National Dong Hwa University Institutional Repository:Item 987654321/3173

(1)

Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic Studies, No. 2 July 2000, pp.273－290

College of Humanities and Social Sciences National Dong Hwa University

Castleford’s Lost Chronicle:

The Historic Imagination in Yorkshire

Robert A. Albano

∗

Abstract

The Chronicle by Thomas of Castleford, which was written in the fourteenth century in the Middle English vernacular, provides an interesting complement to other vernacular chronicles of the same time. Although Castleford’s work covers many of the same contemporary events as these other chronicles, it does not duplicate the accounts. Three episodes deal specifically with the war between England and Scotland. These episodes indicate that Thomas of Castleford employed several of the same techniques and themes utilized by his contemporary historiographers. More importantly, they reveal the unique mind of a historiographer engaged in an act of historic imagination.

The constant turmoil that England suffered from 1307 to 1327 resulted in King Edward II being one of the most unpopular rulers in the history of England. Although it was not unusual for a chronicler such as Castleford to denounce both the unpopular actions and the advisors who betrayed Edward II and all of England, it was unusual for a chronicler to take such a direct stand against the king himself. Castleford’s comments are all the more remarkable since he began writing at a time when King Edward II was still in power. More remarkable still in Castleford’s historiography are (1) the lack of positive commentary in regards to Edward I and, especially, (2) the negative handling that Edward I receives in the Berwick episode. Castleford’s connection to Yorkshire factions opposed to the king would be the most

∗

(2)

Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic Studies, No.2

logical explanation for Thomas of Castleford’s lukewarm and often negative treatment of both Edward I and Edward II. But that, in turn, might also explain the lukewarm and negative reception that Castleford’s Chronicle received in England, causing Castleford’s historiography to become the lost chronicle of England.

Keywords: historiography, chronicle, English Literature, Medieval Literature, English History,

(3)

Castleford’s Lost Chronicle: The Historic Imagination in Yorkshire

Castleford’s Lost Chronicle:

The Historic Imagination in Yorkshire

The vernacular chronicles of fourteenth-century England reflect a mood, a philosophy, and a culture much different from that of today. Although these chronicles may not shed much light on the veracity of recorded historical events, these documents from the past do reveal information about medieval culture and about the historiographers themselves.

The historiographers from the Middle Ages engaged in the same process of employing the historic imagination that is used by modern historiographers. Such a process reflects the desire to instill order upon the continuum of time and upon the individuals who act within that continuum. Additionally, the process reflects the historiographers’ own need to invent, to create, to become immersed in the creative act. The historic imagination functions like the literary imagination, allowing the historiographer to pursue aesthetic ends.1 One such historiographer who pursued historic and aesthetic ends during the Middle Ages was Thomas of Castleford.

The Chronicle by Thomas of Castleford has never been published in its entirety. Yet this document, which was written in the fourteenth century in the Middle English vernacular, provides an interesting complement to other vernacular chronicles of the same time, such the anonymous Brut or Trevisa’s Polychronicon. Although Castleford’s work covers many of the same contemporary events as these other chronicles, it does not duplicate the accounts. And, fortunately, several episodes of Castleford’s Chronicle were printed in a German anthology of medieval literature in 1954 (Castleford 363-73), including three episodes that deal specifically with the war between England and Scotland. These episodes, despite their brevity,

1

Complete details on the theory of the historic imagination and its application to medieval chronicles can be found in the first chapter of Middle English Historiography by Albano.

(4)

indicate that the chronicler, Thomas of Castleford, employed several of the same techniques and themes utilized by his contemporary historiographers (such as Wyntoun, Trevisa, and the anonymous chronicler of the Brut ). More importantly, they reveal the unique mind of a historiographer engaged in an act of historic imagination.

Little is known regarding Castleford’s work because only one manuscript of it exists; and this is kept in Gottingen, Germany.2 However, Taylor has printed a detailed description of the manuscript (Medieval 18-19, English 152-53): the chronicle consists of 221 leaves and is organized into a prologue and eleven books. Each of these books is divided into shorter chapters. The chronicle of English history, specifically, begins with the legendary account of Albion arriving in England with her sisters. The manuscript ends abruptly with an account of the deposition of King Edward II in 1327 and the crowning of Edward III. The incomplete account of the year 1327 suggests, most likely, that the chronicler composed his manuscript in that year.

