‘Dupla die sexta colleccio facta laboreOstendit quia lux septima nescit opus.’
‘Dupla die sexta colleccio facta laboreOstendit quia lux septima nescit opus.’
‘Dupla die sexta colleccio facta laboreOstendit quia lux septima nescit opus.’
‘Dupla die sexta colleccio facta labore
Ostendit quia lux septima nescit opus.’
703. The capitals which mark the personification of ‘Fraus’ and ‘Vsura’ are due to the editor. ‘Fraus’ corresponds to ‘Triche’ in theMirour de l’Omme: see ll. 25237 ff.
731.Nonne, used for ‘Num,’ as also in other passages, e.g. vi. 351, 523, vii. 619.
745 ff. Cp.Mirour de l’Omme, 25741 ff.
In l. 745 SG have the reading ‘foris’ as a correction from ‘foras.’
760 ff. Cp. Chaucer,Cant. Tales, C 472 ff.
775. See note on l. 280.
785 f. The readings ‘fraus’ for ‘sibi’ and ‘surripit’ for ‘fraus capit’ are over erasure in CG.
812. ‘Thethis,’ (‘Thetis,’ or ‘Tethis’) stands several times for ‘water’ (properly ‘Tethys’): cp. vii. 1067. The line means that the water is so abundant in the jar that it hardly admits the presence of any malt (‘Cerem’ for ‘Cererem’).
835 ff. It is difficult to say who is the bad mayor of London to whom allusion is here made. The rival leaders in City politics were Nicholas Brembre and John of Northampton. The former was lord mayor in the years 1377, 1378, and again in 1383 and 1384, when he was elected against his rival (who had held the office in 1381, 1382) in a forcible and unconstitutional manner which evoked many protests. Brembre, who belonged to the Grocers’ company, represented the interests of the greater companies and was of the Court party, a special favourite with the king, while John of Northampton, a draper, engaged himself in bitter controversy with the Fishmongers, who were supported by the Grocers, and was popular with the poorer classes. In theCronica TripertitaGower bitterly attacks Brembre (who was executed by sentence of the so-called ‘Merciless Parliament’ in 1388), and we might naturally suppose that he was the person referred to here; but that passage was written before the political events which led to that invective and in all probability not later than 1382, and the references to the low origin of the mayor in question, ll. 845-860, do not agree with the circumstances of Nicholas Brembre. Political passion in the City ran high from the year 1376 onwards, and the person referred to may have been either John of Northampton or one of the other mayors, who had in some way incurred Gower’s dislike: cp.Mirour, 26365 ff.
877. Cp.Conf. Amantis, v. 7626,
‘It floureth, bot it schal not greineUnto the fruit of rihtwisnesse.’
‘It floureth, bot it schal not greineUnto the fruit of rihtwisnesse.’
‘It floureth, bot it schal not greineUnto the fruit of rihtwisnesse.’
‘It floureth, bot it schal not greine
Unto the fruit of rihtwisnesse.’
915 f. Ovid,Tristia, i. 5. 47 f.
922. Cp. Prov. xxv. 15, ‘lingua mollis confringet duritiam,’ and the verses at the beginning of theConfessio Amantis,
‘Ossibus ergo carens que conterit ossa loquelis Absit.’
‘Ossibus ergo carens que conterit ossa loquelis Absit.’
‘Ossibus ergo carens que conterit ossa loquelis Absit.’
‘Ossibus ergo carens que conterit ossa loquelis Absit.’
953 f.Ars Amat.ii. 183 f., but Ovid has ‘Numidasque leones.’
957 f.Rem. Amoris, 447 f. (but ‘ceratas’ for ‘agitatas’).
965 f.Pont.iii. 7. 25 f.
967 f. Cp.Rem. Amoris, 97 f.
969 f. Cp.Rem. Amoris, 101 f.
971 f. Cp.Rem. Amoris, 729 f., ‘Admonitus refricatur amor,’ &c.
973. Cp.Rem. Amoris, 623.
975 f. Cp.Rem. Amoris, 731 f., ‘Ut pene extinctum cinerem si sulfure tangas, Vivet,’ &c. The reading ‘sub’ must be a mistake on the part of our author for ‘si.’
979. Cp.Ars Amat.iii. 597.
981.Ars Amat.iii. 373.
983 f.Ars Amat.iii. 375 f., but Ovid has ‘iratos et sibi quisque deos.’
985 f. Cp.Ars Amat.iii. 501 f.
990.Fasti, iii. 380, absurdly introduced here.
991 f. Cp.Conf. Amantis, Latin Verses before Prol. 499.
1003 f. Cp.Tristia, ii. 141 f.
LIB. VI.
1-468. With this section of the work compareMirour, 24181 ff.
11. Ps. xiv. 3.
89-94. FromAurora, (MS. Bodley 822) f. 66, where however the reading is ‘sapit’ in l. 94 (for ‘rapit’).
95-98.Aurora, f. 65, where we find ‘in nocte’ for ‘in noctem’ and ‘reprobi’ for ‘legis’ (l. 97).
101 f. Cp.Aurora, 64 f.,
‘Inprouisus adest cum pullos tollere miluusEsurit, in predam non sine fraude ruit.’
‘Inprouisus adest cum pullos tollere miluusEsurit, in predam non sine fraude ruit.’
‘Inprouisus adest cum pullos tollere miluusEsurit, in predam non sine fraude ruit.’
‘Inprouisus adest cum pullos tollere miluus
Esurit, in predam non sine fraude ruit.’
This is adapted by our author to his own purpose, but as his meaning is altogether different, some obscurity results, and he does not make it clear to us how the biter is bit.
113.Metam.v. 606.
115-118. Cp.Metam.vi. 527 ff.
133. In the Glasgow MS. ‘locuplex’ has been altered to the more familiar ‘locuples.’
141 f. Is. v. 8, ‘Vae qui coniungitis domum ad domum et agrum agro copulatis usque ad terminum loci: numquid habitabitis vos soli in medio terrae?’ The same text is quoted in theMirour, 24541 ff.
144. By comparison withMirour, 24580 ff. we may see that the dissipation of the property by the son is here alleged as a proof that it has been ill acquired:
‘Qu’ils font pourchas a la senestreLe fin demoustre la verrour.’
‘Qu’ils font pourchas a la senestreLe fin demoustre la verrour.’
‘Qu’ils font pourchas a la senestreLe fin demoustre la verrour.’
‘Qu’ils font pourchas a la senestre
Le fin demoustre la verrour.’
176.forum, i.e. the market price.
188.que foret equa, ‘(the balance) which should be fair’: so also ‘foret’ below, l. 190.
203.Basiliscus: cp.Mirour, 3748 ff.
209 f. Ovid,Pont.ii. 3. 39 f. (but ‘lasso’ for ‘lapso’).
217.nam nemo dolose Mentis, &c. ‘for no man of a crafty mind can have sure speech.’
