Chronicle of the History of the World from Creation to Woden, with a Genealogy of Edward IV

The goal of this project (2023-2025) was to transcribe, translate, annotate, and digitally edit the Free Library of Philadelphia, MS Lewis E 201. This 19-foot genealogical roll chronicle, which has been housed in the Free Library since 1936, consists of 11 sewn parchment membranes. An impressive feat of historiography, Lewis E. 201 was likely created between 1461 and 1464, after Edward IV’s coronation but before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.

Genealogical roll chronicles such as Lewis E 201 and Marston 242 were produced in great numbers in the 15th century, especially from 1455-1471, the tumultuous period now known as War of the Roses, when the Lancastrian and Yorkist factions violently contended for the English throne. The total number of these rolls, which often survive in fragments of one or two membranes and which are variously catalogued, is difficult to determine. Still, their frequent appearance at auction suggests that many more will come to light — some of these rolls, such as Lehigh Roll 8. Penn MS Roll 1588 (a fragment), and the Canterbury Roll, although of varying lengths, are similar enough in design to suggest some standardization of production. Others, such as Lewis MS E 201 and the splendid 47-foot roll chronicle digitized by the Society of Antiquaries, whose illustrator has been identified as the London artist William Abell (d.1474) (Drimmer, Art of Allusion, 29), boast elaborate designs with unique artistic features. These two rolls appear to be bespoke productions, the latter mostly likely intended for Henry VI, and the former possibly for Edward IV or for one of the noble families who championed his cause, such as the Nevilles. Taken together, these genealogical roll chronicles make up a fascinating chapter in the history of information technology, as well as a window into the political upheavals of the Wars of the Roses.

As with the case of Lewis E 201, the majority of 15th-century English genealogical rolls were composed in Latin, although some English-language rolls, such as Marston 242, survive. French royal genealogical roll chronicles were also produced during the same period. Although many genealogical rolls from the 14th and 15th centuries were adapted to codex form — for instance, Penn M S LJS 266 , a genealogy of French kings likely copied from a roll — the roll was clearly considered to be a compelling mechanism for displaying the antiquity of royal lineage and the inexorability of royal succession.

What advantages do rolls have over codices? For one thing, rolls can be rolled backward and forward, the physical act emphasizing either sacred origins or the political present. Moreover, unlike the pages of a codex, rolls can be unrolled to different lengths, reframing history each time to fit the interests of the viewer, who may choose to concentrate on one period or one dynasty, such as early Roman or Frankish kings. 15th-century rolls like Lewis E 201 also offer simultaneous modes or directions of reading history: 1) the horizontal text adjacent to and within genealogical boxes or roundels, and 2) lineal descent represented by one or more vertical lines. The balance of text and line is different from roll to roll, and the lines of descent are more convoluted in some rolls than in others, especially as they approach the ruling monarch. Some rolls are visually more striking than others; Lewis E 201, for instance, with its boldly color-coded lines and heraldric devices, privileges diagram over text and multiple parallel genealogies over one central line. By contrast, the makers of Penn MS Roll 1066 and Huntington Library, MS 264, manuscripts possibly produced by the same workshop, put more effort into the historical text, which they have copied into columns running parallel to the central line of descent. In sum, the rolls produced in England in this period showcase multimodal ways of reading the past in ways that are both inviting and challenging for modern readers.

An early model for these royal rolls was Peter of Poitiers’ 12th-century Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi, a well-known genealogical chronicle of the lineage of Jesus Christ; the Cleveland Museum of Art houses an early example of a Peter of Poitiers roll (c.1220) that strikingly resembles the royal genealogical rolls produced en masse in the 15th century. Both the Cleveland roll and Free Library of Philadelphia Lewis E 249 (c.1280) attest to earlier English interest in presenting sacred genealogies in roll form. Lewis E 249, for example, which includes an elaborate diagram of the “seven sevens” (see also Penn Oversize Ms. Codex 2243), shows how the graphic form of the genealogical roll can be used to transmit other cultural and spiritual information. Similarly executed diagrams appear in later royal genealogical chronicles representing, for example, the map of Jerusalem, the layout of Noah’s Ark, or the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. Notably, Penn’s MS Roll 1066 does double-duty as a genealogy of the life of Christ, with one side of the roll reinforcing the legitimacy of the other. Peter of Poitiers’ genealogy, in turn, may have been inspired by the depiction of the Tree of Jesse, commonplace from the 12th century in stained glass windows, like that in Chartres Cathedral, as well as in manuscript, such as the one featured in Lewis E M 8:14a-d,a Bible historiale in the Free Library of Philadelphia.

