1 You who rule, resist at the beginning and you may be certain that you do not fall

2 Note this point concerning foreigners in a realm, since they always wish to rule over the indigenous and to expel them

3 As in the legend of Saint Helen and Constantine (it) occurs and "in this [sign] you will gain victory"

4 according to the chronicles of Martin

5 How Saint Helen his mother brought home the holy cross according to the chronicles of Martin

6 How this Constantine gave to Silvester and the church his palace and temporality of Rome and made the church of his chamber at Saint John Lateran according to the chronicles of Martin

7 Whence Seneca says that the power of the prince is never without danger

8 Concerning the Deeds of the English

9 according to Bede in his book Concerning the Deeds of the English

10 Wisdom reaches from one end (of the earth) to the other, and disposes everything peacefully (Wisdom 8:1)

11 The enemy, being newly supplied with weapons

12 King Frolle to slay those [who are] subject [to Arthur]

13 Whatever is unjustly snatched from someone, will never be justly possessed by someone else, as (it is stated) in civil and imperial law

14 To whom rule descended as much by the death of his father as by senatorial election (and) as by election of the whole Roman people

15 That Saussy (or Val-Suzon) was called and in eight battles quite glorious

16 Concerning which Merlin says, among his prophecies, that his death will be uncertain and a certain prophet of the Britons made as an epitaph on his tomb this verse: “Here lies Arthur, the once and future king”

17 Note the date of the death of David Archbishop of Caerleon

18 Chapter of Aurelius Conan, King of Britain

ABBREVIATIONS: Alliterative Morte: Alliterative Morte Arthure, ed. Benson; Arthur: Arthur: A Short Sketch of His Life and History in English Verse; Bede: Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People; Brut: The Brut or The Chronicles of England, ed. Brie; CT: Canterbury Tales; CPL: Peter Langtoft, The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft; EETS: Early English Text Society; EH: Eulogium Historiarum sive Temporis, ed. Haydon; FH: Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard; FP: John Lydgate, Fall of Princes; HA: Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum; HB: Nennius, Historia Brittonum; HRB: Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Brittanniae; HRBVV: Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Brittanniae, Variant Version; JG: John of Glastonbury, The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey; LB: Layamon’s Brut, trans. Allen; m: marginalia; Mort Artu: La Morte Artu, ed. Lacy; MED: Middle English Dictionary; MO: Martin of Troppau, Martini Oppaviensis Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum; NC: Þe New Croniclis Compendiusli Ydrawe of Þe Gestis of Kyngis of Ingelond; OED: Oxford English Dictionary; OV: The Oldest Anglo-Norman Prose Brut Chronicle, ed. Marvin; P: Ranulf Higden, Polychronicon; PRO: Public Record Office; Queste: La Queste del Saint Graal, trans. Burns; RB: Wace, Roman de Brut; RMB: Robert Mannyng of Brunne, The Chronicle; TB: John Lydgate, Troy Book; TC: Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde; TNA: The National Archives of the UK; Whiting: Whiting, Proverbs, Sentences, and Proverbial Phrases.

1–196 Aftyr Kynge . . . his exequyse. For the most part Hardyng follows HRB §§72–74, but the date of Lucius’s coronation appears to come from MO (p. 412), which gives the year 184 as the start of Pope Eleutherius’ rule and mentions Lucius’s appeal to him. Hardyng incorrectly claims that MO records Severus’s death in the year 235, perhaps indicating that he misread a later entry, had a corrupt text, or took the reference from another source citing Martin (MO, pp. 447–48, gives the year as 212). However, another emperor with the name Severus — Alexander Severus — died in 235, so Hardyng may have used an unidentified source that confused the two emperors. In MO, Alexander Severus dies in 236, but he is not named “Severus” (p. 448).

Other writers attributing a seventeen-year reign to Severus include Bede (p. 50; MO, pp. 447–48), who also mentions his burial at York, and RMB 1.5776–5779.

29m Nota of . . . of goules. Hardyng links Lucius’s shield with the shield made by Joseph of Arimathea. It is later owned by St. George, Constantine, and Galahad. See 3.505m, 3.575m, 3.694m, 3.3059, 3.3157.

83–88 Whose names . . . for memory. According to Gildas, Christianity first came to Britain in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, not Lucius, who first appears in Bede (p. 49). Hardyng has taken the reference to Gildas from HRB §72 (it also occurs in FH I:147), where it may be a mistake for the pseudo-Nennius HB §22. HB mentions Lucius’s baptism, but not Fagan and Duvian.

89–91 And Mewytryne . . . his dyspence. Reference to Lucius’s giving Glastonbury to Fagan and Duvian is also made in JG (pp. 38–39). The inclusion of the episode here provides further evidence that Hardyng knew a similar source detailing Glastonbury’s legendary past. See also notes 3.29m, 3.96–119, and 3.99m.

96–119 Bot now . . . dyd apere. See notes to 2.2611–47 and 3.99m.

99m How the . . . sayd rode. Having already mentioned the story of the crucifix made by Joseph of Arimathea at 2.2611–47, Hardyng develops his account by describing its miraculous arrival at St. Paul’s. His reference to the “table” and stained glass window depicting the story of the crucifix at St. Paul’s demonstrates the importance of the cross to the medieval cathedral. The information probably derives from Hardyng’s own knowledge of the rood, from a work on Joseph’s life, or, given its close proximity to lines 3.89–91, from an unidentified source containing the early history of Glastonbury (see notes 2.2611–47 and 3.89–91).

197–329 Getan his . . . foule meschaunce. This section contains one of the most topical interjections in the Chronicle (3.246–80). The essence of the story of Bassian and Carauce is most likely taken from HRB §§75–76 and RMB 1.5780–5921, but Hardyng removes all reference to Carauce’s courage and his dealings with the Roman Senate. Instead he uses the example of Carauce’s ambition and treachery to warn Henry VI and contemporary lords about the problems they face if the lawlessness plaguing late fifteenth-century England is allowed to continue. Hardyng’s caution about lower-born men rebelling above their station and rebelling against their social betters when oppressed is particularly significant given that he was writing this version of his Chronicle at the time of, or shortly after, the Kentish rebellion led by Jack Cade. Moreover, his criticism of “mayntenaunce” (3.263), a corrupt process by which a lord would trade on his influence to abet wrong-doers under his protection, complements complaints and advice found in other fifteenth-century works. Lydgate’s FP, for example, frequently warns lords and princes to protect the poor, maintain the law, and be aware of the dangers of allowing low-born men to take positions of power (see 2.1423–29, 3.3108–14, 3.3129–35, 3.3262–82, 5.2362–75, 7.270–77, and 9.3022–56). Since Hardyng knew Lydgate’s work, such comments may have inspired his own interjections. For further discussion of Caraunce’s reign and other sections relating to civil unrest see Peverley, “Dynasty and Division” and “Political Consciousness.”

263 mayntenaunce. See note 3.197–329 above.

264–66 The pore . . . sore ban. Hardyng appears to be referring to the citizens of the Tuscan city states who had considerable rights of access and redress at law, even if they were poor. We are grateful to Alan Crosby for this suggestion.

288–308 A prynce . . . it alterate. Hardyng develops the brief comment about the Picts intermarrying with Britons in HRB §75 to emphasize the bellicose nature of the Scots and present a more general, xenophobic point about the danger of having “aliens” within a kingdom. Such sentiments would have been particularly topical in light of the riots that took place against alien merchants in London in the late 1450s (see Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 790–95).

292 kyng Maryus. The reference to King Marius alludes to 2.2662–89.

330–36 Suche fyne . . . thayre hame. An echo of 2.645–51, where Hardyng attributes the downfall of Albion’s giants to Providence.

335 And after olde synne so commyth ay new shame. Proverbial. See Whiting S338 and Tilley S471.

336 And wronge lawes make lordes forsake thayre hame. Proverbial. See Whiting L111.

337–504 The Bretons . . . the felde. This section is similar to HRB §§76–78 and RMB 1.5922–6095, although neither source remarks on St. Amphilbalus’s martyrdom (“Amphybale”), mentions Galerius ruling the Empire with Constance, or gives the year of Constance’s death as 306 AD, as Hardyng and FH I:173–75 do. A linguistic echo of Hardyng’s “engynes and magnels” (3.359) occurs in RMB 1.5966–67.

499 Galeryus. Galerius is also mentioned in HA (pp. 536–37) and MO (p. 450).

505m Constantynes armes . . . the aire. This marginalia is accompanied by an illustration of Constantine’s coat of arms, but the colors of the shield have been accidentally reversed (i.e., the cross is colored argent [silver] when it should be gules [red], and the background is gules when it should be argent). For other decoration in the manuscript see the Manuscript Description. Other references to the arms, which are associated with St. George, occur at 3.575m, 3.694m, 3.3059, and 3.3157–70.

505–25 Constantyne that . . . nought transcende. The beginning of Hardyng’s account of Constantine’s reign (3.505–74) relies on HRB §78–79, or a text derived from it, such as RB lines 5688–5730, which mentions Constantine’s coronation by the British barons and his noble, “lion-like” countenance. The emperor’s laudable ability to live from his own resources (3.521) and the suggestion that financial prudence is a desideratum in a sovereign (3.524–25) appear to be Hardyng’s own embellishments. Though his additions are typical of the opinions expressed in advice literature, or “mirrors for princes,” Hardyng may have included them in light of his own experience of the financial difficulties faced by the Lancastrian government in the late 1440s and early 1450s. At this time, a series of Resumption Acts were passed to counteract Henry VI’s crippling household expenditure and inept distribution of privileges: Hardyng’s royal grant was among those resumed.

526–74 And so . . . wele biloved. Hardyng, like CPL I:78, has the Roman Senate appeal to Constantine for help instead of following the structure of HRB, in which a number of Romans flee to Britain because of Maxcence’s tyranny and persuade Constantine to wage war on him. Among the chronicles considered for this edition, only Hardyng makes reference to the Romans’ promise to cease their request for Britain’s tribute, paving the way for King Arthur’s decision to defy Lucius’s request for tribute later in the Chronicle.

575m How Kynge . . . or borne. See note 3.505m.

575–677 The yere … were felle. The Chronicle either draws directly upon MO (pp. 450–52) and the Legenda Aurea (“The Life of Saint Silvester” and “The Invention of the Cross”), or uses an intermediate source, such as P (V:114–151), which borrows from these texts and contains many of the details found here (see below notes 3.645m and 715m). Whatever the case, Hardyng builds upon Constantine’s refusal to slaughter innocent children in order to cure his leprosy by turning his reported comment about imperial dignity being born out of pity in “The Life of Saint Silvester” and P (V:124) (“Dignitas Romani imperii de fonte nascitur pietatis”) into an appeal to contemporary lords to show pity to those in distress. He goes on to explain that Constantine deferred baptism because of his desire to be baptized in the River Jordan; this story does not occur in MO or the Legenda Aurea, but it is mentioned in P V:128–29, where it is attributed to Ambrose and Jerome, although it actually originates from Eusebius’s Vita Constantini (Book 4, Chapter 62). Of all of these texts, only Hardyng’s explicitly aligns the emperor’s desire for baptism in the Jordan with his aspiration of conquering the “Jewry hool” (3.608).

582m As in . . . hoc vinces. The legend of St. Helen referred to here appears to be “The Invention of the Cross” in the Legenda Aurea; see note 3.575–677 above.

645m How Seynt . . . cronicas Martini. The source for Silvester’s healing of Constantine could have been the Legenda Aurea’s “Life of Saint Silvester,” MO (pp. 450–51) or P (V:122–29), which also acknowledges its debt to the “Life of Saint Silvester” (see note 3.575–677 above). Hardyng’s claim to have seen the holy water used at Constantine’s baptism may indicate that he had been to Rome in 1424, as suggested by 1.1m, because, in the second version of the Chronicle, he states that the water can be seen there. However, the holy water was clearly a well-known relic, and in FP, which Hardyng knew, Lydgate also mentions the font at St. Peter’s, Rome, containing the water used on Constantine (FP 8.2140–67). The story of Constantine’s leprosy and miraculous baptism is also told by Gower in Confessio Amantis 2.3187–3464.

659m secundum cronicas Martini. The number of bishops given in this marginalia, 300, does not correspond with the number given in the following stanza, 318 (3.660).

678–79 She dyed … and sely. Hardyng may have used an unidentified source for his account of St. Helen’s burial at Santa Maria in Ara Coeli, the city church in Rome dedicated to the Virgin Mary. However, Helen’s relics were allegedly moved to the church in 1140, so if Hardyng did travel to Rome in 1424, as suggested by 1.1m and 3.645m, it is also possible that he saw the relics firsthand and added this information from his own knowledge. For St. Helen and Ara Coeli, see Drijvers, Helena Augusta, p. 75 and Harbus, Helena of Britain, p. 46.

680–86 But now . . . were unkynde. Gildas does not mention Constantine. Hardyng may have meant HB, which was commonly attributed to Gildas by medieval chroniclers, in which case he is correct in stating that it does not describe Constantine’s life (see HB §25, where he is mentioned very briefly). Henry of Huntingdon does include some of Constantine’s deeds, but his account is succinct in comparison with Hardyng’s (see HA pp. 60–63, 574–75).

694m And than . . . Georges armes. Hardyng links Constantine’s arms with the arms of St. George and, therefore, with the arms of Lucius (who is said to bear arms “in fourme of Seynt Georges armes”; see 3.29m). Later, he will associate the same heraldic device with Galahad. See 3.3056 ff. and notes 3.505m and 3.3157–70.

715m How this . . . Martyne Romayn. Hardyng has taken this information, including the reference to Isidore, from MO (pp. 450–51) or P (V:148–51). MO is the more likely source; if Hardyng had used P he would have had to have a manuscript that attributed the information to MO and gave the correct date of 21 May rather than the incorrect date of 11 May given in the manuscript used by Babington and Lumby for their edition of P. A survey of extant manuscripts of P would shed further light on this matter.

717–28 A saynt . . . Chyrche promocioun. See note 715m above.

729–812 But in . . . withouten fayle. This section has much in common with HRB §§80–81, although it differs in a number of smaller details. Like OV (lines 883–87) and EH (II:269), Hardyng locates Traherne’s battle with Octave at Stainmore, rather than the less specific Westmorland of HRB; he also attributes the plan to persuade one of Octave’s friends to kill Traherne to Gunbert, an alteration that does not occur in any of the chronicles considered in this edition, and he clarifies that Kaerperis is Porchester (compare FH I:178). Such changes may indicate that Hardyng was using a source based on HRB rather than HRB itself.

771m Unde Seneca . . . periculo est. Hoccleve’s Regiment of Princes, 1114 ff., which Hardyng may have known, includes a similar statement attributed to Seneca, but as Blyth, Hoccleve’s editor, notes, it does not occur in Seneca: “the idea, though not the language, is in Boethius” (see note to 1114 ff.). If Hardyng’s marginalia was not inspired by Hoccleve, his quotation may be an allusion to Seneca’s De Clementia (Book I, chapter viii, lines 1–5 or Book I, chapter xix, lines 2–8), in which the dangers facing a prince are discussed. It is also possible that the sententia was obtained from a florilegium, which failed to identify the source correctly.

