STORY OF PRINCE HENRY AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE. -- FIRST FOUND IN THE
WORK OF SIR THOMAS ELYOT, PUBLISHED NEARLY A CENTURY AND A HALF
SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE SUPPOSED TRANSACTION. -- SIR JOHN HAWKINS HALL --
HUME. -- NO ALLUSION TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE EARLY CHRONICLERS. --
DISPUTE AS TO THE JUDGE. -- VARIOUS CLAIMANTS OF THE DISTINCTION. --
GASCOYNE -- HANKFORD -- HODY -- MARKHAM. -- SOME INTERESTING
PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO GASCOYNE, LATELY DISCOVERED AND VERIFIED.
-- IMPROBABILITY OF THE ENTIRE STORY.
In a little work, not long since published, intended to interest the
rising generation in the history of their own country, the preface
assigns as the author's reason for not coming down later than the
Revolution of 1689, "that, from that period, history becomes too
distinct and important to be trifled with." The doctrine involved in
the position, which is implied here, _that the previous history of our
country may be trifled with_, is so dangerous to the cause of truth,
that we may well believe the sentiment to have fallen from the pen of
the author unadvisedly. It is, however, unhappily a principle on which
too many, in works of far higher stamp and graver moment, (p. 359)
have justified themselves in substituting their own theories, and
hypotheses, and descriptive scenes, for the unbending strictness of
fact, thus sapping the foundation of all confidence in history. It is
not the poet only, and the fascinating author of historical romances,
who have thus "trifled with history;" our annalists and chroniclers,
our lawyers and moralists, often, no doubt unwittingly, certainly
unscrupulously, have countenanced and aided the same pernicious
practice. It is frequently curious and amusing to trace the various
successive gradations, beginning with surmise, and proceeding through
probability onward to positive assertion, each writer borrowing from
his predecessor; and then in turn, from his own filling-up of the
outline, furnishing somewhat more for another, who supplies at length
the whole historical portrait, complete in all its form and colouring.
Had the author above referred to not taken to himself practically in
the body of his work the indulgence which his latitudinarian principle
recognizes in the preface, he would not have so distorted facts in his
"story of Madcap Harry and the Old Judge," for the purpose of making a
pretty consistent tale,--consistent with itself, but not with the
truth of history,--to amuse children in their earliest days, at the
risk of misleading them, and giving them a wrong bias through their
lives.
In examining the alleged fact of Henry's violence and insults
exhibited in a court of justice, there is much greater (p. 360)
difficulty than may generally be supposed, in consequence of the
entire silence of all contemporary annalists and chroniclers. Not one
word occurs asserting it; no allusion to the circumstance whatever is
found previously to the reign of Henry VIII, nearly a century and a
half after Henry V.'s accession. Hume[325] asserts it on the authority
of Hall; and Hall has exaggerated the alleged facts most egregiously,
and most unjustifiably. Whether the fact took place, and, if it did,
what were the time, the place, and the circumstances, the reader must
judge for himself. The present treatise professes only to bring
together the evidences on all sides fairly.
[Footnote 325: Hume is no authority on any disputed
point. An anecdote, of the accuracy of which the
Author has no doubt, throws a strong suspicion on
the work of that writer, and marks it as a history
on which the student can place no dependence. Hume
made application at one of the public offices of
State Records for permission to examine its
treasures. Not only was leave granted, but every
facility was afforded, and the documents bearing
upon the subject immediately in hand were selected
and placed in a room for his exclusive use. He
never came. Shortly after his work appeared: and,
on one of the officers expressing his surprise and
regret that he had not paid his promised visit,
Hume said, "I find it far more easy to consult
printed works, than to spend my time on
manuscripts." No wonder Hume's England is a work of
no authority.]
It has been already stated that no historian or chronicler, (whose
work is now in existence and known,) for nearly one hundred and fifty
years, has ever alluded to the transaction. The first writer in (p. 361)
whom it is found is Sir Thomas Elliott (or Elyot), who, in a work
called The Governour, dedicated to Henry VIII. about the year 1534,
thus particularizes the occurrence. Elyot gives no reference to his
authority.
"The most renowned Prince, King Henry V. late King of England, during
the life of his father, was noted to be fierce and of wanton courage.
It happened that one of his servants, whom he well favoured, was, for
felony by him committed, arraigned at the King's Bench. Whereof the
Prince being advertised, and incensed by light persons about him, in
furious rage came hastily to the bar, where his servant stood as a
prisoner, and commanded him to be ungyved and set at liberty: whereat
all men were abashed, reserved [except] the Chief Justice, who humbly
exhorted the Prince to be contented that his servant might be ordered
according to the ancient laws of this realm; or, if he would have him
saved from the rigour of the laws, that he should obtain, if he might,
from the King his father his gracious pardon, whereby no law or
justice should be derogate. With which answer the Prince nothing
appeased, but rather more inflamed, endeavoured himself to take away
his servant. The Judge, considering the perilous example and
inconvenience that might thereby issue, with a valiant spirit and
courage commanded the Prince upon his allegiance to leave the prisoner
and depart his way. With which commandment the Prince being set (p. 362)
all in a fury, all chafed and in a terrible manner came up to the
place of judgment, men thinking that he would have slain the Judge, or
have done to him some damage; but the Judge, sitting still without
moving, declaring the majesty of the King's place of judgment, and
with an assured and bold countenance, had to the Prince these words
following: 'Sir, remember yourself: I keep here the place of the King
your sovereign lord and father, to whom ye owe double obedience;
wherefore eftsoons in his name I charge you desist of your wilfulness
and unlawful enterprise, and from henceforth give good example to
those which hereafter shall be your proper subjects. And now, for your
contempt and disobedience, go you to the prison of the King's Bench,
whereunto I commit you; and remain ye there prisoner until the
pleasure of the King your father be further known.' With which words
being abashed, and also wondering at the marvellous gravity of that
worshipful Justice, the noble Prince laying his weapon apart, doing
reverence, departed; and went to the King's Bench, as he was
commanded. Whereat his servants disdaining, came and showed the King
all the whole affair. Whereat he awhile studying, after as a man all
ravished with gladness, holding his hands and eyes up towards heaven
abraided, saying with a loud voice, 'O merciful God, how much am I
above other men bound to your infinite goodness, specially that (p. 363)
ye have given me a Judge who feareth not to minister justice, and
also a son who can suffer semblably, and obey justice!'"
Sir John Hawkins,[326] when he cites this passage as evidence of an
ebullition of wanton insolence and unrestrained impetuosity, in
illustration of the character of Henry, to whom he ascribes the
unjustifiable suppression of an act of parliament, lays himself open
to blame in more points than one. In the first place, he ought not, as
regards the suppression of an act of parliament, to have charged upon
Henry, as a self-willed act, what, to say the very least, was equally
the act of the whole Privy Council; and then he ought not to have
endeavoured to brand him with disgrace on the testimony of a witness
who wrote nearly a century and a half after the asserted event.
[Footnote 326: Pleas of the crown.]
Hall, who wrote only at the commencement of the reign of Edward VI,
(the first edition of his work having appeared in 1548,) thus states
the charge against Henry:
"For imprisonment of one[327] of his wanton mates and unthrifty
playfaires, he strake the Chief Justice with his fist on his face; for
which offence he was not only committed to streight prison, but also
of his father put out of the Privy Council and banished the (p. 364)
court, and his brother Thomas Duke of Clarence elected president of
the King's counsail, to his great displeasure and open reproach."
[Footnote 327: Shakspeare represents Henry as
having given the Chief Justice the blow some time
before the expedition against the Archbishop of
York.--2 Hen. IV. act i.]
