Description of the Manuscripts

The Prinse et mort has survived in five MSS from the fifteenth century and one from the sixteenth. A seventh, Bodleian Library MS Cherry 14,Footnote ³ a copy of BL MS Harley 1319 made in 1697, has been discounted for the purposes of this edition.

Manuscript Tradition and Choice of Base Manuscript

The large number of variants suggests that the extant MSS are survivors of a crowded MS tradition, with many MSS now lost. The Prinse et mort was written between 1399 and 1402 (infra, p. 27), at a time when there was great interest in the fate of Richard II. Between 1401 (the last event mentioned) and 1402 (when Philip the Bold paid for his copy) a significant number of MSS were copied but have not survived. AD came from a source that is not HLBC; likewise LB have a common and now vanished exemplar, and H was corrected from a source that was not LABCD. MSS of the Prinse et mort were never as numerous as those of the prose Traïson, of which almost forty remain.Footnote ⁵⁶ After all, the same laws of dilapidation apply to the Traïson as to the Prinse et mort. However, the small number of remaining MSS should not be taken to indicate that the Prinse et mort was in less than vigorous circulation.

Examination of the variants quickly revealed that AD often have a common reading against the other four MSS. In a large number of cases either reading is acceptable, e.g. HLBC la nous convint logier, AD 1.n. vimmes 1. (l. 29); HLBC lautre avoit une borde, AD et lautre ot une b. (l. 75); HLBC a mesaise car on le me conta, AD a grant meschief on le me raconta (l. 1043). Very exceptionally AD's reading is preferable, e.g. AD chevaulx guinder, HLC ch. wuidier, B line omitted (l. 63); AD le temps si soit passe, HLBC no si (l. 419); AD faisoit par tout, HLBC faire par tout (l. 621). Much more frequently AD's reading is corrupt, e.g. HLBC la feumes nous en joie, AD la mer passa en j. (l. 54); HLBC estienne scroup, AD guillaume s. (l. 850; p. 187, l. 17); HLBC qui prenront asez paine, AD qui pourront a. p. (l. 1662); HLBC ne que en dire, AD jen muir tout dire (l. 1752).

AD are also set apart from the other MSS in that they neither have the miniatures nor regular reference to them, nor do they divide the text into chapters as HLBC do. Both A and D have separative errors, which rule out one having been copied from the other, e.g. A au roy preschier, D aux gens p. (l. 470); A car dix et huit apres, D car .xviii. jours apres (l. 795); A des boys grans et menus, D des boiz et des [grans superscript] menus (l. 173); A au duc r., D le duc r. (l. 571). Clearly, however, AD have a common source, and equally clearly the tradition which they represent is inferior to that represented by HLBC.

Each of HLBC has isolated readings, e.g. LABCD une ville, H en une ville (l. 611); LABCD de cuer fin, H le c. f. (l. 2788); HABCD ne se firent point veoir, L no point (l. 125); L line omitted (ll. 1409, 3210); HLACD .iiii. jours, B troiz j. (l. 714); HLACD le duc dexcestre, B le d. de cestre (l. 827); C lines omitted (ll. 2572–2573); HLABD evesques abbes qui disoient, C no abbes (l. 2574). Thus no one of the four is the source of any of the others.

B is significantly different in that it is half the size of the other MSS. The Prinse et mort is copied in 31 folios in B, with 68 lines to a page, whereas it occupies on average 76 folios (28 lines to a page) in the others. B also has a considerable number of errors, e.g. lines omitted (ll. 63, 703); avant omitted (l. 655). This has caused difficulty in editing the epistles, ballades, and the chant royal, of which it is the sole witness. Furthermore corrections made by the scribe as he went along – by scoring out or expunction – suggest that B was hastily copied, e.g. larchevesque de cantorbie fier [disant scored out] (l. 471); que trestous [avront scored out] ceulx avront (l. 479); tous les [cir scored out] crurent (l. 498); moult [chie scored out] riche et chiere (l. 981). These three points – a text containing a large number of poor readings and omissions, cramped into half the space of the other MSS, and carelessly copied – added to the fact that the MS may be as late as mid fifteenth-century, show that B must be excluded from the list of candidates for base MS.

C also has a considerable number of lines missing, e.g. ll. 2824, 3471, 3484, and 3511. This, as well as being a late fifteenth-century MS, is enough to render it unsuitable as a base.

H was certainly written by 1405. L may be as early, but we cannot be sure; palaeographical evidence points merely to a date before 1440. What is certain is that L has a large number of isolated readings, e.g. humblement (l. 441), nouvelles bien certaines (l. 449), de quoy ilz furent en leur vie entechies (l. 481); there are also lines omitted, e.g. ll. 350–351, 1028, and 2289.

H is a more carefully copied MS, its errors being rarely more than venial, e.g. ymberne (l. 39); nulz (l. 215); cestoit (l. 429). It does have over 130 corrections – all given in the variants beneath the text, with an underlining beneath any letter written over an erasure – but while those in B point to a scribe working too quickly and carelessly, the reverse is so with H. Sometimes a letter has been squeezed in later, e.g. brief > briefz (l. 302); soie > soiez (l. 557); assamble > assamblee (l. 759), or one letter has been written over another, e.g. ioyaulx > joyaulx (ll. 1001, 1006); chaccun > chascun (l. 1230). The large majority of corrections have been made, however, by erasing the original lesson and writing over the erasure; the corrections were almost certainly made by the original scribe.