813–925 The kynge . . . fully assocyate. Hardyng’s account of Maximian’s reign is closest to HRB §§83–88 and RMB 1.6290–6543, although neither text is an entirely satisfactory match. The Chronicle offers a noticeably shorter version of the longer accounts of Maximian’s campaign given in HRB, RMB, and other texts associated with them, omitting all reference to Maximian’s encounter with the king of the Franks and the subsequent attacks made on Conan before the British women are sent to Brittany. The 10,000 men that Maximian requests to populate Brittany does not match any of the figures given in HRB, RB, RMB, OV, EH, or FH, but the description of Gwaynes and Melga as Saracens (3.896) corresponds with RMB 1.6484–94, as does the reference to the eleven noble women accompanying Ursula in the marginalia before line 3.855 (compare RMB 1.6456 and 1.6482, although, arguably, this could also be a shared mistake for eleven thousand). Hardyng’s reference to Gwaynes and Melga’s hatred of Britain is not part of their motive for executing the virgins in other sources, nor have we been able to find a textual parallel for Hardyng’s reference to St. Ursula’s burial in the choir at a church in Cologne, but it may have been widely known that her relics were at the church dedicated to her in Cologne. Only Hardyng refers to Maximian’s killing of Valentinian instead of Gracian, which could indicate that he misread his source, or, less likely perhaps, that he was attempting to simplify the narrative by amalgamating the Emperor Gracian with the Gracian that Maximian sends to defend Britain, who succeeds Maximian in other texts.

926–60 Gracyan, whan . . . cronycle historialle. Of the chronicles considered here, Hardyng alone provides specific details of Gracian’s tyranny and states that Melga and Gwaynes invaded Britain because they believed Maximian was still king. His reference to Melga and Gwaynes ravaging Britain to avenge Maximian’s slighting of Gracian may stem from the observation that Melga and Gwaynes ravaged the coasts for Gracian in HRB §88 and P (V:202–03).

961–1107 Gwayns and . . . is memory. Hardyng’s source(s) here is unclear; for the most part his account corresponds with HRB §§89–93, but some elements are closer to P (V:224–27, 250–53) and RMB (1.6564–6885), suggesting that he combined two or more sources or was following a text that had already done this. He omits the speech made by Bishop Guthelyne in HRB just before the Romans leave Britain for the last time, thus removing the criticism levied at the British for being weak and not defending their realm properly, and similarly fails to include the alternative speech made by the wise Roman in texts such as RB and RMB. This allows him to present the plight of the British in a sympathetic light, which is further enhanced by his accentuation of the treachery of Melga and Gwaynes and the indifference of the Romans. Guthelyne’s request for help from Aldroene is shorter than that in most other sources and has much in common with the petition in RMB, whilst Aldroene’s reply is closer to that in HRB.

975m How Bretons . . . Gestis Anglorum. Reference to the wall built by Severus is also made in Bede (p. 59), P (V:226–27), and NC (fol. 28v). It is difficult to tell whether Hardyng obtained the information directly from Bede or from another text that attributed it to him.

1024m How Bretons . . . Gestis Anglorum. Compare Bede (pp. 60–61), although there the Britons' sending for help from Egicyo (Aetius) is ascribed to the year 446 (see note 3.1045–48).

1045–48 The tyme . . . and compilacioun. This date is given in Bede (p. 325) and RMB (1.6758–61). Whether Hardyng used Bede directly, or whether he obtained the reference from a text like RMB, is uncertain, but neither of the extant copies of RMB attribute the date to Bede, which perhaps indicates that Bede, or an unknown source attributing the date to Bede, provided the information. Hardyng, or his source, appears to confuse the year that Roman rule in Britain comes to an end in Bede with the year of the Britons' request for help from Egicyo.

1108–42 This Constantyne . . . had conspyred. Hardyng, FH (I:209), P (V:252–53), CPL (I:94), RMB (1.6886), and NC (fol. 29v) place Constantine’s coronation at Cirencester (“Cyrcester”) rather than Silchester (as in HRB §93 and RB line 6437), but only Hardyng supplements this information with the ancient name for Cirencester, Caerceri (“Caersyry”). Hardyng and RMB 1.6890–91, 1.6904–27 are the only texts in the aforementioned group to give Constantine’s wife Roman and British ancestry and attribute Constantine’s death to Vortigern’s treachery.

1143–1219 Constans than . . . bene sene. Hardyng is probably following HRB §§94–96 and RMB 1.6928–7168, but his account of Constance’s election and coronation is more succinct than their detailed version of events. He omits all of the material dealing with the barons’ concerns about Constance and Vortigern’s discussion with him at Winchester (like P [V:254–55]). The Chronicle resembles HRB in its reference to the kingdom being devoid of older leaders and the future leaders (Aurelius and Uther) being too young to rule; however, it appears to emulate RMB in making Vortigern a duke of Wales and accentuating his ability to flatter.

1145 the mynstere of Seynte Amphibale. Other texts that make reference to Constance’s being in a church dedicated to St. Amphibalus include HRB §93, FH (I:209), P (V:252–53), EH (II:274), and NC (fol. 29v).

1220–1443 This Vortygere . . . quenes supportacioun. This section has most in common with HRB §§97–100, although the reference to Engist’s landing at Sandwich suggests knowledge of RB lines 6704–05 and/or RMB 1.7183–85. Hardyng omits some of the information found in HRB, including the reference to Satan entering Vortigern when he sees Rowen, and adds a number of unique details, such as the description of Engist being as meek as a lamb (3.1243), the notification at 3.1402m that “Thwongcastre” is Caistor in Lincolnshire, Engist’s prayer of thanks to Mercury and Venus for bringing the eighteen Saxon ships safely to Britain (3.1371–73), and Vortimer’s sending for saints Germanus and Lupus (although this last detail does occur later in RMB 1.7641–42). Two other points are worth noting: having elected not to include the Latin and Welsh names for “Thwongcastre” found in HRB, RB, and RMB, Hardyng provides an etymological description of the name, claiming that Engist named it “Thwongcastre” (3.1403) to ensure that he never forgot the wisdom, or clever trick, that helped him to obtain the land (i.e., cutting a continuous strip of leather, or “thong,” from a bull skin to measure out the greatest possible territory). This helps to underscore Engist’s intelligence and his ability to manipulate Vortigern, paving the way for his subsequent treachery. Likewise, whilst other texts stress that Engist asked for Kent as Rowen’s dowry, Hardyng does not; he merely states that Vortigern gave her the land as “dowere” (3.1401). This may be an attempt to reduce the narrative on Hardyng’s part, but it also has the effect of showing how blinded Vortigern is by his desire for Rowen; only a few stanzas before, he would not grant Engist land because he was a foreign pagan and he did not want to upset the British barons, but here he gives a whole county to his pagan wife.

1290m Nota also . . . of golde. This marginalia offers another example of Hardyng’s interest in heraldry as he includes a coat of arms for Engist and Horsa. Compare, for example, the arms he ascribes to Aeneas and Brute at 2.554m and the genuine coat of arms belonging to Sir Robert Umfraville at 7.889.

1444–1534 This Engiste . . . waste indede. The majority of this section corresponds to HRB §§101–02; however, there is sufficient correlation with RMB to suppose that Hardyng was combining elements of HRB and RMB, or using another text that had already done so. Compare, for example, Engist’s suggestion of sending for Octa, his cousin Ebissa (a brother in HRB) and Cherdyke with RMB 1.7541–46, and Vortimer’s request for Germanus to preach again with RMB 1.7641–42. Hardyng’s conceit on Vortimer’s presumption is unique.

1535–1632 This Vortygerne . . . myght suffise. Although Hardyng’s account of Engist’s return is close to HRB §§103–05 in many respects, such as its inclusion of Eldane’s burial of the dead at Salisbury plain and Earl Eldolle’s defeat of seventy Saxons, it nevertheless contains several aspects yet to be found elsewhere. Unlike other sources, Hardyng comments on Engist’s joy upon hearing of Vortimer’s death and emphasizes the Saxon’s rhetorical skills by reporting his insincere statement about not wanting to hurt the British because of his consanguinity with their queen (3.1568–69). Correspondingly, Hardyng places greater emphasis on the role of the British barons — they are present when Engist’s messenger arrives and they approve of his alleged plan to “strengh the londe agayn” (3.1567) — and he supplements Engist’s plot to kill the British by adding a new stratagem whereby each “Bretoun” is “afore a payen sette” to make them easier to kill (3.1600).

1626m Nota that . . . of Afrike. Like OV (lines 1238–40) and EH (I:280), the Chronicle mentions the etymology of England at this point in the narrative. Hardyng adds that the name was set aside shortly afterwards and not used again until Gurmond was king. The subsequent reference to the land being divided up “parcelmele” (3.1632) may indicate that Hardyng had some version of the Prose Brut to hand, or another text that drew upon it, since OV also mentions the apportionment of the realm.

1633–1786 Wharfore so . . . swerd and fyre. Compare with HRB §§105–08 and RMB 1.7689–8202. Hardyng supplements his account of Merlin’s birth with several details: he alone uses the simile “as white as any swan” to describe the spirit that visited Merlin’s mother (3.1674) and makes reference to the popular opinion that his father could have been a “fende” (3.1660). Likewise, he has Maugancyus suggest that the spirit may have chosen to “dystayne and appalle” his mother’s “holynesse” because God selected her to fall “for the better” (3.1703–09). Hardyng may have included the latter because he had seen references to demons wanting to shame women in RMB 1.7973 and 1.7976, or he may have emphasized the spirit’s fiendish nature because he knew the Vulgate Lestoire de Merlin, which focuses on Merlin’s demonic father and his attempt to dishonor a secular virgin. Other aspects that Hardyng may have appropriated from RMB include the restyling of HRB’s governor of Caermardyn (“prefectum”) as “mayre” (see RMB 1.7917) and the naming of the castle Aurelius burns (see RB lines 7601–06 and RMB 1.8187–92). Elements not found in any of the sources considered here include Vortigern’s clerks defiantly answering Merlin (3.1730) and Duke Eldolle’s responsibility for the assembly that crowns Aurelius king (3.1780–86).

1757–72 The water . . . to avenge. Hardyng reduces the significance of the two dragons, which subsequently fight in HRB §§111–12 and signify the forthcoming battle between the Britons and the Saxons. He similarly omits all of the other prophecies found in HRB §§112–17 and condenses the divination concerning Vortigern’s end in §118 by passing over the fates of Aurelius and Uther, and excluding notice of the coming of Arthur. In the second version of the Chronicle, Hardyng states that he cannot write affirmatively about Merlin’s birth or his prophecies, so he omits them entirely.

1787–1835 Thay crouned . . . his countré. Generally speaking, Hardyng follows HRB §§120–25, but he radically reduces the account of Aurelius’s battle with Engist, omits Aurelius’s promise to restore the churches if victorious and removes Eldolle’s prayer to meet Engist on the field. Hardyng similarly alters HRB’s statement about the north of England being open to attack from Scots, Picts, Danes, and Norwegians, and recasts it as a justification for the Saxons’ northerly retreat; they choose this area because they can seek refuge in Scotland and obtain help from Britain’s foreign enemies if necessary (compare RMB 1.8255–56). Only Hardyng’s Eldolle sends a letter to Aurelius noting Engist’s capture and only here does he ask what his punishment will be.

1816–28 Sayde “Ye . . . dedes longe." This alludes to Samuel 1 15:33. Hardyng adapts his source to imitate the contemporary practice of quartering high-profile criminals and sending their body parts to various cities for display to deter prospective felons.

1836–70 In this . . . and recounsiled. Compare HRB §§126–27 and RMB 1.8517–8611. Hardyng’s Octa submits himself to Aurelius’s mercy with a rope around his neck instead of a chain, as in RMB 1.8534–35, but the Chronicle follows RMB in having Bishop Eldade offer the king advice first (Eldade is presumably a variation of the earlier character “Eldane,” as he is in other sources). The gift of land to the Saxons is similarly attributed to Aurelius’s own free will, rather than in response to the bishop’s request as in HRB §126 and RB lines 7957–59. For the biblical story of the Gibeonites, see Joshua 9:26.

1871–1924 Than sente . . . can merke. Compare HRB §§128–30 and RMB 1.8612–8817, although the Chronicle may be drawing upon a related, but more succinct, text linked to RB and EH. Hardyng appears to condense and simplify the episode explaining how Stonehenge was brought across from Ireland; however, further investigation into unpublished chronicles, particularly the Latin Bruts, may reveal that the following alterations do not originate with him at all. Hardyng has Aurelius send for Merlin without the advice of his bishop, and he removes any material that makes the king appear foolish, such as his desire to know the future and his laughter at Merlin’s suggestion of bringing the immovable stones to Britain. In so doing, Hardyng creates a stronger, more decisive Aurelius, whose qualities are more in keeping with those already seen. Hardyng alone has Merlin offer to travel with Uther, and by excluding the scene whereby the Britons amuse the prophet with their hopeless attempt to move the stones, he introduces a more obliging Merlin than HRB and RMB. Whilst RB (lines 8175–78), OV (lines 1425–26), EH (II: 302), and NC (fol. 38v) explain that the stones are known as Stonehenge, only RB and EH come close to matching Hardyng’s etymological explanation for the name. Finally, reference to the saintliness of bishops Sampson and Dubricius is also made in RB (lines 8169–70) and RMB (1.8805–07).

1925–54 In whiche . . . body stolle. Hardyng appears to emulate RMB 1.8818–8913. He omits all reference to Paschance’s being in Germany, describes “Menevue” (3.1933) as St. David’s (RMB 1.8841–43; see also RB lines 8213–14) and has Aurelius request burial at Stonehenge instead of dying in his sleep, as he does in HRB §132. The advice concerning unsuitable physicians in the marginalia before 3.1941 is Hardyng’s own.

1955–2149 Thus was . . . the nones. Hardyng’s rendering of Uther’s reign combines elements of HRB §§133–42 and RMB 1.8914–9599. He probably adapted Merlin’s prophecy to accommodate his later account of Arthur’s victory over Lucius (3.3619 ff.), for in HRB the beam that extends from the comet across the territories destined to be conquered by Uther’s son stretches only to Gaul. On the other hand, Hardyng may have known that the place the beam extends to in RB (line 8298) and RMB (1.8929) — the Great St. Bernard’s Pass or “Muntgieu” — leads to Italy and changed his text accordingly to include the more familiar Rome. Other alterations to the prophecy that appear to originate with Hardyng include the prediction that Arthur will have no issue (3.1976) — an interesting addition, which looks forward to the succession of Constantine, the son of Duke Cador (3.3822–28) — and the reference to Uther having more than one daughter at 3.1981. If authorial, the latter is presumably an attempt to reconcile the incongruity in HRB §144, whereby the mother of King Hoel of Brittany, Arthur’s nephew, does not appear to be Anna, daughter of Uther and wife of Loth. Regrettably, Hardyng’s reference to Arthur and Hoel’s consanguinity at 3.2312–13 adds nothing to support this assumption, but the second version of the Chronicle also refers to Uther’s having more than one daughter, suggesting that the change was intentional or the result of Hardyng following a source with such a reading.

The Chronicle follows RMB 1.9029 in naming the church at Winchester St. Peter’s (compare also CPL [I:132]), and the speech given by Hardyng’s Gorlois is similar to, but noticeably shorter than, that in RMB 1.9110–19. Reference to Uther declaring peace at Alclud and punishing criminals severely is made in HRB §137, as is the name of Gorlois’s stronghold “Dymyoke” (but compare RB line 8636, where it also occurs in three manuscripts of that text). Unfortunately, Hardyng’s narrative is confused about the manner of Gorlois’s death. He is slain twice: first by Uther’s men (3.2113–14), and again by Uther (3.2142). This error probably arose because Hardyng decided to omit the episode in his sources whereby the king’s men breach Gorlois’s camp, kill the duke, and win the siege whilst Uther is with Igerne. In passing over this and attributing the victory to Uther, Hardyng may have hoped to enhance the king’s military prowess, which is somewhat overshadowed by his lust in other texts. However, if this was his intention, his failure to omit the messenger’s speech reporting the duke’s demise at 3.2113–14 has spoilt the effect.