Perhaps it might be argued without unfairness, that the great
variation and discrepancy in the traditions respecting this affair in
the Prince's life would induce us to believe that, at all events,
something of the kind actually took place; that, without some
foundation in real fact, so extraordinary a transaction could never
have been invented; that, whatever difficulty we may find in filling
up the outline, the broad reality of an insolent and violent bearing
shown by the Prince to a Judge on the bench ought to be admitted; and
that any variation as to the person of the Judge, or the court over
which he presided, or the time at which the incident might have taken
place, or the degree of insult and personal violence exhibited, is
unessential, and proves only the inaccuracy in detail of various
accounts, all of which combine, independently of those minute
circumstances, to establish the main point. To this argument it might
also be added, that the very circumstance of an inspection of original
documents presenting names of real living persons, identically the
same with those which Shakspeare has given to the minor heroes of his
drama, (such as Bardolf, Pistol, &c.) intimates a knowledge on his
part of the transactions of those times which entitles him to a higher
degree of credit, as seeming to imply that he might have had (p. 365)
recourse to documents which are now lost:
"Sir, Here comes the nobleman who committed the
Prince for striking him about BARDOLF."
2 HEN. IV. act. i.
On the other side, it might with equal, perhaps with greater fairness
be argued, that this is not one of those cases in which various
independent authorities bear separate testimony to one important fact;
whilst minor discrepancies as to time and place, and persons and
circumstances, tend only to confirm the testimony, placing the
authority above suspicion, and exempting the case from all idea of
conspiring witnesses. Such arguments are then only sound when the
witnesses are contemporary with the fact, or live soon after its
alleged date. But when chroniclers and biographers, who write
immediately of the times and of the life of the person charged,
recording circumstances far less important and characteristic, omit
all mention whatever of an event which must have been notorious to
all,--but of which no trace whatever can be found, nor any allusion
directly or indirectly to it is discovered, for more than a century
and a quarter after the death of the accused,--the investigator
appears to be justified in requiring some auxiliary evidence; at all
events, such discrepancies cease to contribute the alleged aid to the
establishment of the main fact. When, for example, the Chronicle of
London records an affray in East-Cheap between the townsmen and (p. 366)
the Princes,[328] mentioning by name Thomas and John, and registers
the journeys of John of Gaunt, the execution of Rhys Duy, the
Welshman, with unnumbered events, far less important and notorious
than must have been the commitment to prison of the heir-apparent of
the throne, and on that circumstance is altogether silent, not having
the slightest allusion to anything of the kind; and when those
biographers who lived and wrote nearest to the time (such as Elmham,
Livius, Otterbourne, Hardyng, Walsingham, all of whom speak more or
less strongly of his irregularities and youthful vices, and subsequent
reformation,) never allude to any story of the sort, and apparently
had no knowledge even of any tradition respecting it; the charge
either of partiality or incredulity does not seem to lie at the door
of any one who might doubt the reality of the whole. It is not as
though the deed were regarded as having fixed an indelible stain on
the Prince's memory, and therefore his partial biographers would
gladly have buried it in oblivion. Sir Thomas Elyot (and his (p. 367)
seems to have been the general opinion) appears to have considered the
issue of the transaction as far more redounding to the Prince's
honour, than its progress stamped him with disgrace; and he attracts
the reader's especial attention to it by a marginal note: "A good
Judge, a good Prince, a good King." It is curious to observe the
progress of this story. Sir Thomas Elyot, the first in point of time
who states it, makes no mention either "of the blow on the Chief
Justice's face with his fist," or the removal of the Prince from the
council, and the substitution of his brother. Hall, on whom Hume
builds, adds both those facts; and then Hume in his turn proceeds to
affirm that his father, during the _latter years_ of his life, had
excluded him _from all share in public business_. Had Hume examined
the original documents for himself, instead of building only upon
"printed accounts" of later date by more than a century, he could not
have fallen into this error. But a refutation of this mistake, only
incidental to our present question, belonged to another part of this
work, where it may be found in its chronological order. To the
ancillary argument drawn from the names of Henry's supposed reckless
companions in Shakspeare occurring in the records of real history, it
may be answered, that if that fact proved anything, it proves too
much. If, indeed, men of those names were found in Henry's company, as
Prince of Wales, either in London, in Wales, or in Calais, and were
afterwards lost sight of, or seen only in obscurity and (p. 368)
separate from him, that fact might be regarded as confirmatory of the
popular tradition. But the reality is otherwise. The names of Pistol
and Bardolf[329] are found among those who accompanied the King in his
careers of victory in France: and in the very year before Henry's
death (a fact hitherto unnoticed by historians) William Bardolf was
one of the Barons of the Cinque Ports, and Lieutenant of Calais; a
post which he appears to have held for some years with great credit,
and enjoying the royal favour and confidence. William Bardolf had been
employed ten years before by Henry IV, as one of the commissioners
appointed to treat with the Duke of Burgundy.[330]
[Footnote 328: The Chronicle of London, twice
within a very brief space, records such a
disturbance as the Chief Justice in Shakspeare is
represented to have hastened "to stint;" but in
each case, by adding the names of the King's sons,
rescues Henry from all share in the affray.
"In this year (the 11th, 1410,) was a fray made in
East-Cheap by the King's sons, Thomas and John,
with the men of the town."
"This year, (the 12th, 1411,) on St. Peter's even,
(June 28,) was a great debate in Bridge Street,
between the Lord Thomas's men and the men of
London."]
[Footnote 329: The name of John Fastolfe, Esq.
occurs in the muster rolls of Henry on his first
expedition to France. But it must be remembered
that not Falstaff, but Sir John Oldcastle, was made
the buffoon on the stage at first, and continued so
for many years, till the offence which it gave led
to the substitution of Falstaff. "Stage poets,"
says Fuller, "have themselves been very bold with,
and others very merry at, the memory of Sir John
Oldcastle; whom they have fancied a boon companion,
a jovial roister, and yet a coward to boot,
contrary to the credit of all chronicles, owning
him a martial man of merit. The best is, Sir John
Falstaff hath relieved the memory of Sir John
Oldcastle, and of late is substituted buffoon in
his place.--Church History, iv. 38."]
[Footnote 330: See Pell Rolls (Issue), 8 Henry V,
March 11; 9 Henry V, April 1. See also Acts of
Privy Council, vol. ii. pp. 5, 344, &c.]
It is a curious fact, that the magnanimous conduct of the Judge,
tending so much to his renown, has induced various families and
biographers to challenge the credit of the affair for their (p. 369)
friends. No less than four claimants require us to examine their
pretensions. Shakspeare and the world at large have consented to give
the honour to Gascoyne; whilst the friends of Markham, Hankford, and
Hody, have each in their turn disputed the palm with him. Of these
four claimants two are reckoned among the "worthies of Devon." With
regard to Sir John Hody, "to whom some of our countrymen (says Mr.
Prince) would ascribe the honour," we need only add the sentence with
which this antiquary sets aside his claim,--"But this cannot be, for
that he was not a judge until thirty years afterwards."
