The Croyland Chronicles , the correct name is The Second Continuation of the Croyland Chronicle , are named after Croyland Abbey where they were written and it is now generally accepted that the author was John Russell. Russell was well placed to write such a work, as he had served Edward IV as Keeper of the Privy Seal, and Richard III as Lord Chancellor, one of several officers kept on by Richard. He was also Bishop of Lincoln, within whose diocese the Croyland Abbey was. His contribution was part of a greater work that was written with the intention of documenting the history of England. It covered the period from the mid-twelfth century up till the end of the fifteenth. Although not written during Richard's lifetime, they were written shortly after. The date of writing is now accepted as April 1486.
Once having established their authenticity, the primary source needs next to be examined for bias. This is not as hard as it may at first appear even though neither author will admit to bias. In fact both writers are at pains to point out that they are offering a straightforward account of the events. Mancini must have told the story with great verve and gusto because Cato, who appears to have enjoyed Mancini's verbal offering, asked him to put it on paper. Mancini apparently concerned that he writes down an accurate account points out that he has;'....decided not to expatiate so freely in the writing as in the taIking' (3). This could be seen as a pointer that Mancini intends to record only the facts. This is confirmed by Mancini who later writes; ' ... these are the facts relating to the upheaval in this Kingdom'(4).
Even though most historians accept Mancini as a reliable source, he still appears to pose problems for some. Mancini manages to be critised by both sides. Dr Rosemary Horrocks for instance, is convinced that Mancini's work; '....may be based on a version of events originating in the circle around Gloucester'(5).
Whereas Aubrey Williamson is equally as convinced that the opposite is in fact correct. In The Mystery of the Princes in the Tower , he puts forward the argument that Mancini had based his work on reports by; 'Lancastrian sympathisers' (6) .
Just as Dominic Mancini thought, genuinely, that he was presenting the facts as they happened, so did the Croyland Chronicler. At the outset the writer made his intentions of impartiality clear when he wrote that he would endeavour to present his chronicle in:
'....as unprejudiced a manner as we possibly can....a truthful recital of the facts without hatred or favour.(7)
If, as is widely accepted, the writer of the Croyland Chronicle was John Russell, Archbishop of Lincoln, then there can be no doubt that he was in a good position to gather and record events as they happened. There are, however, questions of his impartiality. Historians cite the fact that the Chronicle was written post-Bosworth, therefore susceptible to Tudor influence, as grounds for suspecting the Chronicle's truthfulness. It should be remembered that, what we now refer to as Tudor influence could, maybe, more accurately described as propaganda put about by the winning side, or aversion of events as seen by the Tudors.
This naturally leads one to question Russell's motives, and implies that all he was doing was just that, spreading propaganda. This could be seen as a little unfair on Russell's sincerity, and to other scribes who have taken it upon themselves to record the events of their time. Although I accept that it is perfectly fair to question what they have written and to conclude that it is biased. It may appear biased to a later reader, who has the benefit of hindsight. That being so one should be still be careful when handing out accusations of bias, instead it may prove more fruitful to try and establish if is it a deliberately engineered bias?.
It can be argued that establishment historians will write an "official version' of events, this does not mean to say that everyone was out to write a deliberate whitewash and pass it of as 'the facts'. It is reasonable to accept that a writer commissioned by, say the king or a powerful magnate, is not going to write a history/biography hostile to their benefactor. I think that is also just as reasonable to conclude that although a chronicler of the period, such as Russell, appears to be spreading the official line. They may be just be intending to write down, what they see as the truth as they see it.
|