Finally, Hardyng omits those parts of his sources that cast the British barons in an unfavorable light; see, for example, HRB §139 and RMB 1.9450–59, where they refuse to follow Loth’s orders.

2061–65 Whose beuté . . . stretched nought. Hardyng’s observation that Nature surpassed itself when it fashioned Igerne is comparable with the descriptions of feminine beauty in romance (see, for example, Chrétien de Troyes’ Chevalier au Lion 1495–98, where we are told that Laudine is of “such immeasurable beauty, for in her Nature has surpassed all limit”; TB 5.1910–15; and Brewer, “Feminine Beauty,” pp. 258, 268).

2063 Hyre shappe and forme excede alle creature. Compare TC 5.807–08.

2106 Whiche of nature tendre was of corage. Compare TC 5.825.

2150–77 A feste . . . grete regyment. Unlike other chroniclers, Hardyng follows the Vulgate Lestoire de Merlin (pp. 196–97) in placing the foundation of the Round Table in Uther’s reign. However, whereas Lestoire de Merlin locates the first appearance of the Table at Uther’s Whitsunday feast, Hardyng’s Uther establishes it during his wedding feast. The description of the Grail as “The dysshe in whiche that Criste dyd putte his honde” and the vessel that Joseph of Arimathea used to collect Christ’s blood is taken from Lestoire de Merlin, (pp. 196–97, 352), but it is at odds with Hardyng’s earlier account of Joseph’s coming to Britain with two vials of the bloody sweat of Christ (2.2611–19). Whilst it is not inconceivable that Hardyng viewed the vials and the Grail as separate relics, it is more likely that the inconsistency arose from his use of disparate sources. (For the Grail as blood relic see Barber, Holy Grail, pp. 127–34, and Vincent, Holy Blood). For Joseph’s arrival in Britain see note 2.2611–47 above. For the Round Table in literature and legend see Fleming, “Round Table” and the works cited therein. The reference to Christ at the house of Simon the leper alludes to Mark 14:3.

2220–26 Afore his . . . Westmerlonde thurghoute. Based on his own geographical knowledge, Hardyng links the castle supposedly built by Uther with Pendragon Castle in Cumbria. The castle, which probably dates from the twelfth century, belonged to the Clifford family, who held the shrievalty of Westmorland by hereditary right and had close familial ties with the Percies, whom Hardyng once served. If this portion of the Chronicle was composed before the first Battle of St. Albans (22 May 1455), which seems most likely, “the Clifford” (3.2224) mentioned here is Thomas Clifford, eighth Baron Clifford (1414–55), son of John Clifford (1388/89–1422) and Elizabeth Percy (d. 1436). Thomas played an important role in fifteenth-century politics and was one of the men who supported Henry VI against Richard, duke of York at the Battle of St. Albans, where he was killed. Conversely, if Hardyng was at work on this section after Thomas’s death, “the Clifford” is Thomas’s son John Clifford, ninth Baron Clifford (1435–61), who came of age and inherited his father’s legacy in July 1456.

2227–47 Allas for . . . you sende. Like the stanza before it, this unique commendation of Uther’s achievements enhances the significance of his reign and underlines the continuity between past and present. Uther, like other sovereigns throughout the Chronicle, is to be a “myrour and remembrance to other kynges and prynces” because he protected his realm and opposed those who “vexed” his people, even when sick (3.2227m and 3.2240). The correlation between the difficulties in Uther’s reign and those lamented elsewhere in the Chronicle relating to Hardyng’s own time are implicit, but Henry VI is asked to “Thynke on this poynte” and ensure that he remains active in defending the realm and people that God entrusted to his care (compare 7.1051–78). Uther’s sickness and subsequent battle at St. Albans may have reminded Hardyng of the mental illness suffered by Henry VI in 1453–54, which preceded the battle of St. Albans in 1455, where one of the Cliffords mentioned above died (see note 3.2220–26).

2247m Arthurs armes. The illustrated arms of King Arthur — gules (red), three crowns or (gold) — occur alongside this marginalia.

2248–80 Arthure his . . . and quyte. Hardyng’s portrait of Arthur’s excellent features and his pledge to free the land of Saxons echoes RB lines 9013–38 and RMB 1.9614–37, although the inclusion of Fortune favoring the king is Hardyng’s own expansion, perhaps inspired by references to Fortune in Lydgate’s FP, and it anticipates his later diatribe on her fickleness (for more on this topic see Peverley, “Chronicling the Fortunes”). The location of Arthur’s coronation at Cirencester (“Cyrcestre," 3.2253), presumably a misreading of “Silcestrie” in HRB §143, similarly demonstrates the Chronicle’s debt to RB and/or RMB, for the same reading occurs in four extant manuscripts of RB (line 9012) and the surviving copies of RMB (1.9605, 1.9610). Whilst the presence of “Caercyry” (3.2253) merely repeats the information at 3.1110, the observation that “som” call Cirencester “Caersegent” (3.2254) indicates some confusion, either on Hardyng’s part or in one of his sources. HB §66a lists Cair Segeint as one of the twenty-eight British cities and HA (pp. 14–15) equates it with Silchester, but neither text mentions it in relation to Arthur. Hardyng may have conflated his “Cyrcestre” with HRB’s Silchester and decided to supplement his text with the information in HA, or, perhaps more likely, he obtained “Caersegent” from a text that drew upon the identification in HA to supplement its own reference to Arthur’s coronation at Silchester.

2255 fyftene yere. Arthur is fifteen at his accession in HRB and RMB.

2281–2380 To Scotlonde . . . no nede. Arthur’s campaign against the Saxons follows HRB §§143–48 and RMB 1.9638–10020, but Hardyng reduces the narrative considerably, omitting Hoel’s illness, the speeches made by Arthur and Dubricius, Arthur’s arming scene, and the detailed descriptions of combat. On one occasion his concision loses the coherence of his sources, for in omitting the scene in which Baldulf flees from battle and decides to try to reach his brother while disguised as a jester to plot their next move (3.2297–2303), it is not immediately apparent why Baldulf adopts his disguise.

2348 By thayre letters and seles. Only Hardyng refers to Cheldryke, Baldulf, and Colgrym ratifying their treaty with Arthur by “letters and seles.”

2360–61 He hanged . . . batayle wente. Hardyng diverges from his sources, where the Saxon hostages are hanged before Arthur journeys to Bath, and has them executed in full sight of their kinsmen to press home the Saxons’ perfidy.

2378 Deveshyre, Dorset and also Somersette. RMB 1.9845–48 appears to have inspired the Chronicle’s reference to the Saxons ravaging Devonshire, Somerset, and Dorset, although the information ultimately derives from RB lines 9245–48. Hardyng has removed it from its original context, where the pillaging precedes the siege of Bath.

2381–2401 In this . . . and contumacyté. Compare HRB §§149–52 and RMB 1.10021–10244. Details apparently taken from HRB include Hardyng’s reckoning of forty islands in the loch, as opposed to sixty in RB line 9427 and RMB 1.10039, and the remark about Bishop Sampson. RMB 1.10077–10130 presumably supplied the reference to all levels of society petitioning the king, not just the bishops as in HRB (see also RB lines 9465–9526). It may also have prompted Hardyng’s observation that Guyllomore came to assist the Saxons, for one of the manuscripts of RMB has him coming to help the Saxons instead of the Scots (1.10067). Hardyng omits his sources’ report of the eagles at the loch and their reference to Arthur restoring the three Scottish kings’ inheritance, electing to emphasize their homage to Arthur as king of Britain instead. In so doing, he makes the Scots the first men to show deference to Arthur, a detail that suits the Chronicle’s repetitive assertion that English kings have always had suzerainty over Scotland.

2430–76 This kynge . . . another founde. Although the details of Arthur’s marriage to Guinevere are ultimately derived from HRB §152, Hardyng adapts his narrative to parallel Uther’s earlier marriage to Igerne. Hardyng describes Guinevere’s beauty in the same terms as Igerne’s (see note 3.2061–65) and mentions Arthur’s reestablishment of the Round Table, justifying his creation of new knights with the statement that the Order of the Round Table had become depleted through war. This is a shrewd way of reconciling the disparate accounts that Hardyng encountered in his chronicle and romance sources concerning how the Round Table was formed and by whom. It also allows Hardyng to present Arthur as a king who restores order and brings stability to his realm by regulating the conduct of his knights and uniting them under a common cause.

Whilst the number of Arthur’s new knights — forty-two — may have come from the additional companions that join the order of the Round Table in Lestoire de Merlin (see pp. 245–49 and the accompanying notes), the majority of their names are taken from HRB §156 and RMB 1.10879–10908, where a list of those attending the plenary court at Caerleon later in Arthur’s reign is given. RB lines 10249–82, one of RMB’s sources, and Arthur also contain the names, but Hardyng’s “Syr Barent” earl of “Circestre” (3.2446), “Syr Jugence” (3.2448), and “Syr Bewes” (3.2456) are closer to the forms given in RMB. The knights at lines 2466–71 have been appropriated from the Welsh names in HRB, but Hardyng has misunderstood the Welsh prefix “map,” meaning “son of,” and produced a number of erroneous names; for clarification of individual names, see the notes that follow. Several knights have no clear source (see notes below).

Finally, Hardyng may have had the processes governing the election of new Garter Knights in mind at line 2476, for there is nothing immediately apparent in his sources matching his statement about the selection of new knights (see Keen, Chivalry, pp. 196–97, for the election process). New members were only admitted into the Order of the Garter upon the death of one of the knights, a fact that Hardyng would have been aware of because his former patron, Sir Robert Umfraville, was a member of the Order.

2447 Syr Harand, Erle of Shrewsbyry. We have been unable to locate a precise match for this name, but RB, RMB, and Arthur have an “Anaraud,” “Amorand” (or “Emoraund”), and “Euerad Erl of Salesbury” respectively (see note 3.2457 below).

2453 Galluc . . . of Salesbyry. HRB §156 has “Galluc Guintoniensis,” but interestingly EH (II:326) is closer to Hardyng’s knight with “Galluc Saresburiensis.”

2455 Gurgoyne the Erle of Herford. See RB line 10259, RMB 1.10889, and Arthur line 155.

2457 Amorawde, Erle of Excestre. A variation of RMB’s “Amorand” of Salisbury (1.10895), although it is not clear whether Hardyng changed the knight’s place of origin because he already had a knight from Salisbury, or whether he took this information from another source (see also HRB §156, RB line 10263, and Arthur line 159).

2459 Ewayne. See RB line 10252 and RMB 1.10882. Arthur lines 141–42 has “Vrweyn þe kynge / Of scottes.”

2462 Of Demecy the kynge Syr Uriayne. Of the sources considered here, only Hardyng presents Uriayne as the king of South Wales. RB line 10253, RMB 1.10883, and Arthur line 143 call the king of South Wales Stater.

2466 Donand, Mapcoyl, Peredoure, and Clenyus. Compare HRB §156 “Donaut Mappapo,” “Cheneus Mapcoil,” and “Peredur Maheridur” respectively. “Clenyus” may be a variation of the first part of “Cheneus Mapcoil,” used here as a separate name.

2467 Maheridoure, Mapclaude, Griffud. For “Maheridoure” see note 3.2466 above. The other names (“Regin Mapclaud” and “Grifud Mapnogoid”) derive from HRB §156.

2468 Gorbonyan, Esidoure and Heroyus. “Gorbonyan” is taken from HRB §156 “Gorbonian Masgoit”; the second part of this name is used at 3.2469 and a variation of Gorbonyan occurs again at 3.2471. We have been unable to locate a source for “Esidoure,” but “Heroyus” may be Hervi of Rivel, who appears in several Arthurian romances, including the Vulgate Lestoire de Merlin, pp. 289–90 (see Bruce, Arthurian Name Dictionary, p. 265, which gives Herui(s) as a form of Hervi).

2469 Edlein, Masgoyd, Kymbelyne. Compare HRB §156 “Eddelein Mapcledauc,” “Gorbonian Masgoit,” and “Kinbelin”; see also 3.2468 and 3.2471, where the first part of “Gorbonian Masgoit” has been used for two other knights.

2469–70 Cathleus / Mapcathel, Mapbangan, and Kynkare. Compare HRB §156 “Cathleus Mapcatel” and “Kingar Mapbangan.”

2471 Colflaut, Makeclauke, Gorbodyan. Compare HRB §156 for “Clofaut.” “Makeclauke” may be a corruption of “Regin Mapclaud” or “Eddelein Mapcledauc.” For “Gorbodyan” see notes 3.2468 and 3.2469 above.

2477–85 Thare reule . . . thayre lady. Compare HRB §157, RB lines 10511–20, and RMB 1.11095–11114.

2486–2513 The somer . . . to hafe. These details are drawn from either HRB §§153–55 or RMB 1.10259–10519, although Arthur’s sword “Caliburne” (3.2489) is named much earlier in both texts (HRB §147 and RMB 1.9883). Hardyng radically condenses his source’s account of Arthur’s conquest of Ireland and Norway, omitting the Norwegians’ attempt to defy Arthur’s installation of Loth as their king. He also adds Scotland and Friesland (“Freseland”) to the list of conquered realms.

2511 Kynge Sychelme. King Sichelm, Lot’s Norwegian grandfather (or uncle?), cited in HRB 9.11.

2514–40 Kynge Arthure . . . make pretence. Hardyng’s idiosyncratic description of the vast corpus of Arthurian literature available in his own time may have been inspired by RMB 1.10391–10420, which in turn develops a passage in RB lines 9785–98. By directing his readers to “the grete boke of alle the aventures / Of the Seynte Grale” (3.2532–33), a source also mentioned in Lydgate’s FP (8.2788), Hardyng simultaneously shows his own knowledge of, and fondness for, Arthurian literature, whilst introducing the notion that such stories are for “yonge mennes wytte” (3.2535) and not for seasoned old men like himself. The “grete boke” referred to is presumably a manuscript containing several Vulgate romances similar to that mentioned in the will of Sir Richard Roos (d. 1481/82), which contained the Estoire del Saint Graal, Mort Artu, and Queste (now British Library MS Royal 14 E. iii); (see Meale, “Manuscripts,” p. 103, and “Patrons,” p. 207; and Moll, Before Malory, pp. 170, 304). Moll has suggested that the individual tales alluded to at 3.2523 refer “to romances of individual achievement” (p. 170), a point that appears to be supported by the fact that Hardyng probably knew several of the knights listed at 3.2555–75 from their own romances.

2541–54 Bot whan . . . thaire viage. The suggestion that the knights’ exploits were recorded in Arthur’s time probably comes from Queste (p. 87), which refers to clerks writing down the adventures of the Grail quest (see also Lestoire de Merlin, p. 345), or Lydgate’s FP, which mentions a clerk chronicling the deeds reported to him by pursuivants so that the stories could be read and sung at court to give folk “gret confort” (8.2780–86 and 8.2829–35). Even so, only Hardyng’s knights write down their own adventures (3.2545), possibly, as Harker suggests, to reflect “a changed social context in which knightly literacy had become less uncommon” ("John Hardyng's Arthur," p. 252). Hardyng is similarly unique in stating that the adventures were recorded and read to stir young knights to perform chivalric deeds, a detail that sustains the contrast between youth and old age introduced at 3.2534–36. Lydgate mentions a “scoole of marcial doctrine / For yonge knihtes to lernen al the guise” (FP, 8.2815–21), but he fails to connect the education of new knights with the exemplary activities of tested knights.