The claims of Hankford to this distinction rest on the authority of
Risdon, the Devon antiquary, who began his work in 1605, and did not
finish it till 1630. Mr. Prince would add the authority of Baker's
Chronicle; but, were Baker's authority of any value, he does not
mention the name of the Judge; and, by specifying that the transaction
took place at the _King's Bench_ bar, and that the Prince was
committed to the _Fleet_, he shows that no dependence is to be placed
on his authority. If it took place at the King's Bench bar, the King's
Bench prison would have received the royal culprit; and if, as Risdon
says, the Judge's sentence was, "I command you, prisoner, to the
King's Bench," not Hankford, but Gascoyne, was the Judge. Hankford was
not appointed to the King's Bench before March 29th, 1 Henry V, (p. 370)
some days after the supposed culprit had ascended the throne.[331]
[Footnote 331: There is so much of fable mingled
with the traditionary biography of this "Devonshire
worthy," that most persons probably will dismiss
the claim altogether. He became weary of his life,
and, being determined to rid himself from the
direful apprehensions of dangerous approaching
evils, he adopted this strange mode of suicide:
having given strict orders to his keeper to shoot
any person at night who would not stand when
challenged, he threw himself into the keeper's way,
and was shot dead upon the spot. "This story (says
the author) is authenticated by several writers,
and the constant tradition of the neighbourhood;
and I myself have been shown the rotten stump of an
old oak under which he is said to have fallen." But
as to the cause which drove him to this rash act
the same writers vary, and tradition is strangely
diversified. One author says, that "on the
deposition of Richard II, who had made him a judge,
he was so terrified by the sight of infinite
executions and bloody assassinations, which caused
him continual agonies, that, upon apprehension what
his own fate might be, he fell into that melancholy
which hastened his end." His re-appointment to the
office on September 30, 1401, by Henry IV, would
have relieved him from these apprehensions. Others
say, that, "having committed the Prince to prison
in his younger days, he was afraid that, on the
sceptre of justice falling into his hands, that
royal culprit would take a too severe revenge
thereof; and this filled him with such insuperable
melancholy, that he was driven to the desperate act
of self-murder." But his appointment to succeed
Gascoyne as Chief Justice of the King's Bench,
March 29, 1413, must have conquered that
melancholy; and he discharged that office through
the whole of Henry V.'s reign, and through one year
of Henry VI, after which he died, December 20,
1422.]
The claim of Judge Markham, it is presumed, is supported only by the
testimony of an ancient manuscript preserved in his family. He was
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 20 Richard II. to 9 (p. 371)
Henry IV.[332] Some colour, however, is given to this claim by the
vague tradition that Prince Henry was committed to the Fleet; to which
prison alone the Judges of the Common Pleas commit their prisoners.
But if he was the Judge who committed the Prince, and if he died in
the 9th of Henry IV,[333] the allegation that the Prince was then
dismissed from the council falls to the ground; for at that time, and
long after, he seems to have been in the very zenith of his power.
[Footnote 332: In a manuscript, a copy of which was
shown to a gentleman who gave the Author the
information, belonging to the Markhams, an ancient
family of Nottinghamshire, of about the date of
Queen Elizabeth, the honour is claimed for Markham:
and in an old play, which turns the whole into
broad farce, (probably anterior to Shakspeare,) the
Judge is made to commit the Prince to the Fleet.]
[Footnote 333: Or even if he died, as some say, on
St. Sylvester's Day, (December 30,) 1409.]
If, then, Prince Henry was ever guilty of the gross insult and
violence in a court of justice, and the firm, intrepid Judge, to
uphold and vindicate the majesty of the law, committed him to prison
for the offence, the probabilities preponderate in favour of Gascoyne
having been the individual. But this supposition also is not free from
difficulties. He was made Chief Justice of the King's Bench[334] 15th
November, 2 Henry IV. (1401.) And of his intrepidity[335] in the
discharge of that office, we have already mentioned an especial (p. 372)
instance at the death of Archbishop Scrope, if what Clemens
Maydestone, a contemporary, says, be true. Henry IV, who had the
person of the Archbishop in his power, called upon Gascoyne, who was
with him, to pass on his prisoner the sentence of death; but, at the
risk of losing the King's favour and his own appointment, he
positively refused, on the ground of its illegality. The Archbishop,
however, was condemned to be beheaded by one Fulthorp, (or, as some
say, Fulford,) afterwards a judge, as we have stated in its place.
Gascoyne was subsequently sent with Lord Ross, by the council, to the
north, as one of those in whom the King was known to have especial
confidence, as soon as the news arrived in London of Lord Bardolf's
hostile movement; and we find him still continued in the office of
Chief Justice, apparently without having incurred the King's
displeasure.
[Footnote 334: Pat. 2 Henry IV. p. 1. m. 28.]
[Footnote 335: How far the high esteem in which the
memory of Judge Gascoyne has been held may be owing
to the tradition concerning Henry of Monmouth, we
need not inquire. His name has constantly been held
in great honour. Judge Denison, by his own especial
desire, was buried close to the grave of Gascoyne.]
No adage is more sound than that which affirms a little learning to be
a dangerous thing. More than fifty years ago, the Gentleman's
Magazine[336] triumphantly maintained, that, at all events, Shakspeare
had deviated from history in bringing Henry V. and Gascoyne (p. 373)
together after the Prince's accession, because Gascoyne died in the
life-time of Henry IV. This view has generally been acquiesced in, and
the powerfully delineated scene of our great dramatist has been
pronounced altogether the groundless fiction of an event which could
not by possibility have transpired. The whole question turns upon the
date of Gascoyne's death. He was buried in Harewood Church in
Yorkshire; and Fuller gives the following as his monumental
inscription: "Gulielmus Gascoyne, Die Dominica, 17º Dec^ris. 1412, 14
H. IV."--"William Gascoyne [died] on Sunday, December 17th, 1412, in
the fourteenth year of Henry IV." If this were correct, there would be
an end of the question; but the brass was torn from the tomb during
the civil wars, and the copy cannot be verified. The inscription,
however, as given by Fuller, is at all events self-contradictory. The
17th of December fell on a Saturday, not on a Sunday, in 1412.
[Footnote 336: The Magazine is followed in its
erroneous views by subsequent writers.]
The process of the argument, and the accession of new evidence by
which we are now at length enabled to set this point at rest, are very
curious. The Author, indeed, confesses himself to have been one of
those who were induced, by the documents then before them, to believe
that Judge Gascoyne died on Sunday, December 17, 1413, somewhat more
than half a year after Henry V.'s accession; and although the late
discovery of the Judge's last Will proves that the argument (p. 374)
was then sound only so far as it established the fact that he died
after Henry's accession, and was unsound in fixing the period of his
death at so early a period as December 1413; yet the statement of that
argument may perhaps not be altogether uninteresting, whilst it may
suggest a valuable caution as to the jealous vigilance with which
circumstantial evidence should always be sifted before the conclusions
built upon it be admitted.
It was then a fact upon record, that Chief Justice Gascoyne was
summoned, on the 22nd March 1413, (the very day after Henry's
accession,) to attend the parliament in the May following. When the
parliament met, Gascoyne's name does not appear among those who were
present; whilst Hankford, his successor, is appointed Trier of
Petitions in the room of Gascoyne, and, in the case of a writ of
error, brings up as Chief Justice the record from the King's Bench.
Hankford's appointment as Chief Justice bears date March 29th, 1413;
and he is summoned to attend parliament as Chief Justice in the
December following.[337] In the Pell Rolls a payment is recorded, July
7, 1413, of his half-year's fee to "William Gascoyne, late Chief (p. 375)
Justice of Lord Henry the King's father." The inference from these
facts was undoubtedly conclusive: first, that Gascoyne's death was
erroneously referred to December 1412; secondly, that he was alive and
Chief Justice when Henry V. came to the throne; thirdly, that he
ceased to be Chief Justice within eight days of Henry's accession,
somewhere between March 22, and March 29, 1413. It was merely matter
of conjecture whether he was too ill to discharge the duties of his
station, and resigned; or what other probable cause of his removal
existed. The conversation, at all events, which Shakspeare records,
might _possibly_ have taken place; though it is a fact, scarcely
reconcilable with it, that Henry V. never did renew Gascoyne's
appointment,--a proceeding almost invariably adopted on the demise of
a sovereign by his successor. Henry V. might have offered to commit
into his hand "the unstained sword that he was wont to bear:"--within
eight days after Henry IV. had ceased to breathe, Gascoyne had no
longer in his hand the staff of justice.
