About the Chronicle

The Chronicle of Melrose: a brief introduction

The Chronicle of Melrose is the principal chronicle source for Scotland in the 12^th and 13^th centuries. It was created at Melrose Abbey, a Cistercian monastery founded by King David I in 1136 in southern Scotland. The text is entirely in Latin. The manuscript is a remarkable survival of an ‘active’ chronicle, with multiple generations of scribal additions while the manuscript was at the abbey. The digital edition highlights the Chronicle text’s piecemeal growth as a result of these layers of scribal contributions.

At some point in the late 13^th or first half of the 14^th century, the Chronicle was taken south to a monastery in England (there is evidence it was at the priory of Deeping St James in Lincolnshire for a period).

In the mid-16^th century, the Chronicle was acquired by the antiquarian John Leland (d. 1552). Leland likely split the manuscript into two separate units. He was also probably responsible for associating these two parts with other works, thus creating two ‘composite’ manuscripts.

Both composite manuscripts were then acquired by Sir Robert Cotton for his illustrious library (d. 1631) where they were given the shelf-marks Julius B. XIII and Faustina B. IX.

The two manuscripts live today in the British Library in London. Only in the early 21^st century was it shown that both were part of the same original entity (see Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, chapter 4).

As a physical object, then, the ‘Chronicle of Melrose’ is 120 folios currently divided between two separate bound volumes:

• London, BL Cotton MS Julius B. XIII, ff. 2–47
• London, BL Cotton MS Faustina B. IX, ff. 2–75

Textually, the surviving portions can be summarised as:

• Julius B. XIII, ff. 2–40: Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle, aka De tribus maximis circumstantis gestorum, ‘On the three best memory-aids for learning history’.
• Julius B. XIII, ff. 41–47: annals for AD 1–249 (finishing mid-sentence).
• Faustina B. IX, ff. 2–75: a brief introduction quoting Bede’s Ecclesiastical History from AD 731, followed by annals of varying length for AD 734–1270 (finishing mid-sentence), with a smattering of other annals in the 1270s and 1280s, plus some other incorporated texts such as letters, king-lists, lists of burials at the abbey, verses on Scottish kings, and a ‘little work’ on Simon de Montfort (d. 1265).

The Chronicle has possibly suffered losses of folios over the years. There are various ‘lacunae’ (absences) in the text as it stands which might suggest this:

• At Julius B. XIII, f. 47v: the annal for AD 249 finishes mid-sentence which may indicate lost text (the gathering’s final folio has been cut away at some point).
• Annals for AD 250–730: it is not clear whether annals for AD 250–730 were ever written. One scribe working probably in the early 13^th century noted the absence of these years (Scribal profile 18, Julius B. XIII, f. 30v), so if they ever existed they were already lost by then.
• At Faustina B. IX, f. 75v: the annal for AD 1270 finishes mid-sentence at the end of a gathering which may indicate lost text.

As for its creators, there are many dozens of scribes evidently writing the Chronicle over a long period of time. Most of these were members of the community at Melrose in the late 12^th and 13^th centuries, though we do not know their precise identities. This edition, building on the work of previous editors, brings to the fore the individual contributions of these many ‘scribal profiles’.

The digital edition can be thought of as:

• Digital images of the manuscripts from the British Library, with annotations of the ‘scribal profiles’.
• A representation of some of the text in the Chronicle as a transcription and accompanying English translation. Texts have been marked-up in a common web-compatible format (TEI-XML) to allow display on screen. The selection process for editing the text is explained under Editorial principals 1: ‘scribal profiles’ (for example, Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle is summarised rather than edited).

The Chronicle today: two composite manuscripts

The Chronicle of Melrose is currently divided into two sections, each part of a ‘composite’ manuscript in the British Library’s Cotton collection. A composite manuscript is one where different items have been brought together into one binding. Typically, these items were once independent volumes with no known association. An owner might create a composite volume in order to bring together texts on a similar topic.

Cotton Julius B. XIII

• ff. 2–47: The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey (Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle followed by annals for AD 1–249).
• ff. 48–173: Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione (manuscript datable to the 2^nd quarter of the 14^th century).

Cotton Faustina B. IX

• ff. 2–75: The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey (introduction from AD 731 followed by annals for AD 734–1270, with a smattering of annals in the 1270s and 1280s, plus incorporated texts).
• ff. 76–244: The Tynemouth Chronicle based on Nicholas Trevet’s Annales and the writings of William Rishanger, AD 1259–1306 (manuscript datable to between the 4^th quarter of the 14^th century to the 1^st quarter of the 15^th century).

It is likely that John Leland (d. 1552) was responsible for dividing the Chronicle of Melrose into two (according to Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 181). Leland began collecting manuscripts probably after 1536, and had fallen into ‘madness’ by 1547. If he acquired the Chronicle from Thorney Abbey, as has been suggested, then this would have been before the abbey’s dissolution in December 1539 (Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 176). Leland seems to have regarded the second part from AD 731 (now Faustina B. IX, ff. 2–75) as an abridgement of Roger of Howden’s work (see the remains of a title Epitome <Rogeri Houeden> on Faustina B. IX, f. 2r). It is notable that Leland (likely Scribal profile 16) added many signposts to the margins of Faustina B. IX, but very few to Julius B. XIII. Julian Harrison also observes that since Leland had both De principis instructione and the Tynemouth Chronicle in his possession, it was likely him that joined the Chronicle of Melrose to these other works.

Because of this division, for a long time it was not realised that the two manuscripts were once part of the same entity from Melrose Abbey. This was only made explicit in print in 2007 (Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, esp. chapter 4).

The Chronicle’s binding history

The binding history of a manuscript can be revealing about the use, function and storage of the object. The Chronicle of Melrose is unusual for a medieval manuscript in how much information is known about its binding history. Both Cotton manuscripts were disbound in 2005 to allow for analysis and digitisation. The analysis undertaken was published in 2007 (Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, chapter 6). This is a summary of the findings there, which were based on an examination and measurement of the binding holes in the ‘gutter’ of both manuscripts by a team of specialists (including Daniel Huws, Mariluz Beltran de Guevara, Dauvit Broun and Julian Harrison). For Julius B. XIII, the use of a ‘hacksaw’ to make the holes has caused some to merge, obscuring evidence of distinct phases of binding holes before the current ones. Their analysis was therefore based on the holes in Faustina B. IX: some stretch across the entire composite volume (ff. 2–244); others are unique to the Melrose part (i.e., ff. 2–75), showing they are from an earlier stage.

