Chapter L: LAUD 719, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Contains Vox Clamantis (15)

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?’

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, 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 the _Confessio 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 v^o,

‘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 v^o.

846. _Fasti_, ii. 226.

875-902. This passage of twenty-six lines is taken with few alterations from the _Aurora_, 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 v^o.

971 ff. Cp. _Praise of Peace_, 78 ff.

985-992. From _Aurora_, f. 64 v^o,

‘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 the _Aurora_.

987. _citharistea_: properly no doubt ‘cithariste,’ to be taken with ‘prophete,’ as in the _Aurora_.

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 from _Aurora_, f. 108.

1066. _fugat_: used as subjunctive; so also iii. 1498, 2078.

1085 f. From _De 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 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 352-366 A. 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.’

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.’

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 from _De Vita Monachorum_, pp. 183 f.

387. _De Vita Monachorum_, p. 195.

389-392. Taken with slight change from _De 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?’

‘Qui’ is evidently a mistake for ‘Que.’

489 f. _Fasti_, i. 203 f.

499-504. From _De Vita Monachorum_, p. 181.

509 f. Cp. _Mirour_, 26605 ff. and _Conf. 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 the _Mirour de l’Omme_, 26869 ff., and the _Confessio 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 from _De Vita Monachorum_, pp. 193 f.

793. _nuper_ to 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. From _De Vita Monachorum_, p. 178.

911-918. From _De 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’s _Vers de Mort_ are 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 the _Cronica 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 is sound 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 the _Cronica 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 see _Annales 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 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).

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:

‘O conquerour of Brutes Albioun,
Which that by lyne and free eleccioun
Ben verray kyng,’ &c.

In the margin, however, Gower places the right by conquest last, and tempers the idea of it by the addition ‘sine sanguinis effusione.’ Henry’s challenge claimed the realm by descent through ‘right line of blood’ (that is, apparently, setting aside descent through females, cp. _Eulog. Hist. contin._ iii. 383) and by ‘that right which God of his grace hath sent me ... to recover it’ (that is, by conquest). To these was added the right conferred by parliamentary election. It is not at all necessary to suppose that he relied on the legend about Edmund Crouchback, which had been officially examined and rejected (Adam of Usk, p. 30). His reference to Henry III may have been occasioned only by the fact that he was himself of the same name, and would come to the throne as Henry IV.

324. That is Oct. 13, the Translation of Edward the Confessor.

341. _augit._ This form is given by all the MSS.

352 ff. _Rot. Parl._ iii. 426.

364 ff. _Rot. Parl._ iii. 425.

368 ff. _Rot. Parl._ iii. 430 ff.

378 ff. _Rot. Parl._ iii. 449 ff.

384 ff. This refers to the fact that the dukes of Aumerle, Surrey, and Exeter, the marquis of Dorset, and the earl of Gloucester, were condemned to lose the titles of duke, marquis, and earl respectively. The case of the earl of Salisbury was reserved for future decision by combat with lord de Morley.

388 f. This seems clearly to imply that Bagot was eventually pardoned, and this conclusion is confirmed by _Rot. Parl._ iii. 458 (overlooked by the author of Bagot’s life in the _Dict. of National Biography_), where there is record of a petition presented by the Commons for the restoration of his lands (Feb. 1401), which seems to have been granted by the king.

394 ff. This is confirmed by Walsingham, ii. 242, and _Annales Henrici IV_, p. 320.

402 f. Holland and Kent are the former dukes of Exeter and Surrey, now earls of Huntingdon and Kent. Spenser is the former earl of Gloucester.

417 f. Kent and Salisbury were put to death by the populace at Cirencester, and Despenser at Bristol. The earl of Huntingdon was captured and irregularly executed in Essex.

420 ff. For the feeling in London cp. _Chronique de la Traïson_, pp. 92, 93.

432 ff. The statement here is not that Richard deliberately starved himself to death on hearing of the failure of the rising and the death of his associates, but that he lost hope and courage and could not eat, ‘quod vix si prandia sumit, Aut si sponte bibit vinum,’ and that he desired the death which came to him. This is not an incredible account, and it is fairly in accordance with the best evidence. Most of the contemporary authorities give starvation as the cause, or one of the causes, of death, and the account of it given in our text agrees with that of Walsingham (ii. 245), _Annales Henrici IV_, p. 330, _Eulog. Hist. contin._ iii. 387. The Monk of Evesham mentions this commonly accepted story, but thinks it more probable that he was starved involuntarily: ‘Aliter tamen dicitur et verius, quod ibidem fame miserabiliter interiit,’ and this is also the assertion of the Percies’ proclamation (Harding’s Chronicle, ed. Ellis, p. 352). Creton says,

‘Apres le roy de ces nouvelles,
Qui ne furent bonnes ne belles,
En son cuer print de courroux tant,
Que depuis celle heure en avant
Oncques ne menga ne ne but,
Ains covint que la mort recut,
Comme ilz dient; maiz vrayement
Je ne croy pas ensement:’

and he proceeds to say that he rather believes that Richard is still alive in prison (_Archaeologia_, xx. p. 408). Adam of Usk (p. 41) says that Richard was brought almost to death by grief and the disappointment of his hopes, but that his death was partly caused by the scantiness of the food supplied to him. The _Chronique de la Traïson_ tells the story about Piers Exton, which was afterwards commonly accepted by historians, but this was certainly not current at the time in England.