[Footnote 337: Dugdale is unquestionably mistaken,
and the many authors who follow him, in fixing
Hankford's appointment to January 29, 1 Hen. V.
1414. He refers for his authority to "Patent 1 Hen.
V. m. 33;" but no entry of the kind is found
there.]
The reason which then induced the persons who argued on these facts to
suppose that Fuller had by mistake adopted the date of the year 1412
instead of 1413 was this:--It was very improbable that the words "Die
Dominica" should have been introduced by the copyist, if they were not
really on the tomb. Hence it was inferred that he died on a Sunday.
Now December 17th was on a Sunday in the following year, (p. 376)
1413; and, since the date was in Roman letters, it was thought very
probable that the last I had been obliterated in MCCCCXIII. The words,
indeed, "14th Henry IV," were also quoted by Fuller: but it was
unquestionably more credible that those words formed a marginal note
in the reporter's manuscript, and were mere surplusages, than that
they should have been allowed a place in the brass scroll of a
monument.
Such was the state of our knowledge, and such was the course of our
reasoning as to the time of Gascoyne's decease, till within a very
short period of the publication of this work. A document, however, has
been very lately brought to light on this subject, which supersedes
that statement altogether; setting the whole argument in a new point
of view, and reading a plain lesson on the care and circumspection
with which inferences, however plausible, as to dates and facts,
should be admitted. In the present instance, indeed, the conclusion to
which we had before arrived, on the question of Gascoyne having
survived Henry IV, remains unassailable, or rather, is only still
further removed from the possibility of historical doubt; and the
whole argument on the vast improbability of Prince Henry having ever
offered an insult to the Chief Justice, or of his ever having been
committed to prison for any offence of the kind, remains at least
equally strong as before. Most persons, perhaps, may consider the
degree of improbability to have become still greater. Be this (p. 377)
as it may, the facts now placed beyond further controversy as to
Gascoyne's death are these. In the Registry of the Court of York the
last Will and testament of William Gascoyne has been found recorded.
It bears date on the Friday after St. Lucy's Day in the year 1419; and
it was proved on the 23rd of December following. In the year 1419, St.
Lucy's Day, December 13, was on a Wednesday. The Will was consequently
made on Friday the 15th of December, and was proved on the morrow
week, Saturday, December 23rd. In the Will, the testator declares that
he was weak in body; and the strong probability is that he died on the
following Sunday, December 17, 1419.[338] This would accord precisely
with Fuller's representation of the scroll on the tomb, "on the Lord's
Day, December 17." Whilst the facility of mistaking MCCCCXIX for
MCCCCXII, (being the obliteration only of one cross stroke in the last
letter,) is even more remarkable than that of the error which on the
former supposition was thought probable, from the obliteration of the
last letter I in MCCCCXIII.
[Footnote 338: It must be regarded as a very
curious coincidence connected with this argument,
that the 17th of December should have fallen on a
Sunday, both in the year MCCCCXIII, and in
MCCCCXIX, but in no other year between 1402 and
1421.]
* * * * *
The Author has had recourse to every means within his reach to assure
himself of the genuineness of this document, and to ascertain (p. 378)
that the testator was the William Gascoyne[339] who was Chief Justice
of the King's Bench. The result is, that not a shadow of any of the
doubts which he once jealously entertained, remains on the subject;
whilst he gratefully remembers the prompt and satisfactory assistance
rendered him by the present Registrar of York. The document must be
admitted without reserve.
[Footnote 339: The mention in the body of the Will
of the names of his former wife, and of his second
wife then alive, and the record of the Will of that
second wife, who states herself the widow of
William Gascoyne, late Chief Justice, preserved in
the same register, fix the identity of the testator
beyond dispute. The Author was first indebted for a
knowledge of the existence of this document to the
volume called Testamenta Eboracensia, published by
the Surtees Society; though he cannot suppress the
surprise with which he read the comment of the
editors, the chief mistake of which was discovered
in time to be rectified in an "erratum" after the
work had been printed.]
From these now indisputable facts a thought might perhaps not
unnaturally suggest itself to the mind of any one taking only a
general view of the whole subject, that some countenance is here given
to the prevalent notion that Gascoyne had displeased Henry during the
years of his princedom; but that, instead of holding the worthy and
intrepid Judge in higher honour, (as tradition tells,) and rewarding
him for his noble bearing, on the contrary, the King resented the
insult shown to his person, and dismissed him (contrary to the usual
practice) from his high judicial station. A fact,[340] however, (p. 379)
new (it is presumed) to history, enables or rather compels us to
dismiss such a conjecture from our minds. Whatever was the definite
cause of Gascoyne's withdrawal from the bench as Chief Justice of
England; whether his declining health, or an inclination for
retirement and repose after so long[341] and wearisome a discharge of
his arduous duties, or the competency[342] of his fortune, induced him
to draw back at length from the turmoils of public life, and (p. 380)
pass his last days among his own friends and relatives in the privacy
of a country residence; certainly he carried with him when he left his
court, not the resentment and unkindness, but the most friendly
feelings and respect of his new sovereign. By warrant, November 28,
1414, (that is, in the very year after his retirement,) the King
grants to "our dear and well-beloved William Gascoyne an allowance of
four bucks and does out of the forest of Pontefract for the term of
his life."
[Footnote 340: For this fact, and many others, as
well as for most valuable suggestions, and
assistance of various kinds, the Author is indebted
to T. Duffus Hardy, Esq. of the Record Office in
the Tower,--a gentleman who, with a mind admirably
stored with antiquarian knowledge, possesses also
the faculty of applying his stores to the best
advantage in the developement of whatever subject
he undertakes, and the principle also of employing
his knowledge and abilities in the cause of truth.]
[Footnote 341: Gascoyne had been Chief Justice of
the King's Bench more than twelve years,--a portion
of life considerably beyond the average duration of
their office in those high functionaries. Reckoning
either from Hanlow, 1258, in the reign of Henry
III, or from Gascoyne, in 1401, in the reign of
Henry IV, to the present time, the average number
of years through which the Chief Justices of the
King's Bench have retained their seats is below
nine. Through the last century, however, (reckoning
from Lord Hardwick's appointment, in 1733, to Lord
Tenterden's death, in 1832,) the average has risen
to above fourteen years.]
[Footnote 342: He was in a condition to lend the
King money when the exigencies of the state pressed
him hard. Among other creditors, the Pell Rolls
(14th May 1420) record the repayment of a loan to
the executors of William Gascoyne, which was within
half a year of his death.]