An unbound manuscript: the Chronicle of Melrose probably existed unbound for some or all of its ‘active lifetime’. This is suggested by: (i) writing deep in the inner margins, inaccessible when the gatherings are tightly bound; (ii) the addition of some ‘singletons’ during this period; (iii) at two points during the 13^th century abbots of Dundrennan borrowed and returned parts of the manuscript; and (iv) the very fact that the manuscript continued to receive new folios and text, both large blocks of activity and smaller contributions. The gatherings could have been kept in a wrapper or a box during this period (though there is no surviving evidence for this).

A medieval binding: a basic binding on two ‘sewing stations’ (or ‘bands’) is evident from the holes in the gutter. One option is that this was done at Melrose in the second half of the 12^th century soon after the Chronicle was initially created, which was then disbound to allow for the 13^th-century growth, and then rebound again at the end of the 13^th or early 14^th century when the two holes were reused. Another option is that the gatherings remained unbound entirely until the late 13^th or early 14^th century when they were eventually bound on two bands at Melrose Abbey or once they were moved to England (at Deeping St James in Lincolnshire or possibly at Thorney Abbey in Cambridgeshire).

16^th-century binding: a binding on three ‘sewing stations’ is also recoverable from the analysis. This stretches across the entire composite volume Faustina B. IX (i.e., the Tynemouth Chronicle as well), and so was probably done while in the possession of John Leland (d. 1552) who acquired the Chronicle sometime between 1536 and 1547, and possibly before December 1539. The lower margin ink foliations in the Melrose part of Faustina B. IX (ff. 2–75) may be associated with Leland’s binding (Scribal profile 29).

17^th-century binding: the manuscripts were rebound (again in their composite form) while in the library of Sir Robert Cotton (d. 1631). Five ‘sewing stations’ are evident. The ink foliations in the top corners, running throughout the composite volumes, may be associated with the Cottonian binding (Scribal profiles 2 and 26). The quire signatures (Scribal profiles 5, 11, 14, 25, 30 and 31) and tallies of total leaves (Scribal profiles 12 and 38), both of which run throughout the composite volumes, are certainly from this period.

19^th-century binding: the composite manuscripts were both rebound while in the possession of the British Museum: Julius B. XIII in 1839 and 1864; Faustina B. IX in 1839 (Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 191). The boards were replaced but they reused the Cottonian ‘sewing stations’ so no new holes were made. The pencil foliations running throughout Faustina B. IX were added in February 1884 (Scribal profiles 27 and 28).

1928 disbinding: Faustina B. IX was disbound in 1928 to allow for photographing for the 1936 facsimile edition (Andersons, The Chronicle of Melrose). It was rebound using the same holes and boards.

2005 disbinding: both manuscripts were disbound for analysis and digitisation in 2005. They were rebound in 2006 using the same holes and boards. (One folio appears to have been bound out of sequence at this point, presumably by mistake: f. 41 in Faustina B. IX is now between ff. 45 and 46.)

The structure of the Chronicle’s gatherings today (collation)

The physical features of a manuscript can provide significant information about its history – from medieval creation to modern curation. The study of a manuscript book’s construction is known as ‘codicology’ (literally, ‘the study of the codex’). It generally includes examining the current features of the manuscript (much like a librarian or archivist would do to write a catalogue description) as well as investigating the evidence for any historical developments (from initial creation to growth or rebinding across time as the manuscript moved through different collections). To fully appreciate the scribal activity in the Chronicle of Melrose, it is crucial to examine the codicology and use this information as the backdrop to the scribal profiles and their work.

The study of a manuscript’s structure usually involves determining the organisation of all the physical booklets (the ‘quires’ or ‘gatherings’) which make up the manuscript today. This results in a ‘collation’ of the gatherings: diagrams or descriptions which map their structure. Knowing how a given folio relates to its gathering can illuminate the nature of a scribe’s work: perhaps a missing folio in the middle of a gathering (visible as a ‘stub’) explains a disjuncture in the scribe’s writing; perhaps a ‘stub’ at the end of the gathering suggests no more text was anticipated and the folio was cut away to be repurposed; perhaps a scribe began their work at the start of a fresh gathering because they were working in tandem with others; perhaps a folio with existing text became associated with the manuscript later but as a ‘singleton’, physically and textually independent from the folios around it.

A standard way to express the information about the structure of a manuscript is as a ‘collation formula’. Below are the formulae for each part of the Chronicle of Melrose. The large Arabic numeral is the gathering number in the order they appear today. (This one is based on the usage in N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), see p. xxii.)

Collation formulae are notoriously difficult to comprehend, being as they are a standardised short hand for a large amount of codicological information. They also include some assumptions, e.g., about whether text is missing or not.

A more explicit description of the gatherings’ structure is presented in the tables below and in the accompanying diagrams. These reflect the gatherings as they appeared in August 2023. Because the current binding sometimes prevents features from being visible (such as obscuring the presence of stubs), the information below sometimes draws on Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, chapter 6. The manuscript was disbound in 2005, meaning Broun was able to see much more clearly the configuration of each gathering.

The manuscript was rebound into its present form in 2006, after Broun’s analysis. There are, as a result, slight differences with Broun’s description. In Julius B. XIII Gathering III, the singleton in the middle of the gathering (f. 23) has been bound today the other way, i.e., with the stub between it and f. 24, not between it and f. 22 as before (so, following Broun’s summary at p. 195, this gathering now ‘wants 6’, rather than ‘wants 5’). Also, a bifolio (ff. 41 and 46) has been bound out of sequence in this current binding, for an unknown reason (f. 41 currently appears between ff. 45 and 46).

All folios are made from parchment.

Julius B. XIII: current structure (as of August 2023)

Faustina B. IX: current structure (as of August 2023)

[Add VisColl collation diagrams here: see folder which has various versions, as SVG / JSON / PNG / HTML. From my VCEditor account, I also seem to be able to generate view-only URLs:

Faustina: https://vceditor.library.upenn.edu/project/65cdfe525d69680001439fb3/viewOnly

Julius: https://vceditor.library.upenn.edu/project/65202af3f8b0a20001c57c4b/viewOnly

But preferably these diagrams would be embedded into the webpage. The screenshots below give an indication of what this will look like.]

Collation of Julius B. XIII, ff. 2–47 Collation of Faustina B. IX, ff. 2–75

These visualisations were created using VCEditor on 20 February 2024.

What was the original Chronicle?

What did the Chronicle of Melrose look like to its very first scribe(s)?

It is certainly possible to say that, by the early 13^th century, Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle and the annals from AD 1–249, and the section from AD 731 onwards were all regarded as a continuous work by its readers (see the comment attributed to Scribal profile 18 on Julius B. XIII, f. 30v regarding the lacuna in the text, i.e., the missing annals between 249 and 731). But what constituted the ‘original’ chronicle, before it ‘grew’?