Absolutely nothing is known regarding the chronicler himself, and only the name Thomas Castleford written on top of the first folio suggests that he is indeed the author. The dialect of the writer, however, indicates Yorkshire origins; and within the manuscript itself details concerning local events at York and Pontrefact corroborate this view. In addition, marginal notes written in the seventeenth century indicate that the manuscript was once in the possession of an N. Johnson (in 1654), who (records indicate) may have been a Yorkshire cleric.

Sources used by Castleford (if he is, indeed, the author) for the earliest portions of historiography include primarily Geoffrey of Monmouth and Pierre Langtoft. However, for contemporary events his chronicle appears to be largely original. Like the Polychronicon and Wyntoun’s Orygynal Cronykil, Castleford’s chronicle is developed on a religious framework and religious or moral themes, which could indicate that Castleford may very likely have been a cleric himself. The manuscript in

2

The only source available that describes Castleford ’s manuscript is John Taylor ’s Medieval Writing in Yorkshire (18-19). The description here follows Taylor ’s account.

(5)

Germany is not an original but probably dates from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century; and it is the work of two, or perhaps three, different scribes.

Not only does Castleford employ the religious techniques of other fourteenth-century chroniclers, but he also reveals the political ideology of pro-nationalism so common in medieval historiography. Yet, in one respect, he more closely resembles the anonymous writer of the Brut than any of the other English medieval chroniclers in that Castleford does not appear to be highly sympathetic toward either King Edward I or Edward II. Since the Brut chronicler’s antipathy toward Edward II can be explained largely though his pro-Lancastrian sentiments,3 a reader of Castleford’s chronicle might logically assume that the historian from Yorkshire also shared sympathies with a nobleman who was antagonistic toward the crown and, who, perhaps, was the patron of this Yorkshire chronicler.

The three anthologized episodes that concern Anglo-Scottish conflicts cover (1) the siege at Berwick in 1296 (Castelford 368-69), (2) the days of William Wallace and Robert Bruce (Castleford 370-71), and (3) the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 (Castleford 371-72). Each of these episodes is extremely short (fifty to seventy lines) and is written in a simple and direct style. Castleford, more than likely, intended his account of history for a lay audience. In the tradition of Layamon, the chronicler wrote in verse and, like John Barbour, in the form of rhymed couplets. Many crucial events of the time are glossed over or completely ignored. In this respect, Castleford employs the art of reduction to a far greater extent more than any of the other vernacular chroniclers of his day.

In the first episode covering the siege at Berwick, Thomas compresses the events of several years and omits entirely key occurrences that provide causal explanations for the chronicled material. Gone, for example, are (1) any mention of King Edward I being called in to Scotland as an arbitrator to help them choose their next king and (2) any indication of the subservient position of Edward I to King

3

The Brut chronicler’s sympathies toward Lancaster are acknowledged in Taylor ’s “French Brut” (425-428). A complete analysis of the historic imagination in t he Brut can be found in the second chapter of Albano ’s Middle English Historiography.

(6)

Philip IV of France. Thomas of Castleford writes as though these concepts are well known to his English audience; and, therefore, he does not find it necessary to include them. Castleford does, however, use dialogic paralleling within the episode to compare and comment upon the situation of England and its relation to France with the situation of Scotland and its relation to England.

The Berwick episode can be divided into three parts: (1) Edward I’s attempt to capture Gascony from France, (2) John Balliol and Scotland’s attempt to resist Edward I, and (3) Edward I’s siege and slaughter at Berwick. The first two parts comprise historically parallel situations, and Castleford utilizes this parallel in order to present parallel tales of exemplification. In the first section Edward I and hence (macrocosmically) all England learn the lesson that they cannot break the promise of homage that the King of England swore to the King of France. This oath of homage had been in force since Henry III “formally recognized the feudal overlordship of the King of France” in 1259 (Keen 30-31). Similarly, King John Balliol and all of Scotland learn the lesson that they cannot break the oath of homage that Balliol had made to Edward I (and that King Alexander III of Scotland had similarly made to the same Edward I back in 1278: Scott 25). Like other fourteenth-century chroniclers, then, Castleford incorporates the theme of fidelity through the exempla of noble oath-making and oath-breaking.