It is interesting to note that nearly 90 times out of more than 130, the correction in H coincides with an error or variant in one or more of the other five MSS, e.g. H alasmes, C sen alla (l. 393); H tout, C puis (l. 1100); H tout, LC trestout (l. 1241); H pour vray, ACD certes (l. 1284); H sanc, B fait (l. 3221). Very often H's correction coincides with a hypometric reading in LB or LBC, e.g. H avec, LB et (l. 108); H je vous, LB no je (l. 220); H quavoit le conte, LB quot le c. (l. 304); H moult forte et LBC no moult (l. 612); H tous le laisserent, LBC no tous (l. 744).

Some corrections leave H with an isolated reading. Usually, however, there is nothing to choose between it and the lesson of LABCD; both are equally satisfactory as far as sense and metre are concerned, e.g. H en chevauchant, LABCD ilz chevauchoient (l. 1031); H et de dueil, LABCD de douleur (l. 1254); H le grant meschief, LABCD la grant misere (l. 1397). On one occasion, however, H's correction gives a better rhyme, H qui de vray cuer vouloient bien conquerre, LABCD q. d. bon c. v. aler querre (l. 883), rhyming with querre (l. 881).

Once the correction supplies a word clearly omitted from the other MSS, H gens [in left margin] parmi galles, LABCD no gens (l. 1962). One correction is especially interesting: H de le [King Richard] desfaire assez briefment, LABCD de le faire mourir b. (l. 2437). Whereas faire mourir is unequivocal, desfaire is ambiguous, meaning either ‘to kill’ or merely ‘to overthrow’. This may be a reflection of the uncertainty that existed at this early date as to whether Richard were dead or alive.

It is certain that H originally had these variant or hypometric readings of the other MSS, which the scribe later changed when he checked H from another exemplar. The separative errors in the other five MSS militate against any one of them being this second exemplar; it clearly represents a different tradition from LABCD and the uncorrected H. The corrections demonstrate the scrupulous care the scribe took with his MS. Not content with carefully copying his exemplar, he went to the trouble of checking his text against a second MS. H offers the best text of the Prinse et mort, calling for the smallest amount of editorial intervention and was therefore used as the base MS for this edition.

Previous Editions

The Prinse et mort has been edited twice before: in 1824 by Rev. J. Webb, with a translation and notes,Footnote ⁵⁷ and in 1826 by J.A. Buchon.Footnote ⁵⁸ Of the six MSS surviving, Webb knew only H, L, and D. He used H as his base MS. ‘Of two [sic] manuscripts of this tract, one in the British Museum and the other in the Library of Lambeth Palace, the former is apparently the earliest’.Footnote ⁵⁹ Webb unaccountably states that the MS in Paris which he used was C (BnF f. fr. 1668, formerly No. 7656);Footnote ⁶⁰ examination of only a few variants, however, e.g. ll. 159, 261, 457, 514, and 675, confirms that he was using D (BnF f. fr. 1441, formerly No. 7532).

The text as he establishes it leaves much to be desired. Scribal errors are either not corrected: nulz (l. 215), pars (l. 437); or are corrected without the fact being noted: communent (l. 329), cestoit (l. 429), le duc de cexcestre (l. 1073). His transcript is extremely inaccurate; the following errors occur on p. 295 alone: verdur for verdure (l. 3), oyseaux for oyseaulx (l. 5), laisser for laissier (l. 10), pres for prest (l. 18). Many errors are more serious, including errors of omission: en (l. 147), scay (l. 257), qui est (l. 611), le duc (l. 1507); and errors of transposition: morir beaucoup (l. 197), chascun sa foy (l. 221), fu la (l. 343).

Webb's unfamiliarity with Middle French led him to include many nonsensical readings: jours for joies (l. 387), la guerre for le querre (l. 411), sur savis for sur sains (l. 598), niart for m'ait (l. 999), points nulx for pour ce nulz (l. 1236). He also omits variants in L: le pais (l. 107), point omitted (l. 125), affin tele (l. 160); and in D: plus riens (l. 269), le duc (l. 571), bien beau cousin le scay (l. 581). Examples of all these errors could be multiplied many times over. Furthermore, Webb ignores the chapters into which both H and L divide the text, and since his is a diplomatic edition, abbreviations are not extended, nor are modern word-divisions introduced.

Buchon knew and used Webb's edition,Footnote ⁶¹ but chose A as his base MS: [le manuscrit] que j'ai suivi est à la fois le plus ancien et le plus correct.Footnote ⁶² Errors of transcription abound; the following occur on p. 324 alone: fois for foiz (l. 21), fu for fut (ll. 25, and 36), un mains for ung moins (l. 25), chevauchant for chevauchans (l. 27), mercredi for mercredy (l. 30), avoient for avoyent (l. 42), repoz for repos (l. 43). He gives no variants and corrects A without acknowledgement: la feumes nous (l. 54), survenir (l. 59), par droit (l. 105), son bien (l. 146).