Yorkist rolls like Lewis E 201 bolster the legitimacy of Edward IV’s claim by tracing his line back to the sons of Edward III, most significantly, to Lionel, Duke of Antwerp and Edmund, Duke of York. They also thread into the English line the lineages of other distinguished personages, for example, the kings of France and Castile and Leon, the princes of Wales, and the dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine. Just as important as detailing Edward’s recent predecessors was portraying him as the last of a very long line of kings stretching back to biblical and classical antiquity. Both Yorkist and Lancastrian rolls typically begin with biblical history, Adam and Eve or Noah — often illustrated with roundels depicting the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark — and proceed to the legendary history of the Trojans, according to the version composed by the 12th-century historian Geoffrey of Monmouth. In Geoffrey’s Historia regum Britanniae, a major source for English chronicles and romances, a descendant of Aeneas named Brutus, the progenitor of the Britons, arrives in Britain, which he finds uninhabited with the exception of a few giants. In Lewis E 201 as elsewhere, Brutus’ descendants form a continuous line that extends to King Arthur and beyond, before yielding to the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as described by Bede and other sources, which in turn give way to the Norman line beginning with William the Conqueror in 1066. From there, the main royal line descends through the Plantagenets to Richard II, switching to the Lancastrian dynasty (Henry IV, V, VI, and VII), and culminating in the House of York. Despite the convolutions and intricacies of real history, by linking contemporary England to legendary pasts, the rolls convey the broad impression of continuous succession.

These historical components are mainstays of 15th-century English royal genealogies. Lewis E 201, however, includes several other, less commonly documented bloodlines and storylines. One of these, inscribed next to the roundel of Adam and Eve, is the story of Albina and her sisters, a later medieval prequel to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of Brutus, in which 30 Greek (or Syrian) sister princesses, exiled for plotting to murder their husbands, sail to Albion, named for the oldest sister Albina. Impregnated there by incubi, the princesses bear giant offspring, which Brutus discovers when he reaches the island. This story in its various incarnations appears in many Brut histories and offshoots, including the Anglo-Norman poem Des Granz Geanz (c.1333-4) and its Latin translation, De origine gigantum, as well as in the English Castleford’s Chronicle.

A second, quite unusual line of descent, running down the right side of the Lewis Roll, and culminating in the father of Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, relates miracle tales concerning the dukes of Aquitaine. One of these tales features a legendary crusader king Senebrinus, who, with the intercession of the Virgin Mary, converts to Christianity a Saracen princess named Fenix, Another tells the legend of the third-century saint Valerie of Limoges, descended from the Kings of Bordeaux and heir to the count of Limoges, who, having spurned marriage to her cousin Stephen, is beheaded at his order. St. Martial miraculously places her decapitated head back on her neck, a feat which inspires Stephen to convert to Christianity along with the entire kingdom of Bordeaux and the surrounding Aquitaine lands. It is unclear from where the Lewis Roll compiler sourced these legends, which can be found almost verbatim in the Livre des bouillons, extant in a single 15th-century register from Bordeaux (Bordeaux AA 1,ff.121v-122r) .

A third notable, if less fabulous, source for the Lewis Roll is the chronicle of Wigmore Abbey, which records the ancient lineage of the abbey’s patrons, the Mortimer family, Welsh Marcher lords. The Mortimer claim to the throne would become inextricable with that of York. A presumptive heir to the throne, Edmund Mortimer, Count of March, wedded Philippa, the only daughter of Lionel, the second surviving son of Edward III; the Lewis Roll asserts that their son, Roger, “was next in line to the kingdoms of England and France. Then he was declared heir throughout all of England.” Roger’s daughter, Anne, grandmother to Edward IV and Richard III, would marry another Richard, the second son of the Duke of York, who was the grandson of Edward III and son of Edmund, Duke of York, and Isabelle, princess of Castile and Leon. Lewis E 201 confidently titles this Richard “the true heir of the kingdoms of England, France, Castile, and León and the Lord of Ireland.” For the early history of the Mortimer family, the compiler of the Lewis text was clearly drawing from a source related to the Fundatorum historia, now University of Chicago Library, Codex MS 224, which features a Mortimer family tree, probably copied from a roll, as well as from other records, including a list of British kings extracted from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia. Lewis E 201 repeats information from the Fundatorum historia otherwise disputed, for example, that Hugh of Mortimer (d.1181) married Matilda, the daughter of William Longsword, who was descended from Rollo, Duke of Normandy. Although this information could have been extracted from any number of different sources, it appears that an extra effort was made to incorporate it into Lewis E 201.

Genealogical rolls tend to ally themselves with a faction — Lewis E 201 is strongly allied to York — but sometimes they were retooled to adapt to regime change. Indeed, one of the benefits of the roll form, with its parchment membranes stitched vertically together, is the ease with which it can be extended to accommodate new rulers and alliances. The exquisitely decorated Society of Antiquarians roll, for instance, was dedicated to Henry VI, probably in 1455 after the Lancastrian defeat at the Battle of St. Albans. However, it was continued by scribes even up to the reign of Charles II (1665), presumably to celebrate the restoration of the monarchy. To take another example, the Canterbury Roll began its life as a Lancastrian document, which was modified to Yorkist and further revised under Richard III.