225.tenebrescunt, ‘darken.’ So other inceptives are used transitively, e.g. ‘ditescere,’ ii. 607,Cron. Trip.iii. 119.
233 f. ‘And thislex, legis, fromledo, ledis, asiusfromiurgo, administers justice at this present time.’ It is meant that the administration of law, as we see it, suggests the above etymologies. The use of ‘isto’ for ‘hoc’ is quite regular.
241 ff. Cp.Mirour, 24253 ff.
249 ff. Cp.Mirour, 24349 ff., and see Pulling,Order of the Coif, ch. iv.
269. The reference is to Ecclus. xx. 31, ‘Xenia et dona excaecant oculos iudicum.’
274. ‘Fear puts to flight the discernment of justice.’
313-326. These fourteen lines are taken with some alterations (not much for the better) from Neckam,De Vita Monachorum, pp. 180 f.
327 f. Cp.De Vita Monachorum, p. 182,
‘Sic mihi, divitibus si quando defuit hostis;Hos terit et quassat saepe ruina gravis.’
‘Sic mihi, divitibus si quando defuit hostis;Hos terit et quassat saepe ruina gravis.’
‘Sic mihi, divitibus si quando defuit hostis;Hos terit et quassat saepe ruina gravis.’
‘Sic mihi, divitibus si quando defuit hostis;
Hos terit et quassat saepe ruina gravis.’
Where, it would seem, we ought to read ‘Dic mihi.’
329 ff.De Vita Monachorum, p. 181. Most of the lines 329-348 are borrowed.
351. ‘Nonne’ for ‘Num,’ as often: cp. v. 731.
355 f. Cp.De Vita Monachorum, p. 182,
‘Iustitiae montes virtutumque ardua nullusScandet, dum mundi rebus onustus erit.’
‘Iustitiae montes virtutumque ardua nullusScandet, dum mundi rebus onustus erit.’
‘Iustitiae montes virtutumque ardua nullusScandet, dum mundi rebus onustus erit.’
‘Iustitiae montes virtutumque ardua nullus
Scandet, dum mundi rebus onustus erit.’
357.De Vita Monachorum, p. 190.
359-372. Most of these lines are borrowed with slight alterations fromDe Vita Monachorum, p. 191.
387 ff. Cp.Mirour, 24733 ff.
389. Cp.De Vita Monachorum, p. 192, ‘Cur ampla aedificas busto claudendus in arcto?’
397.De Vita Monachorum, p. 193,
‘Et cecidit Babylon, cecidit quoque maxima TroiaOlim mundipotens, aspice, Roma iacet.’
‘Et cecidit Babylon, cecidit quoque maxima TroiaOlim mundipotens, aspice, Roma iacet.’
‘Et cecidit Babylon, cecidit quoque maxima TroiaOlim mundipotens, aspice, Roma iacet.’
‘Et cecidit Babylon, cecidit quoque maxima Troia
Olim mundipotens, aspice, Roma iacet.’
419 ff. Cp.Mirour, 24817-25176.
421 f. For the idea contained in ‘vnccio’ and ‘vncta’ cp. iii. 1376.
433. ‘The wordcomesreceives its beginning not fromvicebut fromvicium.’ That is, apparently, the prefix which makes ‘comes’ into ‘vicecomes’ is to be derived from ‘vicium.’
439 f. Cp.Mirour, 25166 ff.
445 ff. With this compare the corresponding lines in theCarmen super multiplici viciorum Pestilencia, under the head of ‘Avarice’ (246 ff.),
‘Vendere iusticiam nichil est nisi vendere Cristum,’ &c.
‘Vendere iusticiam nichil est nisi vendere Cristum,’ &c.
‘Vendere iusticiam nichil est nisi vendere Cristum,’ &c.
‘Vendere iusticiam nichil est nisi vendere Cristum,’ &c.
463 f. Cp.Mirour, 24973 ff.
467 f.Vt Crati bufo, &c.: cp.Mirour, 24962 f.
498. Cp.Mirour, 22835 f.
522. The insertion which is found after this line in the Digby MS. (and in no other) consists of eight lines taken from the original text of the passage 545-580, which was rewritten by the author: see ll. 561*-566* and 579* f.
523 ff. ‘Can a house be built without timber? But of what use is timber to the builder if it be not hewn?’ ‘Nonne’ for ‘Num,’ as frequently: see note on v. 731. It seems that ‘sibi’ refers to the builder rather than to the house; in any case, it has no reflexive sense. Finally ‘ligna’ is here used as a singular feminine: all the MSS. have ‘foret’ in l. 524 and ‘valet’ in 525.
The idea of the passage seems to be that good laws are as the material, and the ruler as the builder of the house.
529 ff. Cp.Conf. Amantis, vii. 2695 ff.
545-580. It is certain that the passage preserved to us in the Dublin and Hatfield MSS. is that which was originally written in those books which now exhibit an erasure; for in several places words are legible underneath the present text of these latter MSS. For example in S ‘maior’ is visible as the last word of the original l. 547, and ‘locuta,’ ‘aula,’ similarly in ll. 549, 551. The chief difference introduced is in the direction of throwing more responsibility on the king, who however is still spoken of as a boy. Thus instead of ‘Stat puer immunis culpe,’ we have ‘Rex puer indoctus morales negligit actus’ (or more strongly still ‘respuit’).
The text of 545*-580* follows the Dublin MS. (T) with corrections from H₂. Neither text is very correct: both omit a word in l. 549*, which I supply by conjecture, and both read ‘omnes’ in l. 561*. There are some obvious errors in T, as ‘sinis’ for ‘sinit’ in l. 554*, ‘Tempe’ for ‘Tempora’ in l. 559*, which have been passed over without notice.
Cap. viii.Heading. The ensuing Epistle to the young king, which extends as far as l. 1200, assumes a more severely moral form owing to the alteration of the preceding passage, the exclusion of all compliment (‘regnaturo’ in this heading for ‘excellentissimo’) and the substitution of ‘doctrine causa’ for ‘in eius honore.’ (The readings ‘excellentissimo,’ ‘in eius honore’ no doubt are to be found in the Hatfield MS., but I have accidentally omitted to take note of them.)
629 f. Neckam,De Vita Monachorum, p. 185,
‘Quid tibi nobilitas et clarum nomen avorum,Si vitiis servus factus es ipse tuis?’
‘Quid tibi nobilitas et clarum nomen avorum,Si vitiis servus factus es ipse tuis?’
‘Quid tibi nobilitas et clarum nomen avorum,Si vitiis servus factus es ipse tuis?’
‘Quid tibi nobilitas et clarum nomen avorum,
Si vitiis servus factus es ipse tuis?’
640. ‘vix’ is sometimes used by our author (apparently) in the sense of ‘paene.’
696. Ovid,Rem. Amoris, 526.
710.iudiciale, ‘judgement,’ used as a substantive: cp. iii. 1692.