462 ff. The epithet ‘pius,’ which Gower attaches to Henry’s name in this passage, means in his mouth ‘merciful,’ and in the margin the ‘pietas’ of the new king is contrasted with the ‘cruelty’ of Richard, the vice to which Gower chiefly attributes his fall. There is no doubt that the execution of Arundel and the murder of Gloucester (or the popular opinion that he had been murdered) produced a very sinister impression, and caused a general feeling of insecurity which was very favourable to Henry’s enterprise. It is true also that Henry showed himself scrupulously moderate at first in his dealings with political opponents. Gower expresses the state of things pretty accurately, when he says below:

‘R. proceres odit et eorum predia rodit,
H. fouet, heredesque suas restaurat in edes;
R. regnum vastat vindex et in omnibus astat,
Mulset terrorem pius H., que reducit amorem.’

486. This is a perilously near approach to the Wycliffite doctrine.

REX CELI ETC. (p. 343)

This piece is here connected by its heading with the _Cronica Tripertita_, but it occurs also in the Glasgow MS. independently and in the Trentham MS. as a sequel to the poem _In Praise of Peace_, with the following in place of the present heading, ‘Explicit carmen de pacis commendacione.... Et nunc sequitur epistola, in qua idem Iohannes pro statu et salute dicti domini sui apud altissimum deuocius exorat.’ The poem itself is an adaptation of the original version of _Vox Clamantis_, vi. cap. 18: see vol. iii. p. 554.

H. AQUILE PULLUS ETC. (p. 344)

The word ‘Prophecia’ in the margin seems to be intended to recall the supposed prophecy of Merlin about the ‘filius (or pullus) aquilae’ (_Archaeol._ xx. p. 257, Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, p. 133).

These four lines immediately follow the _Cronica Tripertita_ in the Glasgow and Hatton MSS., and are themselves followed by two quotations from the Psalms (lxxxviii. 23, xl. 3):

‘Nichil proficiet inimicus in eo, et filius iniquitatis non apponet nocere ei.’

‘Dominus conseruet eum, et viuificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat cum in animam inimicorum eius.’

In the Trentham MS. we have the lines ‘H. aquile pullus,’ and the above quotations, subjoined to the first eight lines of ‘O recolende,’ as part of the dedication of the _Cinkante Balades_: see vol. i. p. 336.

1. _aquile pullus_: Henry is called so because his father was named John and used the eagle as one of his cognisances: cp. Adam of Usk, p. 24, ‘pullus aquile, quia filius Iohannis.’ The reference is to a prophecy, one form of which is quoted by the editor of Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, p. 133. For the use of the eagle by John of Gaunt see Sandford’s _Genealogical History_, p. 249.

2. _colla._ The reading of S may be supported by reference to _Vox Clamantis_, vi. 876, where our author in borrowing from the _Aurora_ substitutes ‘bella’ for ‘corda’ or ‘colla.’

3. _aquile ... oleum_: this is the oil produced for Henry’s coronation, which was said to have been miraculously delivered to Thomas à Becket in a vial enclosed within an eagle of gold, and deposited by him in the church of St. Gregory at Poitiers. It was said to have been brought to England by Henry, first duke of Lancaster, and to have been delivered by him to the Black Prince. Thus it came into the possession of Richard II, who is said to have worn it constantly about his neck. He had desired to be re-anointed with this oil, but archbishop Arundel had refused to perform the ceremony (_Annales Henrici IV_, pp. 297-300, _Eulog. Hist. contin._ iii. 380).

O RECOLENDE, ETC. (p. 345)

The first eight lines of this appear in the Trentham MS. in combination with ‘H. aquile pullus’ as part of the dedication of the _Cinkante Balades_.

16 ff. For ‘pietas,’ ‘pius,’ see note on _Cronica Tripertita_, iii. 462.

CARMEN SUPER MULTIPLICI VICIORUM PESTILENCIA (p. 346)

‘Putruerunt et corrupte sunt,’ &c. This is in fact a quotation from the Psalms, ‘Putruerunt et corruptae sunt cicatrices meae a facie insipientiae meae,’ xxxvii. 6. (xxxviii. 5).