* * * * *
The sum of the whole matter as to the historical representations of
Henry's conduct is this:
Before the year 1534, far more than a century after Henry's death, no
allusion whatever is made to any occurrence of the kind in any work,
printed or manuscript, now extant and known. Sir Thomas Elyot, who
mentions it incidentally as an anecdote, combining the merits "of a
good Judge, a good Prince, and a good King," gives no reference to any
authority whatever. Subsequently it is reported in detail by Hall, but
with much exaggeration on Elyot's narrative. It then not only passed
current in our histories, but served as a topic of grave import in our
Prince of tragedians, and of burlesque in the broad farces of later
and perhaps earlier days than his. The biographers of Henry, though
they detail in all their minute particulars many circumstances of his
youth, far less important either to his character, or as facts of
general and national interest, and who lived, some of them, (p. 381)
almost a century nearer the date of the supposed transaction than
Elyot, are to a man silent on the subject; not one of them betraying
the shadow of suspicion that he was even aware of any rumour or vague
tradition of the kind. Such facts as the committal to prison of the
heir-apparent, especially such an heir-apparent as Henry (it is
presumed), must have been notorious through the metropolis and the
whole land, and must have excited a great and general sensation; and
yet the Chronicles, though they often surprise us by their minute
notice of trifling circumstances, do not contain the slightest
intimation that any such affair as this had ever come to the knowledge
of those who kept them. They are silent, and their silence seems
natural.[343]
[Footnote 343: By the kind assistance of those to
whom the state of the records of our courts of
justice is most familiar, the Author has been
enabled to assure himself satisfactorily that they
offer nothing which can throw any light whatever on
the question examined in these pages.]
On the whole, most persons will probably believe that either Gascoyne,
or Hankford, or Hody would upon such evidence, we do not say merely
charge the jury for an acquittal, but would, on perusing the
depositions, have previously recommended the grand inquest to return
"Not a true Bill." Still every reader has the evidence fairly before
him, and must decide for himself!
* * * * *
Should any one be disposed to think that questions of this sort (p. 382)
might well be left undecided, and that the settlement of them is
not worth the trouble and research often required for their thorough
investigation, the Author ventures to suspect that, in the generality
of instances, such reflections originate in an inexperience of the
vast practical moment which facts, the most trifling in themselves,
often carry with them in the investigation of the most important
questions. Doubtless, the wise man will exercise his discretion in not
confounding great things with small; but, on the contrary, in stamping
on every thing its own intrinsic and comparative value. Still, in
great things and small, (though each in its own weight and measure,)
the truth is ever dear for its own sake, and should be for its own
sake pursued. And it must never be forgotten, that one truth, in
itself perhaps too minute and insignificant for its worth to be felt
in the calculation, when probabilities are being estimated, may be a
guiding star to other truths of great value, which, without its
leading, might have remained neglected and unknown. In itself, a false
statement, though generally acquiesced in, may be unimportant; in its
consequences, it may be widely and permanently prejudicial to the
cause of truth. If viewed abstractedly, it might appear like a cloud
in the horizon not larger than a man's hand; but that speck may be the
harbinger of wind and tempest. With regard, indeed, to those natural
appearances in the sky, the most experienced observer can do nothing
towards arresting the progress of the threatened storm; his (p. 383)
foresight can only enable him to provide himself a shelter, or hasten
him on his journey, "that the rain stop him not." In the case of
literary, physical, moral, religious, and historical subjects of
inquiry, (or to whatever department of human knowledge our pursuits
may be directed,) by rectifying the minutest error we may check the
propagation of mischief, and preserve the truth (it may be some
momentous practical truth) in its integrity and brightness.
* * * * *
Connected with the subject of this and the preceding chapter, problems
of very difficult solution present themselves, a full and
comprehensive elucidation of which would involve questions of deep
moral and metaphysical interest with regard to the structure, the
cultivation and training, the associations and habits of the human
mind. Upon the merits of those problems in their various ramifications
the Author has no intention to venture; and probably few persons would
pronounce unhesitatingly how far on the one hand the facts of past
ages (constituting a valuable deposit of especial trust) should be
kept religiously distinct from works of fiction; or on the other hand
how far the field of history itself is legitimate ground for the
imagination in all its excursive ranges to disport upon freely and
fearlessly: in a word, how far the practice is justifiable and
desirable of bending the realities of historical record to (p. 384)
the service of the fancy, and moulding them into the shape best suited
to the writer's purpose in developing his plot, perfecting his
characters, and exciting a more lively interest in his whole design.
Whatever might be the result of such questions fully enucleated, the
Author, with his present views, cannot suffer himself to doubt that
society is infinitely a gainer in possessing the historical dramas of
Shakspeare, and the historical romances of Walter Scott. Instead of
putting the moral and intellectual advantages, the improvement and the
pleasure with which such extraordinary men have enriched their country
and the world in one scale, and jealously weighing them against the
erroneous associations which their exhibition of past events has a
tendency to impart, a philosophical view of the whole case should seem
to encourage us in the full enjoyment of their exquisite treasures;
suggesting, however, at the same time, the salutary caution that we
should never suffer ourselves to be so influenced by the naturalness
and beauty of their poetical creations, as to forego the beneficial
exercise of ascertaining from the safest guides the real facts and
characters of history.
APPENDIX, No. I. (p. 385)
OWYN GLYNDOWR's ABSENCE FROM THE BATTLE OF SHREWSBURY.
Had Owyn Glyndowr joined the army of Hotspur before Henry IV. had
compelled that gallant, but rash and headstrong warrior, to engage in
battle, their united forces might have crushed both the King and Henry
of Monmouth under their overwhelming charge, and crowned the Percies
and Owyn himself with victory; but the reader is reminded that the
question for the more satisfactory solution of which an appeal is made
to the following original documents, is simply this: Did Owyn Glyndowr
wilfully absent himself from the fatal battle of Shrewsbury, leaving
Hotspur and his host to encounter that struggle alone, or are we
compelled to account for the absence of the Welsh chieftain on grounds
which imply no compromise of his valour or his good faith?
The first of the series of documents from which it is presumed that
light is thrown on this subject, is a letter from Richard Kyngeston,
Archdeacon of Hereford, addressed to the King, dated Hereford, Sunday,
July 8, and therefore 1403,--just thirteen days before the battle of
Shrewsbury. It is written in French; but the postscript, added
evidently in vast trepidation, and as if under the sudden fear that he
had not expressed himself strongly enough, is in English. "His
eagerness for the arrival of the King in Wales by forced marches, is
expressed with an earnestness which is almost ridiculous."[344]
[Footnote 344: See Ellis.]
"Our most redoubted and sovereign Lord the King, I recommend (p. 386)
myself[345] humbly to your highness.... From day to day letters
are arriving from Wales, by which you may learn that the whole
country is lost unless you go there as quick as possible.
Be pleased to set forth with all your power, and march as well by
night as by day, for the salvation of those parts. It will be a
great disgrace as well as damage to lose in the beginning of your
reign a country which your ancestors gained, and retained so
long; for people speak very unfavourably. I send the copy of a
letter which came from John Scydmore this morning.... Written in
haste, great haste at Hereford, the 8th[346] day of July.
"Your lowly creature,
"RICHARD KYNGESTON,
"Archdeacon of Hereford.
"And for God's love, my liege Lord, think on yourself and (p. 387)
your estate; or by my troth all is lost else: but, and ye
come yourself, all other will follow after. On Friday last
Carmarthen town was taken and burnt, and the castle yielden by
Rº Wygmor, and the castle Emlyn is yielden; and slain of the
town of Carmarthen more than fifty persons. Written in right
great haste on Sunday, and I cry you mercy, and put me in your
high grace that I write so shortly; for, by my troth that I owe
to you, it is needful."
[Footnote 345: This ecclesiastic was much in the
royal confidence. By a commission dated June 16,
1404, he, as Archdeacon of Hereford, is authorized
to receive the subsidy in the counties of Hereford,
Gloucester, and Warwick, and to dispose of it in
the support of men-at-arms and archers to resist
the Welsh.[345-a] And sums, three years afterwards,
were paid to him out of the exchequer for the
maintenance of soldiers _remaining with him_ in the
parts of Wales for the safeguard of the same. He
seems to have been not only the dispenser of the
money, but the captain of the men. The debt,
however, had probably been due from the crown for a
long time. He was for many years Master of the
Wardrobe to Henry IV; and during his time the
expences of the court appear to have become more
extravagant, and to have led to that remonstrance
and interference of the council and parliament, to
which reference has been made in the body of this
work. Pell Rolls, Issue, 5 May 1407.--Do. Michs.