Broun and Harrison (The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, pp. 48–9, chapter 5) regarded the ‘original’ chronicle as comprising:

• Julius B. XIII, ff. 2–47
• ‘Scribe 1’ [Scribal profile 3]: Prologue to Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle
• ‘Scribe 3’ [Scribal profile 8]: Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle
• ‘Scribe 5’ [Scribal profile 24]: annals for AD 1–249
• Faustina B. IX, ff. 2–22 (excluding f.14, which was inserted later)
• ‘Scribe 5’ [Scribal profile 24]: an introduction quoting Bede’s Ecclesiastical History from AD 731 followed by annals for AD 734–956 (ending mid-sentence)
• ‘Scribe 6’ [Scribal profile 37]: annals for AD 956 (continued mid-sentence)–1016
• ‘Scribe 3’ [Scribal profile 8]: annals for AD 1017–1171 (ending at f. 21r)

In terms of gatherings, this would have comprised:

• Julius B. XIII Gathering I: 8 folios
• Julius B. XIII Gathering II: probably originally 10 folios (one later cut away)
• Julius B. XIII Gathering III: probably originally 10 folios (one later cut away)
• Julius B. XIII Gathering IV: 8 folios
• Julius B. XIII Gathering V: probably originally 6 folios (final one later cut away)
• Julius B. XIII Gathering VI: probably originally 8 folios (final one later cut away)

Potentially one or more gatherings lost containing annals after AD 249

• Faustina B. IX Gathering I: 10 folios
• Faustina B. IX Gathering II: 10 folios (f. 14 was inserted later)

To summarise Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, chapter 4 (‘Recovering the Chronicle of Melrose’, pp. 48–55), the manuscript originated as a single ‘project’ with these principle scribes working simultaneously on the different sections. The scribes of the annals had, according to Broun, an ‘authorial’ role, being individually responsible for selecting their sources to shape the resulting text. Broun is clear that the scribes must have been working at Melrose Abbey (p. 45, n. 34): ‘Any reservation about Melrose as the home of these scribes (on the basis that Melrose may have acquired this manuscript rather than created it) can be dispelled by the highlighted presentation (in red ink) of the entries on the foundations of Cîteaux (1098), Rievaulx (1132, Melrose’s mother-house), Melrose (1136, in slightly larger writing), Kinloss (1150) and Holm Cultram (1150, both daughter-houses of Melrose).’

When was this ‘original chronicle’ created? Broun’s dating was based on two elements in the work of ‘Scribe 3’: (i) the extension of a timeframe at the end of Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle to 1174 (which likely suggests that the scribe was working in or before this year, otherwise he would surely have continued the frame onto the next page up to his own time); and (ii) a reference under the annal AD 1170 to David, brother of the king, as ‘earl’ (which according to Broun could have been feasible any time after David was granted Huntingdon, albeit speculatively, in 1173). Broun therefore dated the creation of the chronicle to ‘1173×4’. (See further: Dating the earliest Chronicle scribes: Scribal profile 8’s reference to David as ‘earl’.)

The Andersons (The Chronicle of Melrose, p. xiv) arrived at ‘1185×98 (1185×6?)’ as the date of the original chronicle, again based on their interpretation of when David could feasibly be described as ‘earl’ which they took to be most likely after he was in full possession of the earldom of Huntingdon in 1185. Their latest date related to either the birth of William’s son Alexander II in 1198 or William’s marriage to Ermengarde de Beaumont in 1186.

A. A. M. Duncan (‘Sources and uses in the Chronicle of Melrose’, p. 149) points out that the final passage of this original chronicle (i.e., the description of Becket’s death in the annal for AD 1171, added by ‘Scribe 3’/Scribal profile 8) reads as though it was written ‘before the penances of the guilty were known in 1171–72’, which in reality would be before the spring of 1172. This section of the chronicle does indeed read like that (Faustina B. IX. f. 21r): ‘May the sword of the Lord, the highest deliverer, take vengeance immediately against the flesh of the evil-doers, especially those who perpetrated the abominable deed, gave the order, furnished advice, and showed agreement; in sum, initiators, followers, and all assistants who had notice beforehand of this evil of evils.’ This, however, would only go for the composition of that portion of text or its exemplar, not necessarily the copying of it into the Chronicle.

Various interpretations are therefore possible for dating the early Chronicle. The digital edition – and in particular the new analysis and dating of scribal profiles which attempts to strip away as many assumptions as possible – affords the opportunity to look at this question again. Instead of searching for the ‘initial’ or ‘original’ chronicle, we might reframe this as an even more neutral question: what are the earliest portions of the manuscript?

To identify the earliest gatherings requires a combined assessment of each one’s contents and scribes. In this case, there are four distinct ‘units’ which could potentially be the oldest. They are ‘units’ because each could, in theory, have been physically and textually independent at their moment of creation:

• Unit 1. Julius B. XIII, Gatherings I–V: Hugh of St Victor’s Prologue (Scribal profile 3) and Chronicle (Scribal profile 8). These two sequential stints are taken together as one ‘unit’, though strictly speaking the Prologue may have been copied as a separate activity before the following pages were then ruled and the Chronicle was added. However, it seems more logical that they were part of the same campaign. In total this unit occupies five gatherings, with one page left blank at the end. In terms of dating this unit, Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle was thought to be composed some time between 1124 and 1137 (Hugh died in 1141). As in other early versions, Scribal profile 8 takes the list of popes and rulers down to the pontificate of Honorius II (1124–30) and no further. The scribe did extend the chronological ‘frame’ to 1174 at the foot of the page, but this was likely them filling the space on the already-ruled folio rather than necessarily working in or after 1174. We also cannot assume that the scribes would have automatically updated their exemplar. Palaeographically, however, both scribal profiles are datable to probably the second half of the 12^th century.
• Unit 2. Julius B. XIII, Gathering VI: Annals for AD 1–249 (Scribal profile 24), occupying a single gathering and finishing mid-sentence. The main source for these annals is Bede’s Chronica Maiora, which runs from the Creation to the 720s. Palaeographically, the scribal profile is datable to probably the second half of the 12^th century.
• Unit 3. Faustina B. IX, Gathering I: An introduction from AD 731 and annals for AD 734–956 (Scribal profile 24), occupying six and a half folios in a ten-folio gathering, finishing mid-sentence at the bottom of f. 8r. The reference to Henry II as earl of Northumberland under AD 950 (Faustina B. IX, f. 8r) means this stint was written after 1157 when the earldom was confiscated from William the Lion by Henry II (as identified by the Andersons, The Chronicle of Melrose, p. xxvii). Palaeographically, the scribal profile is datable to probably the second half of the 12^th century.
• Unit 4. Faustina B. IX, Gathering II (minus f. 14): Annals for AD 1017–1171 (Scribal profile 8), occupying a single gathering with one blank folio at the end. The reference to David, brother of the king, as ‘earl’ under AD 1170 (Faustina B. IX, f. 20v) means this stint was written after 8 March 1173 at the very earliest, but possibly quite a few years or even decades later (see Dating the earliest Chronicle scribes: Scribal profile 8’s reference to David as ‘earl’). Palaeographically, the scribal profile is datable to probably the second half of the 12^th century.