2555–75 Bycause that . . . so thanne. Whereas Hardyng’s first register of the Round Table knights was compiled from those names occurring in his chronicle sources (see note 3.2430–76 above), this roll call consists mainly of figures from Arthurian romance, thus complementing Hardyng’s previous allusion to romances concerning the adventures of individual knights (see note 3.2514–40). Gawain, Lancelot, Pelles, Percival, Calogrenant (“Colygrenauntt,” 3.2567), Lionel, Bors, Kay, and Mordred all appear in the Vulgate Cycle, as well as other romances, although there is also a chronicle precedent for Percival in Le Petit Bruit (p. 12). Libeaus Desconus (“Lybews Dysconus,” 3.2567), Degare (“Degré,” 3.2568), and Degrevaunt feature in their own English romances. Bedivere also occurs in English romance, but like his nephew Hirelglas (“Irelglas,” 3.2571), and Guytarde, Hardyng would have known him from HRB. “Estore” (3.2569) is Ector, another romance figure, but it is unclear whether he is meant to be the father of Sir Kay and foster father of Arthur, or another Ector, such as the half-brother of Sir Lancelot. We have been unable to locate Hardyng’s source for "Bewes of Corbenny" (3.2570); one Escant, or Escans, duke of Cambenic is mentioned in Lestoire de Merlin (see, for example, pp. 227, 230–32, 270), where Cambenic is one of the northern duchies against Arthur, but Corbenny is more likely to be a variant of Corbenic, the Grail Castle in the Vulgate Cycle. The allusion to Arthur’s incestuous relationship with his sister at 3.2573–75 provides another example of Hardyng’s knowledge of the Vulgate Cycle, for, with the exception of the Stanzaic Morte Arthur, which is derived from Mort Artu, early English sources tend to depict Mordred as Arthur’s nephew (see 3.3787–93).

2576–96 In whiche . . . hertes consolacions. Arthur’s movable household mimics that of a medieval king, but the number of places he holds court is excessive, as the various locations serve to emphasize Arthur’s supremacy “thurghout alle Bretayne grounde” (3.2579). Hardyng’s inclusion of Glastonbury is particularly striking, because his interest in it usually centers on its association with Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail: that is, as a place of religious, as opposed to secular, authority. It is also the location of Arthur’s court in Libeaus Desconus, a romance that Hardyng might have known given his reference to the hero at 3.2567.

2597–2624 The reule . . . a name. Having briefly touched upon the “reule” of the Round Table at 3.2477–78, Hardyng establishes the principles governing the order in greater detail. Three elements of the oath (helping maidens, seeking out absent knights, and describing their adventures) ultimately derive from the vows made by the knights in Lestoire de Merlin (p. 345), whilst other aspects of the pledge show the knights addressing common fifteenth-century problems by offering their services against those who commit heresy, oppress the common weal, rebel against the king’s “dygnyté” (3.2605), and commit extortion, particularly against the poor. Hardyng may have been inspired by Lydgate’s account of the Round Table statutes in FP 8.2728–2849, which list amongst other things the knights’ duty to resist tyranny, protect widows and maidens, restore children to their “trewe heritage,” defend “comoun proffit” and the “liberté” of the church, and help companions in need. The reference to the knights’ deeds being recorded in “romance or scripture” (3.2621) to inspire others likewise bears some resemblance to Lydgate’s text and echoes Hardyng’s earlier observation at 3.2541–54 (see note 3.2541–54 above).

In Arthurian literature Pentecost is a common time for the knights to gather at court and Hardyng appears to make use of this convention later on to invite comparisons between Arthur’s court and that of Edward I, who is also said to hold a great feast at Pentecost, second only to Arthur’s (6.798–867).

2625–26 But ever . . . sharpe laboure. See note 2.2354–55.

2625–2715 But ever . . . is memory. Having already changed the order of events in RMB 1.10391–10470 (which follows HRB §155 and RB lines 9731–9886) by recounting Arthur’s conquest of Norway before the first period of peace and knightly adventures, Hardyng moves straight to the king’s conquest of France and provides an abbreviated account of Arthur’s victory over Frolle, which appears to be drawn from RMB 1.10520–10792. The ensuing list of the European kings and princes that pay homage to Arthur is Hardyng’s own addition, as is Arthur’s coronation in Paris, an event which may have been added to prefigure Henry VI’s coronation in Paris as dual monarch of England and France and create a connection between the two kings (see note 3.2716–2946 below, though compare Lydgate’s FP 8.2892–98, which mentions Arthur’s feast in Paris).

Other unique aspects of Hardyng’s narrative include the description of Guinevere’s beauty, which resembles that of Chaucer’s Criseyde in TC 1.99–105, and the declaration that the tournaments took place for “love of ladyse” (3.2695). The description of Arthur’s sojourn in France follows RB and RMB, rather than HRB, in that it enhances Arthur’s prestige by depicting his nine-year stay as a time of peace and adventure; on this topic see Putter, “Finding Time for Romance.”

2716–2946 And whan . . . prynces regymence. Compare HRB §§155–57, RB lines 10147–10620, and RMB 1.10775–11192, though each of these places the events at 3.2730–43 before Arthur makes a decision to return to Britain. Although the basic details of the celebrations at Caerleon ultimately derive from HRB’s account of Arthur’s plenary court, where the king wears his crown in state, Hardyng recasts the episode as a second British coronation. This alteration might indicate that he was following RB line 10204 or RMB 1.10828, since both texts phrase Arthur’s wish to be crowned in such a way that it could be interpreted as a desire to have another coronation, rather than simply to wear the crown at court. RMB 1.10873–74 may have added to this confusion with its later reference to a “legate fro Rome” being sent to crown Arthur. In addition to this, Hardyng embellishes his account of the abundance of wine at Arthur’s feast by reworking lines 314–320 and 333–34 of Lydgate’s “Henry VI’s Triumphant Entry into London” (see 3.2869–76). Having recycled parts of the same poem earlier in the Chronicle, Hardyng presumably utilizes it here to underscore subtle links between King Arthur’s celebrations and those witnessed related to Henry VI’s dual coronation in England and France. See Peverley, “Chronicling the Fortunes” for further discussion of Hardyng’s use of Lydgate’s poem. For other uses of the poem see Prol.1–14, 2.2232–2451, 6.812–67, 7.708–14.

2726 north halfe Rome. This detail is unique to Hardyng. It may have been inspired by the comparison of Caerleon and Rome in HRB §156 and other texts, or perhaps from RMB’s reference to a papal legate being sent for (1.10873–74).

2727 Severne. In HRB §156 and elsewhere Arthur’s guests sail down the River Usk, which is said to be close to the Severn. Hardyng just mentions the Severn.

2786 The kynge of Man. Compare RB line 10321 and RMB 1.10934, both of which mention the king of “Mans.”

2800–03 The archebysshop . . . and excercyse. Hardyng, like LB lines 12206–07, places the archbishop of London on Arthur’s right and the archbishop of York on Arthur’s left; neither HRB, RB nor RMB mention which side the archbishops walked on or which of Arthur’s arms they held.

2809–13 Where byried . . . alle wyrkynge. Reference to Dubrike’s burial is not made in the equivalent passages in HRB §157, HRBVV §157, CPL I:176, EH II:329, and RMB 1.11543–48, where the archbishop resigns from his office to become a hermit. See note 3.2905–18 below.

2814–27 Kynge Aguselle . . . that servyce. Hardyng places additional emphasis on the symbolic nature of the swords carried by the four kings, making it clear to his audience that the swords represent the lands that the kings “holdyn” for Arthur (3.2820).

2837 With kynges led. Presumably a misreading of HRB §157, which describes Guinevere being led by the consorts of the four kings accompanying Arthur.

2852–55 Duke Kay . . . dyd stonde. Hardyng’s reference to Kay’s carrying a silver baton, or “yerde” (3.2854), before the king appears to be unique. It may be an allusion to the ceremonial white staff carried by the king’s steward in the Middle Ages.

2860–62 And ay . . . and disporte. Arthur’s court is said to follow Trojan custom in HRB §157, RB lines 10445–58, and RMB 1.11049–60, where the men and women attend separate feasts; however, Hardyng emphasizes the fact that both sexes sit together so that the knights can “comforte” and “chere” the ladies “with daliance.” Compare with the seating arrangements at Cassibalan’s feast at 2.2340–46.

2865 In clothe of golde. In HRB §157, RB lines 10471–78, and RMB 1.11073–76, Bedivere and his men are clad in ermine like Sir Kay; Hardyng’s reference to their golden attire appears to be unique.

2870–76 Thetys that . . . the feste. See note 3.2716–2946 above.

2891–2904 And every . . . myght endure. Only Hardyng appears to mention Guinevere’s special relationship with the church dedicated to St. Julian. For Guinevere’s flight to St. Julian’s at the end of Arthur’s reign see 3.3801–07; for the martyrdom of saints Julian and Aaron see 3.386–92, where, contrary to what Hardyng says here, the saints’ martyrdom is said to have taken place under the Emperor Diocletian, not Maxence.

2905–18 But Seynte . . . and autorised. Compare note 3.2809–13 above. Dubrike’s retirement and David’s consecration are also mentioned briefly in HRB §157, CPL I:176, EH II:329, and RMB 1.11543–48. Although Sullens has noted that RMB’s reference to Dubrike is “conspicuously out of order” with the rest of the narrative (see p. 704n1143–48), Hardyng’s record of the archbishop’s fate points towards the likelihood that he was using a version of HRB, RMB, or an unknown text related to them, rather than RB, which does not refer to Dubrike’s resignation or burial. The allusion to David’s canonization and the use of the simile at 3.2914–15 to describe the saint’s exemplary life appear to be unique to Hardyng.

2919m Elyden was . . . Bede also. For Elyden as bishop of Alclud see HRB §157. The debate about Alclud’s location echoes similar comments at 2.1066m and 2.1941–2045, and draws upon P (II:64–69) and Bede (pp. 58–59) (although Bede is cited as a source in P, so Hardyng may not have used Bede directly here).

2926–46 And whan . . . prynces regymence. Compare with RB lines 10589–10620 and RMB 1.11159–92, where Arthur’s generosity is described. Hardyng’s account of the king’s “liberalté” (3.2939) is notably different in its emphasis on the respect that other princes have for Arthur and the growth of his reputation.

2947m How whan . . . and Wales. Hardyng’s account of Galahad’s Grail Quest is unparalleled in the chronicle tradition and has attracted a great deal of attention from scholars. Whereas other chronicles, such as HRB and RMB, describe the arrival of the Emperor Lucius’s envoy immediately after Arthur’s plenary court, Hardyng’s text takes a detour into the world of romance, delaying the onset of Arthur’s war with Lucius until Galahad has achieved the Grail. Kennedy argues, quite convincingly, that Hardyng imbues the quest with political significance by transforming his source, the Vulgate Queste, into “something creditable to Arthur and his court,” which enhances “the spiritual authority of Arthur’s reign” and repudiates “Scottish writers who boasted of Scotland’s preeminence as a Christian nation and who stressed the illegitimacy of Arthur’s rule” (“John Hardyng and the Holy Grail,” pp. 203, 205, 206). Riddy, on the other hand, makes an equally compelling case for Hardyng’s demystification of the Grail, claiming that it “is not a religious symbol at all but [. . .] a heraldic emblem that harks back through history to Joseph of Arimathea, binding together the British past rather than transcending history in the Eucharist” (“John Hardyng in Search of the Grail,” p. 426; see also her “Glastonbury” and “Chivalric Nationalism”).

In this particular marginalia Hardyng attempts to lend historical authenticity to the romance material by linking “the grete story of the Saynt Graal” (i.e., Queste) with the “Policraticon” of “Waltier of Oxenford.” Elsewhere in the Chronicle Hardyng’s allusions to Walter of Oxford imply that he was thinking of HRB, a text that he probably had in mind here given his observation that Walter’s text deals with “Cornewail and Wales” (see 2.1m, 2.1115–98, 4.2754), but which certainly did not furnish him with the story of the Grail. In connecting the “grete story” of the Grail with an author named Walter, Hardyng may be referring to Walter Map, alleged author of the Vulgate Queste and Mort Artu (see Queste, p. 87 and Mort Artu, pp. 91, 160). This hypothesis, however, does not explain the reference to Cornwall and Wales or Walter’s association with Oxford, unless Hardyng was confusing Map with the Walter mentioned in HRB (see Moll, Before Malory, pp. 186–87). The enigmatic “Policraticon” is similarly opaque, and Moll may be correct in suggesting that Hardyng intended Polychronicon (p. 187). Nevertheless, if Hardyng had Higden’s work of that name in mind he must have been attempting to lend spurious authority to the romance material because the information about Galahad and the Grail did not come from that text (compare notes 3.2989m, 3.2989–3016, 3.3038m, and 3.3136m, for other erroneous sources).

Since Hardyng is not the only author to cite the story of the Grail as a source (compare JG, p. 48, and Le Petit Bruit, p. 6, and Lovelich, V:306), it is likely that he is drawing upon a genuine Grail text — probably a romance from the French Vulgate cycle — or repeating the information after seeing it cited elsewhere. Equally, John Lydgate’s reference to a “Sang Real” in his account of Sege Perilous in FP 8.2788, may have influenced Hardyng. Further information about this marginalia is available in the Textual Notes.

2947–88 And at . . . that ordoure. Hardyng’s main source for this section is the Vulgate Cycle. In the Vulgate Lancelot, Galahad stays at an abbey until he is fifteen, then he leaves to become a knight (III:338), and in Queste (pp. 3–5), he arrives at Arthur’s court on Whitsunday (Pentecost). The story of “Sege Perilouse” (3.2966) and the prophecy about Galahad are found in Lestoire de Merlin (pp. 196–97, 352, 359) and Queste (pp. 5, 26–27), but only Hardyng uses the story of the seat’s destructive power to enhance Arthur’s reputation by claiming that, until Galahad arrived, nobody except the king had sat in it without being “shamed and mescheved” (3.2969). Hardyng’s description of Lancelot’s begetting Galahad “by hole and fulle knowlage / Of Pelles doughter” (3.2956–57) likewise deviates from the traditional account of his conception by implying that Lancelot loved “Pelles doughter” willingly, rather than being duped into sleeping with her as he is in other romances (see, for example, Lancelot vol. 3, IV:164–65). In the second version of the Chronicle, Hardyng makes the purity of Galahad’s conception clearer still by stating that Galahad was conceived “in verray clene spousage / On Pelles doghter” (see Arch. Selden B. 10, fol. 56r).

2954 fiftene yere of age. Compare with the Vulgate Lancelot, vol. 3, VI:338.

2989m How the . . . and Cornwail. Hardyng’s spurious reference to Gerald of Wales (“Giralde Cambrense”) writing about the Grail in his “Topographie of Wales and Cornwail” is another attempt to give historical authenticity to the romance material in this section of the Chronicle. Similar references to Gerald occur at 3.3038m and 3.3136m. See also note 3.2947m above and Moll, who suggests that Hardyng could have been “aware that Giraldus’s work contained information relating to Glastonbury and that the rubrics are based on this” (Before Malory, p. 187).

2989–3016 At whiche . . . myne avowe. The account of the Grail’s appearance is based on Queste (p. 5), where the doors and windows shut by themselves as Galahad is brought to Arthur’s court, but Hardyng invents an erroneous source for it in the chronicle tradition at 3.2997 (“as sayth the cronyclere”; compare also notes 3.2947m and 3.2989m above). Besides adapting this episode to herald the Grail’s entrance rather than Galahad’s, Hardyng disregards the solemn procession of the Grail described in Queste (p. 7), and instead depicts it flying in, around, and out of the hall. Other alterations include Galahad’s pledge to take up the quest before any other knight (in Queste Gawain is the first, pp. 7–8), and Arthur’s knighting of Galahad (Lancelot confers this honor in Queste, p. 3). The king’s gift of “armes” (3.3009) and Galahad’s refusal of a shield echo Queste (p. 7), where Galahad dons a hauberk and helmet at the king and queen’s request, but refuses to carry a shield until he has won his own.