Some extracts of Creton's account – from the time Richard heard of Lancaster's return to England until the King's leaving Chester for London in Lancaster's custody, and Creton's scepticism at the news of Richard's death – have been printed in his Chronicles of the Revolution by Professor Given-Wilson, in Webb's translation, substantially modernized.Footnote ⁶³ The capture of King Richard at Flint by Henry Lancaster, in Webb's translation, is printed by H. Taylor in his Historic Notices … of Flint.Footnote ⁶⁴ Creton's two epistles and one ballade were published by P.W. Dillon in 1840; this is also a very poor transcription.Footnote ⁶⁵ The remaining two ballades and the chant royal were edited by Professor Roccati in 2003.Footnote ⁶⁶

The present edition is fiercely critical of the Rev. Webb and his edition. However, it should be remembered that he was writing without the benefits and advantages of modern scholarship. It was by means of his edition that a medieval text of the first importance, and most of the colour miniatures, were made available at an early date. We owe him a debt of gratitude.

The Prinse et mort du roy Richart d'Angleterre and the Chronicque de la traïson et mort de Richart Deux roy dengleterre

There are two contemporary works in French on the deposition of Richard II: the Prinse et mort, in verse by Creton, and the anonymous Traïson et mort, in prose. It has been claimed that there is a further French work on the death and deposition of King Richard,Footnote ⁶⁷ but Professor Palmer has demonstrated that this third chronicle is a ‘pirated’ version of the Traïson.Footnote ⁶⁸

The two works are quite independent and one cannot say either that they were interdependent or that ‘Deux versions de la Chronique de Richard II existent, l'une en prose, l'autre en vers’.Footnote ⁶⁹ Of the 37 surviving Traïson MSS, half contain incidents – e.g. Richard's capture, an alternative account of his death, the return of Isabella – using phrases which suggest that the author took them from the Prinse et mort. For his edition of the Traïson Benjamin Williams used one of these – BnF f. fr. 5624 – as his base MS. However, he folded into it a large excerpt – pp. 27–33 – relating to Richard's Irish expedition, contained in MS BnF 5624 (which he refers to as MS 10212, as formerly numbered).Footnote ⁷⁰ Thus Williams presents the reader with a conflated text. Furthermore, BnF MS 5624 is the only MS of the Traïson with this account of Richard in Ireland, which follows very closely the Prinse et mort, and could certainly not have been written without it. It is a clumsy rendering of verse into prose.

It is fatally easy to miss the side-notes on pp. 27–33 announcing the change of MS, and equally easy to fail to recognize their significance. Williams’ edition is unfaithful to the Traïson as originally written, since it has – from two different sources – all the incidents included at a later date, especially the unique account of Richard in Ireland.

Like the Traïson itself, the interpolations are anonymous and certainly not composed by Creton. Had he wanted to insert his own accounts into the Traïson, he would simply have written in prose, as he did in Chapters 30–40 (pp. 187–213) of the Prinse et mort. The information was all inside his own head, he had no need to borrow from his own work and thus deform it. Furthermore, it would have been an insult to King Richard and to Creton's patron, the duke of Burgundy, to have debased his own elegant work in this way.

There is a final stumbling block to a clear view of the relationship between these two independent works. In one family of MSS of Froissart's Chronicles, Book IV, is written:Footnote ⁷¹

There follows an account of Richard being hacked to death by Sir Piers Exton, as told in the Traïson. At first glance this is a real obstacle, but there is a persuasive answer:Footnote ⁷² Froissart was not in England at this time; Creton was associated with writing about Richard, and a simple mistake was made in attributing this account to him.

It might reasonably be argued that the two works were composed for different audiences: the Prinse et mort in verse for reading aloud to aristocratic groups, and in de luxe illustrated MSS for presentation to the higher nobility; the Traïson, with its large number of surviving copies, a very successful work intended for private reading among government officials and civil servants, prosperous merchants, and the upper bourgeoisie generally.

Jehan Creton: His Life

13 August 1386

Philip the Bold pays Creton pour un livre par lui.Footnote ⁷³

26 April 1399

Creton and his companion set out for England (ll. 9–29).

? September 1399

They return to France (p. 211, l. 24–p. 213, l. 4). Shortly afterwards Creton starts work on the Prinse et mort (infra, p. 27).

After August 1401

Creton gathers information from a clerk and others who gave him news of England (ll. 2377–2390).

After August 1401–  before April 1402

The Prinse et mort, first epistle and first ballade are completed (infra, p. 27).

Before April 1402

Creton is sent to Scotland to investigate the rumour of Richard's being alive there.Footnote ⁷⁴

April–October 1402

The second epistle is written, referring to the offer to Burgundy of the regency of Brittany.Footnote ⁷⁵

16 July 1402

Philip pays Creton pour et en recompensacion d'un livre faisant mencion de la prinse de feu le roy Richart.Footnote ⁷⁶

1402–1403

The second and third ballades and the chant royal are written.

3 March, 17 June, 4 October 1403

Philip makes payments to Creton, his varlet de chambre.Footnote ⁷⁷

27 April 1404

Philip dies.Footnote ⁷⁸

late 1405

Duke of Berry receives H from Jean de Montaigu (supra, pp. 2–3).