32. _quasi Iouiniani._ Already in the _Vox Clamantis_ we have had reference to the ‘new Jovinian’ who is a sower of heresy (vi. 1267), and the person meant is no doubt Wycliffe. Jovinian, the opponent of Jerome on the marriage question, is taken as a type of the ecclesiastic of lax principles. Milman calls Jovinian and Vigilantius ‘premature Protestants’ (_History of Christianity_, Bk. III. ch. iv).

36. _sub grossa lana_: an allusion perhaps to the simple russet garb of Wycliffe’s poor priests.

52 ff. Cp. _Vox Clamantis_, ii. 437 ff., whence many of these lines are taken, e.g. 54-57, 60-77.

54. _mortis ymago_: that is, the mortal creature.

86. ‘time’ was probably written originally for ‘stude’ in SCH, as well as in F, but it was perceived perhaps that ‘reuereri,’ which was required for the rhyme, would not stand as an imperative. Similarly in line 88 ‘Que fantasias aliter tibi dant’ stood no doubt originally in SCH, and was altered for grammatical reasons.

181 f. This couplet is repeated from _Vox Clamantis_, vi. 861 f.

190. _quam prius_, for ‘prius quam,’ as frequently: cp. ll. 202, 292.

199. This line is from Ovid, _Metam._ vii. 826, ‘Credula res amor est,’ &c., and is quite without sense as it stands here: cp. _Vox Clamantis_, v. 165.

203 f. 1 Cor. vi. 18.

246 ff. Cp. _Vox Clamantis_, vi. 445 ff.

250. _semel nisi_, i.e. ‘once only’ for ‘non nisi semel’: cp. _Vox Clamantis_, iii. 22.

312. _bis deno Ricardi regis in anno._ The twentieth year of Richard II is from June 22, 1396 to the same date of 1397. The arrests of Arundel and Gloucester took place in the first few days of the twenty-first year.

DE LUCIS SCRUTINIO (p. 355)

The Ecton MS. (E) gives a different form of the marginal notes, as follows: 6. Nota de luce prelatorum et curatorum. 18. Nota de luce professorum. 30. Nota de luce regum. 44. Nota de luce procerum. 51. Nota de luce militum. 58. Nota de luce legistarum et causidicorum. 67. Nota de luce mercatorum. 79. Nota de luce vulgari in patria. 89. Nota quod Iohannes Gower auctor huius libri hic in fine tenebras deplangens pro luce optinenda deum exorat.

25 ff. See _Praise of Peace_, 225 ff.

64 f. Cp. _Vox Clamantis_, v. 703.

91 ff. The language is of course figurative: we must not assume that the author is referring to any physical blindness.

ECCE PATET TENSUS ETC. (p. 358)

This piece is found in the Trentham MS. f. 33 v^o, following the _Cinkante Balades_. It is probably imperfect at the end, the manuscript having lost the next leaf.

25. _que naturatur_, &c., ‘which is irresistibly disposed to that which is unlawful.’ This seems to be the meaning, but it is awkwardly expressed.

EST AMOR ETC. (p. 359)

This piece occurs also in combination with the _Traitié_: see vol. i. p. 392. For the substance of it cp. _Vox Clamantis_, v. 53 ff.

QUIA VNUSQUISQUE ETC. (p. 360)

The form given by G is practically identical with that of the Fairfax MS. That of the text, as given by SCH, varies from it in the first paragraph, where it adopts the wording found in the second recension copies, BTA. See vol. iii. pp. 479 and 550.

10. The word ‘meditantis’ is written over an erasure in G.

11 ff. This paragraph, as finally rewritten, seems intended to include the _Cronica Tripertita_ as a sequel to the _Vox Clamantis_: cp. p. 313, where in the note which connects the two works language is used very similar to that which we have here. The author in his retrospective view of Richard’s reign has brought himself to feel that the earlier calamities were a divine warning, by the neglect of which the later evils and the final catastrophe had been brought about. It has already been pointed out (vol. iii. p. 550) that in the Fairfax MS. this account of the author’s books is completely separated from the text of the _Confessio Amantis_ and is written in a later hand, the same in fact which we have here in the All Souls MS.

ENEIDOS BUCOLIS ETC. (p. 361)

These lines, which Gower says were kindly sent to him by ‘a certain philosopher’ (not ‘quidam Philippus,’ as printed by the Roxburghe editor) on the completion of his three books, are found also at the end of the Fairfax MS. The author is probably the same as that of the four lines ‘Quam cinxere freta,’ &c., appended to the _Confessio Amantis_, which are called ‘Epistola super huius opusculi sui complementum Iohanni Gower a quodam philosopho transmissa.’ I have ventured on the conjecture that this philosopher was in fact Ralph Strode, whom Chaucer couples with Gower in the last stanza of _Troilus_ with the epithet ‘philosophical,’ and of whom we know by tradition that he wrote elegiac verse.