie, know or wyte,

  Rede he in the cornycles that ben of him wryte,

  That Mayster Hew hath of Howdone ywrouzte.”

If in these lines he refers to our Chronicler, it is pretty clear that he is the same person who wrote the life of Richard I., mentioned by Bishop Tanner as said to be among the Digby MSS. in the Bodleian Library.

 4  This will probably account for the vast amount of information on legal matters which is to be found in the latter part of the work. Tanner seems to think that Hoveden devoted himself to the law when in mid-life, and subsequently entered the Church. He informs us that Walter of Coventry states in his Annals that Hoveden was in the number of the domestics of Henry II.; that he was sent to Norwich by that king, on a visit to the abbey there, for the purpose of auditing the expenditure of the monks, and of superintending the election of a new abbat; and that his duties of a similar nature extended to other places.

 5  Benedictus Abbas mentions him as “Unus de clericis regis.”

 6  Engl. Hist. Library, pp. 59, 60.

 7  We may here remark, that the passage in p. 247 of this Volume, in which he appears to assert that he was an eye-witness to an event that happened in 1114, is copied almost literally from Henry of Huntingdon, who was probably the alleged witness of the miracle.

 8  See vol. ii. p. 42, where he mentions Tully.

 9  Under the reign of Richard I.

10  As a proof of this, we may remark, that while the events of the period from 1155 to 1201 are compressed by Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris into less than 250, the narrative of Hoveden, relative to the same period, extends to more than 800, pages.

11  Brit. Hist. Library, pp. 59, 60.

12  Here the text is in such a corrupt and mutilated state that it entirely defies successful management. The Translation has therefore been made from the more correct text of the same Laws, which is found in the “Leges Anglo-Saxonicæ” of Dr. Wilkins. London, 1721.

13  See p. 20 of this Volume, where he seems to revert to the year 749 in taking up Henry of Huntingdon. This change of the text will account for the apparent oversight noticed in p. 20, n. 68. According to Simeon of Durham’s text, Hoveden makes Egbert to reign thirty-six years and six months, while, following Henry of Huntingdon, he gives him a reign of forty years, representing him as dying in 840 or 842.

14  See p. 39 of this Volume.

15  See p. 40.

16  See p. 216.

17  See p. 250.

18  See p. 253.

19  See p. 259.

20  See p. 325.

21  This appears in the “Monumenta” as a Note to the above extracts.




~~~~~~~

[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]