718.culpe ... sue, ‘for their fault,’ i.e. the fault of his ministers.
719-722. Cp.Aurora, (MS. Bodley 822) f. 65,
‘Euolat ancipiter ad prede lucra, suisqueDeseruit dominis in rapiendo cybum.Sic multi dominis famulando suis, ad eorumNutum pauperibus dampna ferendo nocent.’
‘Euolat ancipiter ad prede lucra, suisqueDeseruit dominis in rapiendo cybum.Sic multi dominis famulando suis, ad eorumNutum pauperibus dampna ferendo nocent.’
‘Euolat ancipiter ad prede lucra, suisqueDeseruit dominis in rapiendo cybum.Sic multi dominis famulando suis, ad eorumNutum pauperibus dampna ferendo nocent.’
‘Euolat ancipiter ad prede lucra, suisque
Deseruit dominis in rapiendo cybum.
Sic multi dominis famulando suis, ad eorum
Nutum pauperibus dampna ferendo nocent.’
725.presul, ‘the bishop.’
740. The expression ‘Cuius enim’ for ‘Eius enim’ occurs more than once, e.g. l. 1238: cp. vii. 372. It is found also in theConfessio Amantis, Latin Verses after vii. 1984, but was there corrected in the third recension.
765.stabiles: apparently used in a bad sense.
793 f. Cp.Aurora, f. 96 vo,
‘Exiguus magnum vicit puer ille Golyam,Nam virtus humilis corda superba domat.’
‘Exiguus magnum vicit puer ille Golyam,Nam virtus humilis corda superba domat.’
‘Exiguus magnum vicit puer ille Golyam,Nam virtus humilis corda superba domat.’
‘Exiguus magnum vicit puer ille Golyam,
Nam virtus humilis corda superba domat.’
816. Ovid,Amores, i. 8. 62, ‘Crede mihi, res est ingeniosa dare.’
839 f. Cp.Aurora, f. 95 vo.
846.Fasti, ii. 226.
875-902. This passage of twenty-six lines is taken with few alterations from theAurora, f. 76.
876.bella: in the original ‘corda’ (or ‘colla’ MS. Univ. Coll. 143).
883.noctibus: in the original ‘nutibus.’
884.Spirant: so in the original according to MS. Bodley 822, but ‘Spirent’ in MS. Univ. Coll. 143.
886.acuum ferrum: in the original ‘minitans ferrum.’ Apparently our author took ‘acus’ to mean a spear or javelin. The choice of the word in this passage is unfortunate.
887 ff. ‘vincit,’ ‘tenet’ (or ‘teret,’ MS. Univ. Coll. 143), ‘consurgit’ in the original.
891. In the original, ‘Rex hoc consilium grata bibit aure, puellas Preparat,’ &c.
892. ‘genis’ in the original.
894. ‘furit’ for ‘fugat’ is the reading of the original, and we find this in several MSS. of our text, but in the Glasgow MS. this has been corrected to ‘fugat,’ which is the reading of S.
898. In the original, ‘Vultus que geminus ridet in ore decor,’ (or ‘Vultus et geminus,’ &c., MS. Univ. Coll. 143).
907.Aurora, f. 100.
947-950. Taken from the description of Saul at the battle of Gilboa,Aurora, f. 100 vo.
971 ff. Cp.Praise of Peace, 78 ff.
985-992. FromAurora, f. 64 vo,
‘Alta petens aquila uolat alite celsius omni,Quisque potens, tumidus corde, notatur ea:Vt sacra testantur cythariste scripta prophete,In celum tales os posuere suum.Pennatum griphes animal, pedibusque quaternisInuitos homines carpit, abhorret equos:Designatur in his facinus crudele potentum,Qui mortes hominum cum feritate bibunt.’
‘Alta petens aquila uolat alite celsius omni,Quisque potens, tumidus corde, notatur ea:Vt sacra testantur cythariste scripta prophete,In celum tales os posuere suum.Pennatum griphes animal, pedibusque quaternisInuitos homines carpit, abhorret equos:Designatur in his facinus crudele potentum,Qui mortes hominum cum feritate bibunt.’
‘Alta petens aquila uolat alite celsius omni,Quisque potens, tumidus corde, notatur ea:Vt sacra testantur cythariste scripta prophete,In celum tales os posuere suum.Pennatum griphes animal, pedibusque quaternisInuitos homines carpit, abhorret equos:Designatur in his facinus crudele potentum,Qui mortes hominum cum feritate bibunt.’
‘Alta petens aquila uolat alite celsius omni,
Quisque potens, tumidus corde, notatur ea:
Vt sacra testantur cythariste scripta prophete,
In celum tales os posuere suum.
Pennatum griphes animal, pedibusque quaternis
Inuitos homines carpit, abhorret equos:
Designatur in his facinus crudele potentum,
Qui mortes hominum cum feritate bibunt.’
986. Our author no doubt read ‘mundus corde’ here in theAurora.
987.citharistea: properly no doubt ‘cithariste,’ to be taken with ‘prophete,’ as in theAurora.
990. ‘horret equos’ seems to represent the ‘equis vehementer infesti’ of Isidore,Etym.xii. 2.
1019-1024. From Neckam,De Vita Monachorum, p. 185, with slight variations.
1037.esse: as substantive, ‘existence.’
1041-1050. Taken with slight changes fromAurora, f. 108.
1066.fugat: used as subjunctive; so also iii. 1498, 2078.
1085 f. FromDe Vita Monachorum, p. 184.
1107-1112.De Vita Monachorum, p. 193.
1115 f.De Vita Monachorum, p. 183.
1159* ff. That this was the text which stood originally in S is proved partly by the fact that the original heading of the chapter stands still as given here in the Table of Chapters, f. 5, and also by the traces of original coloured initials at ll. 1175 and 1199. A considerable part of the erased chapter reappears in the poem ‘Rex celi deus,’ &c., addressed to Henry IV: see p. 343.
1189 f.Si tibi ... cupias conuertere ... Te.These words appear in S as a correction of the rewritten text by a second erasure and in another hand.
Cap. xix.Heading.The original form, as given by DLTH₂, is still to be found in the Table of Chapters in S.
1201. Cp. Ovid,Metam.vii. 585 f.,
‘veluti cum putria motisPoma cadunt ramis agitataque ilice glandes.’
‘veluti cum putria motisPoma cadunt ramis agitataque ilice glandes.’
‘veluti cum putria motisPoma cadunt ramis agitataque ilice glandes.’
‘veluti cum putria motis
Poma cadunt ramis agitataque ilice glandes.’
1204 ff. Note the repeated use of ‘modo’ in the sense of ‘now’: cp. 1210, 1218, 1222, 1232, 1235, 1243, 1263, 1280, &c. The usual word for ‘formerly’ is ‘nuper’; see 1241, 1245, 1279, &c.
1205.Metam.ii. 541.