In the first part of the episode Castleford explains how Edward I enlisted the aid of armies from alien lands, such as Brabant (“brabans”) and Rome (“egles”: the eagle was the symbol of the Roman legions). Despite their aid, Edward I’s campaign to capture Gascony proves to be unsuccessful; and for breaking his oath of fealty to France, Edward I (and all of England) are forced to pay a penance. This penance comes in the form of mercenary soldiers who assisted England and whom Edward I permits to come to England as payment for their assistance. Castleford asserts that their presence became intolerable to the English and eventually they had to evict the mercenaries from the land:

Þai welk in lande fife yier and mare;

(7)

In other words, England had to pay a five-year penance for its presumption: they had to suffer the presence of these undesirables for that long.

England, however, is absolved rather easily in comparison to Scotland; for the Scots have to pay a much higher price for the similar sin that they commit. Somewhat in the manner of the Brut chronicler, Castleford justifies the sterner punishment that the Scots receive because they, apparently, are unable to govern themselves:

Þe Scotisse folk amanges þam þan

Rebelle againes þar kyng bigan. (Castleford 368)

Here, the historiographer deliberately distorts the truth in order to rationalize the disparity in punishments that the two countries receive. In actuality, the Scots did not rebel against their king since, at the time of their debate or conflict beginning in 1286, King Alexander III had died. And the six guardians or peers (“haf peres tuelf ”) ruled during the interim period before John Balliol was declared the new King of Scotland in 1292. Thomas of Castleford thus compresses and shifts events from a ten-year period in order to portray the Scots as incompetent. The disparaging portrait of the Scots becomes increasingly more negative when Castleford directly asserts (which he had not done in connection with the English in the first section of the episode) that the Scots break an oath of fealty:

Ne feute to Englandes kyng sworn. (Castleford 369)

In this manner Castleford is able to justify the greater penalty that John Balliol receives: yielding his crown to Edward I and eventually being exiled to France.

The siege at Berwick, which is reported (narrated) in the third part of the episode, in one sense also complements the first part: just as England must suffer the intrusion of and the disruption by their alien visitors, so too does Scotland suffer the intrusion and siege by the English. Thus, in terms of plot, the entire episode retains a high degree of structural integrity. Yet, unlike many other English historiographers in their treatment of King Edward I, Castleford does not attempt to justify or rationalize the bloody slaughter that occurred at Berwick in 1296. Rather, he appears to condemn King Edward I for the atrocity that occurred there:

(8)

Iqwiles Edwarde wroght sorow anogh In Scotelande, for he brinde and slogh Þe Scotisse folk . . .

And the castle he wan alsua,

Alle fonden þarin with swerde to sla. Women and men and childre smale, Withouten numbre, withouten tale, Alde and yong, all wer þan slane . . . Of pople slane in Berwick þan

Ame þam can nane erdelik man! (Castleford 369)

In the last line of the quote, in which the chronicler states that no earthly man can guess (“ame”) the number of Scots who were slain, Castleford therein implies that there is a higher power, that is God. God can reckon the number slain; and to that higher power Edward I will be accountable. This religious connection is made explicitly clear in the last three couplets of the episode:

ffridai in Paskes wouk þat qwile In þe thridde calende of Aprile Taken was þe toune of Berwick, Of alde and yong made slaghtre slik, Of Crist a thousande yiers wer sene

Past and fourten score and sextene. Castleford (369)

In a practice that is not typical of medieval chroniclers, Castleford interweaves his summary of the episode (the middle couplet) between his religious dating of that event (the first and third couplets). In this way the chronicler underscores both his religious and moral judgments of Edward I’s actions. Modern sources indicate that the siege of Berwick actually occurred after the week of Easter, with Easter Sunday occurring on that March 25 (Scott 34). By setting the date of the Berwick siege on Good Friday, the day that Christ was crucified, Castleford thus draws an allegorical parallel between Edward I (and his English soldiers) and Pontius Pilate (and his Roman legions).

