chroniques were then kept in their own right. But the existence of the vernacular text did
not mean the monks stopped writing the Latin chronicle. Indeed, both chronicles might
be kept by the same person, as was the case with Jean Chartier’s (d. 1464), and both were
official. Vernacular writers often based their own work on Latin originals or consulted
Latin sources. For example, Jean Jouvencel, writing in 1431, abbreviated and translated
the Latin chronicle of Saint-Denis, while Guillaume de Nangis (d. ca. 1300), who wrote
his long and short chronicles and biographies of Louis IX and Philip III in Latin,
translated the short chronicle into French himself. But Latin writers also consulted and
sometimes translated vernacular works. Francesco Pippino (d. 1325) translated the Livre
d’Eracles (ca. 1230), an unwieldy compendium of Middle Eastern history, into Latin for
use in his universal chronicle. Historical writing was greatly enriched by this interplay of
traditions and languages.
By the later Middle Ages, the habit of writing history was so deeply ingrained that
history was written everywhere. Naturally, in a traditional culture in which the past was
normative, it continued to be important to control the presentation of the past. Most
courts had official historians, frequently the court archivists. The royal court continued to
be a major market for history, hence the seven biographies of St. Louis, by Geoffroi de
Beaulieu (ca. 1274), Guillaume de Chartres (before 1282), Gilo de Reims (now lost),
Guillaume de Nangis (late 13th c.), Jean de Joinville (1272 and 1298–1309), Guillaume
de Saint-Pathus (ca. 1302/03)—in both Latin and French—and an anonymous
hagiographer of Saint-Denis (ca. 1297), all composed around the canonization process.
Royal chroniclers were regularly appointed, sometimes monks from Saint-Denis and
sometimes outsiders, such as Jean Castel (1463–76). Even histories that were not directly
commissioned by the royal court were written with an eye to publication there. Guillaume
Guiart’s Branche de royaulx lignages, a verse history of the French kings from Philip II
(ca. 1306/07), was researched at Saint-Denis and clearly intended for a court audience.
Christine de Pizan (1363-ca. 1429) wrote a prose biography of Charles V, which would
have interested the court, as well as other works, such as her verse universal history, with
a broader appeal. Likewise, the historical works of Gilles le Bouvier (1386-ca. 1455), the
Berry Herald, the Chronique du roi Charles VII, the Histoire de Richard II, and the
Recouvrement de Normandie, were probably written with the court in mind; Gilles also
kept the Grandes chroniques for a time (1403–22).
Nowhere was the desirability of controlling history clearer than in the battle between
the kings of France and dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century, which turned into a battle
of the historians. Pierre le Fruitier dedicated his Mémoires (ca. 1409) to the king of
France, although he was probably a Burgundian spy at the court, while Jean Mansel
wrote his Fleur des histoires (before 1454) for Philip the Good. Both Georges Chastellain
(1415–1475), author of a chronicle, and Olivier de La Marche (1425–1502), who wrote
memoirs, were appointed official historians to the Burgundian dukes. Enguerrand de
Monstrelet’s chronicles (before 1453) have a Burgundian point of view; Thomas Basin,
exiled bishop of Lisieux, wrote pro-Burgundian biographies of Charles VII and Louis XI
(1461–91) However, Matthieu d’Escouchy, Enguerrand’s continuator (ca. 1465), was a
royal procurer in Saint-Quentin, and Philippe de Commynes, a Fleming, favored in his
Mémoires (after 1489) the French kings he had come to serve.
Even lesser courts generated histories. Lambert d’Ardres wrote his Historia comitum
Ghisnensium (ca. 1194) for the seigneur of Guines, chronicling the family’s history from
Medieval france: an encyclopedia 866