1223.Oza, that is Uzzah (2 Sam. vi.), who is selected as a type of carnal lust, apparently on the strength of the quite gratuitous assumption adopted in Lib. III. 1885 ff. Apparently ‘luxus’ in the next line is genitive, in spite of the metre: cp. ‘excercitus,’ i. 609, ‘ducatus,’Cron. Trip.iii. 117.
1236.Giesi, i.e. Gehazi.
1238.Cuius enim: cp. note on l. 740.
1243.Liberius: pope from 352-366A. D.He is mentioned here as a type of unfaithfulness to his charge, because he was induced to condemn Athanasius.
1251.defunctis, ‘for the dead,’ that is, to bury them charitably, as Tobit did.
1261. Cp. John xii. 24.
1267. Perhaps an allusion to Wycliffe, who seems to be referred to as a new Jovinianus in a later poem, p. 347.
1268.dant dubitare, ‘cause men to doubt.’
1273.Troianus: i.e. Trajan, whose name is so spelt regularly by our author.
1277.Valentinianus: cp.Conf. Amantis, v. 6398 ff.
1284.Leo: cp.Conf. Amantis, Prol. 739.
1286.Tiberii: i.e. Tiberius Constantinus; cp.Conf. Amantis, ii. 587 ff.
1306.quis, for ‘quisquam’: so also ‘quem’ in l. 1308; cp. i. 184.
1321 f. Cp.Conf. Amantis, vii. 2217 ff.: ‘relinquendo’ is used for ‘relinquens,’ as i. 304, 516, &c.
1323. Cp.Conf. Amantis, v. 6372 ff.,Mirour, 18301 ff.
1330.Vix si: cp. iv. 218,Cron. Trip.iii. 444.
1345. Cp. Ovid,Amores, i. 9. 1.
1357 f. ‘She is silent as a jackdaw, chaste as a pigeon, and gentle as a thorn.’
1361 f. Perhaps an allusion to the case of Edward III and Alice Perrers.
LIB. VII.
5. Cp.Conf. Amantis, Prol. 595 ff.
9.modo, ‘now’: cp. note on vi. 1204.
12.nec ... vix.For this combination of ‘vix’ with a negative cp. v. 104, 153.
42.dicunt ... volunt, ‘say that they wish’: cp. ii. 200 f.
47 f. Cp.Conf. Amantis, v. 49 ff.; so below, ll. 61 ff.
123. Rev. ii. 25, ‘id quod habetis tenete, donec veniam.’
125 f. Ovid,Tristia, i. 8. 41 f.,
‘Et tua sunt silicis circum praecordia venae,Et rigidum ferri semina pectus habet.’
‘Et tua sunt silicis circum praecordia venae,Et rigidum ferri semina pectus habet.’
‘Et tua sunt silicis circum praecordia venae,Et rigidum ferri semina pectus habet.’
‘Et tua sunt silicis circum praecordia venae,
Et rigidum ferri semina pectus habet.’
159 f. It is difficult to construe this couplet satisfactorily, and the reading ‘Est’ seems quite as good as ‘Et.’ The Glasgow MS. has ‘Et status’ erased, as if for correction.
163 ff. Cp.Mirour, 8921 ff.
167. The original reading seems to have been ‘grassantur,’ for which S gives ‘grossantur’ (‘o’ written over erasure), and CG ‘crassantur,’ also by correction.
182 ff. I have no record of the readings of H₂ in this passage, but I have no doubt that it agrees with EHT.
184. No record of the reading of T.
186.abhorret: apparently subjunctive; so we have ‘adhero’ for ‘adhereo,’ l. 1296.
192.habere modum: a first-hand correction in S, whereas the others in ll. 182-192 are in a different hand.
194.caput ancille: an allusion to the form in which Satan is supposed to have appeared in the garden of Eden.
243.specialis, subst., ‘a friend.’
255 f. Cp. Ovid,Ars Amat.ii. 201 f.,
‘Riserit, adride; si flebit, flere memento:Imponat leges vultibus illa tuis.’
‘Riserit, adride; si flebit, flere memento:Imponat leges vultibus illa tuis.’
‘Riserit, adride; si flebit, flere memento:Imponat leges vultibus illa tuis.’
‘Riserit, adride; si flebit, flere memento:
Imponat leges vultibus illa tuis.’
In adapting the couplet to his purpose our author has contrived to make it unintelligible.
265.Fuluus ... talus: referring to the gilded spur of knighthood; gold is ‘metallum fuluum.’
273 f. Cp.Tristia, v. 13. 27 f.
315 f. Cp.Metam.i. 144 f.
323 f. Cp.Ars Amat.i. 761 f.
327 f.Fasti, iv. 717 f. The application belongs to our author.
331 f. Cp. Ovid,Tristia, i. 9. 5 f.
334.Ars Amat.iii. 436.
340. Cp.Tristia, i. 8. 8.
347. Cp.Metam.i. 141.
349.cumque, for ‘cum’: cp. ii. 302, &c., and l. 872, below.
361 ff. Cp.Mirour, 26590 ff.
372.Talis enim, ‘such, indeed,’: for this use of ‘enim’ cp. vi. 740.
375 f. From Neckam,De Vita Monachorum, p. 177.
379-383. Taken with slight change fromDe Vita Monachorum, pp. 183 f.
387.De Vita Monachorum, p. 195.
389-392. Taken with slight change fromDe Vita Monachorum, p. 197, and so also 395 f.
417-420.De Vita Monachorum, p. 196.
437 f.De Vita Monachorum, p. 196.
440.ne sit, for ‘ne non sit.’
441 f.De Vita Monachorum, p. 189.
459 f. Cp. Ovid,Ars Amat.iii. 65 f.
463 f. Cp.Tristia, v. 10. 5 f., ‘Stare putes, adeo procedunt tempora tarde,’ &c. The couplet has neither sense nor appropriateness as given here.
465 f.Pont.ii. 2. 37 f.
484.Numquid, for ‘Nonne’: cp. l. 892 and note on v. 280.
485 f.Ars Amat.iii. 119 f.,
‘Quae nunc sub Phoebo ducibusque Palatia fulgent,Quid nisi araturis pascua bubus erant?’
‘Quae nunc sub Phoebo ducibusque Palatia fulgent,Quid nisi araturis pascua bubus erant?’
‘Quae nunc sub Phoebo ducibusque Palatia fulgent,Quid nisi araturis pascua bubus erant?’
‘Quae nunc sub Phoebo ducibusque Palatia fulgent,
Quid nisi araturis pascua bubus erant?’
‘Qui’ is evidently a mistake for ‘Que.’
489 f.Fasti, i. 203 f.
499-504. FromDe Vita Monachorum, p. 181.
509 f. Cp.Mirour, 26605 ff. andConf. Amantis, Prol. 910 ff.
519. This seems to be dependent on ‘noscat’ in the line above. The indicative in dependent question is quite usual, though not invariably found: cp. l. 516, where subjunctive and indicative are combined.