(9)

Castleford, being an English chronicler, is careful not to directly criticize a king of his country. Nevertheless, his negative portrayal of Edward I in one sense serves to support the belief that the chronicler himself had Yorkshire origins or connections. A number of Scottish noblemen owned land in Yorkshire and lived there with their families and retainers. Castleford probably knew some of these Scots personally and sympathized with them on their loss at Berwick to a far greater extent than any chronicler from southern England, who would have been too far removed from the scene of bloodshed to take such a personal interest. This is not to imply that all of the people at York at that time would have pro-Scottish sentiments (the poetry of Laurence Minot clearly proves otherwise4); but Castleford clearly appears to be more of a humanitarian than a patriot.

The themes of fidelity and treachery dominate in the other two episodes as well. And, again, the chronicler uses hyper-compression in his historiography, collapsing the events of several years into one brief episode of approximately fifty lines. Again, although Castleford does not side with the Scots, his depictions of both Edward I and Edward II are far from positive or heroic. But like other English chroniclers, Castleford interweaves the religious (or moral) and political agendas that he had established earlier and sets these agendas over any attempt to present accurately and directly and objectively the major events of his day.

In the first of these two episodes (Castleford 370-71), the chronicler makes it quite evident that fidelity is his major theme as he describes the years immediately following the reign of John Balliol, King of Scotland:

Alle þe gret of Scotlandes linage To Edwarde kyng þai made homage, Homage and feute all þai sware

To Englande kyng for euermare. (Castleford 370)

The chronicler thus established a pretext for the punishment of those who are unfaithful to this solemn oath, and within this construct Castleford sets both

4

An analysis of Laurence Minot ’s political poetry can be found in chapter six of Albano ’s Middle English Historiography .

(10)

William Wallace and Robert Bruce. The chronicler, though, makes no effort to establish motivation or to explain the context of Wallace’s actions. Rather, he simply declares Wallace to be a rebel who has broken the oath of fidelity that was made by the lords of Scotland to King Edward I. Out of the fifty-three lines that make up the whole of the episode, Castleford devotes nine of them (lines 408-16), which is seventeen percent of the episode, to Wallace’s extravagant execution: Wallace is drawn, hanged, beheaded, burned, and quartered. As he had done in the earlier episode concerning the siege at Berwick, Castleford places great emphasis on the inevitability of punishment, which, in a manner typical of many medieval chroniclers, microcosmically signifies the fate of all sinners and which allegorically represents the eternal punishment of hell and damnation. And, also in the manner of other medieval chronicles, the establishing of any figure as a rebel who breaks an oath of faith (in this story that happens to be William Wallace) thus becomes an allegorical manifestation of the Arch-Rebel and Deceiver, Satan.

Castleford is not nearly so severe in his condemnation of Robert Bruce because Bruce was still King of Scotland at the time Castleford wrote this episode. Nevertheless, the historiographer does establish in this episode that Bruce is practically in the same category as Wallace. That is, Bruce is a rebel and receives an appropriate punishment for that act: here, the chronicler intentionally specifies the deaths of Robert Bruce’s three brothers by name (Alexander, Thomas, and Nigel) to emphasize the intensity of the personal loss that Bruce experiences.

In the following episode, which primarily covers the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, the chronicler shifts the focus of his narrative considerably in order to convert this historically significant event (that turned the tide in the Anglo-Scottish conflicts since the Scots for the first time decisively beat Edward II’s army) into a tale concerning treachery and punishment. Castleford relates at the end of his episode (372) how, in the years following the Battle of Bannockburn, Scottish raiders ventured into Northumberland and other regions in northern England to pillage and plunder (“spreue”) the land and to slay the English residents. The chronicler even goes so far as to say that the Scots captured Englishmen to use them as slaves. But

(11)

despite the physical travails that the English must endure, Castleford indicates that it is the Scots who will eventually receive the far more grievous punishment:

Þai fore so folk lost alkins grace. (Castleford 372)

Here the chronicler makes no attempt to symbolize the eternal punishment through some earthly counterpart but states quite directly that the Scots lose their heavenly reward, the Grace of God. This statement, even though it may be lacking in literary skill or development, serves to connect dialogically the physical earthly punishments of the other episodes with the moral and religious judgment that the chronicler establishes in this episode.