Given that unit 4 begins at AD 1017, it is tempting to assume that unit 3 already contained the continuation from AD 956–1016, which filled from f. 8v to the end of the gathering (Scribal profile 37). Scribal profile 37’s work is also datable after 1157, and is palaeographically probably the second half of the 12^th century, so this does not reveal anything about the chronology. Half a page was left blank at the end of the unit 3 gathering (f. 11v), perhaps evidence that unit 4 (from AD 1017) was created before or simultaneously to unit 3, rather than necessarily after. It is certainly possible for a chronicle text to begin in a chosen year (the ‘Chronicle of the Kings of Mann and the Isles’, for example, begins at AD 1000, though it is selective in the annals it covers: London, BL Cotton MS Julius A. VII). Unit 4’s opening Anno (with a rubricated initial A and two majuscule Ns) certainly gives the impression it was not simply a continuation, though there is no opening introductory text (as in unit 3) or title (as in the Chronicle of the Kings of Mann and the Isles). Either way, there is no firm evidence for which came first or whether the units were produced in tandem.

From the summary above, it is not possible to say definitively whether the earliest scribes conceptualised all four units as one ‘project’ or ‘work’, or whether they were regarded as separate until the early 13^th century. It is also not clear which was created first, or whether they were all undertaken roughly simultaneously. Given that there are two scribal profiles which appear in two units (Scribal profiles 8 and 24), the image of a single campaign of work is persuasive, though not conclusive. One additional perspective is the preparation of the folios: looking at the general size, layout, ruling and feel of the folios across all four of these units, there is some uniformity, at least across all of the annals (for ruling, see Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 62). This may be an illusion encouraged by the later cropping and binding of the folios, of course, and it does not prove either way whether the texts were all written contemporaneously or in a single campaign.

Palaeographically, all of the profiles are datable to the second half of the 12^th century. According to Broun’s analysis (pp. 223–7), a few features suggest this: there is no evidence of ‘biting’ in these profiles (i.e., compressing letters together); the Tironian et symbol is always uncrossed; the shaft of t does not protrude above the horizontal stroke; and s at the end of a word is typically ‘straight’ rather than ‘round’. On the basis of the inclusion of the tailed ę, it might seem that Scribal profile 24 is datable to the 1150s, 1160s or early 1170s, but that is not necessarily the case (see the information on palaeographical dating under Scribal profiles).

There is no firm terminus ante quem for any of these units (a latest date of creation). The best indicator would be when the text was continued or began to receive additions. Unfortunately, most of these continuations are also only datable with a termini post quem (an earliest date, not an exact date of writing). For example, for unit 4, the ‘continuation’ of the annals is attributed to Scribal profile 60 which was responsible for AD 1171–97 and is datable after 17 March 1199 (given a reference under AD 1193 to the memory of Jocelin, bishop of Glasgow). Palaeographically, the profile seems to be early 13^th century. But this does not provide a firm latest date for the unit’s initial creation. The only relevant scribal profile with a likely terminus ante quem is Scribal profile 18, which added to Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle probably before 1216 (when Honorius III could have been added to the list on f. 40v), and possibly 1208 (as far as the scribe goes with numbering Innocent III’s chronological frame). This would mean that unit 1 was certainly in existence by 1216 and possibly by 1208. Evidently, therefore, the gap between ‘creation’ and ‘continuation’ may have been a few years, or a few decades.

Were these four ‘units’ all created at Melrose? Scribal profile 8 is the only one that can confidently be associated with the abbey, given the nature of the events highlighted in red ink (discussed by Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, at p. 45, n. 34). This would mean units 1 and 4 were certainly produced at Melrose. It remains a possibility that units 2 and 3 (respectively, annals for AD 1–249 and those from AD 731 to 956) were produced elsewhere, arriving at Melrose in the late 12^th century where they were supplemented with more gatherings and received interlinear and marginal additions. The consistent folio ruling and size might argue against this, although it is possible that this style was simply copied at Melrose for the sake of consistency.

Overall, the temptation is to read the units in the order they are presented today and regard the Chronicle of Melrose project as beginning with two scribes copying Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle (unit 1), to which was then added (soon after) an annalistic chronicle from AD 1 (unit 2) and from AD 731 (units 3 and 4). Putting all of this work together would date the creation of the Chronicle to the fourth quarter of the 12^th century (after 8 March 1173). The presentation of the evidence above, however, acts as a reminder of other possible scenarios for when and where each unit was created, and whether they were initially conceptualised as separate. Ultimately, the creation of the Chronicle of Melrose remains somewhat elusive, though is datable broadly to the fourth quarter of the 12^th century.

Dating the earliest Chronicle scribes: Scribal profile 8’s reference to David as earl

Scribal profile 8 is one of the earliest in the Chronicle (see What was the ‘original’ Chronicle?). It was responsible for the bulk of Hugh of Saint-Victor’s De tribus maximis circumstantis gestorum in Julius B. XIII, and for annals for AD 1017–1171 in Faustina B. IX. This profile’s dating is essential for understanding when the Chronicle project was begun; it is also crucial for dating the many profiles which follow it sequentially in the manuscript.

The latest datable ‘event’ within the profile’s stint was the killing of Thomas Becket on 29 December 1170 (f. 21r, though in the Chronicle this is recorded under AD 1171 since the year was reckoned to begin on Christmas Day). However, there is another textual clue to this profile’s date of working. Under AD 1170, David, brother of King Máel Coluim and King William, is described as ‘earl’ (f. 20v, where the text is describing Isabel, aunt of Máel Coluim and William and ‘of Earl David of good hope’, bone spei Dauid comitis). David was earl of Huntingdon and also Lennox for a time, but this reference is certainly anachronistic for a scribe potentially working shortly after 29 December 1170. The title must have been inserted by the scribe or their source. It therefore provides a starting point for establishing an earliest date (a terminus post quem) for Scribal profile 8’s work. (This reference and its implications for dating the earliest Chronicle scribes was first identified by the Andersons, The Chronicle of Melrose, p. xiv.) However, ascertaining when David became an earl is far from straightforward.