574.consequeretur eum, ‘should follow him,’ i.e. should be subject to man.
599.Arboribusque sitis.There must be something wrong here, but the variant given by D does not help us.
619.Nonne, used for ‘Num’: cp. v. 731.
639 ff. This quotation from Gregory appears also in theMirour de l’Omme, 26869 ff., and theConfessio Amantis, Prol. 945 ff.
645.minor est mundus homo, ‘man is a microcosm’: cp.Mirour, 26929 ff.
647 ff.Mirour, 26953 ff.
684. The Glasgow MS. has ‘queris’ written over an erasure.
685-694. From Neckam,De Vita Monachorum, pp. 197 f.
699-708. With slight changes fromDe Vita Monachorum, pp. 193 f.
793.nuperto be taken with ‘auaricia,’ ‘the avarice of former times’; ‘modo’ with ‘prestat.’
872.Cumque, for ‘Cum’: cp. l. 349.
892.Numquid, for ‘Nonne’: cp. l. 484, and see note on v. 280. For the idea cp.Mirour, 1784 ff. It is originally from Augustine.
909 f. FromDe Vita Monachorum, p. 178.
911-918. FromDe Vita Monachorum, p. 179, with slight variations.
919-924.De Vita Monachorum, p. 180.
921. The reading ‘nostre,’ though it has small authority, is necessary to the sense and is given in the original passage.
929-932.De Vita Monachorum, p. 180.
955 f. Cp.Mirour, 11404 ff., where the often-quoted lines of Helinand’sVers de Mortare given.
990.habet ... habitare, used perhaps for the future, ‘will inhabit’: so ‘habet torquere,’ l. 1047. On the other hand in l. 1148 ‘habent regi’ means ‘must be guided,’ and the same meaning of ‘must’ or ‘ought’ may be applied to all the passages.
1067.Thetis, used for ‘water’ or ‘sea’: cp. v. 812. All the copies here give ‘thetis’ (or ‘Thetis’) except D, which cannot be depended on to reproduce the original form in a case like this. On the other hand in theCronica Tripertita, i. 80, S and H have ‘tetis.’
1079.furor breuis, ira set: the words are suggested by the common expression ‘ira furor breuis,’ but the sense is different. This is frequently the case with our author’s borrowings, e.g. v. 213, vi. 101.
1095.vix si: cp. vi. 1330; but perhaps ‘vix sit’ is the true reading here.
1106.Quam prius, as usual, for ‘prius quam’: cp. i. 1944.
1148.habent: see note on l. 990.
1185.Que: the antecedent must be ‘virtuti,’ in the next line: ‘solet’ is of course for ‘solebat’; see note on i. 492.
1215.tueri: apparently passive.
1240.deficit vnde sciam, ‘I do not know.’
1305 f. ‘Because justice has departed, therefore peace, who is joined with her, is also gone.’ The reference here and in the next lines is to the Psalms, lxxxiv. 11.
1342. An allusion apparently to the debasement of the coinage. The reading ‘suum’ in G is over an erasure.
1344.Nobile que genuit, ‘she who produced the noble,’ i.e. the gold coin of that name, called so originally because of its purity.
1356.sine lege fera: for this kind of play upon words cp. iv. 128, 215, 243, 509, &c.
1409 ff. It may be noted that the Harleian MS. is defective for ll. 1399-1466. Its readings here would probably agree with those of EDL, &c. SCG have the text written over erasure.
1436.Exiguo ... tempore: for the ablative cp. i. 1568.
1455 f. It is the galled horse that winces at the load; that which issound feels no hurt. Thus, if the reader is not guilty of the faults spoken of, he will pass untouched by the reproof.
1470. ‘Vox populi, vox dei’: a sentiment repeated by our author in various forms; cp. note on iii. Prol. 11.
1479 ff. These last three lines are over erasure in SCHG. They seem to have been substituted for the original couplet in order to point more clearly the moral of theCronica Tripertita, which is intended for a practical illustration of the divine punishment of sin.
Explicit, &c. It will be seen that in these later years Gower has almost brought himself to believe that the events of the earlier part of the reign were intended for a special warning to the youthful king, whom he conceives as having then already begun a course of tyrannical government. At the time, however, our author acquitted him of all responsibility, on account of his youth.
11 ff. The swan was used as a badge by the duke of Gloucester and also (perhaps not till after his death) by Henry of Lancaster. For the horse and the bear as cognizances of Arundel and Warwick seeAnnales Ricardi II(Rolls Series, 28. 3), p. 206.
CRONICA TRIPERTITA
1.Ista tripertita, &c. These seven lines must be regarded as a metrical preface to the Chronicle which follows. In the Hatton MS. these lines with their marginal note are placed before the prose of the preceding page (which is given in a somewhat different form) and entitled ‘Prologus.’
Prima Pars
1. Take the first letter of ‘mundus’ and add to it C three times repeated and six periods of five years, plus ten times five and seven. The date thus indicated is MCCC + 30 + 57, i.e. 1387. For a similar mode of expression cp. Richard of Maidstone’s poem on theReconciliation of Richard II(Rolls Series, 14. 1),
‘M. cape, ter quoque C. deciesque novem, duo iunge.’
‘M. cape, ter quoque C. deciesque novem, duo iunge.’
‘M. cape, ter quoque C. deciesque novem, duo iunge.’
‘M. cape, ter quoque C. deciesque novem, duo iunge.’
4-12. These lines are written over an erasure in SCHG. The original version of them is not extant, so far as I am aware.
51.Penna coronata.This, as the margin tells us, is the Earl Marshall, that is Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham, afterwards duke of Norfolk.
52.Qui gerit S: the earl of Derby, from whose badge of S, standing probably for ‘Soverein,’ came the device of the well-known collar of SS. His tomb has the word ‘Soverayne’ repeated several times on the canopy.
55.aquilonica luna, ‘the northern moon,’ that is, the earl of Northumberland. The variation of the text in the Harleian MS., written over an erasure, arises no doubt from the later disagreement between Henry IV and Northumberland.
58.Troie, i.e. London.
65. The earl of Oxford, lately created duke of Ireland, whose badge was a boar’s head, was Chief Justice of Chester in this year, and there raised forces for the king, with the assistance of Thomas Molyneux, Constable of Chester, ‘cuius nutum tota illa provincia expectabat,’ Walsingham, ii. p. 167 (Rolls Series, 28. 2).
80.Tetis: see note onVox Clamantis, vii. 1067:a partemeans apparently ‘on one side,’ or perhaps ‘on the side of the victors.’