The Chronicle by Thomas of Castleford ends with the events of 1327 when King Edward II was deposed by Isabella and Roger Mortimer and when Edward III received the crown (although he would not officially rule England until 1330 since he was still a youth at the time of the deposition). In the final lines of his chronicle, Castleford relates how Edward II was imprisoned in a castle:

[Edward II] withhalden in a castel,

Honurabelie þarin to duel. (Castleford 373)

Although Castleford is well versed in the basic events surrounding the deposition, which occurred in January of 1327, he indicates no knowledge of Edward II’s gruesome death in September of that same year. Thus, one may logically conclude that Castleford finished writing his chronicle at some point between those two events. Since the writing of Castleford’s chronicle is nearly contemporaneous to the time of the deposition, it is rather curious that the chronicler entirely omits the roles that Isabella and Mortimer played in that affair. Although Castleford possibly did not wish to offend the Regents of England at that time, it is equally likely (if not more so) that his knowledge of the actions and motivations of Isabella and Mortimer may have been extremely limited at that date. And, so, he was unable to incorporate that episode of treachery into his chronicle of English history.

Nevertheless, the closing episode of the chronicle (Castleford 372-73) does concern treachery and punishment. In this section Castleford narrates how Edward II’s counselors and advisors, principally Hugh Despenser, are captured and executed.

(12)

The descriptions of the executions are not unlike the description of the cruel death that William Wallace receives. And the similarities in these descriptions are a purposeful semiotic link to indicate that the actions of the Despensers and the other advisors were as rebellious and grievous as those committed by Wallace. Just as Wallace committed the treasonous act of breaking fidelity to the supreme ruler of the land (Edward I), so too did Despenser act treasonably in that he advised Edward II to take actions that were detrimental to the greater good of both crown and country. Like other medieval chroniclers, Castleford establishes pride, one of the Seven Deadly Sins, as the motivation for Despenser and his sort:

Alle þase with kyng Edwarde helde,

fful sodainelie þar pride was felde. (Castleford 373)

As Castleford as well as other chroniclers preach, evil thoughts lead to evil actions; and such actions often result in the destruction of those who commit them.

As he had done in the siege at Berwick episode, Castleford refers to religious holy days or events to establish the dates of the historical acts in his historiography. However, in these later episodes, the religious days are utilized in an opposite manner to that of the Berwick episode. In that tale, the chronicler uses Good Friday for the purpose of comparison (between Edward I and Pontius Pilate). In the other episodes, however, such dates are incorporated for contrast. This is similar to what can be found in the Polychronicon, where the chronicler inserts religious figures to provide contrast to the evil characters and to provide positive role models for his readers. Castleford, in both the Wallace and Bruce episode and the Bannockburn episode, includes religious allusions to Saint Bartholomew and John the Baptist, respectively. The negative portrayal and assessment of Wallace in the Chronicle makes it evident that the historiographer is not in any way comparing the rebel to a saint even though Wallace is captured, according to Castleford, on the eve of St. Bartholomew’s Day:

Tide of saint Bertholmeus-euen. (Castleford 370)

Ironically, the deaths of Wallace and Bartholomew are somewhat similar in that both executions entailed bodily mutilation. Bartholomew, apparently, became a

(13)

martyr when he was captured by his enemies and cut and flayed alive. Yet the chronicler’s allusion here is primarily one for contrast; for Bartholomew died while doing God’s work, thus maintaining his fidelity to his lord. Castleford is thus indirectly asserting that Wallace will not receive the same eternal judgment that Bartholomew had merited. The chronicler is undoubtedly suggesting the Final Judgment when he describes how Wallace receives his earthly judgment (“domes”) from Edward I:

Þar qwen he was to þe kyng broght,

Suffrede domes after he had wroght. (Castleford 370)

In a similar manner, the chronicler alludes to the birthday of John the Baptist as a contrast to the day of Scottish victory at Bannockburn. The introduction of the idea of baptism suggests a rebirth or new start, and indeed the Scots appear to have a new beginning for themselves since they have beaten the usually invincible English army. But Castleford’s construction of the episode establishes that the Scots squander their opportunity when they decide to ravage the regions in the northern areas of England. The Scots, then, provide a direct contrast to John the Baptist, who was the patron saint of missionaries; for the mission of the Scots is one that is unholy and destructive. John the Baptist, who was also known for his denouncing of sinners,5 would certainly have denounced the sinful actions of the Scots just as Thomas of Castleford does in his chronicle.