1409.]
[Footnote 345-a: MS. Donat. 4597.]
[Footnote 346: This letter is the more valuable,
because, though the year is not annexed in words,
the information that he wrote it on Sunday, July 8,
fixes the date to 1403: the next year to which this
date would apply being 1408, four years after
Kyngeston had ceased to be Archdeacon of Hereford;
and far too late for any such apprehension of great
mischief from Glyndowr.]
John Skydmore's letter, dated from the castle of Cerreg Cennen, not
only fixes Owyn Glyndowr at Carmarthen on Thursday, July the 5th; but
acquaints us also with his purpose to proceed thence into
Pembrokeshire, whilst his friends had undertaken to reduce the castles
of Glamorgan. It is addressed to John Fairford, Receiver of Brecknock.
"Worshipful Sir,--I recommend me to you. And forasmuch as I may
not spare no man from this place away from me to certify neither
the King, nor my lord the Prince, of the mischief of these
countries about, nor no man may pass by no way hence, I pray you
that ye certify them how all Carmarthenshire, Kedwelly,
Carnwalthan, and Yskenen be sworn to Owyn yesterday; and he lay
[to nyzt was] last night in the castle of Drosselan with Rees ap
Griffuth. And there I was, and spake with him upon truce, and
prayed of a safe-conduct under his seal to send home my wife and
her mother, and their [mayne] company. And he would none grant
me. And on this day he is about the town of Carmarthen, and there
thinketh to abide till he may have the town and the castle: and
his purpose is thence into Pembrokeshire; for he [halt (p. 388)
him siker] feels quite sure of all the castles and towns in
Kedwelly, Gowerland, and Glamorgan, for the same countries have
undertaken the sieges of them till they be won. Wherefore write
to Sir Hugh Waterton, and to all that ye suppose will take this
matter to heart, that they excite the King hitherwards in all
haste to avenge him on some of his false traitors, the which he
has overmuch cherished, and rescue the towns and castles in the
countries, for I dread full sore there be too few true men in
them. I can no more as now: but pray God help you and us that
think to be true. Written at the castle of Carreg Kennen, the
fifth day of July.
"Yours, JOHN SKYDMORE."[347]
[Footnote 347: The custody of Carreg Kennen
(Karekenny) was granted to John Skydmore, 2 May
1402.]
Two other letters, which internal evidence compels us to assign to
this year,--the first to the 7th of July (two days only after John
Skydmore's), the second to the 11th of the same month,--carry on
Owyn's proceedings with perfect consistency. They were written by the
Constable of Dynevor Castle, and seem to have been addressed to the
Receiver of Brecknock, and by him to have been forwarded to the King's
council. "The first gives us no exalted notion of the Constable's
courage: 'A siege is ordained for the castle I keep, and that is great
peril for me. Written in haste and in dread.' The second informs us of
the extent of force with which Glyndowr was then moving in his
inroads; when threatening the castle of Dynevor, he mustered 8240
(eight thousand and twelve score) spears, such as they were."[348]
[Footnote 348: Ellis.]
The first letter, written on Saturday, July 7, ("the Fest of St.
Thomas the Martir,") he seems to have posted off immediately on the
news reaching Dynevor that Carmarthen had surrendered to Owyn, (p. 389)
without waiting to ascertain the accuracy of the report; for, in
his second letter, he tells us that they had not yet resolved whether
to burn the town or no.
"Dear Friend,--I do you to wit that Owyn Glyndowr, Henry Don,
Rees Duy, Rees ap Gv. ap Llewellyn, Rees Gether, have won the
town of Carmarthen, and Wygmer the Constable had yielded the
castle to Carmarthen; and have burnt the town, and slain more
than fifty men: and they be in purpose to Kedwelly, and a siege
is ordained at the castle I keep, and that is great peril for me,
and all that be with me; for they have made a vow that they will
[al gat] at all events have us dead therein. Wherefore I pray you
not to beguile us, but send to us warning shortly whether we may
have any help or no; and, if help is not coming, that we have an
answer, that we may steal away by night to Brecknock, because we
fail victuals and men [and namlich], especially men. Also Jenkyn
ap Ll. hath yielden up the castle of Emlyn with free will; and
also William Gwyn, and many gentles, are in person with Owyn....
Written at Deynevour, in haste and in dread, in the feast of St.
Thomas the Martyr.[349]
"JENKYN HANARD,
"Constable de Dynevour."
[Footnote 349: This letter was probably written on
Saturday, July 7, 1403,--that is, on the
Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr.]
In this letter the Constable says that Owyn's forces were in purpose
to Kedwelly: the second letter refers to Owyn's purpose having been
altered by the formidable approach of the Baron of Carew towards St.
Clare. This was probably on Monday, July 9, the third day after the
surrender of Carmarthen. The Tuesday night he slept at Locharn
(Laugharne). Through the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the (p. 390)
little garrison of Dynevor were negociating with him; for he was
resolved to win that castle, and to make it his head-quarters. On that
Wednesday, the Constable tells us, that Owyn intended, should he come
to terms with the Baron of Carew, to return to Carmarthen for his
share of the spoil, and to determine on the utter destruction of the
town, or its preservation. By a letter sent from the Mayor and
burgesses of Caerleon to the Mayor and burgesses of Monmouth,--the
propriety of referring which to this very year can scarcely be
questioned,--we are informed that the Baron of Carew was not so easily
tempted from his allegiance as some other "false traitors" in that
district; and that he defeated and put to the sword a division of Owyn
Glyndowr's army on the 12th of July,--the very day probably after the
date of the Constable's last letter. This fact, when admitted,
increases in importance; because it proves that as late, at least, as
July 12th, Owyn Glyndowr, though generally successful in that
campaign, was not without a formidable enemy there; and therefore by
no means at liberty to quit the country at a moment's warning, or to
leave his adherents without the protection of his forces and his own
presence.
* * * * *
Copy of the second letter from the Constable of Dynevor:
"Dear Friend,--I do you to wit that Owyn was in purpose to
Kedwelly, and the Baron of Carew was coming with a great retinue
towards St. Clare, and so Owyn changed his purpose, and rode to
meet the Baron; and that night he lodged at St. Clare, and
destroyed all the country about. And on Tuesday they were at
treaties all day, and that night he lodged him at the town of
Locharn, six miles out of the town of Carmarthen. The intention
is, if the Baron and he accord in treaty, then he turneth again
to Carmarthen for his part of the good, and Rees Duy[350] (p. 391)
his part. And many of the great masters stand yet in the castle
of Carmarthen; for they have not yet made their ordinance
whether the castle and town shall be burnt or no; and therefore,
if there is any help coming, haste them all haste towards us, for
every house is full about us of their poultry, and yet wine and
honey enough in the country, and wheat and beans, and all manner
of victuals. And we of the castle of Dynevor had treaties with
him on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday; and now he will ordain for
us to leave that castle, [for ther a castyth to ben y serkled
thince,] for that was the chief place in old time. And Owyn's
muster on Monday was eight thousand and twelve score spears, such
as they were. Other tidings I not now; but God of Heaven send you
and us from all enemies! Written at Dynevor this Wednesday in
haste."