The place where this affair happened is not very well described by the authorities, but it seems clear that the first attempt of the earl of Oxford (or duke of Ireland) to cross the river was made at Radcot (Knighton, Rolls Series, ii. 253). Here he found the bridge partly broken, so that one horseman only could cross it at a time, and guarded by men-at-arms and archers set there by the earl of Derby. At the same time he was threatened with attack by the earl of Derby himself on the one side and the duke of Gloucester on the other, both apparently on the northern bank of the river. Walsingham says that he went on to another bridge, and, finding this also guarded, plunged in on horseback and escaped by swimming over the river. Knighton gives us to understand that he was prevented by the appearance of the duke of Gloucester’s force from making his way along the northern bank, and at once plunged in and swam the stream, ‘et sic mirabili ausu evasit ab eis.’ Walsingham adds that he was not pursued, because darkness had come on (it was nearly the shortest day of the year) and they did not know the country. This chronicler does not mention Radcot Bridge, but refers to the place vaguely as ‘iuxta Burford, prope Babbelake.’ It is impossible, however, that either the fight, such as it was, or the escape of the earl of Oxford can have taken place at Bablock Hythe. No doubt the lords returned to Oxford after the affair by this ferry, which was probably the shortest way. The earl of Oxford seems to have made his way to London, and after an interview with the king to have embarked at Queenborough for the Continent (Malverne, in Rolls Series, 41. 9, p. 112).
89 ff. The marginal note speaks of the ‘castra, que ipse [Comes Oxonie] familie sue pro signo gestanda attribuerat.’ The cognizance referred, no doubt, to the city of Chester. The same note tells us that the duke of Gloucester bore a fox-tail on his spear as an ensign: cp. Harding’s Chronicle, p. 341:
‘The foxe taile he bare ay on his spere,Where so he rode in peace or elles in warre.’
‘The foxe taile he bare ay on his spere,Where so he rode in peace or elles in warre.’
‘The foxe taile he bare ay on his spere,Where so he rode in peace or elles in warre.’
‘The foxe taile he bare ay on his spere,
Where so he rode in peace or elles in warre.’
103.Noua villa Macedo, i.e. Alexander Neville: a very bad attempt on the part of our author.
104.maledixit.The particular form of curse in this case was translation to the see of S. Andrew, which he could not occupy because Scotland was Clementine.
107.Hic proceres odit, &c. He is said to have especially urgedthe king to take strong measures against Warwick (Malverne, p. 105).
109.de puteo Michaelis, ‘of Michael de la Pool.’ The same view of the meaning of the name is taken in Shakspere, 2Henry VI, iv. l. 70, by the murderer of William, duke of Suffolk, son of this Michael, ‘Pole, Pool, sir Pool, lord! Ay, kennel, puddle, sink.’
111 ff. This is Thomas Rushook, a Dominican, who was translated from Llandaff to Chichester by the king’s special desire in 1385. He had incurred much suspicion and odium as the king’s confessor and supposed private adviser. Walsingham says, ‘ipse sibi conscius fugam iniit’ (ii. 172); but he certainly appeared at the bar of Parliament and was sentenced to forfeiture of his goods (Rot. Parl.iii. 241, Malverne, p. 156).
113.ater: alluding to his Dominican habit.
121 ff. Cp. Knighton, ii. 255 f. All the five Appellants seem to have entered the Tower, but the three spoken of here are of course the three leaders, referred to in l. 41 and afterwards. Knighton says that the king invited the five to stay for the night, but only the earls of Derby and Nottingham accepted the invitation. The fact that Gower here assigns no political action to his hero the earl of Derby (who was under twenty years old), but gives all the credit to the three leaders, shows clearly that the young Henry played a very subordinate part.
131.covnata: that is, ‘co-unata,’ meaning ‘assembled.’
133 ff. Cp. Knighton, ii. 292.
141.senecta.Burley was then fifty-six years old.
142. This evidently means that the queen interceded for him; cp.Chronique de la Traïson, p. 9. Walsingham tells us only that the earl of Derby tried to save Simon Burley and quarrelled with his uncle Gloucester on the subject. Burley had been the principal negotiator of the marriage of Richard with Anne of Bohemia.
150. Walsingham says of him that he was ‘ab antiquo fallax et fraudulentus.’
152.Pons Aquilonis, ‘Bridgenorth.’ Beauchamp was keeper of Bridgenorth Castle (Rot. Pat., 10 Rich. II. pt. 2. m. 15), but it does not appear from other sources that he had the title here given him by Gower of ‘baron Bridgenorth.’ In 1387 he was made a peer by patent (the first instance of this) under the title of lord Beauchamp of Kidderminster.
154.Tribulus: i.e. Nicholas Brembel (so called by Gower), called Brembul or Brembyl by Knighton, Brambre by Walsingham and Brembre or de Brembre in the Patent Rolls and Rolls of Parliament. Presumably he was of Brembre (Bramber), in the county of Sussex. He had been Mayor of London last in 1386. Knighton says of him ‘quem saepius rex fecerat maiorem praeter et contra voluntatem multorum ciuium’ (ii. 272), and Walsingham declares that he had planned a proscription of his opponents, with a view to making himself absolute ruler of London with the title of duke (ii. 174).
158 f. Though he was a knight, he was not dignified with the nobler form of execution, being a citizen of London.
162.Cornubiensis: Sir Robert Tresilian, Chief Justice.
172.falsa sigilla: that is, the seals set by the judges to the questions and replies submitted to them at Nottingham. ‘In quorum omnium testimonium Iusticiarii et Serviens predicti sigilla sua presentibus apposuerunt’ (Rot. Parl.iii. 233; cp. Knighton, ii. 237). They all pleaded that they had set their seals to these replies under the influence of threats from the archbishop of York, the duke of Ireland, and the earl of Suffolk.
173.magis ansam, ‘or rather a handle’ (i.e. a pretext). The reading of the MSS. is doubtful (S apparently ‘ausam,’ but with a stop after ‘regi’). The form of expression is not unusual with our author.
174 f. ‘There was no punishment which would have been sufficient,’ &c.
176.ficta pietate: that is, what our author in theConf. Amantiscalls ‘pite feigned,’ i.e. false or misplaced clemency.
176 ff. Knighton says that the queen interceded for them with the prelates (ii. 295). For the intervention of the prelates seeRot. Parl.iii. 241.
178 f. For the terms of their exile seeRot. Parl.iii. 244, Knighton, ii. 295 f.
183. The sense of the preceding negative seems to be extended to this line also.
188 ff. I do not know of any other authority for this expulsion of friars.
200.cantus: apparently genitive in spite of the metre; so ‘ducatus,’ iii. 117, ‘excercitus,’ ‘luxus,’Vox Clamantis, i. 609, vi. 1224.
215.hirundo: a reference to the name Arundel.
Secunda Pars
There is an interval of nearly ten years between the first and the second part of the Chronicle. Our author proceeds to the events of 1397. He assumes that the king carried out a long-meditated plan of vengeance, cp. ll. 23 ff., but this was of course an after-thought by way of accounting for what happened.