11 November 1407

John the Fearless pays Creton for a journey to visit Richard in Scotland.Footnote ⁷⁹

29 July 1410

Charles VI pays nostre amé varlet de chambre Jehan Creton la somme de deux cens frans for a journey made some time ago to Scotland, to see if Richard were alive there.Footnote ⁸⁰

7 August 1410

Creton's receipt for 100 of the above 200 francs.Footnote ⁸¹

1411, 1413

Jehan Creton nominated clerc payeur des oeuvres du roy.Footnote ⁸²

1420

Royal accounts show payment a Jehan Creton, payeur des oeuvres du roi es vicomté … de Paris … pour l'aider a payer sa rançon a mgr Jacques de Bouconvillier, qui naguere l'avait pris … 200 livres tournois.Footnote ⁸³

The entry for 16 July 1402 has caused considerable confusion. In his catalogue of the library of the dukes of Burgundy, Gabriel Peignot wrongly notes the one entry he found for Creton:Footnote ⁸⁴ Du 16 juillet, le Duc achepte de Jehan Creston [sic], moyennant neuf escus d'or, ung liure faisant mention de La prinse du Roy Richar. The entry is transcribed correctly by Pierre Cockshaw: A Jehan Creton, pour don a lui fait par mon dit seigneur de grace especial, la somme de LX escuz d'or pour et en recompensacion d'un livre faisant mencion de la prinse de feu le roy Richart, si comme il appert … par les lectres patentes … donnees a Paris le XVIe jour de juillet l'an mil CCCC et deux. …Footnote ⁸⁵ Creton is receiving payment for the book, i.e. for his work in writing it. Incorrectly, Georges Doutrepont and Muriel J. Hughes follow Peignot, Hughes listing, ‘Creston, Jehan. Bookseller. On 16 July 1401 [sic] he sold the duke a book mentioning La Prinse du Roy Richar’.Footnote ⁸⁶ De Winter confuses the Prinse et mort with the Traïson.Footnote ⁸⁷

It should be said at the outset that the position of valet de chambre, either to Charles VI or to Philip the Bold, entailed no duties in the royal or ducal bedchamber. By the end of the fourteenth century the title was bestowed on writers, artists, and craftsmen: this was how they were paid for their services: la qualification de varlet de chambre … fut conférée à des hommes que les ducs voulaient honorer.Footnote ⁸⁸ Similarly the clerc payeur des oeuvres du roy was held in high esteem: l'office a souvent été tenu par des membres de la bonne bourgeoisie parisienne … c’étaient tous des personnages fort considérés.Footnote ⁸⁹

There is no external evidence for Creton's background or life before the entry in the Burgundian accounts of 1386. He has been said to belong to ‘the respectable family of Estourmel’Footnote ⁹⁰ but no evidence is offered. His link to a family holding land at Moulbaix (near Ath, in Hainault) in the fifteenth century, adduced by Kervyn de Lettenhove,Footnote ⁹¹ is equally problematic. The assertion that he was of Norman extraction has not been justified, and the Jehan Creton serving with Robert de Clermont in 1357 is of an earlier generation.Footnote ⁹²

The internal evidence of the Prinse et mort shows that he was a native of Paris or the surrounding region. The Prinse et mort is written in francien, the dialect of Paris and the Île de France, before which all other Old French dialects faded out, and which became Modern French.Footnote ⁹³ Such few Picardisms as occur are usually scribal in origin, e.g. biau (ll. 520, 3702); mangonniaulx: monchiaulx: nouviaulx (ll. 1765–1767); commencha (l. 2555); chieulx (l. 3207).Footnote ⁹⁴

The fact that he was attached to the house of Burgundy does not mean that Creton was a Northerner.Footnote ⁹⁵ Philip the Bold had been created the first Valois duke of Burgundy by his father, John the Good,Footnote ⁹⁶ and although he did everything he could to increase the size and importance of his duchy, he was fundamentally a prince of the French royal house. After the death of his brother, Charles V, in 1380, and the accession of the unstable Charles VI, he was locked in bitter rivalry for influence over the new king with Louis d'Orléans, the king's brother. Hostility between these two ran at a high pitch in the early years of the fifteenth century, and only the active intervention of the queen and the dukes of Bourbon and Berry prevented France from being precipitated into civil war at the beginning of 1402.Footnote ⁹⁷ Burgundy's power base was at the royal court in Paris. From the mid 1390s until his death in 1404, ‘Paris was his favourite and habitual place of residence’.Footnote ⁹⁸

An educated guess can be made as to Creton's age. He could not have been such a very young man when Philip paid him in 1386 pour un livre par lui (supra, p. 19); he must have been in his early twenties at a minimum. Both Richard II and Henry Lancaster were born in 1367;Footnote ⁹⁹ Creton was at least slightly older than they were, perhaps born around 1361–1363. The difficulty here is Lancaster's addressing him and his companion at Flint as Mes enfans (p. 197, l. 17). This is not to be taken literally; a priest might use the same expression to his congregation, i.e. someone in authority talking to people towards whom he is well disposed, regardless of their age. Henry is speaking de haut en bas; mes enfants is translated here as ‘my sons’.

Where external evidence is lacking, some modern writers have stepped in with their own view on Creton: he is variously a French nobleman; a French chronicler, a ‘hanger-on … looking for an exotic adventure’; a squire; a French valet; Richard's French adherent.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ M.V. Clarke and V.H. Galbraith thought he was so unimportant that the earl of Salisbury left him behind at Flint Castle when he withdrew on Conway despite the fact that Creton was a royal envoy.Footnote ¹⁰¹ This was necessary in order for them to explain the absence of Archbishop Arundel at Conway in Creton's account.Footnote ¹⁰² Creton himself tells us that le roy nous avoit envoié avecques le roy Richart en Irlande (p. 197, ll. 13–14), thus Clarke and Galbraith are asking us to believe that Salisbury had simply abandoned Creton and his companion, royal envoys from France, at Flint. Richard's party – Richard, Salisbury, and some of Richard's entourage – returned that way from Conway, but it was after Richard had been lured from Conway by Northumberland's treachery. On retreating to Conway, Salisbury must have been thinking of escaping by sea (see map p. ii).

