630 CORRIGENDA AND ADDENDA October 1921 chronology which commended itself to Sir Clements Markham '. I am, of course, well acquainted with the Great Chronicle of London, to which I was the first to direct public attention, and to which I gave its name. It would indeed be curious if that Chronicle differed on such a point from the kindred narratives in the Vitellius Chronicle • and in Fabyan (in its extant form the Great Chronicle is the latest in date of the three). As a matter of fact it does nothing of the kind, and it is more than curious that the extract in Miss Thornley's excellent little book, which Dr. Pollard cites in his support, does not contain the passage relating to Hastings's execution at all. By the courtesy of Mr. E. H. Dring I have again consulted the original, which describes the events of 13 June to much the same effect as Fabyan, but with some interesting variations of detail, and states definitely that Hastings was executed on that day ' wythowth any long conffestion or other speece of remembrance '. What Sir Clements Markham essayed to prove was that Hastings was not executed till 20 June, a week after his arrest. The narrative of the subsequent events is contained in the extract from the Great Chronicle given by Miss Thornley : ' upon the Soneday next ffolowyng the daye of excecucion of the lord Hastynges ' came Shaa's sermon at Paul's Cross ; ' upon the Tuysday next ensuyng the fforesaid Soneday ' the duke of Buckingham's visit to the Guildhall ; and ' the Thursday next ensuyng (beyng the xix day of June) the said lord protectour took possesscyon at Westmynster '. Thus, so far from giving the alternative chronology which commended itself to Sir Clements Markham, the Great Chronicle contradicts it altogether. Miss Thornley gave the alternative dates (22 June and 26 June) in foot-notes; Dr. Pollard apparently regarded them as part of the text. In my note on Stallworth's letter, which Dr. Pollard describes as ' conclusive, but for, &c.', I was concerned only to explain how Stallworth, dating his letter 21 June (Saturday), referred to 13 June as last Friday, and the discovery that the letter was written in two different hands (and therefore probably at two different times) made the explanation easy, viz. that the beginning was written on Friday, 20 June, and the conclusion only on 21 June. Stallworth's letter was the chief evidence on which Sir Clements Markham depended for his assertion that Hastings was executed on 20 June, and whatever argument might be derived from it now fails. The tenor of the letter itself is indeed contrary to Sir Clements Markham's contention ; for after stating that ' on Fryday last was the lord Chamberleyn headed ', it proceeds at once ' on Monday last . . . was the dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke '. The latter event is known to have been on 16 June, and Stallworth clearly implies that it was the Monday after the execution of Hastings ; thus instead of establishing 20 June as the date of Hastings's execution, this letter becomes evidence in favour of 13 June. The other matters as to the dating of Shaa's sermon, of Buckingham's oration at the Guildhall, and of the taking possession at Westminster, do not arise in this con- nexion ; their discussion would require much space, though I believe it would lead to conclusions contrary to Sir Clement Markham's rather extravagant notions. There are, however, two small points arising out of the Great Chronicle which I will here put on record. The first is that it definitely places the execution of Anthony Woodville and his companions after the taking possession, in which it is of course correct. The second relates to the extract given by Miss Thornley ; it is not noted there that the words ' beyng the xix day of June ' are inserted in the original in a rather later hand ; since it is clear that this was the day intended, the insertion is not in itself of any importance. But it happens to suggest the explanation for a point with which Sir Clements Markham made great play. Fabyan wrote : ' the Thursdaye than next ensuynge beyng the xx day of Juny ' ; ' xx ' was, of course, a mere error for ' xix ' ; how easily it might have occurred is shown by the manuscript of the Great Chronicle, where owing to the character of the writing a careless reader might readily take it for * xx ', though there is no doubt that ' xix ' should be read. To prevent any mis- conception I must add that the words were probably interpolated about 1530, and repeat that the Great Chronicle itself in its extant form was written after Fabyan' s work and very probably after his death. No. 142, p. 299, lines 42 and 45. For parish read episcopal. 1 Chronicles of London, p. 190.