The earldom of Huntingdon. One of the main Latin contemporary chronicles for the period in question (compiled by Roger of Howden and known to scholarship as Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis) tells us that Henry the Young King granted to David ‘for his homage and service’ the earldom of Huntingdon and also Cambridgeshire (Howden, Gesta, p. 45). This apparently occurred at a council in Paris in Spring 1173 (after 8 March, before 15 April). Keith Stringer has pointed out that this was essentially a ‘speculative grant’ which was unlikely to translate to any meaningful possession of the earldom (Stringer, Earl David, p. 21). Nevertheless, David was evidently ‘actively engaged in the running of the estate’ in 1173 and 1174 (Stringer, Earl David, 24) and he issued charters relating to Huntingdon during the period (Stringer, Earl David, Acta nos. 23, 34, 58 and 75), though he was never styled ‘earl’ (comes) in these acts, opting instead for ‘brother of the king of Scots’. In Jordan Fantosme’s near-contemporary account of the period, he describes how, in early May 1174, King William pledged ‘to give him [David] all Lennox as a life tenancy and also the honour of Huntingdon’ (Fantosme, Chronicle, pp. 162 and 199). This could also be read as a ‘speculative grant’, however, given William did not possess Huntingdon at that time and therefore could not make good on his gift. Either way, David forfeited Huntingdon soon after the siege of Huntingdon in July 1174, when the title was assumed by Simon de Senlis (III) (Stringer, Earl David, p. 28). On Simon’s death in 1184, Huntingdon was ‘returned to’ William by Henry II at a council at Clerkenwell on 18 March 1185 (Howden, Gesta, p. 337). William then ‘immediately, in the presence of the king, gave that earldom to his brother David’ (Howden, Chronica, ii, p. 285). The firmest date for David’s full possession of the earldom of Huntingdon is therefore 18 March 1185, though he was perhaps regarded as having a claim to the title from Spring 1173 to late Summer 1174.

The earldom of Lennox. As mentioned, there is a reference in Jordan Fantosme’s chronicle to William’s pledge of Lennox to David in early May 1174 (Fantosme, Chronicle, pp. 162 and 199). There is one charter (recorded in a cartulary) indicating that David was exercising lordship over Lennox in this early period. In it, David gives churches in Lennox to Kelso Abbey (Stringer, Earl David, Acta no. 35), though again David is not styled ‘earl’. It has been argued that this charter, dated at Roxburgh, was written before the end of May 1174 when David left Scotland (Stringer, Earl David, pp. 14–15 and 22). Putting this together with Jordan Fantosme’s chronicle, it seems that soon after William’s ‘pledge’ in early May 1174, monastic houses like Kelso were looking to David as the new secular authority in Lennox. David is not known to have been particularly active there after this, and he resigned the earldom no later than the 1190s (Stringer, Earl David, p. 16).

Overall, then, the question of when David ‘became earl’ of either Huntingdon or Lennox is somewhat complicated. The real question for our purposes, however, is not when David was finally in full legal possession of an earldom. It is when David could realistically have been referred to as ‘earl’ (comes) by himself or by others writing about him. Near contemporary chronicles are a potential guide here. Jordan Fantosme does refer to David as earl (Fantosme, Chronicle, p. 112 ‘del cunte’, p. 113 ‘le cunte’). It has been argued that Fantosme was writing in 1175 or even at the end of 1174 (Fantosme, Chronicle, p. 26), although the earliest manuscript of his work is late 12^th or early 13^th century (Durham Cathedral Library c. iv 27; Fantosme, Chronicle, p. 50). Fantosme’s work is in verse rather than prose, however, meaning its need for rhythmic harmony makes it less susceptible to later scribal errors, and so it is conceivable that a chronicler could in 1174/5 be comfortable referring to David as ‘earl’. In other contemporary chronicles, however, David is generally referred to as ‘the brother of the king of Scots’.

An obvious alternative source to investigate is charters. Keith Stringer has argued that: ‘When David had rights or claims to two earldoms before 1185, his personal style did not regularly include the title of earl … [I]t was only from mid-March 1185 that David took comes as part of this normal charter style … For his career as a whole, the conclusion is quite plain nonetheless. David was not always given, nor did he necessarily use, the comital style to which he was, or appears to have been, entitled’ (Stringer, Earl David, pp. 213–14). Despite this inconsistency, the charters evidence can be revealing. There is one notable example where David’s use of comes to describe himself in his own (extant original) charter may be as early as 1173 or 1174, presumably on the basis of his claim to Huntingdon (NRS GD28/4; Stringer, Earl David, Acta no. 27). However, it is also possible that this charter was datable after 18 March 1185 when he acquired the earldom from Henry II.

The next datable original documents which style David ‘earl’ are compelling for our purposes as they are for Melrose Abbey, and quite possibly written by Melrose scribes. These are from a series relating to the Avenels (Robert and his son Gervase) and their properties in Eskdale, Dumfriesshire, given to the abbey along with other privileges. Incidentally, Robert Avenel died on 8 March 1185 as a novice at Melrose, where he was buried, as was his son Gervase in 1219 (both deaths and burials are recorded in the Chronicle). Two of these charters relating to Eskdale include ‘Earl David, brother of the king of Scotland’ as a witness (Dauid comes frater regis Scotie: NRS GD55/39 and 55/40; Melr. Lib., i, nos. 39 and 40). One is a chirograph datable after 5 May 1180 (GD55/40, on the basis that Osbert, abbot of Kelso, is a witness); it seems likely that it was written before Robert’s death on 8 March 1185, though the text could also be read as though Robert had already passed away, the agreement being then between Melrose and his son Gervase. The other is a charter of Robert himself and therefore certainly datable before 8 March 1185; its earliest possible date of creation would be based on the styling of David as ‘earl’, so perhaps March 1173 (GD55/39).

All of this means that it was feasible for David to appear in a ‘Melrose context’ with the title of ‘earl’ by 8 March 1185, if not before. Keith Stringer notes that, if these charters were produced on the eve of Robert Avenel’s death, the title here may have been ‘bestowed proleptically, in anticipation of David’s acquisition of the Huntingdon honour at King Henry II’s court about a fortnight later [at the council at Clerkenwell on 18 March 1185]’ (Stringer, Earl David, p. 214). Whether the scribe had Huntingdon or Lennox in mind as David’s chief claim to the title, the Eskdale documents show that charter scribes did not regard 18 March 1185 as a threshold only after which David could be recorded in writing as an ‘earl’.

With all of this complex detail in mind, let us return to the central question for dating Scribal profile 8: when could a scribe at Melrose Abbey feasibly refer to him as ‘Earl David of good hope’? The earliest conceivable time would be the council in Paris in 1173 (after 8 March, before 15 April) when the Young Henry promised him Huntingdon. More firm is May 1174, when William pledged him Lennox and Huntingdon, and when David seemingly acted as earl of Lennox (even if not styled as such) in a charter for a Scottish monastery. We are on safer ground moving into the 1180s: certainly by 8 March 1185 (the death of Robert Avenel) charter scribes around Melrose could regard David as comes. The earliest conceivable date, under any circumstances, for Scribal profile 8, then, presumably has to be after the Paris council, which was after 8 March but before 15 April 1173. However, it is quite feasible that in reality the scribe was working later into the 12^th century.