By contrast to these rolls, Lewis E 201 is Yorkist by design. Indeed, the roll-maker has taken pains to ensure that the roll can be modified only with considerable difficulty. Most significantly, at the very top of the roll is a splendid illustration of Edward IV seated on horseback, his horse draped in coats-of-arms featuring Castille and Leon, to which Edward lay claim through his great-great grandmother, Isabelle, daughter of the murdered King Peter I. Edward’s coat of arms and various mottos are sprinkled throughout the length of the roll. At the bottom of the roll is a large genealogical square, once again reiterating Edward IV’s claim to the throne and its unanimous support from the English people. It would be awkward, if not impossible, for future scribes to adapt or continue the roll. Finally, the Yorkist claim to the throne is strategically enforced with comments at key historical junctures. For example, in the section on the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, before turning to Alfred the Great, the scribe inserts the following:

Thus from the kingdom of the first united rule there have been in England 31 kings up to the most illustrious king our lord Edward the Fourth, the true and undisputed king in the direct line from Adam to Noah and from Noah up to our day. Indeed it was in the first year of his reign, which is the year of grace 1461, as is presented in this scroll in summary form and is clearly stated, that he was called Lord Edward, King of England and France, and of Castile and Leon etc. As previously mentioned, calculating from the arrival of Brutus there have been in England two hundred and fifty-five kings. And now let us discuss Alfred, the next king to follow in this line etc.

Likewise, the Lewis Roll does double duty as a history of usurpers, flagging figures in European history who wrongly contested the claims of the rightful monarch. These include Burgundian contenders to the Frankish throne, King Cnut and the Danish occupation of England, King Stephen’s ousting of Matilda, the Valois usurpation of the Capetian throne, Henry of Derby’s (Henry IV’s) unlawful deposition of Richard II, and Henry the Bastard’s murder of his half-brother, Peter I of Castile and Leon, whose daughters, Constance and Isabella, would marry into the Lancastrian and York families respectively. By the time Lewis E 201 is unrolled to the end, readers have been taught to spot the Lancastrian claim as one illegitimate claim among many.

Lewis E 201 is a fascinating example of late medieval historiography, and especially of the way that warring factions conscripted the past into the service of contemporary politics. We hope that scholars will use this site to put Lewis E 201 into dialogue with other genealogical roll chronicles. There is so much more to be uncovered about this period of history, as well as about premodern historical writing.

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Richard III Society, American Branch, and particularly Susan Troxell, Laura Blanchard, Cheryl Greer, Sally Keil, J.L. Laynesmith, P.W. Hammond, Geoffrey Wheeler, Marie Barnfield, and R.A. Griffiths.

We also gratefully acknowledge the generous funding provided from the Price Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, and from Sean Quimby, Associate Vice Provost and Director of the Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts.

We thank the staff at the Free Library of Philadelphia for making the Lewis Roll available to us in person. We are also indebted to the labors of the two anonymous peer reviewers who thoroughly checked the transcription and translation of the text.

Project Director: Emily Steiner
Transcription: Emily Steiner, Emma Dyson, Noa Nikolsky, and Ariel Bates
Translator: Emma Dyson
Annotator of main text: Eleanor Webb
Annotators of heraldry: Laura Blanchard and Susan Troxell
Digital editors: Dot Porter, Cheryl Greer, Laura Blanchard, and Eleanor Webb

Every translation is an interpretation. While there is less interpretive work involved in the translation of genealogical texts than there is in more literary ones, there are still, as always, choices to be made. I have made the choice to preserve, to the extent possible, the relative naturalness of the Latin text by adhering to English idiom. To this end, I have occasionally deviated from the grammatical forms of the Latin in the English translation and supplemented the Latin through the addition of personal pronouns (which Latin, unlike English, often leaves implied). Just as a fluent reader of Latin would have read this roll with ease, a reader of the English translation should be able to read it with that same ease — and not with the sense that he or she is reading a crib.

Because the scribes of the Lewis roll were working against the constraints of space on expensive vellum, and because they were following conventions of abbreviation for this kind of writing, the syntax of their Latin tends to be clipped. Often, especially in the genealogical boxes, verbs (especially the verb "to be") are omitted. I generally supply the verb, for two reasons: first, the omission of "to be" in Latin is less awkward than it is in English, with adjectival endings making the subject-predicate connection clear; second, the syntax of the genealogical box for Vortigern indicates that a verb should be supplied in these cases. But as much as I have tried to render the spirit, and not the letter, of the Latin original in the English translation, any reader wishing to make an argument about the text's literary qualities is advised, as with any text, to consult the transcription.