[Footnote 350: This partisan of Owyn, who is here
said to have gone to share with him in the spoil of
Carmarthen, partook even in greater bitterness of
his cup of affliction. He was taken prisoner and
beheaded. The Chronicle of London asserts that his
quarters were salted, and sent to different parts
of the kingdom; but this assertion, in an affair of
little importance, shows how small reliance can be
placed on anonymous records. The King, by writ of
privy seal, 29 May 1412, commands Rees Duy's body,
then in the custody of his officers, to be buried
in some consecrated cemetery. It had perhaps been
exposed for some time. MS. Donat. 4599, p. 128.]
The despatch from the burgesses of Carleon, after stating that seven
hundred men, whom Owyn had sent forwards as pioneers and to search the
ways, were to a man slain by the Lord of Carew's men on the 12th day
of July, records an anecdote so characteristic of Owyn's superstition,
that, whilst examining his conduct, we may scarcely pass it by
unnoticed. He sent after Hopkyn ap Thomas of Gower, inasmuch (p. 392)
as he held him Master of Brut, (_i. e._ skilled in the prophecies of
Merlin,) to learn from him what should befal him, and he told him that
he should be taken within a brief time between Carmarthen and Gower
under a black banner. [The Author finds the next sentence so obscure
that he leaves it to the interpretation of the reader.] "Knowelichyd
that thys blake baner scholde dessese hym, and nozt that he schold be
take undir hym."
In weighing the evidence brought to light by these original
despatches, it will be necessary to have a few dates immediately
present to our mind.
We have it under the King's own hand, that, when he was at Higham
Ferrers, he believed himself to be on his road northward to form a
junction with Hotspur and his father Northumberland, and together with
them (of whose allegiance and fidelity he apparently had not hitherto
entertained any suspicion) to make a joint expedition against the
Scots. This letter is dated July 10, 1403.
Five days only at the furthest intervened between the date of this
letter and the King's proclamation at Burton on Trent (still on his
journey northward) to the sheriffs to raise their counties, and join
him to resist the Percies, whose rebellion had then suddenly been made
known to him. This proclamation is dated July 16, 1403. Four days only
elapsed between the issuing of this proclamation and the death of
Hotspur, with the total discomfiture of his followers in Hateley
Field, where the battle of Shrewsbury was fought on Saturday, 21st of
July, the very week on the Monday of which he had first heard of the
revolt of the Percies.
If the dates relating to Owyn's proceedings,--some ascertained beyond
further question, and others admitted on the ground of high
probability, approaching certainty, with which the documents above
quoted supply us,--are laid side by side with these indisputable
facts, the inference from the comparison seems unavoidable, that Owyn
was never made acquainted with the expectation on the part (p. 393)
of his allies of so early a struggle with the King's forces in
England; (indeed the conflict evidently was unexpected by Hotspur
himself;) that Owyn was in the most remote corner of South Wales when
the battle was fought; and that probably the sad tidings of Hotspur's
overthrow reached him without his ever having been apprised (at least
in time) that the Percy needed his succour.
APPENDIX, No. II. (p. 394)
LYDGATE.
Extracts from the Dedication to Henry of Monmouth of his poem, "The
Death of Hector:"
"For through the world it is known to every one,
And flying Fame reports it far and wide,
That thou, by natural condition,
In things begun wilt constantly abide;
And for the time dost wholly set aside
All rest; and never carest what thou dost spend
Till thou hast brought thy purpose to an end.
And that thou art most circumspect and wise,
And dost effect all things with providence,
As Joshua did by counsel and advice,
Against whose sword there is none can make defence:
And wisdom hast by heavenly influence
With Solomon to judge and to discern
Men's causes, and thy people to govern.
For mercy mixt with thy magnificence,
Doth make thee pity all that are opprest;
And to withstand the force and violence
Of those that right and equity detest.
With David thou to piety art prest;
And like to Julius Cæsar valorous,
That in his time was most victorious.
And in thine hand (like worthy Prince) dost hold
Thy sword, to see that of thy subjects none
Against thee should presume with courage bold
And pride of heart to raise rebellion; (p. 395)
And in the other, sceptre to maintain
True justice while among us thou dost reign.
More than good heart none can, whatsoe'er he be,
Present nor give to God nor unto man,
Which for my part I wholly give to thee,
And ever shall as far forth as I can;
Wherewith I will (as I at first began)
Continually, not ceasing night nor day,
With sincere mind for thine estate thus pray.
"The time when I this work had fully done
By computation just, was in the year
One thousand and four hundred twenty-one
Of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour dear;
And in the eighth year complete of the reign
Of our most noble lord and sovereign
King Henry the Fifth.
"In honour great, for by his puissant might
He conquered all Normandy again,
And valiantly, for all the power of France;
And won from them his own inheritance,
And forced them his title to renew
To all the realm of France, which doth belong
To him, and to his lawful heirs by true
Descent, (the which they held from him by wrong
And false pretence,) and, to confirm the same,
Hath given him the honour and the name
Of Regent of the land for Charles his life;
And after his decease they have agreed,
Thereby to end all bloody war and strife,
That he, as heir, shall lawfully succeed
Therein, and reign as King of France by right,
As by records, which extant are to light,
It doth appear.
And I will never cease, both night and day,
With all my heart unto the Lord to pray
"For HIM, by whose commandment I tooke (p. 396)
On me (though far unfit to do the same)
To translate into English verse this booke,
Which Guido wrote in Latin, and doth name
'The Siege of Troy;' and for HIS sake alone,
I must confess that I the same begun,
When Henry, whom men _Fourth_ by name did call,
My Prince's father, lived, and possest
The crown. And though I be but rustical,
I have therein not spared to do my best
To please my Prince's humour."
This poem, "The Life and Death of Hector," was published after the
marriage of Henry with Katharine, and before her arrival in England.
Among its closing sentiments are the following, intended probably as
an honest warning to his royal master, that in the midst of life we
are in death, and that the messenger from heaven knocks at the palace
of the conquering monarch with no less suddenness than at the cottage
of his humblest subject. How appropriate was the warning! Henry did
not survive the publication of this poem more than a single year.
"For by Troy's fall it plainly doth appear
That neither king nor emperor hath here
"A permanent estate to trust unto.
Therefore to Him that died upon the rood
(And was content and willing so to do,
And for mankind did shed his precious blood,)
Lift up your minds, and pray with humble heart
That He his aid unto you will impart.
For, though you be of extreme force and might,
Without his help it will you nought avail;
And He doth give man victory in fight,
And with a few is able to prevail,
And overcome an army huge and strong:
And by his grace makes kings and princes long
"To reign here on the earth in happiness; (p. 397)
And tyrants, that to men do offer wrong
And violence, doth suddenly suppress,
Although their power be ne'er so great and strong.
And in his hand his blessings all reserveth
For to reward each one as he deserveth.
"To whom I pray with humble mind and heart,
And so I hope all you will do no less,
That of his grace He would vouchsafe to impart
And send all joy, welfare, and happiness,
Health, victory, tranquillity, and honour,
Unto the high and mighty conqueror.
"King Henry the Fifth, that his great name
May here on earth be extolled and magnified
While life doth last; and when he yields the same
Into his hands, he may be glorified
In heaven among the saints and angels bright,
There to serve the God of power and might.
"At whose request this work I undertook,
As I have said.
God He knows when I this work began,
I did it not for praise of any man,
"But for to please the humour and the hest
Of my good lord and princely patron,
Who [dis]dained not to me to make request
To write the same, lest that oblivion
By tract of time, and time's swift passing by,
Such valiant act should cause obscured to be;
"As also 'cause his princely high degree
Provokes him study ancient histories,
Where, as in mirror, he may plainly see
How valiant knights have won the masteries
In battles fierce by prowess and by might,
To run like race, and prove a worthy knight.