The Andersons (The Chronicle of Melrose, p. xiv) deduced that if the Huntingdon earldom was meant in the reference under AD 1170, then the options for Scribal profile 8’s time of writing were either 1173×1174 or after 1185. They took the reference bone spei (‘of good hope’) to mean that David was heir presumptive to the kingship at the time, and so this would have been penned before the birth of William’s son Alexander II in 1198, and probably before William’s marriage to Ermengarde de Beaumont in 1186. On balance, they opted for no earlier than 1185 for the Chronicle’s initial composition, rather than the 1170s. Broun (The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, pp. 53–5) saw 1173 and thereafter as a ‘perfectly viable’ earliest limit for this styling of David in the text, and therefore opted for 1173×1174 for the Chronicle’s creation (1174 because that is the limit of the scribe’s extension of a timeframe at the end of Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle). In the digital edition, an attempt is made to strip back as many assumptions as possible about when scribes might be writing. This means that Scribal profile 8’s dating is simply ‘after 8 March 1173’ (i.e., after the absolute earliest possible date of the Paris council where the Young Henry promised David Huntingdon), though palaeography can inform us that it was not likely beyond the 12^th century.

The physical growth of the Chronicle in the late 12th and 13th centuries

The Chronicle of Melrose is notable for the scale of its ‘growth’ by the addition of text by many different scribes. To accommodate this text, the manuscript itself was expanded by the addition of fresh folios and gatherings.

Below is a summary of the ‘physical’ growth of the manuscript. It simply explains the addition of folios: it does not address addition of text in each of these gatherings. All of this is explained in more detail in Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, chapters 6 and 8.

It has been shown that at some stages in the Chronicle’s growth, the scribes were probably ruling the new pages as they went individually rather than in bulk (see Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 80).

It is argued here that the Chronicle began life as four physical units, which at some point in the late 12^th or early 13^th century came to be regarded as one ‘work’ (see What was the ‘original’ Chronicle?). Together, these units constituted (at least) eight gatherings in a mixture of sizes:

• Julius B. XIII Gathering I: 8 folios
• Julius B. XIII Gathering II: probably originally 10 folios (one later cut away)
• Julius B. XIII Gathering III: probably originally 10 folios (one later cut away)
• Julius B. XIII Gathering IV: 8 folios
• Julius B. XIII Gathering V: probably originally 6 folios (final one later cut away)
• Julius B. XIII Gathering VI: probably originally 8 folios (final one later cut away)
• Faustina B. IX Gathering I: 10 folios
• Faustina B. IX Gathering II: 10 folios (f. 14 was inserted later)

In this collection of gatherings, there were blanks in the following places:

• Julius B. XIII, f. 18v: a blank page at the end of Gathering II; textually this falls after the list of geographical names and before the table of popes.
• Julius B. XIII, f. 23v: a blank page in the middle bifolio of Gathering III (followed by a stub where an unused folio was presumably removed); textually this falls after the table of popes and before the tables of rulers since the time of Christ.
• Julius B. XIII, f. 40v: a blank page at the end of Gathering V (followed by a stub where an unused folio was presumably removed); textually this coincides with the end of Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicle.
• Faustina B. IX, f. 11v: the lower half of the page was left blank at the end of Gathering I; this coincides with the end of Scribal profile 37’s stint (finishing with the annal for AD 1016).
• Faustina B. IX, ff. 21r (lower half), 21v and 22r–v: blank pages at the end of Gathering II; this coincides with the end of Scribal profile 8’s stint (finishing with the annal for AD 1171, which was later added to).

The subsequent ‘physical’ growth of the manuscript was as follows:

• Two 8-folio gatherings were added (ff. 23–39) to allow for the addition of new annals from AD 1171 to 1223.
• A singleton was added (f. 40) when presumably not much more growth was anticipated.
• A 6-folio gathering was added (ff. 41–46), eventually continuing the annals to AD 1243.
• Five singletons and a bifolio were added (ff. 47–53), containing a series of annals intermixed with copies of letters.
• A 10-folio gathering was added to continue the annals to AD 1263 (now ff. 55–60 and 63). The final three folios and the bottom half of the seventh folio were later cut away, presumably because they were blank.
• An 8-folio gathering was added (ff. 64–71) to continue the annals to AD 1268, plus most of the ‘little work’ on Simon de Montfort.
• Probably an 8-folio gathering was added, with the final four folios later cut away, presumably because they were blank (now ff. 72–75). This allowed for the end of the ‘little work’ on Simon de Montfort and the continuation of the annals to 1270.

A number of other folios were created contemporaneously with this growth but did not have an obvious position in the sequence and so were positioned later, perhaps by a binder:

• f. 14: this singleton contains an account of Scottish kings descended from Máel Coluim III (d. 1093) and Margaret (d. 1093) down to the birth of Alexander II (b. 1198) (Scribal profile 43). It was possibly written on the end of a parchment roll given the way the folio tapers at the bottom. It was situated in Faustina B. IX Gathering I during the 16^th century at the latest as part of the Leland binding (see the Scribal profile 29 foliation ‘13’). This position makes sense as the text appears close to the annal for AD 1070 (f. 15r), when the Chronicle records Máel Coluim III and Margaret’s marriage. The folio certainly seems to have been considered part of the Chronicle in the mid-13^th century due to additions on the verso attributed to Scribal profile 33.
• f. 38: the recto of this singleton contains a copy of the first part of a letter describing the capture of Damietta in 1219 (Scribal profile 81); the verso contains a very faded text listing burials at Melrose (Scribal profile 82). Earlier in the 13^th century this singleton was considered the ‘first folio’ of the Chronicle (whatever that means for a potentially unbound manuscript). This is primarily because of a reference in the work of Scribal profile 76 on f. 37v to the fall of Damietta, which is said to be ‘more fully addressed in the first folio of this volume’. (Scribal profile 76 is datable after 6 September 1222, and palaeographically in the first half of the 13^th century.) The rubbed nature of the verso also suggests it was exposed for a period, potentially as the outer page of the ‘volume’. The lower margin foliation ‘55’ (Scribal profile 29) indicates that the folio was, probably during Leland’s binding in the 16^th century, positioned at the end of Gathering VI. During its Cottonian rebinding, it was instead slotted into Gathering IV (repositioning the text to be close to the annal for AD 1219) and its foliation was corrected from ‘55’ to ‘37’.
• f. 54: this singleton contains two summaries of relations between kings of Scotland and England, with items selectively copied from the Chronicle (Scribal profile 102). There is no obvious reason why it has been bound in this position, other than the fact it makes up a gathering with other singletons (ff. 47–53). It is not possible to establish its position in any earlier binding phases.
• ff. 61–62: these two singletons contain an account of miracles at Melrose Abbey and annals for AD 1260 and 1261 (Scribal profile 114). There are already annals for those years on f. 60, so it is likely these two singletons were slotted in here, in Gathering VIII, to be close to them.