15. A pardon was granted to all three in the Parliament of 1387-88, ‘par estatut’ (seeRot. Parl.iii. 350), and a special charter of pardon was granted to the earl of Arundel at Windsor, April 30, 1394 (Rot. Parl.iii. 351; cp.Ann. Ric. II, p. 211). See below, ll. 259 f., where the charters of pardon are said to have been procured by archbishop Arundel who was then Chancellor. It seems to be implied that the other two had similar charters, but nothing is said of this in the Rolls of Parliament; cp.Eulog. Hist.iii. 374.
56. Cp.Ann. Ric. II, p. 202 (Rolls Series, 28. 3) ‘iurans suo solito iuramento, per sanctum Iohannem Baptistam, quod nihil mali pateretur in corpore, si se pacifice reddere voluisset.’
69 f. In theAnnales Ricardi IIit is definitely stated that Warwick came to the king’s banquet and was arrested after it (p. 202). According to Gower’s account there was no banquet at all, and Gloucester was arrested before Warwick; and this agrees with the accounts given in theChronique de la Traïson, p. 9, and by Froissart, vol. xvi. p. 73 (ed. Lettenhove).
85 ff. From this account we should gather that the king officially announced the death of the duke of Gloucester to parliament before it had occurred; but this was not so. Parliament met on Sept. 17, and on Sept. 21 a writ was sent in the king’s name to Calais, ordering the earl of Nottingham to produce his prisoner. This was replied to, under date Sept. 24, with the announcement that he was dead (Rot. Parl.iii. 378). It is certain, however, that a report of the duke of Gloucester’s death was circulated and generally believed in the month of August, and equally certain that this was done with the connivance of the king, who probably wished to try what effect the news would produce upon the public mind. Sir William Rickhill, the justice who was sent over to extract a confession from the duke of Gloucester, received on Sept. 5 a commission from the king to proceed to Calais, no purpose stated, the date of the commission being Aug. 17. On arrival he was presented by the earl of Nottingham with another commission from the king, also with date Aug. 17, directing him to examine the duke of Gloucester. He expressed surprise, saying that the duke was dead and that his death had been ‘notified’ to the people both at Calais and in England. On the next day he saw the duke and received his so-called confession (Rot. Parl.iii. 431). When this confession was communicated to parliament, the date of it was suppressed, and things were so arranged as to favour the opinion that the interview with Rickhill took place between the 17th and 25th of August, the latter being the accepted date of Gloucester’s death; cp. the article by Mr. James Tait in theDict. of National Biography, vol. lvi. pp. 157 f.
It is probable enough that the duke of Gloucester was still living when parliament met, as Gower seems to imply. Unfortunately John Halle, who confessed that he was present at the murder of the duke (Rot. Parl.iii. 453), gave no precise date. The statement of Gower that the king waited until he had secured his condemnation, may mean only that he satisfied himself of the temper of Parliament before taking the final and irrevocable step.
101 ff. The body seems first to have been laid in the Priory of Bermondsey: then it was buried by Richard’s command in Westminster Abbey, but apart from the royal burial-place. Afterwards the body was transferred by Henry IV to the place chosen by Gloucester himself, between the tomb of Edward the Confessor and that of Edward III (Adam of Usk, p. 39).
121 f. For the insults levelled against the earl of Arundel seeAnn. Ric. II, p. 215, Adam of Usk, p. 13.
With regard to the events of this parliament generally, it is worthwhile here to observe that Adam of Usk must certainly be regarded as a first-hand authority and his account as a contemporary one. It has usually been assumed that, though he says himself that he was present at the parliament (‘In quo parliemento omni die presensium compilator interfuit’), he actually borrowed his account of it from the Monk of Evesham. This assumption rests entirely on the statement of the editor of Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, that he must have written later than 1415, a statement which is repeated without question by Potthast, Gross, and others. It may be observed, however, that the evidence adduced for this late date is absolutely worthless. It is alleged first that Adam of Usk near the beginning of his Chronicle alludes to the Lollard rising in Henry V’s reign, whereas what he actually says is that the Lollards planned an attack on Convocation, but were deterred by the resolute measures of the archbishop of Canterbury, at the time of the second parliament of Henry IV, that is the year 1401, when Convocation was engaged in an endeavour to suppress the Lollards and the archbishop procured the execution of William Sawtree; secondly we are told that the chronicler refers (p. 55) to the death of the dauphin Louis, which happened in 1415, whereas actually his reference is obviously to the death of the dauphin Charles, which took place at the beginning of the year 1402. Mr. James Tait in theDict. of National Biography, vol. xlviii. p. 157, has already indicated that an earlier date than 1415 is necessary, by his reference to p. 21 of the Chronicle, where the chronicler speaks of Edmund earl of March as a boy not yet arrived at puberty, which points to a date not later than 1405. It seems probable that the Monk of Evesham had before him Adam of Usk’s journal of the parliament of 1397, to which he made some slight additions from other sources, introducing into his account a political colour rather more favourable to Richard II. The close correspondence between them is confined to the proceedings of this parliament at Westminster. It may be added that the account given by Adam of Usk is full of graphic details which suggest an eye-witness.
129. The pardon pleaded by the earl of Arundel had already been revoked by parliament, therefore the plea was not accepted. From the attempts made by the king to recover Arundel’s charter of pardon, even after his execution (Rot. Claus.21 Ric. II. pt 2, m. 18 d.), we may perhaps gather that some scruples were felt about the revocation of it.
135 ff. Cp.Annales Ric. II, pp. 216 f.
155 f.Annales Ric. II, p. 219.
179 ff.Rot. Parl.iii. 380,Annales Ric. II, p. 220.
199 f. ‘Qu’il demureroit en perpetuel prison hors du Roialme en l’isle de Man par terme de sa vie’ (Rot. Parl.iii. 380).
201 f. By the sentence upon the earl of Warwick all his property was confiscated, but it is stated in theAnnales Ric. II(p. 220) that a promise was made that he and his wife should have honourable maintenance from the forfeited revenues, and that this promise was notkept. Adam of Usk says that an income of 500 marks was granted to him and his wife, but was never paid (p. 16).
217 f. It seems impossible to construe this, and I suspect that a line has dropped out.
230. His sentence of death was commuted for that of exile to the isle of Jersey (Rot. Parl.iii. 382).
231 f. So also below, l. 280, our author expresses a hope for the safe return of the archbishop of Canterbury, who came back in company with Henry of Lancaster; cp. 330 f., where a hope is expressed for future vengeance on the king. Yet we can hardly suppose that this second part of the Chronicle was actually written before the events of the third part had come to pass. All that we can say is that the writer gives to his narrative the semblance of having been composed as the events happened. The return of Cobham is mentioned by him afterwards (iii. 262).
233 ff. Our author reserves the case of the archbishop to the last, as a climax of the evil. He was actually sentenced on Sept. 25, before the trial of the earl of Warwick (Rot. Parl.iii. 351). Sir John Cobham, whose sentence is mentioned above, was not put on his trial till Jan. 28, when parliament was sitting at Shrewsbury.