3012–16 Ne two . . . myne avowe. As Harker notes, Galahad’s pledge not to stay “two nyght” in one place until he has learnt about the Grail is the same as the vow made by Percival in Chrétien de Troyes’ Li Contes del Graal, 4693 ff. (“John Hardyng’s Arthur,” p. 275). Compare also Arthur’s vow not to spend two nights at the same place until he has found Percival (4099 ff.).

3022–37 For whiche . . . and wo. Arthur’s lament at the knights’ leaving echoes Queste (p. 8), but Hardyng supplies the king’s aspiration to “folow thaym” (3.3036) and expands on the importance of the knights by employing the well-known image of the body politic, whereby the knights are the “membres” (3.3026), limbs or organs, that sustain Arthur’s body (i.e., the realm) and maintain his “coroun” and sovereign “rightes” (3.3032).

3038m How Sir . . . and Cornwail. See note 3.2989m above and Textual Notes.

3038–49 With that . . . togedir layne. The concept of knights exchanging stories about their adventures may have been inspired by Queste (pp. 10, 87), Lestoire de Merlin (p. 345), or, more generally, by the plot of Queste, whereby the knights often encounter each other again after separating on their quest.

3052–82 Bot so . . . after right. Hardyng follows Queste (pp. 11–13), although he changes several details (see the notes below).

3052 Avalone. Instead of finding the shield that once belonged to Evalache, king of Sarras, at a Cistercian abbey, as in Queste, Galahad acquires it at the Benedictine house at Glastonbury, which Hardyng equates with Avalon. For Glastonbury’s association with Avalon and the Grail see Lagorio, “Evolving Legend”; Robinson, Two Glastonbury Legends; Abrams and Carley, Archaeology and History; and Barber, Holy Grail.

3057 A shelde, a spere, a sworde. Hardyng’s source, Queste, makes no reference to Galahad obtaining a sword and spear at the abbey; Galahad obtains his sword before setting out on his quest (p. 6), and encounters a bleeding lance much later in the narrative when he uses it to cure the maimed king (p. 85). The Queste does describe a tomb at the abbey containing the cadaver of a knight in full armor, with a sword and other “chivalric accoutrements” (p. 14), but Galahad does not take the items and the dead knight is later revealed to be a symbol of sinful mankind. This episode may have inspired Hardyng to include the other weapons here, especially since Nascien (Seraphe) is said to be buried with the shield (p. 13), but he may simply have incorporated them because of their prominence in Grail lore at large.

3059 thay sayde . . . it wreton. In Queste a White Knight explains the shield’s history to Galahad, but in Hardyng’s text the holy men find the information written “in bokes.”

3060 Kynge Evalache. Evalache is a pagan king of Sarras, who converts to Christianity after receiving a shield from Josephus, son of Joseph of Arimathea, which enables him to defeat his enemy. After converting he changes his name to Mordrain. See Estoire del Saint Graal (pp. 14–49) and Queste (pp. 12–13).

3062–64 With crosse . . . or adversité. Either deliberately or in confusion, Hardyng changes the character responsible for drawing the “crosse of blode” (3.3062) on the shield from Josephus — the son of Joseph of Arimathea in the Vulgate Cycle — to Joseph of Arimathea. The observation that no man except Galahad could bare the shield without suffering “deth, mayme or adversité” (3.3064) alludes to Queste (pp. 11–13).

3065 Bot oon . . . in vyrgynyté. The themes of virginity and spiritual purity are ubiquitous throughout the Vulgate Cycle; see, for example, Lestoire de Merlin, (p. 359), where King Pelles predicts that three knights are needed to fulfil the Grail quest, two of which must be virgins and the third chaste.

3066 Duke Seraphe. Seraphe, duke of Orberica, brother-in-law of King Evalache, and ancestor of Galahad. Upon converting to the Christian faith, Seraphe changes his name to Nascien. See Estoire del Saint Graal (p. 47) and Queste (pp. 12–13).

3075 Orboryke. Orberica, the land ruled by Nascien and converted by Joseph of Arimathea in the Vulgate Cycle (see, for example, Estoire del Saint Graal, pp. 42, 44, 50, 69, 73). It is also mentioned at 3.3102.

3080–81 What shuld . . . this prophecy. In this version of the Chronicle, Hardyng does not elaborate on how, or where, Galahad finds the Grail, only that he fulfils his destiny; in the second version, Galahad finds the Grail in Wales.

3094–3100 That every . . . kynge sojorned. Hardyng probably appropriates the idea that the knights’ adventures were recorded by the court from Queste (p. 87) or Lestoire de Merlin (p. 345), but see notes 3.2541–54 and 3.2597–2624 above.

3101–28 Bot so . . . fulle cyrcumspeccioun. The nine companions that join Galahad, Percival, and Bors at the “Table of Seynte Grale” originate from Queste (pp. 84–85), but Hardyng ignores the brief role that they play in his source, whereby they re-enact the Last Supper with Galahad, Percival, and Bors and receive the Eucharist from Josephus. Instead, Hardyng credits Galahad with establishing a new chivalric order to equal that of the Round Table. The “reule” of Galahad’s Grail Order (3.3114m, 3.3115) differs from that of the Round Table in only a few details: Galahad’s knights swear “To leve evermore in clennesse virginalle” (3.3116), and young children are added to the list of people that they should protect. Several aspects of the Round Table oath — the vow to protect against sorcery, defend the king’s dignity, meet annually to recount adventures, and seek absent knights — are similarly omitted, but, for the most part, the codes upheld by both orders are the same. Compare 3.2477–78 and 3.2597–2624.

3102 Orberike. See note 3.3075 above.

3115m What the . . . Gestis Arthuri. The enigmatic sources alluded to in this marginalia have prompted some debate amongst scholars. Riddy suggests that “the dialogue ‘de gestis Arthur’ is conceivably ‘de gestis Britonum’, an alternative title for the Historia Brittonum,” which was “frequently attributed to Gildas in medieval manuscripts” (“Glastonbury,” p. 322n17). In contrast, Moll posits that the reference to “De Gestis Arthuri” is a “poor reading” of the Description of Wales, where Gerald of Wales “explains why Gildas did not mention Arthur in his De Excidio Britonum” (Before Malory, pp. 188). He similarly concedes that the accompanying marginalia, which could have been written in two stages, may represent Hardyng’s “own attempts, late in the production of the manuscript, to provide authority for his suspect history” (p. 189).

Carley, on the other hand, notes that Hardyng’s alleged sources “correspond very closely” to the Tractatus de Sancto Ioseph ab Arimathia (The Treatise of St. Joseph of Arimathea) and Liber de gestis incliti regis Arthuri (The book of the deeds of the glorious King Arthur) cited in JG. He surmises that Hardyng’s references are drawn from “some sort of compendium concocted at Glastonbury separate from John’s chronicle [JG] (but into which it was partially incorporated).” See Barron, ed., Arthur of the English (p. 54) and JG (pp. 46, 52, and 278n69); see also the interpolation in William of Malmesbury’s De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie (p. 47), from which JG’s reference to the Liber de gestis incliti regis Arthuri is taken. Although JG does not attribute the Gestis to Gildas directly, it does celebrate Glastonbury’s connections with the saint and draws upon Caradoc of Llancarvan’s Life of Gildas, so if Hardyng did use “some sort of compendium” related to Glastonbury, there is a small possibility that such a work may have attributed a Gestis to Gildas; see, for example, Geffrei Gaimar’s L’Estoire des Engleis (lines 39–42).

Given that other similarities occur elsewhere between Hardyng’s work and that of JG (or a related text), Carley’s proposal best explains how Hardyng might have encountered a reference to the works cited here, but, for all this, it is highly unlikely that he obtained any information about the “reule” of Galahad’s Grail order from such a text; he appears to have invented the “reule” himself based on Arthur’s Round Table oath and material in Queste (see notes 3.2597–2624 and 3.3101–28). For the possibility of Hardyng using, or having knowledge of, a romance dealing with Joseph of Arimathea see note 2.2611–47 above. In sum, all that can be said with any degree of certainty is that the “book of Josep of Arymathie” and “De Gestis Arthur” are cited to add authority to the narrative, whether they are real or, less likely, spurious sources (compare notes 3.2989m, 3.2989–3016, 3.3038m, and 3.3136m). Additional information about this marginalia can be found in the Textual Notes.

3129 So endurynge fulle longe and many yere. In Hardyng’s source, Queste (p. 87), Galahad has no desire for worldly sovereignty and reigns for a single year before receiving the Eucharist from Josephus and dying of joy. Since Hardyng’s presentation of Galahad is much more secular in its orientation, he may have refrained from mentioning Galahad’s reluctance to be king and extended the length of his reign to present a more positive portrait of kingship and English rule over a foreign land (see Riddy, “Chivalric Nationalism,” pp. 407–08).

3134–49 Whiche tyme . . . knyghtly diligence. In Queste, Galahad does not make Bors king of Sarras. After witnessing Galahad’s death Bors remains with Percival until he dies; he then returns to Arthur’s court, where he recounts Galahad’s adventures and they are recorded for posterity (p. 87).

3136m How Percyvall . . . and Wales. See note 3.2989m and Textual Notes. As Kennedy notes, the spurious sources cited in this marginalia have been falsified to lend authority to Hardyng’s own account of the burial of Galahad’s heart (“John Hardyng and the Holy Grail,” p. 204).

3150–56 And to . . . his blode. Kennedy argues that Hardyng’s inimitable reference to Galahad’s heart being encased in gold could have been inspired by “the well known story of the death of Robert Bruce, whose heart was encased in silver, taken on a pilgrimage against the Saracens, and brought back to Scotland and buried with great ceremony at Melrose Abbey” (“John Hardyng and the Holy Grail,” pp. 204–05). In contrast, Riddy proposes another analogue, suggesting that Hardyng “must have known” about Emperor Sigismund’s presentation of St. George’s heart to Henry V in 1416 “through his ‘good lord,’ the Garter knight Sir Robert Umfraville” (“Chivalric Nationalism,” p. 409). Given the reference to St. George’s arms in the following stanza (see note 3.3157–70 below), Riddy may be correct, or Hardyng could be conflating both episodes. Wherever his inspiration came from, his account of Galahad’s interment at Avalon (Glastonbury) serves to bolster the connections he makes elsewhere between Glastonbury, Joseph of Arimathea, Galahad and the Grail. In Queste, Galahad is buried in Sarras.

3157–70 And there . . . he hynge. English interest in St. George arose in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, first under Edward III, who created the Order of the Garter in his honor and may have helped to establish St. George as the patron saint of England, and later under Henry V, who had a “personal devotion” to the saint and who carried his banner during his campaign against France (see Riddy, “Glastonbury,” p. 330n37). Up to this point in the Chronicle, Hardyng has taken care to associate St. George’s arms with Joseph of Arimathea, the legendary Christian kings Lucius, Constantine, Arthur, and Galahad, but here he makes an explicit link between the monarchs of the past who have borne the “armes that we Seynt Georges calle” (3.3158) and all subsequent kings who have fought under the saint’s banner. It is likely that Hardyng, who fought for Henry V at Agincourt and Harfleur, had his former sovereign in mind when composing these lines. For earlier references to St. George’s arms see 3.505m, 3.575m, 3.694m, 3.3059, and 3.3157–70. By emphasizing the connection between past and present uses of heraldry, Hardyng similarly paves the way for his subsequent description of how all chivalric orders are connected (see note 3.3171–84 below).

3171–84 Of whiche . . . soules heelfulnesse. Earlier in the Chronicle, Hardyng followed the Vulgate Lestoire de Merlin (pp. 196–97) and Queste (pp. 26–27), stating that the chivalric orders of the Round Table and the Holy Grail were made in imitation of the table at the Last Supper. In this section he builds upon the notion of a chivalric genealogy connecting past and present orders of knighthood by claiming that the twelfth-century order of the Knights Templar was formed “in figure” of Galahad’s Grail Order (3.3173), and that Knights Hospitaller are, in turn, related to the Templars, who were disbanded in 1312. Whilst the Hospitallers, who also originated in the twelfth century, did indeed model their rule on the Templars, it is likely that Hardyng’s lines reflect an interest in, and awareness of, the “historical mythology” of chivalry (see Keen, Chivalry, pp. 50, 124), rather than any detailed knowledge of the Templars’ and Hospitallers’ statutes. Consequently, these stanzas underscore Hardyng’s careful attempt to chronicle the ancestry of chivalry alongside the ancestry of his sovereign; moreover, they provide an insight into why Hardyng may have elected to weave romance materials into this and earlier sections of the Chronicle. As Keen has noted, the stories of Joseph of Arimathea, the Grail, and Arthur’s court played a significant role in helping to underpin “the values of chivalry by providing them with a faultlessly antique and highly evocative pedigree” (Chivalry, p. 102); thus, just as Hardyng traces Henry VI’s lineage from Adam, he is also able to chart the development of knighthood and chivalry from Joseph of Arimathea and the Last Supper by appropriating and adapting the Vulgate stories and explaining the history of the arms of St. George, patron saint of the Order of the Garter to which Sir Robert Umfraville, who is held up as a perfect proponent of chivalry at the end of the Chronicle, belonged. For similar correlations between past and present orders see Keen, Chivalry, (pp. 190–92), who cites some interesting examples of the Order of the Garter being made in honor of Arthur’s Round Table. Compare also, Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival, which also links the Templars to the Grail by making them the guardians of the Grail Castle (Keen, Chivalry, p. 59).

3185–3219 At Pentecoste . . . a suffisshance. Compare with 3.2744–2890. Having interpolated a Grail Quest and account of Galahad’s achievements, Hardyng picks up his chronicle sources where he left them. By incorporating a second Pentecostal feast at Caerleon, he is able to follow HRB and RMB and describe the arrival of the Roman delegates during the festivities at court (see note 3.3220–73 below).

3191 Camalot. Hardyng may be alluding to an oral tradition that associates Caerleon with Camelot, or he may be conflating the disparate locations of Arthur’s principal court found in chronicles, such as HRB, and romance, such as the Vulgate Mort Artu. Camelot first appears in Chrétien de Troyes’ Chevalier de la Charette, but it is a separate location to Caerleon.

3192–98 The kynges . . . alle plesaunce. Compare 3.2777–88, where the same kings are mentioned alongside Duke Cador and the King of Man.

3220–72 So at . . . his avaylle. On the whole, Hardyng’s account of the arrival of Lucius’s envoy and his letter appears to draw upon HRB §158 and RMB 1.11195–11314, although the wording of RB lines 10621–10730 is also of interest (see note 3.3227–32). Lucius is “procuratoure” of Rome (3.3228) in HRB and EH (II:330), and Emperor in RB, Lestoire de Merlin (p. 401), RMB, and EH (II:330) (in the chapter heading), but see also note 3.3346m. CPL refers to him as senator and emperor (I:176, 192). “Kynge Frolle” (3.3243) is mentioned in Lucius’ letter in RB and RMB, but not HRB. LB, OV and Brut also refer to Lucius as emperor, mention Frolle, and have Arthur reply by letter (see LB lines 12356–12627, OV lines 1808–45, Brut pp. 81–82), but they do not appear to be Hardyng’s sources.

3220 dese. RB and RMB also place Arthur on the dais when the envoy arrives.

3222–23 With olyfe . . . esy pase. Compare RMB 1.11204–05, “with olyue branches in handes born / with softe pas.”

