• DOI:10.2307/2846677
• Corpus ID: 162571944

The Authorship of the De Expugnatione Lyxbonensi

@article{Cheney1932TheAO,
  title={The Authorship of the De Expugnatione Lyxbonensi},
  author={C. R. Cheney},
  journal={Speculum},
  year={1932},
  volume={7},
  pages={395 - 397}
}

• C. Cheney
• Published 1 July 1932
• History
• Speculum

IN HIS ARTICLE in SPECULUM, January, 1932, Mr David has accumulated some probable conjectures about the author of the De Expugnatione Lyxbonensi. He shows that the author was probably an Anglo-Norman priest from East Anglia, with a special attachment to Hervey de Glanvill. He then proposes to identify him with Osbertus clericus de Baldreseie, who appears as signatory to a charter of Ranulf de Glanvill in 1171.1 Mr David admits that this identification 'is, of course, a conjecture' (p. 56). But there are more difficulties in the way of the clerk of Bawdsey's authorship than Mr David seems to envisage. The letter begins with the words 'Osb. de Baldr. R. salutem.' Assuming for the present that Mr David has really found Osb. de Baldr. in the clerk of Bawdsey, I read the greeting thus: 'Osberto de Baldreseie R. [nominative] salutem.' There are two points in favor of this. In the first place, the mediaeval letter-writer, except when addressing a subordinate, usually put his correspondent's name before his own. I am well aware that this was no invariable rule; but it seems to have been a general custom. Without evidence to the contrary it is safest to conjecture that Osb. de Baldr. must be extended in the dative case. A second consideration enforces this. According to Stubbs and Mr David, the Corpus MS. is the author's autograph. It is likely that the author (even in making a fair copy) would write his own name practically in full and indicate his correspondent by a single initial? Again, one can only say that the contrary was the usual practice. Neither of these suggestions provides conclusive proof. My contention is simply that we adopt the most natural reading if we take R. to be the author. At least no justification of the alternative reading has been advanced. The editors and Mr David have all followed the lead of the sixteenth-century annotator, who called the letter 'Historia Osberni.' If we abandon the author R. as beyond hope of identification, and regard Osb. de Baldr. as his correspondent, there is less reason than before for associating the latter closely with the Glanvill family. Osbernus and Osbertus were common names in the twelfth century, and Baldr. may stand for Baldrusella2 (Bawdeswell, Norfolk) as well as for Baldreseie (Bawdsey, Suffolk). Since the letter now forms part of a book from Norwich Cathedral