IN HIS EDITION OF JOHN GOWER'S LATIN POETRY, G. C. Macaulay noted as part of his formal description of Oxford, All Souls College, MS 98, that ‘from the Epistola at the beginning, which occurs here only and seems to relate to this volume in particular, we may gather that it was eventually presented to Archbishop Arundel’. Subsequent scholarly discourse very quickly transformed into certitude the tinge of equivocation detectable in Macaulay's statement. John H. Fisher, whose 1964 study of Gower's work exerted a determining influence on scholarly opinion for half a century, expressed no doubt that Macaulay's speculation was the fact. For Fisher, not only did ‘the Epistola … relate to this volume in particular’, but both codex and letter were presented ensemble to the archbishop as a fealty gift: ‘The All Souls manuscript of the Vox went eventually to just such a recipient, Thomas of Arundel …’. So frequently trustworthy in his judgements about Gower, Fisher's settled view on the matter not surprisingly set the measure most others have danced to ever since.

A careful reconsideration of All Souls MS 98 suggests, however, that both assumptions of Fisher and Macaulay are wrong, the latter to a lesser degree, commensurate with his hinted uncertainty. Contesting their views about what the manuscript can tell us seems particularly important: a host of half-truths – and some complete misprisions – have been based on them, by literary scholars and historians alike. All Souls MS 98 is often cited in witness of Gower's fulsome commitment to Arundel in 1400, and hence also as proof of his ardent support for the usurpation of Henry IV. Neither conclusion lacks consequences. Attitudes toward Gower's perceived politics have deeply coloured much contemporary belief about his character. More broadly, because his poetry – Gower's Latin writing in particular – is quoted frequently to exemplify contemporary attitudes to important events, All Souls MS 98, its contents and how we read them, have contributed their share toward modern understandings of public response to Henry's coup d’état, and to Archbishop Arundel's sanguinary solutions to Lollardy.