As already suggested, Castleford incorporates a political agenda as well as the religious and moral agendas into his historiography. Like the chronicler of the prose

Brut and other medieval historiographers, Castleford could not help but notice the

inability of Edward II to rule the kingdom of England. Like Trevisa, Castleford places primary blame on the advisors who led Edward II astray; yet Castleford is also quick to judge Edward II’s own incompetence and incapacity to rule:

Þis edwarde als anens his lede Was wise of worde and fole in dede.

5

John the Baptist denounced Herod ’s marriage to the wife of his brother. For that reason Herod despised John and would eventually order John the Baptist to be beheaded.

(14)

Ek he was ful vngraciouse man Wel ner in alle þinges he bigan.

He gaf him, þof it semede nog wele, To alkins werkes manuele. (Castleford 373)

Here Castleford not only criticizes Edward II’s closeness to his advisors but also the King’s inclination to engage in activities unseemly or inappropriate for a monarch.6 Following his assessment of Edward II’s character, Castleford, not untypically for medieval chroniclers, notes the problems that plagued England during Edward II’s reign: grain shortages, famine, death, disease, and strife. The proximity of this catalogue to the character description of Edward II connects the problems of the land to the defects of the monarch.

The constant turmoil that England suffered from 1307 to 1327, in addition to the unpopular and allegedly immoral actions and behavior of Edward II, resulted in that King being one of the most unpopular rulers in the history of England. Although it was not unusual for a chronicler such as Castleford to denounce both the unpopular actions and the advisors who betrayed Edward II and all of England, it was unusual for a chronicler to take such a direct stand against the king himself. The more subtle condemnation (while still retaining respect for the position of the king itself) found in Trevisa’s chronicle is an example of the more conservative and safer approach. Castleford’s comments are all the more remarkable since he began writing at a time when King Edward II was still in power (assuming he began his chronicle before January of 1327, which seems likely). More remarkable still in Castleford’s historiography are (1) the lack of positive commentary in regards to Edward I and, especially, (2) the negative handling that Edward I receives in the Berwick episode. Clearly, Thomas of Castleford must have been fairly well removed from the region of Essex and the strong feelings of nationality that echo in the chronicles from that region (as is evident in the writing by Trevisa and others). Like

6

Edward II disliked military exercises and activities and prefer red taking excursions into the country, swimming, and consorting with minstrels. Such inapp ropriate behavior was compounded by his lavish expenditures and his predilection for h is allegedly homosexual companions (Keen 52).

(15)

the Brut chronicler who purportedly had Lancastrian connections, Thomas of Castleford may very well have been connected to a baron in Yorkshire who, like Lancaster, may have been an enemy of Edward II and who may have even had a similar distrust or dislike for Edward I. Such would be the most logical explanation for Thomas of Castleford’s lukewarm and often negative treatment of both Edward I and Edward II. But that, in turn, might also explain the lukewarm and negative reception that Castleford’s Chronicle received in England, causing Castleford’s historiography to become the lost chronicle of England.

Works Cited

Primary Sources: Medieval Chronicles

Andrew of Wyntoun. Orygynal Cronykil of Scotland. Ed. F. J. Amours. 6 vols. Scottish Text Society. 1st_{Series 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 63. Edinburgh: William Blackwood,}

1907-14.

Barbour, John. The Bruce. Ed. Walter W. Skeat. Early English Text Society. Extra Series 11, 21, 29, 55. London: Oxford UP, 1870-1968.

Brut, or the Chronicles of England. Ed. Friedrich W. D. Brie. Early English Text Society.

Original Series 131, 136. London: Kegan Paul, 1906-1908.