When Creton came to England in 1399, it should be understood that he was in his thirties at least. He says that he had been despatched by Charles VI, but given his attachment to the duke of Burgundy, and Burgundy's influence over the king, he was sent by Philip the Bold. He was specifically instructed to go to Ireland, pour veoir le païs (p. 197, l. 15) and does seem to have gone out of his way to see as much as possible: when the earl of Gloucester was sent to parley with McMurrough:

It is too much to call Creton a spy, but he does seem to have been sent as Burgundy's eyes and ears, on a diplomatic mission of some sort.Footnote ¹⁰³ The Burgundian state was built on alliances and good relations, rather than on warfare and conquest, especially with England;Footnote ¹⁰⁴ Philip's need for intelligence was essential for achieving his objectives. Three times in 1403 (supra, p. 20), Creton was paid for unspecified reasons.

Internal evidence suggests that Creton was attached to the earl of Salisbury when in England. He pronounces Salisbury a Francophile and poet (ll. 771–772, 779–781) and this is confirmed by Christine de Pizan who said of him: icellui gracieux chevalier amast dictiez, et lui meismes fust gracieux dicteur.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Jehan du Castel, Christine's son, spent some time in his service: je consenti … que l'ainsné de mes filz, assez abille et bien chantant enfant de l'aage de .XII. ans, alast avec lui oudit païs d'Engleterre pour estre avec ung sien filz aucques de l'aage.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Salisbury and Creton could have met at the end of the previous year, when Salisbury was sent to Paris by Richard to break off the negotiations initiated by Lancaster for a marriage between himself and Mary of Berry.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ Lancaster bore the earl a grudge for his intervention, taunting him when he had him in his power: Conte de Salsebery, sachiez de certain que, nyent plus que vous ne daignastes parler a Monseigneur le duc de Lancastre, quant lui et vous estiez a Paris au Noël derreinerement passé, il ne parlera a vous (p. 204, ll. 18–21).

Creton was interested in Salisbury and his family: the son of his countess by an earlier marriage is the only one of the new knights created, along with Lancaster's son, whom Creton mentions (p. 187, ll. 20–22). Although of different rank, they were both educated men with similar interests and outlook on life. When Salisbury was ordered by Richard to return before him to Wales and raise the Welshmen for the King, Creton went with him (ll. 603–609). His presence in Salisbury's entourage would account for Creton's being practically at the King's elbow from the time he met up with the army on the way to Milford Haven (ll. 50–53) until Richard fell into Lancaster's hands at Flint (p. 203, ll. 26–27).

Salisbury realized immediately the King was captured that the Frenchman might be the only one left alive to tell the tale, and was concerned that Creton should be fully aware of what was going on. To this end, he repeated to him what the Archbishop of Canterbury said to Richard at Flint, since Creton had not been able to hear for himself (p. 193, ll. 5–7), and translated from English into French the exchange between the King and Lancaster (p. 199, ll. 17–18). This gives the lie to the dismissal of Creton's information on the proceedings of the Council when they were in Ireland;Footnote ¹⁰⁸ Salisbury was keeping him au fait with what was being discussed.

Creton thought very highly of the earl, witness his panegyric when Salisbury was deserted by his troops in Wales (ll. 773–786). No other person is described in such glowing terms, Salisbury is the very model of a perfect knight.Footnote ¹⁰⁹

Creton returned to France in September 1399. Before April 1402 (supra, p. 20) he was sent to Scotland to investigate the rumour that Richard was alive there. Having been with Richard for four months, he would certainly have been able to identify an impostor. This was a large responsibility for him; on his finding rested the fate of Queen Isabella.

It was persistently alleged in the early 1400s that Richard was still alive.Footnote ¹¹⁰ While it was clearly in the interests of the enemies of Henry IV to put it about that Richard was not dead, the particular concern of the French lay in the legal position of Isabella. Was she Richard's wife or his widow? Was she free to remarry? An ordinance of Charles VI dating from early 1402 states that it is: commune renommee que nostre filz Richart, jadiz roy d'Angleterre, est en vie ou royaume d'Escoce, auquel pour en savoir la verité nous avons envoié certains nos messaiges.Footnote ¹¹¹ Creton was certainly one of these messengers (supra, p. 20).

Creton found no reason to believe Richard alive: in his epistle to Philip the Bold, written April to October 1402 (supra, p. 20), he implores Burgundy to avenge the death of King Richard (p. 319, ll. 1–12). In June 1404, Isabella was betrothed to Charles d'Orléans, son of Louis, future poet and prisoner of Agincourt.Footnote ¹¹²

Creton was nominated clerc payeur des oeuvres du roy in 1411 and 1413. This clerk of the king's works was not a professional, although he had the advice of a master-mason and a master-carpenter: l'office a souvent été tenu par des membres de la bonne bourgeoisie parisienne.Footnote ¹¹³ Civil strife raged in France at this time, and control of Paris and the king – and thus over appointments – fluctuated between Burgundians and Armagnacs/Orleanists. Burgundian influence extended from 1411 to 1413, at the end of which year they were expelled from Paris.Footnote ¹¹⁴ By 1418, Burgundians again ruled the capital. The entry in the royal accounts for 1420 suggests that Creton had been captured by the Armagnacs while trying to flee Paris in 1413.Footnote ¹¹⁵ Nothing more has been discovered about Creton; he then disappears from the world stage.