3224 Upon thayre knes. This detail appears to be unique to Hardyng.

3227–32 Lucyus of . . . haste deserved. Compare HRB §158 and EH (II:330), “Lucius rei publice procurator Arturo regi Britannie quod meruit” (Lucius, Procurator of the Republic, wishes that Arthur, King of Britain, [may receive such treatment] as he has deserved) and RB (lines 10641–42) "Luces, ki Rome ad en baillie / E des Romains la seinurie / Mande ço qu’il ad deservi / Al rei Artur, sun enemi" (Luces, the ruler of Rome and lord of the Romans, sends King Arthur, his enemy, what he has deserved).

3249 Auguste. HRB §158, RB line 10691, and EH (II:330) contain August, but RMB 1.11269 refers to “next heruest.”

3259 The lyfelode . . . thee lefte. This detail does not occur in HRB, RB, or RMB. Although the Alliterative Morte (line 112) touches upon Uther’s tribute (“Thy fader made fewtee we find in our rolles / In the regestre of Rome”), there is nothing in this section to suggest that Hardyng knew or used the romance. See Harker, “John Hardyng’s Arthur,” p. 285, who seems to imply that Hardyng knew the text.

3262–68 "Written at . . . I gesse." This stanza is unique to Hardyng and may reflect, as Harker has suggested, “the kind of officiating tag which Hardyng in his capacity as a forger of documents could be expected to add” (“John Hardyng’s Arthur,” p. 286).

3269 Geants Toure. Compare HRB §158 (“giganteam turrim”), RB line 10730 (“Tur gigantine”), RMB 1.11314 (“Toure Geaunt”), and EH II:331 (“gigantaeam”).

3272 He shulde than wryte. Despite the fact that HRB §§158–162 elucidates Arthur’s rights and mentions that Arthur used Lucius’s messengers to relay his reply, there is no explicit reference to Arthur writing a letter. RB lines 11045–47 briefly mentions the composition of a letter after Arthur has discussed the matter with his men, but RMB 1.11405–10, 1.11611–18, and Arthur lines 247–70 make more of Arthur’s writing, dedicating several lines to the composition of the letter. Hardyng may have been inspired by RMB (see note 3.3273–3345 below for a linguistic echo to support this assumption) or another unidentified source related to RB (as Arthur appears to be). Equally, the decision to present Arthur’s response to Lucius solely in letter form may originate from a desire to link Arthur’s epistolary exchange with other instances in the Chronicle where kings have asserted their territorial claims through letters; see, for example, 6.1990–94, where Edward III uses letters to establish his claim to France, and Edward I’s letter to Pope Boniface at 7.1401–14, which Hardyng urges Henry VI to use if he ever wishes to insist on his right to Scotland.

3273–3345 Of whiche . . . thaym amonge. Hardyng omits the speeches made by Arthur’s men in HRB §§158–162, RB lines 10711–11058, RMB 1.11315–11628, and EH II:331–35. There are linguistic echoes between the letter at 3.3333–36 and Arthur’s response in RMB 1.11494–96 (“bring Rome & I salle Bretayn bring, / & whilk of vs most may / bere Rome and Bretayn boþe away”). See also note 3.3272 above.

3286 By treson of Androges. This is an allusion to 2.2354 ff. Androges is not named in HRB, RB, OV, RMB, EH, or Brut.

3290m Quicquid iniuste . . . imperatoria patet. Compare with HRB §159: “Nichil enim quod ui et uiolentia adquiritur iuste ab ullo possidetur” (Nothing that is acquired by force and violence can ever be held legally by anyone). Similar statements occur in RB lines 10829–34 and RMB 1.11415–18.

3299 Brute. Brute is not mentioned in HRB, RB, LB, OV, CPL, RMB, EH, Brut, Arthur, or NC at this point.

3311m Cui descendebat . . . comitatus Romani. The editors thank Neil Wright for his help in elucidating this text.

3346m How Arthure . . . Emperoure Leo. In HRB Lucius is the Procurator of Rome and Leo is the emperor. However, in §162, Arthur sends a reply to “Imperatoribus” (emperors), stating that he has no intention of paying them tribute, and later, in the description of the battles that ensue, the narrative contains frequent references to the emperor, the emperor’s camp, and the emperor’s bodyguard, which presumably refer to Leo, but could equally be mistaken for references to Lucius. This appears to have led to the confusion that arises about Lucius’s status as an emperor in this and other texts (see, for example, RB, CPL, RMB, and Arthur).

3346–66 This noble . . . and Holonde. Hardyng omits the details found in HRB §§162–64, RB lines 11085–11286, RMB 1.11653–11848, and EH II:336 concerning Lucius’s army, Arthur’s dream, and Mordred’s love of Guinevere (not in HRB), and instead emphasizes how Arthur mustered his troops and who supported him. With the exception of the references to Flanders (lacking in HRB and EH) and the Twelve Peers of France, Hardyng’s account of the men supporting Arthur is different to that in HRB, RB, RMB, and EH. Interestingly, HRB and CPL list the king of Spain as one of Lucius’s supporters, whilst RB, EH, and RMB refer to one Aliphatima of Spain in Lucius’s retinue; Hardyng, like the Brut (p. 83), has the king of Spain supporting Arthur.

3367–3436 Than was . . . withouten right. Hardyng alone describes “Elyne” as Arthur’s niece and Hoel’s sister (3.3369–73), although the Brut (p. 84), Arthur (line 355), and NC (fol. 41r), refer to her as Hoel’s “cosyn,” which could mean kinswoman, niece, or cousin. In HRB, RB, OV, RMB, and EH, she is Hoel’s niece; in LB she is Hoel’s daughter (line 12924). Nonetheless, on the whole, Arthur’s encounter with the giant at Mont St. Michel is similar to HRB §165 and RMB 1.11849–12170. See additional notes to this section below.

3370–73 Whiche for . . . no pere. Compare RMB (1.11961–62) and Arthur (line 356), which also mention Helen’s fairness. Harker notes that the Alliterative Morte (lines 860–63) similarly refers to Helen’s beauty, but there is no further correspondence to indicate that Hardyng knew this source (“John Hardyng’s Arthur,” p. 289).

3375–76 Bot he . . . ete thaym. Compare HRB §165 and EH II:338, which draws upon HRB.

3390–94 Therefore ye . . . this londe. Compare HRB §165, where the giant eats men half-alive and the woman tells Bedivere to flee or the giant will tear him to pieces, and CPL I:188, where Bedivere is warned that the giant will eat him.

3401–03 When that . . . the hylle. Compare RB lines 11461–68 and RMB 1.12014–20.

3408 With Caliburne his sworde. Compare RB line 11547, CPL I:190, RMB 1.12071, 12104, and EH II:340, all of which refer to Arthur’s sword by name at this point in the narrative.

3413–15 So huge . . . and grym. Reference to Arthur’s stature being like that of a child beside the giant does not occur in HRB, RB, OV, CPL, RMB, EH, or Brut.

3419–22 That wente . . . fende hydouse. Only Bedivere is told to sever the giant’s head in HRB, RB, LB, OV, RMB, EH, and Brut; in CPL Arthur removes the head.

3432–36 Whiche is . . . withouten right. Throughout the Hundred Years War, Mont St. Michel withstood repeated attacks from the English, hence Hardyng’s reference to it as a “strengh fulle gretly famed” (3.3432). The last two lines of this stanza are comparable with the Libelle of Englysche Policy, lines 198–210 (c. 1436–38), which similarly criticizes the people of Mont St. Michel for capturing English ships in peacetime, albeit during the reign of Edward III.

Whilst Hardyng may be alluding to the importance of keeping the seas, a topic that engaged writers in the mid-1430s and 1440s (see the libelle and John Capgrave’s Liber de Illustribus Henricis, pp. 134–35), two extant petitions made to the Chancellor, John Kemp, between 1450 and 1452 illustrate that the problem of piracy near Mont St. Michel was very real at the time Hardyng was writing this version of the Chronicle. Two petitions for alms made by John Sterlyng of Horning reveal that his ship had been captured by Bretons and taken to Mont St. Michel where he was ransomed (see TNA; PRO, SC 8/304/15182 and SC 8/305/15208). Similar cases in the Chancery Proceedings, nevertheless, demonstrate that the capture of vessels was common on both sides of the Channel during periods of truce, and that the English were just as guilty of seizing ships as their foreign counterparts (see, for example, TNA; PRO, C 1/43/53).

Hardyng’s reference to “pese” (3.3436) may indicate that this part of the Chronicle was composed between 1444 and 1449, when the Truce of Tours technically protected interests on either side of the Channel. Correspondingly, the notion that Normandy is “unbayne” (3.3434) might imply that Hardyng wrote this section before 1450, when the English lost Normandy. Then again, as a patriotic Englishman, Hardyng may be speaking more generally about the nefarious character of the French and could conceivably have been writing after the fall of Normandy in the early 1450s, when the loss of Lancastrian France was still keenly felt but no hostile action was being taken to retrieve it. For further information about the increase of piracy around England’s shores from the mid-1430s onwards, and the wider debate about the importance of keeping the seas, see Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 424–33.

3437m in Itaylle did feghte. See note 3.3438–43 below.

3437–3520 Arthure his . . . and wounde. Hardyng’s account of the Roman war is more succinct than his probable sources; compare, for example, HRB §§166–67, RB lines 11609–12262, and RMB 1.12171–12775. See the notes that follow for additional comments.

3438–43 Awbe a . . . colours sene. In HRB §166, RB lines 11616–24, Lestoire de Merlin p. 405, and RMB 1.12178–84, Arthur makes his camp by the River Aube in Autun, or Augustodunum, Burgundy (compare note 3.3522 below). Hardyng has either confused the Aube with the River Allia, a tributary of the Tiber in Italy, where Belin and Brenny fight against the Romans and conquer Rome earlier in the Chronicle (see 2.1556–1800), or he has deliberately altered his source to make Arthur’s war against the Romans echo Belin and Brenny’s campaign. Three later references to Arthur fighting against Lucius in Italy seem to indicate that the change was intentional (see notes 3.3437m, 3.3619m, and 3.3717–19); however, if this is the case, Hardyng’s attempt to relocate the action has been impeded by his appropriation of Augustodunum (3.3522) and Saussy (3.3530) from one of his sources.

The description of the landscape’s natural beauty at lines 3441–43 appears to be Hardyng’s own addition, but the imagery used is conventional and similar descriptions can be found in other medieval texts, particularly those evoking a spring setting, such as dream visions, lyrics, and romances.

3447–50 Syr Gawayne . . . the historien. Only Hardyng makes reference to Gawain being brought up in Arthur’s household at this point in the narrative, but compare HRB §166 and Lestoire de Merlin (p. 405), which stress Gawain’s consanguinity to Arthur. RB, LB, CPL, and RMB enhance Gawain’s usefulness by claiming that he had either spent time in Rome (RB lines 11653–54, LB line 13100) or that he could speak “speche Romeyn” (LB line 13099, CPL I:194, RMB 1.12214). LB line 13099 also credits Gawain with knowledge of Celtic.

3459–61 To turne . . . may suffyse. Compare RMB 1.12306–07: “To turne agayn, it salle not be. / ffrance is myn, þider wille I go.”

3463 Quyntylian. In HRB §166 and HRBVV §166, Lucius’s nephew is Gaius Quintillianus, but Hardyng refers to him by surname only, like RB line 11741, LB line 13197, CPL I:194, and RMB 1.12311.

3465–66 "Ye Bretons . . . or hardymente." Although Quintillian’s speech is similar to that reported in HRB §166, and the direct discourse developed by RB lines 11745–48 and RMB 1.12315–20, Hardyng alone places emphasis on the quality of “knyghthode” (3.3466).

3467–3520 Whom Gawayne . . . and wounde. Whilst this section is based on HRB §§166–67, Hardyng greatly reduces the narrative and omits all reference to the fact that Arthur did not authorize his men to fight, an issue that causes anxiety for the knights in Hardyng’s sources, but which Hardyng manages to sidestep here by having the “felaws” attempt to travel “homwarde” to “warne” Arthur of “bataylle and no reste” (3.3468–70). Hardyng similarly alters the circumstances leading to the ambush described from 3.3493 onwards and downplays the number of Briton casualties. In HRB §167 the Britons are ambushed the day after the first battle, as they prepare to take the Roman captives to Paris, and Arthur loses many troops in the first stage of battle. Here the Roman ambush occurs before the Britons have reached Arthur to give him the prisoners and “few” of them are slain (3.3506). Whilst the first of these changes may result, unintentionally, from Hardyng’s abridgement of the narrative, the deliberate attempt to downplay the Briton casualties suggests that Hardyng wanted to present Arthur’s men as formidable warriors.

3494–97 Two senatours . . . grete powere. Hardyng, like HRB §167 and CPL I:200, refers to the emperor sending two senators, the kings of Syria and Libya, and fifteen thousand men to ambush the Britons, whereas RB line 12105, HRBVV §167, and RMB 1.12641 state that ten thousand men were sent. RMB similarly mistakes RB’s senator “Catellus Waltereius” (line 12112) for two individuals, thus listing three senators and two kings (1.12647–50). EH (II:345), also refers to fifteen thousand men, but makes a similar mistake to RMB and interprets HRB’s “Vulteius Catellus” and “Quintus Carucius,” as three or four individuals.

3502 kynges thre. It is unclear where Hardyng obtained this figure from, as HRB §167, RB lines 12237–40, and RMB 1.12755–58 only list two high-born Roman casualties. Harker has suggested that this might be a transposition error for “ther” (“John Hardyng’s Arthur,” p. 294).

3511 "Welcome my . . . grete payne." Arthur’s speech appears to be unique to the Chronicle.

3516–18 Gawen, Bewes . . . and Bedwere. Hardyng’s list of wounded knights combines several of the knights mentioned in HRB §167 — Gawain, Beus, Bedivere, Gerin, Cador (either Duke Cador of Cornwall or Maurice Cador of Cahors), Guitard, and Irelglas — with three of Hardyng’s own choosing. However, of these, only Maurice Cador of Cahors and Irelglas occur in the list of four princes killed in HRB, making Hardyng’s list unique.

3521–62 Lucyus so . . . and olde. Hardyng follows HRB §168. In condensing his source the only significant changes he makes include the addition of marginalia describing Arthur’s four banners (see note 3556m below) and the repositioning of the reference to the earl of Gloucester’s battalion, which is mentioned before the other battalions in HRB, but last here.

3522 Augustudoun. Augustodunum is the Latin name for Autun given in HRB §168. See note 3438–43 above.

3530 Seysy. Probably Saussy or Val-Suzon in France; see Matthews “Where was Siesia-Sessoyne?” and Keller “Two Toponymical Problems” for further discussion.

3556m Arthure bare . . . of golde. Of the four heraldic devices mentioned in this marginalia three are referred to elsewhere in the Chronicle: the dragon banner (3.2008–09), the three crowns (3.2248m), and Saint George’s Cross (3.3157–63). The dragon and three crowns are common in Arthurian heraldry. The image of Mary is ultimately derived from HB §56, but Hardyng presumably encountered it in HRB §147, where it is painted on Arthur’s shield. Morris believes that Hardyng’s transferral of the Virgin’s image from the shield to the banner indicates that “it is no longer [a] personal insignia, but a focus for allegiance, belonging to Arthur only insofar as he represents England, and proclaiming the whole nation's devotion to the Christian cause” (Character of King Arthur, p. 127). The inclusion of St. George’s arms in remembrance of Galahad is clearly Hardyng’s invention, and may have been inspired by Henry V’s use of the arms during his French campaign.

