Dr Emily A. Winkler

This article is the first study to consider together the complete known works of Richard of
Devizes. Richard, a monk of St Swithun’s cathedral priory of Winchester, was one of the most
learned and lively Latin chroniclers of Angevin England. His known historical compositions
survive in part in two manuscripts: Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 339 (his autograph
copy, late twelfth or early thirteenth century) and British Library, Cotton MS Domitian A XIII
(thirteenth century). Best known for his prose chronicle of the times of King Richard I, Richard
also composed annalistic works, which remain only partly published, untranslated, and little
studied. These annalistic compositions by Richard demand attention, on their own and alongside
his prose chronicle. His annalistic and prose works are full of his historical thinking, keen wit,
and bold philosophies. Unlike Richard’s prose chronicle about the Lionheart, they reveal how he
positioned himself in relation to earlier writers of historical works. His annalistic works inspired
historical writing in Winchester, across southern England, and in Wales, well into the thirteenth
century.

Basic questions about Richard’s annalistic works and prose chronicle preserved in these
two manuscripts remain troubled by ambiguities: what Richard wrote, when he wrote, and how
precisely Richard’s compositions differ from the works collectively known as the “Annals of
Winchester.” In addressing these questions, the article employs close readings of Richard’s Latin
for content, style, form, and development of ideas; palaeographic and codicological evidence
from the manuscripts; and an assessment of the nature of textual transmission. This article re-sets
the parameters of the discussion by identifying and explaining the sources of ambiguity and
confusion in the existing literature. To the basic questions about Richard’s works, it offers
answers where these can be demonstrated; working theories where the evidence is suggestive; and
more accurate parameters for discussing the questions where the evidence is limited.

The article advances a framework for naming Richard’s works, to permit discussion and
analysis of them independently of the manuscripts and of the umbrella term “Annals of
Winchester.” It establishes more definitively what annalistic material Richard originally wrote. It
presents a revised theory about the real date ranges in which he worked on his annalistic and
prose compositions, on the composition and coherence of their content, and on how the projects
relate. Based on this analysis, the article confirms Richard’s identity as an author in relation to his
compositions—lost, surviving, and directly or indirectly witnessed—and locates him more
precisely in his historical moment. The article makes it possible to investigate more accurately,
and in more depth, the situation of Richard’s composition and the content of Richard’s ideas. It
advances our understanding of the relationship between the writer and his works.

The article will be the essential starting point for scholars working on the annalistic works
of Richard of Devizes, on the tradition of chronicling at Winchester and southern England, and
on the reception of historical works from Winchester within England and beyond in the high
and late Middle Ages. It will be the key reference guide for scholars working on Richard’s wellknown “Chronicle of the Time of King Richard I,” because it provides a more accurate
description of the time and events the chronicle covers; strengthens the case for its coherence,
consistency and purpose; and corrects the parameters on which theories about its real date range
of composition have rested since the 1960s. For the first time, the article enables the study of the
complete known works of Richard of Devizes, because it identifies and explains stylistic, thematic, and topical connections between the annalististic works and the prose chronicle. More
broadly, the article advances the study of “lost chronicles;” refines a lesser known case of
annalistic Brut chronicling; and illuminates the activity of Latin chronicling in twelfth- and
thirteenth century Britain.