|
See also: person who was long regarded as the author of the See also: Flores Historiarum
.
The error was first discovered in 1826 by See also: Sir F
.
Palgrave, who said that See also: Matthew was " a phantom who never existed," and later the truth of this statement was completely proved by H
.
R
.
Luard
.
The name appears to have been taken from that of Matthew of See also: Paris, from whose Chronica majora the earlier See also: part of the See also: work was mainly copied, and from See also: Westminster, the abbey in which the work was partially written
.
The Flores historiarum is a Latin See also: chronicle dealing with See also: English See also: history from the creation to 1326, although some of the earlier See also: manuscripts end at 1306; it was compiled by various persons, and written partly at St Albans and partly at Westminster
.
The part from 1306 to 1326 was written by Robert of See also: Reading (d
.
1325) and another Westminster See also: monk
.
Except for parts dealing with the reign of
See also: Edward I. its value is not See also: great
.
It was first printed by Matthew See also: Parker, archbishop of See also: Canterbury, in 1567, and the best edition is the one edited with introduction by H
.
R
.
Luard for the Rolls series (See also: London, 1890)
.
It has been translated into English by C
.
D
.
Yonge (London, 1853)
.
See Luard's introduction, and C
.
See also: Bemont in the Revue critique d'histoire (Paris, 1891)
.
|
|
|
[back] MATTHEW CANTACUZENUS |
[next] GOSPEL OF ST MATTHEW |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.