3556–62 The nynte . . . and olde. Hardyng has amalgamated what appear to be two battalions in HRB, one headed by Arthur and one by Morvide. In HRB §168 Morvide is given his own company of men and told to wait in reserve until needed, so that Arthur’s men can withdraw to him if necessary, regroup, and launch new attacks. Arthur then leads his own company, which he positions behind the other battalions and identifies with his dragon banner to designate it as a fortified camp to which the wounded can withdraw. See also note 3.3661–65 below.

3563–66 The emperoure . . . that day. These lines are based on the twelve Roman legions mentioned in HRB §170 after the speeches of Arthur and Lucius. Hardyng omits Lucius’s speech and HRB’s description of the structure of the Roman army.

3567–69 With that . . . be bette. This appears to be Hardyng’s own addition, but see RMB 1.12985–96.

3570–83 Kynge Arthure . . . do mynystracioun. Hardyng radically reduces the rousing speech attributed to Arthur in HRB §169, and, in keeping with RMB 1.12923–24, emphasizes the great conquests made by the Britons and the “servytute” (3.3581) that they will suffer if the Romans are victorious in battle. Lines 3577–78 are particularly interesting, as they accentuate the threat of losing territorial possessions and failing to defend the king’s “right,” two themes that would doubtless have had a strong resonance with Hardyng’s original audience, who, by the time the Chronicle was completed, had witnessed the loss of Henry VI’s possessions in France.

3584–97 With that . . . thare wykydnesse. Hardyng has taken King Auguselus’s speech out of its original context in HRB §161 and abbreviated it; in the source Auguselus speaks to Arthur and his men in the Giants’ Tower just after Lucius’s emissaries arrive demanding tribute. Compare 3.3605–11 and 3.3612–18, which are also taken out of context here.

3598–3604 "Me thynke . . . and wyght." Urian’s speech has no equivalent in HRB or its derivative texts. It is probably unique to Hardyng.

3605–11 Kynge Howelle . . . hole Senate. In HRB §160 Hoel, like Auguselus, speaks at the meeting Arthur holds in the Giants’ Tower following Lucius’s demand for tribute. While Hardyng may have taken his inspiration for this speech from this earlier section of HRB, the content is only loosely related. Compare 3.3584–97 and 3.3612–18, which are also taken out of context.

3612–18 Thus every . . . ben undre. Like 3.3584–97 and 3.3605–11, these lines appear to be based on the vows made by Arthur’s knights in the Giants’ Tower in HRB §162; but compare the end of HRB §169, RB lines 12441–50, and RMB 1.12937–44.

3619m in Itaylle. See note 3.3438–43 above.

3619–88 Thanne to . . . to weelde. For the most part Hardyng follows, and severely condenses, HRB §§171–75, but see notes 3.3626 and 3.3668–69 below for the possible influence of RMB.

3626 Whose corses so brought were to the dragoun. In HRB §171 it is Kay who takes Bedivere’s body back to the golden dragon that marks Arthur’s fortified camp. Hardyng assigns this task to Auguselus and Cador instead, possibly because he omits that part of HRB where Kay attempts to avenge Bedivere and rescue his body. The phrasing of this line is also interesting because of its similarity to RMB 1.13133, “þe body to þe dragon brouht,” which may have influenced Hardyng here.

3628–30 And of . . . in fight. HRB §172 states that two kings and two senators were killed at this point.

3647 foure prynces. See note 3.3628–30 above. Hardyng appears to be repeating information here.

3650 And thre knyghtes than thay slewe of the Senate. The equivalent section of HRB §173 does not relay any specifics about the high-born Romans lost when Hoel and Gawain attack; instead we are told that the Briton casualties include Chinmarchocus, duke of Tréguier, and three other leaders, Riddomarcus, Bloctonius, and Iaginvius. Assuming that Hardyng was not using an unidentified source, he either misread HRB or a chronicle related to it, such as RMB, or he deliberately altered it to reflect more favorably on the Britons.

3655 egle of golde. Lucius’s golden eagle is mentioned much earlier in HRB §170, where it has the same function as Arthur’s dragon: that is, to act as a rallying point, where men can withdraw to and regroup (see also CPL I:206). It also occurs in RB line 12866 and RMB 1.13294, just after Gawain begins to fight Lucius, although RMB does not call the device an eagle, but a “standard.”

3661–65 Bot at . . . on newe. Hardyng’s reduction of his source obscures some of the sense behind Morvide’s actions here. In HRB §168 Morvide is asked to lead a reserve company of men that the Romans are not aware of; see note 3.3556–62 above.

3668–69 Bot who . . . the name. Hardyng may have taken this detail from Lestoire de Merlin (p. 410), where Gawain kills Lucius in battle; however, it is more likely that he is following RMB 1.13405 ff., which builds upon a similar assertion in CPL I:216, by stating “I kan not say who did him falle, / bot Sir Wawayn, said þei alle” (1.13405–06) and “Þe certeyn can þer noman ame / But sire Wawayn bar þe name” (1.13408–09, additional text supplied in the margins of Sullen’s edition from London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS Lambeth 131).

3680–88 There was . . . to weelde. Hardyng’s own addition.

3690–3723 To Rome . . . his innocence. Hardyng bases this section on HRB §176 and RMB 1.13433–13468, making several additions of his own. The lines concerning Lucius’s association with Leo are his (see 3.3346m for further details), but they are in keeping with other texts that present Lucius as emperor, such as RB, CPL, and RMB. Hardyng seems to follow RMB, rather than RB, in expanding HRB’s reference to Arthur sending Lucius’s body to the Senate as “truage” (3.3696), though he makes more of Arthur’s grim irony by using the word “gode” (3.3702), meaning “gifts” or “wealth,” to describe the additional corpses that he will send if Rome demands further payment. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Hardyng introduces a scene in which the Senate offers Arthur the emperorship in return for “gode lordeship” (3.3706); although Arthur falls short of conquering the “Empire hole” in this version of the Chronicle because news of Mordred’s usurpation necessitates his return to Britain, Hardyng’s reference to the king wintering in Italy after accepting the Senate’s offer implies that Arthur has all of Italy, except Rome, under his control. In the second version of the Chronicle, Hardyng’s Arthur enters Rome, where he is crowned emperor and resides for the winter.

3717–19 Bot he . . . somer came. See notes 3.3438–43 and 3.3690–3723 above. In HRB, RB, LB, OV, CPL, RMB, and Brut, Arthur sojourns in Burgundy.

3724–3870 Bot tythandes . . . foure yere. Hardyng’s main sources for the account of Arthur’s return to Britain and ensuing death appear to be HRB §§176–78 and RMB 1.13469–13744 (or an unidentified text linked to them), and Mort Artu; see the notes that follow for specific examples and for features unique to Hardyng.

3725–27 Modrede had . . . the quene. In other texts Mordred has already taken the crown and, in most cases, the queen. Here the use of “aspyred / To have the croune” and “wedden wold the quene” implies that he has yet to secure both.

3730 And Albany he gafe hym to his mede. HRB, RB, OV, CPL, Castleford’s Chronicle, RMB, EH, and Brut all refer to Mordred offering Cheldrike Scotland for his assistance, but only Hardyng and CPL I:218 call it “Albany.”

3733 And bade . . . to conquere. In HRB §177 Arthur cancels his attack on Rome and sends Hoel to restore peace. Hardyng’s Arthur appears to be unique in sending Hoel to conquer Rome on his behalf instead.

3737 As traytoure . . . by jugyment. Arthur’s desire to “honge and draw” Mordred, the medieval punishment for high treason, appears to be unique, but see LB lines 14065–85, where Gawain wishes to hang Mordred and have the queen drawn apart by horses. See also 3.3770–72.

3740–41 Assembled were . . . armes clere. HRB §177 and EH II:360 mention the 80,000 pagans and Christians, but Hardyng uses the same phrasing as CPL I:218 (“quatre vint myl”) and RMB 1.13492 (“fourscore þousand”) to describe them.

3743 Porte Rupyne whare Whitesonde is. “Rupini Portu” (Richborough) is given in HRB §177 and EH II:360 (“Rutupi portu”), whereas Wissant is given in RB line 13049 (“Witsant”), LB line 14091 (“Wissant”; the manuscript used for Barron and Weinberg’s edition contains “Whitsond”), OV line 1986 (“Whitsonde”), RMB 1.13518 (“Whitsand”), and Arthur line 559 (“Whytsond”). Hardyng tries to reconcile the two disparate places by conflating the two.

3752 Wynchester. Like HRB §177, CPL I:220 and EH II:361, Hardyng’s Mordred goes straight to Winchester. In RB, LB, OV, RMB, Brut, and Arthur he travels to London first where he is refused entry.

3760 Camblayne. Hardyng’s text is closest to HRB §178 (“fluuium Camblani”); compare RB line 13253 (“Juste Cambe”), RMB 1.13687 (“a water, Tambre”), and EH II:361 (“fluvium Cambla”).

3761 sexty thousonde. Compare HRB §178, LB line 14240, CPL I:222, and EH II:361. RB line 13070 and OV line 1980 also number the troops at 60,000 when Mordred first musters his soldiers for Arthur’s return.

3766–68 Bot Arthure . . . and stroyed. Compare RB lines 13143–48 and RMB 1.13587–94.

3770–72 His foule . . . his lawe. See note 3.3737 above.

3777–93 Bot Arthure . . . his generacioun. Hardyng, like CPL (I:222), Castleford’s Chronicle (line 23924), P (V:332–33), RMB (1.13693–700), Mort Artu (p. 154), and the Alliterative Morte (lines 4224 ff.), states unequivocally that Mordred was slain by Arthur and that Arthur received his “dethes wounde” (3.3787) from Mordred (compare also EH II:363). In claiming that he can find no books attesting to Mordred’s incestuous birth, Hardyng follows the chronicle tradition, in which Mordred is Arthur’s nephew (see, for example, HRB §176 and RMB 1.13475), as opposed to the romance tradition, which presents him as Arthur’s son. In so doing, Hardyng distorts the truth about his own knowledge of Arthurian literature — deliberately overlooking the fact that Mort Artu, a romance that he clearly knew, emphasizes Mordred’s status as Arthur’s son — and makes his king morally superior to his sinful counterpart in romance. Hardyng’s attribution of Cheldrike’s death to Arthur similarly increases the king’s prestige; HRB, CPL, Castleford’s Chronicle (line 23937), RMB, and EH list the Saxon amongst those that fell at the battle, but fail to elaborate on who killed him. In other sources, such as JG and P, Cheldrike does not die in this battle. Also of interest here is Hardyng’s idiosyncratic comparison of Arthur and Mars, the god of war, and his allusion to Fortune’s role in Arthur’s victory, which prefigures the complaint addressed to Fortune at 3.3878–88.

3778 Caliburne. The Alliterative Morte (lines 4230, 4242) also mentions the king’s sword by name in its description of Arthur slaying Mordred.

3787 as cronycle doth expresse. Compare RB line 13275 (“si la geste ne ment”) and RMB 1.13706 (“men sais”).

3794–3807 The quene . . . myghtes moste. In HRB Guinevere flees to Caerleon upon hearing of Mordred’s initial defeat, that is, before the siege at Winchester. In RB, OV, RMB, EH, Brut, and Arthur, she leaves after learning of Mordred’s flight from Winchester and before the final battle. In CPL she flees when she hears of Arthur’s return, after Mordred has retreated to Winchester, whilst in the Mort Artu the news of Arthur’s imminent return prompts her to abscond, but this time prior to the king’s arrival in Britain. NC concludes Arthur’s reign with a brief description of Guinevere’s fate, but the moment of her flight is not given. In contrast, Hardyng’s queen escapes out of fear for her own life only upon hearing of Mordred’s death. This, together with the references to “shame” (3.3800) and “synne” (3.3806) — possibly inspired by the use of the same words in RB lines 13221–22 and RMB 1.13648–50 — suggests that Hardyng is following other chronicles in presenting Guinevere as an adulteress despite his knowledge of the Mort Artu, where, having locked herself in the Tower to avoid Mordred’s attentions, Guinevere elects to join the nunnery because she fears that Arthur will not believe she is innocent. Whilst this version of the Chronicle does not condemn the queen as overtly as the second version, Hardyng’s later “compleynt . . . for the dethe of Kynge Arthure” (3.3871m) emphasizes her culpability by lamenting the fact that she caused the death of “so fele knyghtes” (3.3891) because of the power she allowed Mordred to exert over her. Hardyng similarly accentuates her fall by expanding the reference to the church of St. Julius the Martyr in HRB §177 and EH II:361 and reminding his audience that this was where she was crowned.

3808–14 In whiche . . . dethes wounde. Compare RB lines 13266–74, OV lines 2017–19, RMB 1.13701–04, and Brut p. 90; Hardyng’s phrasing is similar to RB and RMB.

3815–21 For whiche . . . bygan dystrayne. The account of Arthur’s distress echoes the king’s sadness when the knights leave him in pursuit of the Grail (see 3.3022–37). Hardyng may have drawn upon HRB §178, where an angry Arthur buries his dead knights before attacking Winchester, or Mort Artu (pp. 154–55), where Arthur laments the loss of his men at the Black Chapel.

3824 Whiche Cadore . . . that adversacioun. Hardyng is presumably following either HRB §178, CPL I:224, or RMB 1.13732 in saying that Cador died in battle, although in HRB it is not Cador of Cornwall listed amongst the dead, but “Cador Limenic.”

3826–28 Whose brother . . . withouten fayle. Hardyng provides more detail about Cador’s lineage than his regular sources; his Cador is Arthur’s half-brother, the son of Arthur’s mother, Igerne, and her first husband Gorlois. Cador is also Arthur’s half-brother in Thomas Gray’s Scalacronica (Moll, Before Malory, pp. 165–66), in the Brut y Brenhinedd in the Black Book of Basingwerk (National Library of Wales MS 7006D, p. 182b), and, according to Fletcher, in the Brut Tysilio (see Fletcher, Arthurian Material, pp. 117–18, 283), although there is no evidence to suggest that Hardyng knew any of these texts. Cador’s son, Constantine, is Arthur’s nephew in the Vita Merlini (p. 268), OV (lines 2027–28), EH (II:363), and Brut (p. 90) (which also uses “cosyn”), implying that Cador is Arthur’s sibling, but most chronicles simply describe Constantine as Arthur’s kinsman or cousin (see, for example, HRB §178, RB line 13296, Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle lines 4585–86, CPL I:224, RMB 1.13742, P V:338–39, and NC fol. 41r).

3829–35 Kynge Arthure . . . made sufficiantly. Hardyng links Avalon with Glastonbury once again and places Arthur’s tomb there, along with the grave of Joseph of Arimathea and Galahad (see 2.2611–47, 3.3052–82, and 3.3150–56). For Arthur’s association with Glastonbury and the alleged discovery of his remains in 1190–91 see Robinson, Two Glastonbury Legends; Lagorio, “Evolving Legend”; and Abrams and Carley, Archaeology and History. Other texts mentioning Arthur’s burial at Glastonbury include William of Malmesbury’s De antiquitate Glastonie ecclesie, p. 82–83; Gerald of Wales’ De principis instructione, I:20 and Speculum ecclesiae II:8–10; Ralph of Coggeshall’s Chronicon Anglicanum, p. 36; Adam of Domerham’s Historia de rebus gestis Glastoniensibus, pp. 341–42; Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle, lines 4592–94; the fourteenth-century copy of William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum in Oxford Bodleian Library MS Bodley 712 (II:261–62); An Anonymous Short English Metrical Chronicle, lines 239–48; Petit Bruit, p. 13; Castleford’s Chronicle, lines 23988–89; JG, pp. 80–81; John of Fordun, Chronica gentis Scotorum, pp. 110–11; P V:332–33; EH II:363; the Alliterative Morte, lines 4308–09; Arthur, lines 612–24; NC fol. 41r; and a Cornish folktale (see Barber, “Vera Historia,” p. 77). Gray’s Scalacronica and Capgrave’s Chronicle can be also added to this list, as they mention the discovery of Arthur’s tomb at Glastonbury.

