ABSTRACT
The fifteenth century Brut and London chronicles have features in common with each other, and are in fact directly related, because the Brut chronicles were partly derived from the London ones. As contemporary history the vernacular continuations of the Polychronicon had drawbacks: Trevisa’s continuation was slight, and it was based on well known contemporary sources, the Brut chronicles and the chronicles of London, which themselves far excelled the Polychronicon in popularity. Nevertheless, distinctions can be drawn between the Brut and the London chronicles. The Brut chronicles all grew from one stock, the Brutus legend, while the London chronicles evolved, as will be seen, from notes added to lists of the mayors and sheriffs of the city. The vernacular London chronicles date from about 1414 but developed from a well established tradition of Latin chronicles which was based on chronicles written in London from the thirteenth century onwards.