Jehan Creton: His Writings

The date by which the Prinse et mort was completed is easy to fix. On 16 July 1402, Philip the Bold paid Creton for his MS. While the earl of Salisbury had urged Creton to write about Richard's betrayal, it is likely that Philip commissioned the work for reading aloud at court:Footnote ¹¹⁶ it is noticeable that Creton refers always to listeners, not to readers (l. 164, note). The expression com vous orrez, ‘as you will hear’, or something very similar, occurs eighteen times (e.g. ll. 164–165, 461, 579). Reading aloud was commonplace in courtly circles:Footnote ¹¹⁷ Christine de Pizan says of Charles V: En yver … se occupoit souvent a ouir lire de diverses belles hystoires … jusques a heure de soupper.Footnote ¹¹⁸ She assumes that her biography of Charles V, written for Philip the Bold, will be read aloud: Pour ce que trop longue narracion … tourne aux oyans … à annuy … souffise à present la declaracion des vertus … qui … est la premiere partie de ce present traittié. …Footnote ¹¹⁹

Creton uses the expression com vous orrez in two ways. After ll. 165, 2471, 3184, for example, he immediately tells the next part of the story. However, com vous orrez (l. 164); vous orrez bien comment (l. 791); com vous orrez / Ici aprés (ll. 1176–1177); Com vous orrez ains qu'il soit gueres tart (l. 2221) and so forth set down a marker for an episode that will be related later. Creton goes on to fulfil these promises, except on one occasion: Et vous l'orrez (l. 835) indicates that we will be told further about how two of the three bishops in Richard's party were not loyal to him. We hear no more of this, and when writing subsequently of Richard's companions, only the bishop of Carlisle is mentioned; the other two – Lincoln and St David's – are dropped completely. This interweaving of episodes bespeaks careful planning.

Writing for listeners demands repetition. Modern-day preachers employ the same technique when delivering a sermon. People being read to do not have the luxury of stopping the narrative and going back through the pages if they want to remind themselves of something already said; the poet has to repeat the most important episodes for them. Creton tells us (ll. 677–752) that the Welsh desert Salisbury; the earl confesses this to Richard when they meet (ll. 877–899). Creton recounts how Rutland disbanded Richard's army at Milford Haven (ll. 945–1046); a messenger reports this to the King at Conway (ll. 1261–1284). Archbishop Arundel suggests Lancaster's demands of Richard (ll. 1628–1640); Northumberland fleshes them out in the King's presence at Conway (ll. 1839–1927). Rutland's betrayal of the Epiphany Rising is touched on, comme vous orrez cy aval (ll. 2883–2884); his treachery is laid out (ll. 3006–3011, 3056–3106).

As well as telling the story twice, Creton seeks to keep his listeners engaged by nudging them, referring back to what they had already heard. He reminds them – Com vous avez / Devant oÿ (ll. 1064–1065) – that the Welsh harassed the English deserters; he does it again (p. 191, l. 28). He refers back to Northumberland's treacherous deceit (p. 201, ll. 5–6); and once more with Comme j'ay dit ycy devant (ll. 3699–3704). Two ‘nudges’ towards the end of the work go to the heart of the matter of the Prinse et mort: En la forme et maniere que vous avez oÿ, prist le duc Henry le roy Richart (p. 203, l. 3); and Ainsi com vous avez ouÿ / … Fu desfait le roy ancïen (ll. 2833–2837).

Before April 1402 Creton was sent to Scotland to see whether Richard was alive there (supra, p. 20). In his epistle to the King announcing his intention to come to him (pp. 301–309), Creton says that the Prinse et mort has already been written and is in circulation: Et saiches que tous les maulx et horribles traÿsons, qu'ilz t'ont faictes, j'ay manifestees par figures [et] par diz ou royaulme de France (p. 305, ll. 23–25).

The last event mentioned in Creton's poem is the restitution of Queen Isabella at Leulingham on Sunday 31 July 1401 (ll. 3495–3498). Creton was not present at this ceremony himself, but took his information at second hand. He then writes of Isabella's return to Paris (ll. 3642–3643).

Clearly he did not compose the whole of the Prinse et mort between August 1401 and April 1402. It is a work of almost 4,000 lines plus an important prose section. He was back in France by September 1399 (p. 213, ll. 1–4); allowing for time spent in reporting back to the duke of Burgundy, and settling down to planning his work, he would have started writing in the autumn of 1399, while events were still fresh in his mind. The Prinse et mort was written 1399–1402.