"And as they sought to climb to honour's seat, (p. 398)
So doth my Lord seek therein to excel,
That, as his name, so may his fame be great,
And thereby likewise idleness expel;
For so he doth to virtue bend his mind,
That hard it is his equal now to find.
"To write his princely virtues, and declare
His valour, high renown, and majesty,
His brave exploits and martial acts, that are
Most rare, and worthy his great dignity,
My barren head cannot devise by wit
To extol his fame by words and phrases fit.
"This worthy Prince, whom I so much commend,
(Yet not so much as well deserves his fame,)
By royal blood doth lineally descend
From Henry King of England, Fourth by name,
His eldest son, and heir to the crown,
And, by his virtues, Prince of high renown.
"For by the graft the fruit men easily know,
Encreasing the honour of his pedigree;
His name Lord Henry, as our stories show,
And by his title Prince of Wales is he.
Who with good right, his father being dead,
Shall wear the crown of Britain on his head.
"This mighty Prince hath made me undertake
To write the siege of Troy, the ancient town,
And of their wars a true discourse to make;
From point to point as Guido set it down,
Who long since wrote the same in Latin verse,
Which in the English now I will rehearse."
In the poem called the "Siege of Troy," written in different metre,
Lydgate, addressing Henry, "O most worthy Prince! of Knighthood (p. 399)
source and well!" thus proceeds to state the circumstances under which
he wrote his work:
"God I take highly to witness
That I this work of heartily low humbless
Took upon me of intention,
Devoid of pride and presumption,
For to obey without variance
_My Lord's bidding fully and pleasance_;
Which hath desire, soothly for to sayn,
Of very knighthood to remember again
The wortheness (if I shall not lie)
And the prowess of old chivalry,
Because _he hath joy and great dainty_
To _read in books of antiquity_
To _find only virtue_ to sow
By example of them, and also to eschew
The cursed vice of sloth and idleness;
So he enjoyeth in _virtuous_ business,
In all that longeth to manhood, dare I sayn,
He busyeth ever. And thereto is so fain
To haunt his body in plays martial,
Through exercise to exclude sloth at all,
(After the doctrine of Vigetius.)
Thus is he both _manful_ and _virtuous_,
More passingly than I can of him write;
I want cunning his high renown to indite,
So much of manhood men may in him seen.
And for to wit whom I would mean,
The eldest son of the noble King
Henry the Fourth; of knighthood well and spring;
In whom is showed of what stock that he grew,
The root is virtue;
Called Henry eke, the worthy Prince of Wales,
Which me commanded the dreary piteous tale
Of them of Troy in English to translate;
The siege, also, and the destruction,
Like as the Latin maketh mention,
For to complete, and after Guido make, (p. 400)
So I could, and write it for his sake;
Because he would that to high and low
The noble story openly were knowe
In our tongue, about in every age,
And written as well in our language
As in Latin and French it is;
That of the story the truth we not miss,
No more than doth each other nation;
This was the fine of his intention.
The which emprise anon I 'gin shall
In his worship for a memorial.
And of the time to make mention,
When I began on this translation,
It was the year, soothly to sayn,
Fourteen complete of his Father's reign."
Though this Preface was written when Henry was still Prince of Wales,
the work was not finished till he had ascended the throne; when the
poet sent it into the world with this charge, which he calls
"L'Envoy:"
"Go forth, my book! veiled with the princely grace
Of him that is extolled for excellence
Throughout the world, but do not show thy face
Without support of his magnificence."
TESTIMONY OF OCCLEVE. (p. 401)
The interesting circumstances under which the poet represents the
following dialogue to have taken place are detailed in the body of the
work.[351] The old man addresses Occleve as his son, and the poet
calls his aged monitor father.
[Footnote 351: See page 331.]
_Father._ "My Lord the Prince,--knoweth he thee not?
If that thou stood in his benevolence,
He may be salve unto thine indigence."
_Son._ "No man better: next his father,--our Lord the Liege
His father,--he is my good gracious Lord."
_F._ "Well, Son! then will I me oblige,
And God of heaven vouch I to record,
That, if thou wilt be fully of mine accord,
Thou shalt no cause have more thus to muse,
But heaviness void, and it refuse.
Since he thy good Lord is, I am full sure
His grace shall not to thee be denied.
Thou wotst well he _benign_ is and _demure_
To sue unto: not is his ghost maistried[352]
With danger; but his heart is full applied
To grant, and not the needy to warn his grace.
To him pursue, and thy relief purchase.
What shall I call thee--what is thy name?"
_S._ "Occlive[353] (Father mine), men callen me."
_F._ "Occlive? Son!"--_S._ "Yes, Father, the same."
_F._ "Thou wert acquainted with Chaucer 'pardie?" (p. 402)
_S._ "God save his soul! best of any wight."
_F._ "Syn thou mayst not be paid in the Exchequer,
Unto my Lord the Prince make instance
That thy patent unto the Hanaper
May changed be."--_S._ "Father, by your sufferance,
It may not so: because of the ordinance,
Long after this shall no grant chargeable
Over pass. Father mine, this is no fable."
_F._ "An equal charge, my Son, in sooth
Is no charge, I wot it well indeed.
What! Son mine! Good heart take unto thee.
Men sayen, 'Whoso of every grass hath dread,
Let him beware to walk in any mead.'
Assay! assay! thou simple-hearted ghost;
What grace is shapen thee, thou not wost.
----Now, syn me thou toldest
My Lord the Prince is good Lord thee to;
No maistery is to thee, if thou woldest
To be relieved, wost thee what to do.
_Write to him a goodly tale or two_,
_On which he may disport him by night_,
And his free grace shall on thee light.
Sharp thy pen, and write on lustily;
Let see, my Son, make it fresh and gay,
Utter thine art if thou canst craftily;
_His high prudence hath insight very_
_To judge if it be well made or nay._
Wherefore, Son, it is unto thee need
Unto thy work take thee greater heed.
But of one thing be well ware in all wise,
On flattery that thou thee not found,
For thereof (Son) Solomon the Wise,
As that I have in his Proverbs found,
Saith thus: 'They that in feigned speech abound,
And glossingly unto their friends talk,
Spreaden a net before them, where they walk.'
This false treason common is and rife;
Better were it thou wert at Jerusalem (p. 403)
Now, than thou wert therein defective.
Syn my Lord the Prince is (_God hold his life!_)
To thee good Lord, good servant thou thee quit
To him and true, and it shall thee profit.
Write him _nothing that sowneth to vice_,
Kyth[354] thy love in matter of sadness.
Look if thou find canst any treatise
Grounded on his estate's wholesomeness;
Which thing translate, and unto his highness,
As humbly as thou canst, it thou present.
Do thus, my Son."--_S._ "Father! I assent,
With heart as trembling as the leaf of asp."[355]
[Footnote 352: The Author has not formed any
satisfactory opinion as to the meaning of the
phrase "his ghost maistried with danger." Perhaps
it implies that the spirit of the Prince was not
under the _control_ of such passions as would
render it a service of _danger_ to prefer a suit to
him.]
[Footnote 353: In some MSS. it is "Hoccleve."]
[Footnote 354: "Kyth thy love," means "make thy
love known." Our word "kith," in the proverb "kith
and kin," means persons of our acquaintance.]
[Footnote 355: Bib. Reg. 17. D. 6. p. 34.]
END OF VOLUME I.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Dorset Street, Fleet Street.
End of Project Gutenberg's Henry of Monmouth, Volume 1, by J. Endell Tyler