Capgrave, John. Chronicle of England. Ed. F. C. Hingeston. Rerum Brittannicarum Medii

Aevi Scriptores (Rolls Series) 1. London: 1858; Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1972.

Castleford, Thomas. See Thomas of Castleford.

John of Trevisa, trans. Polychronicon. By Ranulf Higden. Ed. C. Babington (vols. 1-2) And J. R. Lumby (vols. 3-9). 9 vols. Rerum Brittanicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores (Rolls Series) 41. London: 1865-1886. Wiesbaden: Kraus, 1964.

Layamon. Brut. Eds. G. L. Brook and R. F. Leslie. Early English Text Society. Original Series 250, 277. London: Oxford UP, 1963-1978.

Minot, Laurence. The Poems of Laurence Minot. Ed. Joseph Hall. 3rd_{ed. Oxford:}

(16)

Thomas of Castleford. Chronicle (Selections). Medieval English: An Old and Middle

English Anthology. Vol. 1. Ed. Rolf Kaiser. 5th_{Imp. Rev. West Berlin: Rolf Kaiser,}

1961. 363-73.

Trevisa, John. See John of Trevisa. Wyntoun, Andrew. See Andrew of Wyntoun.

Secondary Sources

Albano, Robert A. Middle English Historiography. American University Studies, Series IV: English Language and Literature, Vol. 168. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1993.

Brandt, William J. The Shape of Medieval History: Studies in Modes of Perception. New Haven: Yale UP, 1966.

Breisach, Ernest. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963.

Burrow, J. A. The Ages of Man: A Study in Medieval Writing and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.

Coleman, Janet. Medieval Readers and Writers: 1350-1400. New York: Columbia UP, 1981.

Davis, R. H. C., and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill. The Writing of History in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981.

Dean, William. History Making History. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.

Fleischman, Suzanne. “Philology, Linguistics, and the Discourse of Medieval Text. ”Speculum 65.1 (1990): 19-37.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

_______. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Random House, 1970.

Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England II: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth

Century. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982.

(17)

Monmouth. New York: Columbia UP, 1966.

Holmes, George. The Latter Middle Ages. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1962.

Keen, M. H. England in the Latter Middle Ages: A Political History. London: Routledge, 1988.

King, Edmund. England: 1175-1425. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1979.

Kossick, Shirley. “The Brut and the English Literary Tradition.” Unisa English Studies 15.1 (1977): 25-32.

Kramer, Lloyd S. “Literature, Criticism and Historical Imagination: The Literary Challenge of Hayden White and Dominick LaCapra.” The New Cultural History. Ed. Lynn Hunt. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989. 97-128.

LaCapra, Dominick. History and Criticism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1985.

LeGoff, Jacques. The Medieval Imagination. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.

McKisack, May. The Fourteenth Century: 1307-1399. Oxford History of England Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991.

Scott, Ronald McNair. Robert the Bruce: King of Scots. New York: Peter Bedrick, 1989. Smalley, Beryl. Historians in the Middle Ages. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. Streuver, Nancy S. The Language of History in the Renaissance. Pr cinceto: Princeton

University Press, 197

Taylor, John. English Historical Writing in the Fourteenth Century. Oxfor Clarendon, 194

_______. “The French Brut and the Reign of Edward II.” English Historical Review 2(1957): 423-3

_______. Medieval Historical Writing in Yorkshire. York: St. Anthony’s, 196

White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Centy Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 197

(18)

卡斯爾福特佚失的編年史:

約克郡的歷史想像

李白

∗

提要

公元十四世紀 , 卡斯爾福特的托馬斯用中古英語撰寫了一本編年史。這編年史頗為獨特，可作同類編年史有趣的補充。其中三節特別記述了英國和蘇格蘭之戰，從中可看到托馬斯如何使用同代歷史編纂者的一些技巧和主題，而更重要的是，當中展示出作者與眾不同的歷史想像。然而作者有關愛德華一世和二世冷淡甚或負面的描寫 , 卻令這編年史在英國本土湮沒無聞。本文的目的是要分析這編年史所涉及的歷史想像。關鍵字:歷史編纂學、編年史、英國文學、中世紀文學、英國史、蘇格蘭史 ∗ 東華大學英美語文學系助理教授。