242. That is, the court of Rome was bribed to consent to his translation.
243. The title of his father, who was the second earl of Arundel, was used by him as a surname.
267 ff. This seems to mean that other private reasons were alleged to the Pope.
280. See note on l. 231.
326 f. An allusion to the campaign of 1380.
328 f. Referring especially to the very popular naval victory of Arundel in 1387 (Walsingham, ii. 154).
340. That is, in the twenty-first year of the reign (1397).
Tercia Pars
17. This comparison of Richard’s proceedings to the work of a mole under the ground (see also l. 12,margin) is appropriate enough as a description of the plot which he undoubtedly laid against the liberties of the kingdom, but the comparison is perhaps chiefly intended to suggest that Richard, and not Henry, was the ‘talpa ore dei maledicta’ of prophecy (Glendower’s ‘mould-warp’), cp.Archaeologia, xx. p. 258.
27 ff. This refers to the appointment of a committee with full powers to deal with the petitions and other matters left unfinished in this parliament. The committee consisted of twelve lords, of whom six should be a quorum, and six commons, three to be a quorum: seeRot. Parl.iii. 368,Annales Ric. II, p. 222819. The latter authority accuses theking of altering the Rolls of Parliament ‘contra effectum concessionis praedictae.’
35 ff. Cp.Annales Ric. II, p. 225.
47.Que non audiuit auris, &c. The same expression is used by Adam of Usk about the king’s proceedings in this parliament at Shrewsbury (p. 17).
49 ff. These transactions are related, but not very intelligibly, in the continuation of theEulogium Historiarum, iii. 378. It seems that the king summoned the archbishop and bishops to his Council at Nottingham, and used their influence to obtain from the city of London and the seventeen counties adjacent acknowledgements of guilt and payments of money to procure pardon. After this the king ordered that the archbishops, bishops, abbots, &c., and also the individual citizens of towns, should set their seals to blank parchments, wherein afterwards a promise to keep the statutes of the last parliament was inscribed, to which it was supposed that the king intended to add acknowledgements placing the persons in question and their property at his own disposal: cp. Monk of Evesham, p. 147. These last are the ‘blanche-chartres’ spoken of below called ‘blanke chartours’ in Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 101, where the form of submission sent in by the city of London, ‘in plesauns of the kynge and by conselle and helpe of Syr Roger Walden, Archebischoppe of Cauntyrbury ande Syr Robert Braybroke, Byschoppe of London,’ is given in full, pp. 98-100. See alsoRot. Parl.iii. 426, 432, where they are referred to as ‘les Remembrances appellez Raggemans ou blanches Chartres.’
73.pharisea: that is, hypocritically submissive to the king.
77.melior: comparative for superlative; so ‘probacior,’ l. 79.
85 f. Gower attributes Henry’s exile to what was probably the true cause, namely the king’s jealousy of his popularity and fear that he might take the lead in opposition to the newly established arbitrary system of government. The very occasion of the quarrel with the duke of Norfolk, an allegation on the part of Henry that the duke of Norfolk had warned him of danger from Richard and had said that the king could not be trusted to keep his oaths, made it difficult to take more summary measures against him at that moment. Indeed it seems probable that the conversation was reported to the king with a view to obtain a contradiction of the design imputed to him. Adam of Usk says definitely that the king’s object in appointing the duel at Coventry was to get rid of Henry, and that Richard had been assured by astrologers that the duke of Norfolk would win; but that on seeing them in the lists he was convinced that Henry would be the victor, and therefore he broke off the duel and banished both, intendingshortly to recall the duke of Norfolk (p. 23). It is noteworthy that Gower makes no mention whatever of the duke of Norfolk here.
128 (margin). It cannot of course be supposed that Henry embarked at Calais. Probably he sailed from Boulogne. Froissart says that his port of departure was Vannes in Brittany, but he expresses some uncertainty about the matter, and his whole account here is hopelessly inaccurate (xvii. 171, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove).
137.nepote: that is Thomas, son of the late earl of Arundel; see l. 130,margin.
160 ff. The suggestion here that Richard foresaw the coming of Henry and went to Ireland through fear of it, is of course absurd. At the same time it is certain that he received warnings, and that in view of these his expedition to Ireland was very ill-timed. The statement in the margin, that he fatally wasted time in Ireland, is supported both by the English annalists and by Creton. In theAnnales Ric. IIwe read that a week was wasted by Richard’s hesitation as to the port from which he should sail (p. 248), and Creton says that Richard was delayed by the treacherous advice of the duke of Aumerle, who induced him to leave the levying of troops in Wales to the earl of Salisbury and to embark at his leisure at Waterford (Archaeologia, xx. 312). Nothing is said of unfavourable winds in any of these authorities, except that Creton observes that the news of Henry’s landing was delayed by the bad weather (p. 309). Henry landed July 4, and Richard was in Wales before the end of the month.
188. There is no authority for reading ‘sceleris’ in this line, as the former editors have done. Presumably ‘sceleres’ is for ‘celeres,’ and this form of spelling is found occasionally elsewhere in the MSS., as conversely ‘ceptrum’ frequently for ‘sceptrum.’ It is not easy to translate the line, whatever reading we may adopt. It seems to mean ‘So in their ignorance they hesitate,’ (‘few show themselves quick in action’).
205.mundum nec abhorruit istum, ‘nor renounced this world’: ‘istum,’ as usual, for ‘hunc.’
244.Augusti mensis.Richard left Flint on Aug. 19, and arrived in London Sept. 2 (Annales Ric. II, p. 251).
256.Humfredum natum: that is Humphrey, the young son of the duke of Gloucester. Richard had taken him to Ireland, and on hearing of the landing of Henry had ordered him to be confined, together with young Henry of Lancaster, in Trim castle (Walsingham, ii. 233).
272.transit moriens.He died apparently on the way back from Ireland, in Anglesea according to Adam of Usk, who says that he was poisoned (p. 28). Walsingham says that he died of ‘pestilence’ (ii. 242): cp.Annales Henrici IV, p. 321 (Rolls Series, 28. 3).
276.Cignus: apparently the young duke of Gloucester is here meant, and it is not intended to state that he was killed by grief for the loss of his father, but that his mother died of grief for him: cp.Annales Henrici IV, p. 321.
286.dies Martis, Tuesday, Sept. 30. Richard’s renunciation was made on Sept. 29 (Rot. Parl.iii. 416 ff.).
300 ff. The demise of the crown made new writs necessary, but the same parliament met again six days later (Oct. 6).
310.verbalis ... non iudicialis.This appears to mean that the proceedings were confined to a recital of the circumstances connected with the deposition of Richard, and that no parliamentary business was done until after the coronation, which took place on the next Monday, Oct. 13.
332 ff. The threefold right is stated here by Gower in the same way as by Chaucer: