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.’