Part 46

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 the _Reconciliation of Richard II_ (Rolls Series, 14. 1),

‘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 on _Vox Clamantis_, vii. 1067: _a parte_ means 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.’

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 urged the 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, 2 _Henry 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 the _Conf. Amantis_ calls ‘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 see _Rot. Parl._ iii. 241.

178 f. For the terms of their exile see _Rot. 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’ (see _Rot. 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 the _Annales Ricardi II_ it 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 the _Chronique 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 the _Dict. 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 see _Ann. Ric. II_, p. 215, Adam of Usk, p. 13.

With regard to the events of this parliament generally, it is worth while 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 the _Dict. 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 the _Annales 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 not kept. 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: see _Rot. Parl._ iii. 368, _Annales Ric. II_, p. 222[819]. The latter authority accuses the king 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 the _Eulogium 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 also _Rot. 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, intending shortly 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 the _Annales Ric. II_ we 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).