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 nullus
Scandet, dum mundi rebus onustus erit.’
357. _De Vita Monachorum_, p. 190.
359-372. Most of these lines are borrowed with slight alterations from
_De 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 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 word _comes_ receives its beginning not from _vice_ but from
_vicium_.’ 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 the _Carmen super
multiplici viciorum Pestilencia_, under the head of ‘Avarice’ (246 ff.),
‘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?’
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.