Evidence of the abbots of Dundrennan borrowing the Chronicle

Dundrennan Abbey was a Cistercian house in Dumfriesshire, founded in 1142 probably by Fergus, lord of Galloway. There are two references in the manuscript which note that sections of the Chronicle were borrowed by the abbot of Dundrennan, presumably for consultation or to make a local copy for their own uses.

1. Seven folios borrowed in the second half of the 13^th century

Faustina B. IX, f. 46v (Scribal profile 99):

Abbas de Dundranian mutuo accepit reliquam partem cronicorum istorum. Vide.

‘The abbot of Dundrennan received on loan the rest of these chronicles. See’.

It follows that a section from f. 47 onwards was borrowed, which cuts an annal for 1243 in half. The text then incorporates under AD 1244 a series of letters on imperial-papal relations. It is likely therefore that the abbot was interested in these letters.

How many folios were borrowed? The letters continue to f. 49r, then there is an annal for 1245 (f. 49v), followed by another series of letters (ff. 50r–53v). This broadly maps to a series of singletons (Gathering VI, ff. 47–54). Another clue is that there are no medieval signpost rubrics from f. 47r; they resume on f. 55r. Since f. 54 was a later insertion, it was unlikely to be part of the borrowing. It is therefore likely that the abbot borrowed ff. 47–53, essentially a collection of singletons with copies of various letters. The ‘rest of these chronicles’ may refer to the fact that the annal for AD 1243 was now unfinished on f. 46v. Broun notes (The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 82 n. 41): ‘There is no indication that they [the borrowed folios] were bound or tacked on that occasion: they could simply have been transported in a wrapper or tied as a parcel.’

The date of the borrowing must have been after Scribal profile 96 (ff. 44r–49r) and Scribal profile 100 (ff. 49v–53v) had finished their stints. Both are datable to after 2 November 1246. Scribal profile 100 was also probably working before 27 October 1264 (see the Scribal profiles for details). The borrowing could have happened any time after 2 November 1246 or after 27 October 1264. Scribal profile 99, which added the note of the borrowing, cannot be dated much more closely on palaeographical grounds than second half of the 13^th century. We can therefore only say that these seven folios were borrowed some time in the second half of the 13^th century. They must have been returned before the manuscript travelled to England (by the mid-14^th century).

2. Borrowing of the Chronicle in the late 13^th century

Faustina B. IX, f. 11v (Scribal profile 39):

Memorandum quod abbas d[e] Dundraynand mutuauit cronica de Melros, in quibus fuerunt xiiii quaterni, folia v^xx et xix.

‘Let it be remembered that the abbot of Dundrennan borrowed the chronicle of Melrose in which were 14 quires, 119 folios.’

The assumption is that when this note was written, the abbot had borrowed (or was about to borrow) from f. 12 onwards. This coincides neatly with the annals from AD 1017. The other assumption is that the tally of quires and folios describes the entire manuscript as it was regarded at that point (i.e., it was not describing how much had been borrowed by the abbot).

Broun has discussed the scholarly confusion surrounding this statement and proposed a likely deduction (The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, pp. 40–6). Significantly, he is able to add Julius B. XIII ff. 2–47 to the tally, which had not been recognised before. Along with Faustina B. IX ff. 2–75, that yields 120 folios according to the current formulation of gatherings. The number of quires, Broun notes, is too difficult to establish given that the gatherings in the 13^th century had many potential configurations (they are currently arranged into 16 gatherings, so not far off 14). For the 119 folios, Broun makes some suggestions: (i) there was probably at least one leaf after f. 75 (which he calls ‘75*’) since this ends mid-sentence; and (ii) ff. 14 and 54 were perhaps not yet associated with the Chronicle (though f. 38 probably was as the flyleaf, and ff. 61–62 presumably were as well). This results in a figure of 119 as the extent of the Chronicle when it was borrowed (reaffirming that, if there were annals for AD 250–730, they had already disappeared).

How much was borrowed? The reference to ‘the chronicle of Melrose’ suggests a substantial portion of the manuscript from f. 12 onwards was taken. The memorandum on f. 11v (Scribal profile 39) must have been written after the manuscript had assumed most of its current shape in order to be calculated at 119 folios. If the abbot of Dundrennan borrowed all of what was available from f. 12 onwards, this would have equated to at least 61 folios (i.e., everything from f. 12 onwards, minus ff. 14 and 54). Again, the folios need not have been bound at this point.

When was it borrowed? It must have been after Scribal profile 39 added the memorandum, which is datable after 14 April 1286 (because of the reference to Thomas Stonegrave as abbot of Rievaulx on f. 69r). Palaeographically, Scribal profile 39 could be late 13^th or early 14^th century. The portion borrowed was then returned before the whole manuscript was transported south by the mid-14^th century.

It is conceivable that while at Dundrennan items may have been added to the manuscript. A possible example is on f. 18v (Scribal profile 54), a note regarding the foundation Dundrennan in AD 1142, and perhaps also the accompanying manicula in the margin.

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the abbot requested to see the Chronicle so that portions of it could be copied. This might be the context for the notes in the margins attributed to Scribal profile 62 which instruct someone to ‘copy’ the adjacent text, usually scriba[tur]. None appear in Julius B. XIII or before Faustina B. IX, f. 12 (they can be found on Faustina B. IX, ff. 21v, 23r, 23v, 28v, 29v, 30v, 31r, 31v, 32v, 37v, 39r, 43v, 44r, 44v, 45r, 46v, 56r, 59r and 64r). The palaeography of this profile points to the early or mid-14^th century, so they could equally be from after the manuscript’s trip to Dundrennan, either while back at Melrose or in England.

Faustina B. IX’s title

Another source of confusion regarding Dundrennan has been the title on the early modern contents page for Faustina B IX (f. 1r):

Cronica de Mailros inchoata per abbatem de Dundrainand ab anno 735 continuata per varios ad anno Domini 1270.

‘The Chronicle of Melrose, begun by the abbot of Dundrennan from the year 735, continued variously to the year of the Lord 1270.’

This was written by Richard James (d. 1638), Sir Robert Cotton’s librarian. The ‘5’ was later corrected to ‘1’. It is not clear why he associated the text with the abbot of Dundrennan.

Lost annals for AD 250-730?

Were there ever annals covering these years in the Chronicle of Melrose that have now been lost? Julius B. XIII, Gathering VI (ff. 41–47) includes annals for AD 1–249, ending mid-sentence at f. 47v. This makes it tempting to assume there is lost material. The main source for this work is Bede’s Chronica Maiora, which runs from the Creation to the 720s. The scribe’s source could therefore have continued beyond AD 249. However, Gathering VI potentially has a final folio missing (although no stub is visible).

Faustina B. IX, f. 2r does not read as though there is missing material before it. It begins with a brief introduction, referring to Bede’s Ecclesiastical History from AD 731 and then from AD 734 asserting ‘the history which follows has been excerpted here and there from various places’. It also begins fresh on a new gathering, and with space left for an enlarged initial.

The tally of folios on Faustina B. IX, f. 11v (relating to the abbot of Dundrennan’s borrowing of the manuscript) suggests that there was, by the late 13^th or early 14^th century, no section with annals for AD 250–730.

More specific evidence can be found in a partially cropped statement in the margin of Julius B. XIII, f. 30v. The note is attributed to Scribal profile 18, and appears adjacent to the ‘Chronological table of popes and emperors since the time of Christ’:

Hoc usque ad annum [ ]cxxx^mi^um nulla [ ] sequentibus est conti[ ] set interrumpitur [ ]d iii^mdc^orum et [ ] annorum [ ] lxxxiiii anni

‘From here as far as the year [7]31, there is no cont[inuance in] the following materials, but it is interrupted, [for] 3600 and [?] years [?] 84 years.’

The translation attempts to reconstruct the Latin as comprehensibly as possible. The hoc (‘here’) refers to the year AD 249 mentioned in the text-block at that point. 481 years are missing (AD 250–730) but sense cannot readily be found in the final part of this sentence. It has been suggested by Julian Harrison that this could have read <cccc> lxxxiiii anni (‘484 years’) meaning the gap between 249 and 733, given that the opening of Faustina B. IX in fact summarises Bede’s Ecclesiastical History for AD 731–733 (see Broun, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 47, n. 39).

Scribal profile 18 appears in different parts of the Chronicle (in both Julius B. XIII and Faustina B. IX). It therefore likely belongs to a scribe who was generally familiar with the Chronicle’s overall contents. Scribal profile 18 is datable after 1198, probably before 1216, and possibly c. 1208 (see the Scribal profiles for details). If there ever were annals for AD 250–730, they must have been lost by this point in the early 13^th century, and their existence and whereabouts unknown to an active scribe at the abbey. This would suggest, to this editor at least, that there were no annals for AD 250–730.

Sources and authorship in the Chronicle of Melrose

The Chronicle’s journey: from Melrose Abbey to the British Library

This summarises Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, chapter 9 (‘From Melrose Abbey to the British Library’), though differing on the dating of some of the manuscript’s movements.

• Melrose Abbey, fourth quarter of the 12^th century to late 13^th or mid-14^th century: the main ‘internal’ evidence associating the earliest parts of the Chronicle with Melrose Abbey is the rubrication (in red ink) of certain foundations: Cîteaux (1098), Rievaulx (1132, Melrose’s mother-house), Melrose (1136), Kinloss (1150) and Holm Cultram (1150, both daughter-houses of Melrose). The growth of the text includes various references to Melrose and its abbots or monks as ‘our’ brother, and so on.
• Dundrennan Abbey, late 13^th and/or early 14^th century: parts of the manuscript were known to be borrowed by abbots of Dundrennan in the second half of the 13^th century (7 folios) and in the late 13^th or early 14^th century (at least 61 folios).
• Lincolnshire, after 14 April 1286 and by the mid-14^th century: there is a reference on Julius B. XIII, f. 2r (Scribal profile 4) to Liber de prioratu sancti Iakobi de Est [Deping visible under ultra-violet light], ‘Book of the Priory of St James of Est Deeping’. This reference looks probably no later than the mid-14^th century. Deeping St James was a Benedictine monastery in Lincolnshire, a cell of Thorney Abbey in Cambridgeshire. It might be that the book was given to Deeping St James from Thorney. At some point, then, after the completion of the Chronicle (datable after 14 April 1286), and after its parts had been borrowed and returned by abbots of Dundrennan, the manuscript was moved south. It has been suggested that an entry on f. 18r (‘Nigel is consecrated bishop of Ely’, Scribal profile 52) was added while at Thorney since Nigel was a benefactor of the abbey (Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 175). This profile is palaeographically datable to the first half of the 14^th century, and so it would also suggest the manuscript was in England by the mid-14^th century. Harrison also highlights the proximity of Crowland Abbey, another Benedictine monastery in Lincolnshire. Like Deeping St James, Crowland was originally dedicated to St Guthlac, who is mentioned in a couple of additions in the Chronicle (Scribal profile 18, though this profile did not belong to a Crowland or Deeping St James scribe, being datable to the early 13^th century). Harrison notes (The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, pp. 174–5, n.2): ‘The Chronicle was most likely removed from Melrose sometime between 1291 (as part of the search of records relating to English suzerainty over Scotland: perhaps in this connection see Faustina B IX fo.54) and 1322 (when Melrose Abbey was sacked by English troops: Scotichronicon, vii. 10–13)’. Broun notes (The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 48): ‘It is tempting to suppose that the manuscript was removed south in the aftermath of Edward I’s conquest of Scotland in 1296. Perhaps the Chronicle had already reached safety in England before Melrose suffered during Edward II’s campaign in August and September 1322.’ Both of these suggestions are plausible.
• Acquired by John Leland, probably after 1536 and before 1547: John Leland (d. 1552) began collecting manuscripts from 1536 and fell into ‘madness’ in 1547 (see the ODNB). If he acquired the manuscript from Thorney Abbey, as has been suggested, then this would have been before the abbey’s dissolution in December 1539 (Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, p. 176). While in his possession, the manuscript was likely split into two parts and associated with other items which were probably bound together. Leland also added many signposts to the Chronicle (Scribal profile 16).
• Other probable owners in the 16^th and 17^th centuries: these include astrologer and mathematician John Dee (d. 1609); Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury (1559–75); and Robert Glover (1544–88) (see Harrison, The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, pp. 182–7).
• Acquired by Sir Robert Cotton, early 17^th century: while in the library of Sir Robert Cotton (d. 1631), the two composite manuscripts were rebound (with new quire numbers and foliations) and were bestowed with their current shelf-marks.
• Gifted to the nation (British Museum in 1753; British Library in 1973): Cotton’s manuscripts were passed to his son, Sir Thomas Cotton (d. 1662), and then to his son, Sir John Cotton (d. 1702). John Cotton bequeathed the manuscripts ‘to the nation’ in 1702. After surviving the fire at Ashburnham House in Whitehall on 23 October 1731 (where the Cotton manuscripts were temporarily being stored), they came into the ownership of the British Museum at its inception in 1753. They then transferred to the British Library at its inception in 1973.