The deposition of Richard, son-in-law to Charles VI, was an event with huge repercussions in France.Footnote ¹²⁰ It happened during a truce in the Hundred Years’ War, and had the potential to call into question Charles's right to the throne on account of his spells of incapacity. The large number of surviving MSS of the Traïson, plus Creton's account, bear witness to this. In particular, the Traïson must have had a very extensive readership. By contrast, the deposition of the ineffective Wenceslas IV, King of Germany, but never crowned Holy Roman Emperor, in 1400 was equally portentous but, unlike Richard's deposition, had little impact.Footnote ¹²¹

It was common currency that Henry had had Richard murdered. Louis d'Orléans, who formed an alliance with Lancaster when he was in exile in Paris (1398–1399), accused him, in veiled terms, of regicide, in an exchange of insulting letters (1402–1403), referred to in Creton's ballade IV (pp. 327–329): d'avoir entreprins encontre vostre lige et souverain seigneur le roy Richard … ce que avez fait … au temps que je fis ladicte aliance je n'eusse … pensé que vous eussiez fait contre vostre roy ce qui est congneu et que chascun scet que vous avez fait … je ne sçay se à vostre seigneur le roy Richard vous rendistes le serement de feaulté que vous aviez à luy avant que vous procédissiez contre sa personne par la manière que avez fait … la dignité en quoy vous estes, je ne pense que la vertu divine vous y ait mis.Footnote ¹²²

Eustache Deschamps stated baldly that Lancaster had captured and killed Richard,Footnote ¹²³ and Christine de Pizan said of the marriage of Richard and Isabella of France: duquel dit mariage fust ensuivi si grant bien … se Fortune n'eust consenti perfaire la trahison, que fist Henri de Lancastre, qui cellui roy Richart par faulz et desloial tour prist et fist morir.Footnote ¹²⁴ Echoing these, a contemporary hand has added a marginal note to an early fifteenth-century MS of Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia; Demaratus betrayed Xerxes who gave him refuge when he was in exile: Nota contre les François qui recepterent Henry de Lencastre qui au partir d'eulz fist mourir son seigneur le roy Richart d'Angleterre, gendre du roy de France et son alié, et fu environ les annees mil iii^c iiii^xx xviii, xix et les ensuivantes.Footnote ¹²⁵ Creton's views are entirely those of his contemporaries in France, which he had helped to shape.

The Prinse et mort falls into three separate sections: quatrains (ll. 1–2295), prose (pp. 186–212), and couplets (ll. 2335–3712), with an imprecatory ballade cursing Lancaster following the prose section (ll. 2296–2334). Each section tells a different part of the story: the first covers the events leading to Richard's capture; the middle, prose section comprises an accurate eye-witness account of the capture itself; and the final section deals with the deposition and its aftermath. The Prinse et mort is therefore quite unlike any of the other sources for the usurpation. Apart from Chandos Herald's Vie du Prince Noir and the anonymous Voeux du Héron,Footnote ¹²⁶ it is the only account in French of a significant moment in English later medieval history made in a poetic form.

When Creton returned to France and set to work, the events described in the quatrains and prose had already happened: Richard was in prison and Parliament was going to meet to elect another King. However, Creton refers forward to the death of the earl of Salisbury (ll. 788–790), executed for his part in the failed Epiphany Rising of January 1400. Creton is actually writing about the earl being deserted by the Welshmen he had raised to fight for Richard, but inserts a panegyric on Salisbury. This reads just like a funeral eulogy, the emotion is quite raw and heart-felt; it seems as though news of the Rising had just reached Creton, and he responds to it with this outburst of feeling.

As he was writing the quatrains and prose, the events described in the couplets were still unfolding. News of the Parliament where Lancaster was elected King, his coronation and the Epiphany Rising came to Creton at second hand, he says from a French clerk who had travelled to England with Lancaster (ll. 2383–2390). In fact he was likely to have had information from various sources.

Creton wrote firmly in the tradition of the Middle French poets, although couplets, not quatrains, were the standard verse form of the period; only a highly competent writer, skilled in French verse, could accomplish a poem of this calibre. Even prolific authors such as Froissart and Chartier used the form only sparingly, and Creton himself slips into couplets in the final section.

The form he used, a system of concatenation – three decasyllabic lines rhymed together, while the four-syllable line following set the rhyme of the three ten-syllable lines coming after – was practised by leading Middle-French poets: Guillaume de Machaut, Le Jugement du roi de Behaigne; Jehan Froissart, Le Dit dou bleu chevalier; Christine de Pizan, Le Livre du dit de Poissy, Le Livre des trois jugemens, and Le Livre du debat de deux amans; and Alain Chartier, Le Debat des deux fortunés d'amours. Chartier also used this form in Le Livre des quatre dames, but in octosyllabics. The form may be a development of the tercets – two long lines, one short – practised by Rutebeuf in the mid thirteenth century, perhaps the inspiration also for Dante's terza rima.Footnote ¹²⁷

Creton sustains this complicated structure well, and the weaknesses are those to which any late Middle French writer might succumb: the second part of a decasyllable is occasionally mere padding (e.g. ll. 205, 851, 1537); the metre is awkwardly handled (ll. 1837, 1869, 2241); some rhymes are laboured (ll. 964–967, 2635–2636); there is assonance rather than rhyme in three quatrains (ll. 896–899, 1240–1243, 2144–2147); and he resorts fairly frequently to rhyming the same word with itself (ll. 81:83, 164–165, 832:835, 1312:1314, 1377–1378). One should note that Ballades I–IV are found only in one MS, a slovenly and hastily executed one (see, infra, p. 301). At first sight they display a distressing number of errors of rhyme and metre, but these are scribal in origin and easily corrected. The Ballades should not counter the view that Creton was an accomplished wordsmith.

Creton realized that what happened between Richard and Lancaster at Flint was of prime importance, the reason for which he was writing the Prinse et mort:

Following the imprecatory ballade, which allows him full rein to curse Henry Lancaster, Creton picks up the narrative, this time from information received at second hand, in rhyming octosyllabic couplets. This is much less difficult to sustain, but Creton's narrative never recaptures the élan of the quatrains. It is as though he found it easier to write when he was drawing from his own experience. He had all the events in his memory, had lived most of them. Writing from another person's information did not suit Creton. Although it would have been easier to write, the third section is pedestrian; recounting events he did not personally witness seems to handicap him.