3833 As yit this day ys sene and shalle evermore. This statement links the Arthurian past with Hardyng’s own time. Compare with Caxton’s preface to Malory’s Morte Darthur, in which relics of the Arthurian past provide evidence of Arthur’s existence in the late fifteenth-century (see Works of Sir Thomas Malory, ed. Vinaver, I:cxliii–cxlvii).

3836–39 Who dyed . . . fulle clere. This is the date given in HRB §178 and many of the chronicles derived from it.

3840–42 Fro whiche . . . ay doutous. A number of chronicles mention Merlin’s prediction about the uncertainty surrounding Arthur’s death; see, for example, RB lines 13279–93, OV lines 2022–23, RMB 1.13714–22, and Brut p. 90. The reference ultimately stems from the prophecy in HRB §112 that Arthur, the “Boar of Cornwall,” will have an uncertain end (“exitus eius dubius erit”). Hardyng presumably followed RMB, but see also note 3.3843m below.

3843m De quo . . . rexque futurus. For a study of this epitaph and its history see Withrington, “Arthurian Epitaph” and Barber, “Vera Historia.” It occurs in several texts: the Vera Historia de Morte Arthuri; the Chronicon de Monasterii de Hailes; Arthur lines 619–24, which may be based on a lost version of RB; at the end of the unique copy of the Alliterative Morte; in a version of John of Fordun’s Chronica gentis Scotorum, p. 111; in a manuscript gloss accompanying Lydgate’s FP in British Library MS Royal 18 B. xxxi (fol. 193r); and in Malory’s Morte Darthur (Works of Sir Thomas Malory, ed. Vinaver, III:1242). The epitaph appears to have gained some currency in the fifteenth century, and it probably circulated in oral form too, which Hardyng may have known. If Hardyng encountered it in written form, he may have known it from a lost text based on RB, linked with the source of Arthur, or a manuscript of the FP containing similar marginalia (see note 7.491–97 for a possible borrowing from the stanza in FP against which the epitaph occurs).

3843–70 Bot of . . . foure yere. Hardyng completes his account of Arthur’s passing by leaving his chronicle sources and turning, once again, to romance. In this instance, the “story of Seynt Grale” (3.3843) refers to Mort Artu, pp. 154–59, which locates Arthur’s tomb at a Black Chapel, describes how Girflet lived at the chapel as a hermit for eighteen days before dying, and relates how Lancelot and his companion Hector spent their last four years in religious contemplation with the archbishop of Canterbury and Lancelot’s cousin, Bliobleris. Hardyng, who may have been recalling Mort Artu from memory, adapts his source, linking the Black Chapel with the chapel at Glastonbury reputedly dedicated to the Virgin Mary by St. David, and he claims that Geryn (who takes the place of the Vulgate Girflet) spent four years there as hermit with Lancelot. It is unclear whether the phrase “Whiche Geryn made” (3.3847) refers to his building Arthur’s tomb or the chapel dedicated to Mary, which is normally attributed to St. David (see, for example, JG, pp. 2–3), but in the Mort Artu neither is constructed by Girflet, so unless Hardyng was using a source linked to Glastonbury that incorporated material from Mort Artu, the suggestion may originate with him.

3871–3905 O gode . . . als sertayne. Hardyng’s “compleynt” (3.3871m) questions the role of divine prescience and Fortune in the demise of Arthur and Mordred, who is portrayed, rather surprisingly, as a “gode” knight (3.3892) who falls from a state of “grete manhode” (3.3893) and “honoure” (3.3899) to “pryde” (3.3875) and “falshode” (3.3901) through “unhappe” (3.3896). Line 3878 is clearly influenced by Chaucer’s TC 3.617, a text that Hardyng uses elsewhere to infuse his narrative with Boethian wisdom; however, whilst the tragic implications of Fortune lamented here were undoubtedly inspired by TC, the account of Arthur’s reign in Lydgate’s FP may have been equally influential on Hardyng, ending as it does with an envoy warning “princis” against treason and Fortune’s mutability (8.3130–3206). For Hardyng’s knowledge of Boethian narratives see Peverley, “Chronicling the Fortunes.”

3889–91 O fals . . . fele knyghtes. See note 3.3794–3807 above.

3904 Thy lorde . . . kynge soverayne. Hardyng emphasizes the triple nature of Mordred’s treachery; when he commits treason by betraying his sovereign, Mordred also breaks the oath he made to Arthur as a feudal “lorde” and his obligations to him as a blood-relative. Cooper makes a similar observation about the wording of Gawain’s appeal to Arthur in Malory’s Morte Darthur, as he requests Arthur help as “My king, my lord, and mine uncle” (Sir Thomas Malory, ed. Cooper, p. 560).

3906–47 Kynge Constantyne . . . in mencioun. Hardyng expands the account of Constantine’s reign in HRB §§179–80 and instead of condemning the king for killing Mordred’s sons at the “high autere” (3.3921) as HRB and RB do, Hardyng presents him as a good king who governs well in “reste and pese” (3.3942). The brief description of Constantine’s coronation at 3.3910–12 appears to be original to the Chronicle, as does the reference to Constantine being a knight of the Round Table. For Constantine’s consanguinity to Arthur see note 3.3826–28 above.

3924–40 In whose . . . that cenoby. Compare HRB §179, which Hardyng augments with additional information.

3948–68 Aurelyus Conan . . . and remove. Despite the fact that Hardyng’s narrative is similar to both HRB §181, which gives the length of Conan’s reign as three years, and RMB 1.13777, which refers to Conan as Constantine’s “cosyn,” neither source provides all of the details found here; this suggests that Hardyng was conflating two or more sources, supplementing the narrative himself by referring to Conan’s “beuté” at line 3955 (an observation that is absent from all of the sources considered here), or using an unknown source. The stanza warning “lordes that ben in hygh estates” (3.3962) to avoid quarrels is unique to Hardyng, but it may have been inspired by similar advice in Lydgate’s FP.

3969–75 Than Vortypore . . . hym decese. Compare HRB §182.

3976–96 Malgo next . . . rialle trone. Although this section has its origins in HRB §183, lines 3990–96 are based on RMB 1.13823–26.

3997–4010 Careys was . . . theym stonde. Compare with the beginning of HRB §184. Hardyng’s account of Careys and Gurmond continues in Book 4.

 

Abbreviations: MS: London, British Library MS Lansdowne 204 (base manuscript); m: marginalia.

Throughout the manuscript, the marginalia, book and chapter headings, and the running heads featuring the names of the reigning kings, are written in red ink; often the first letter of each stanza of the main text is also written in red ink. Because of the consistency of the scribe’s use of red in these areas, we have only recorded exceptions to this rule in the notes. Other features, such as scribal corrections, illumination, annotations by other hands other than the scribe(s), and editiorial emendations are recorded as they occur.

Occasionally, background smudges and traces of letters or words occur behind the current text of Lansdowne 204. Though beyond the scope of this edition, a comprehensive study of each instance of smudging is desirable, as some may have been caused by underwriting, indicating that the scribe(s) altered the work. The British Library analyzed ten examples of potential underwriting for us, using multispectral imagining equipment and Digital USB microscopy. Our selections fell into one of three categories. 1) Examples that did contain underwriting: the background shadows were caused by the scribe scraping the parchment to remove a word or phrase and writing different text over the erasure (or, as in two cases, simply erasing text that was no longer required). In such instances, traces of the original iron gall ink burn-through have survived, leaving partial letter-forms or words visible at a wavelength of 420 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum; sadly, it is often impossible to discern complete letters or words, and ink burn-through from text overleaf further obscures the original writing, making it largely unrecoverable. 2) Examples that do not contain underwriting: the shadows behind the text are caused by ink-burn through from text overleaf, which, to the naked eye, gives the impression of underwriting. 3) Examples that do not contain underwriting: the shadows behind the text are again due to degradation caused by the iron gall ink flaking away from the surface of the parchment and leaving the shape of the original letter below; to the naked eye, the spread of the burn-through can look like underwriting beneath the thinner flakes of surviving ink. The following textual notes make references to confirmed instances of underwriting only; we do not highlight potential cases because, given the degradation of the ink, we feel that this could be misleading.

1 Aftyr. MS: an illuminated initial.

39 An early hand, apparently that of John Stow, writes the word “Gildas” in the left-hand margin beside this line. See Manuscript Description.

84 An early hand, apparently that of John Stow, writes the word “Gildas” in the left-hand margin beside this line. See Manuscript Description.

86 The first letter of this line has been overwritten in red ink.

An early hand, apparently that of John Stow, writes the words “de victoria Aurelii Ambrosii” in the left-hand margin beside this line. See Manuscript Description.

141 The. MS: an illuminated initial.

197 Getan. MS: an illuminated initial.

204 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

253m Nota. The word “Nota” occurs in the right-hand margin beside the text and again in the left-hand margin beside 3.257.

274m Principio . . . cadas. This marginalia occurs alongside 3.279.

281 Thurgh. MS: an illuminated initial.

281–94 The first letter of each line has been overwritten in red ink.

288m regno. MS: regn, due to marginal cropping.

309 But. MS: an illuminated initial.

311 and. MS: ad.

316m This marginalia occurs alongside 3.320.

337 The. MS: an illuminated initial.

342 Asclepiadote. MS: The first letter of this word has been overwritten in red ink.

351m How the. MS: the has been inserted above the line.

435 Than. MS: an illuminated initial.

477m Kynge Constance. MS: This part of the marginalia appears to have been added at a later stage of production.

477 Constance. MS: an illuminated initial.

Before 505m The arms of Constantine. MS: The armes of Constantine (gules [red], a cross argent [silver]) appear in the left-hand margin.

505 Constantyne. MS: an illuminated initial.

526m Nota. MS: This word actually occurs in the left-hand margin beside 3.525, presumably to draw attention to the fact that the king lived by his own means.

553 That what. MS: That.

680–81 An early hand, apparently that of John Stow, has written “Gyldas” and “Henry Huntyngdon” in the right-hand margin beside these lines. See Manuscript Description.

729 But. MS: an illuminated initial.

750 So. MS: an illuminated initial.

771m Unde . . . est. This marginalia occurs beside 3.776–77.

785 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

813 The. MS: an illuminated initial.

848 Conan. MS: an illuminated initial.

875 ese. MS: this word appears to have been added at a later stage of production.

883–90 An eight-line stanza.

926 Gracyan. MS: an illuminated initial.

961 Gwayns. MS: an illuminated initial.

979 senatours. MS: sanatours.

1108 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

1143 Constans. MS: an illuminated initial.

1220 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

1278 knyghthede. MS: knyghhede.

1290m MS: Multispectral analysis reveals traces of underwriting beneath the current text (observed at a wavelength of 420 nm), which originally continued for several lines after the current marginalia, but was erased by the scribe before being partially overwritten. The original text contained similar information to the current marginalia (referring to the arms containing Woden and Fry), but also cited Saint Colman as a source for the information.

1402m called. MS: called called. This marginalia occurs beside 3.1403.

Sapiencia . . . suaviter. This marginalia occurs beside 3.1408.

1458m of Bretayne, son of Vortygere. MS: This part of the marginalia may have been added at a later stage of production.

1458 Syr. MS: an illuminated initial.

1535 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

1553 surely. MS: This word appears to have been added at a later stage of production.

1626m This marginalia was originally copied in iron gall ink, but has been overwritten in red.

1710 Merlyn. MS: an illuminated initial.

1787 Thay. MS: an illuminated initial.

1997 Syr. MS: an illuminated initial.

2004–09 A six-line stanza.

2059 Gorleys, duke of Cornewayle. MS: The capital G and C have been overwritten in red ink.

2099 of. MS: of of.

2145 And bade. MS: And. We have followed Harker’s conjectural restoration of bade (meaning beseeched), which restores the meter and is further supported by the presence of bade in the second version of the Chronicle (see Harker, “John Hardyng’s Arthur,” p. 226 and Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Arch Selden B. 10, fol. 50r).

2150m How the. MS: the inserted above the line.

2164 An early hand, apparently that of John Stow, has written “The Saynt Grale what it is” in the left-hand margin next to this line. See Manuscript Description.

2197 An early hand, apparently that of John Stow, has written “Verolame, is name of Saint Albons” in the right-hand margin next to this line. See Manuscript Description.

2248m Bretayne. MS: Br. This marginalia is accompanied by an illustration of King Arthur’s arms (with gules [red], three crowns or [gold]).

2248 Arthure. MS: an illuminated initial.

2407 whan. MS: than.

2409m Scotland. MS: Scoland.

2414 Out. The first letter of this line has red ink in the center.

2430 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

2444–57 Originally written in iron gall ink, the first letter of each line, the first letter of the proper names, and the first e of erle in each of these lines have been overwritten in red.

2472m Nota. MS: This marginalia occurs alongside 3.2477.

2514 Kynge. MS: an illuminated initial.

the. MS: inserted above the line.

2528–33 A six-line stanza.

2541m he. MS: inserted above the line.

2564–71 The first letter of each proper name is overwritten in red.

2567 Colygrenauntt. MS: Colgrenauitt.

2625 But. MS: an illuminated initial.

2668 Chartres. MS: Chartes.

2709m Table. MS: inserted above the line.

2715 is. MS: his.

2744 This. MS: an illuminated initial.

2759 philosophres. MS: phlosophres.

2947m MS: The multispectral analysis of this marginalia undertaken by The British Library was unable to clarify whether the smudge observed behind as the grete story of þe Saynt Graal proportes was indicative of underwriting. The shadows may be from the text overleaf.

Perlouse. MS: Pelouse, due to cropping.

Table₂. MS: Tabl, due to cropping.

the₇. MS: the of.

contened. MS: contene, due to cropping.

2979–81 The first letter of each line has been overwritten in red.

3038m swerde. MS: inserted above the line.

3115m Underneath this marginalia an early hand, apparently that of John Stow, has written “Gildas de gestis arthur.” See Manuscript Description.

3136m he. MS: inserted above the line.

3207 mynstralsy. MS: mystralsy.

3227 Lucyus. MS: an illuminated initial.

3276 Arthure. MS: an illuminated initial.

3311m inperium. MS: in. The rest of the text appears to be in the gutter of the manuscript, but it is difficult to see due to the tight binding.

totius. MS: to. The rest of the text appears to be in the gutter of the manuscript, but it is difficult to see due to the tight binding.

Romani. MS: Romane.

3319 Senate. MS: Sanate.

3419 to. MS: to to.

3463 Quyntylian. MS: Quytylian.

3535–76 Each stanza begins with an illuminated initial. Some of the proper names in the text begin with a red initial up to to kynge Arthure at 3.3556.

3605 Kynge₁. MS: an illuminated initial.

3615 ennemyse. MS: enmemyse.

3634 doun. MS: doum.

3843m This marginalia occurs alongside 3.3842.

3906 Kynge. MS: an illuminated initial.

3907 aventurouse. MS: aventrorise.

3920m This marginalia occurs alongside 3.3924.

3948 Aurelyus. MS: an illuminated initial.

3963 transmutacioun. MS: transmuitacioun.

3969 Than. MS: an illuminated initial.

3976 Malgo. MS: an illuminated initial.

3997 Careys. MS: an illuminated initial.

4004 An early hand has written “Bretons” in large letters in the left-hand margin next to this line. Other annotations by this hand include 1.197–203, 4.42, 6.1, 6.295, 6.332, and 6.346.