It was Creton's view that the English hated the French (ll. 2391–2394, 3661), and that Richard was deposed solely because he loved his father-in-law, Charles VI, King of France (ll. 3292–3297). It is clear from the pejorative terms in which he wrote of the English, with the exception of the King and the earl of Salisbury, that Creton greatly disliked, perhaps even hated the English (ll. 2243–2244; p. 188, ll. 10–12; p. 201, ll. 8–11; p. 212, ll. 4–6; p. 111, ll. 5–7; ll. 2341, 2348–2358, 2374–2376, 2457–2459, 2650, 2929–2930, 3653–3655, 3667–3668). Creton's last word on the subject is in Ballade IV, in which he urges the duke of Orleans to invade England at the head of an army that will burn and devastate the country (p. 327, ll. 28–31). Creton's animosity is reflected in Henry's name always being written in the English way, whereas Richard always receives French spelling: Richart. The exception is l. 1157, where Henri makes a better rhyme for the eye with di : choisi : failli.

Creton is given to exaggeration, and has a poor grasp of numbers. He consistently gets distances wrong (ll. 90, 1739–1740; p. 193, ll. 12–13), and insists that Richard rode overnight from Milford Haven to Conway (ll. 865–868, 1257–1258), a distance of around 150 miles. Lancaster reduces his army to 30,000–40,000 men, which will be enough now that the King has been captured (p. 205, ll. 6–7), clearly a preposterous figure. He tries to add up three figures to make a total of 22 – the number of years that Richard has been on the throne – and gets 21 (ll. 934–935). Dates receive the same cavalier treatment (infra, p. 36).

The accounts of Richard's weeping should be taken as hyperbole. Creton has everyone weeping (l. 465): Salisbury and Richard when they meet up in Conway (ll. 869–872); Creton himself (ll. 1385–1387); Exeter and Surrey when Lancaster will not let them return to the King (l. 1551); Lancaster when he sees his father's tomb (p. 211, ll. 18–19); Sir Thomas Percy and the English ambassadors at the restitution of Isabella (ll. 3572–3573, 3596–3597); and Isabella herself on her return to France (p. 307, ll. 2–3). Plourant is an exaggerated description of an unhappy person.

Like Froissart, Creton was unfamiliar with the English parliamentary system.Footnote ¹²⁸ This made it difficult for him to describe what was happening in London after Richard had returned there in Lancaster's custody. Thus problems arose in translating his terms: la commune (p. 207, l. 3), les comunes (p. 211, l. 5), de / aux communes (p. 207, l. 26; p. 209, l. 15), le commun (ll. 2415, 2817, 3317), le peuple commun (l. 2671), la communauté (l. 2653).

Creton's knowledge of English was probably not extensive. By this time, English was the language of the court, although the nobility spoke French as well.Footnote ¹²⁹ Froissart confirms that Richard could both talk and read French: il … regarda dedens le livre … et y lisy, car moult bien parloit et lisoit franchois.Footnote ¹³⁰ A slight understanding of English would have served to enable Creton to travel from Paris to London, and then to Scotland in 1402, but once in England he was attached to the household of the French-speaking earl of Salisbury (supra, pp. 24–25) on whom he could rely to keep him au fait with events around him. The words spoken when Richard and Lancaster met at Flint were understood by Creton but, for avoidance of doubt, si le mes [sic] recorda le conte de Salsebery en françoiz (p. 199, ll. 17–18). When Creton wished to return to France, he asked Lancaster Herald to approach Lancaster for him (p. 195, ll. 30–33). The Herald obviously talked to Creton in French because, when he conversed with Lancaster, Creton states that he spoke en langage englesch (p. 197, l. 13). On learning that Creton and his companion were French, Lancaster addressed them in French (p. 197, ll. 16–18), and when the Frenchmen begged a safe conduct, they went directly to him since they now knew that the duke understood French (p. 211, ll. 26–28).

Creton stands accused of bad faith by trying to deceive his readers; his use of direct speech is taken as an attempt to say that he was present when he was not. For Clarke and Galbraith: ‘it has been too hastily assumed that because he was an eyewitness for part of the time that he was an eyewitness all the time. This is exactly what he wanted his readers to believe’.Footnote ¹³¹ The intention to deceive is quite wrong. It should not be presumed that anything given in direct speech is to be taken as the actual words spoken.Footnote ¹³² Professor Ainsworth has demonstrated this by comparing an extract from Froissart's first and third redactions of Book I of his Chronicles: in the first he uses indirect speech, in the third direct speech; no one thought that Froissart had suddenly remembered the exact words from thirty years before.Footnote ¹³³ Direct speech was a narrative technique to lend depth and texture to the account, giving the person reading the poem aloud the opportunity to ‘act’ the different speeches by varying intonation or gesture.Footnote ¹³⁴

It is important to remember that Creton was not writing a chronicle. He was the author of a literary work. This explains his opening lines; placing the action in a springtime setting was typical of Old and Middle French verse. One can mention for example Guillaume de Lorris: Le Roman de la Rose:

Guillaume de Machaut: Le Jugement du roy de Behaigne:

Chandos Herald: La Vie du Prince Noir:

Jehan Froissart: Le Dit dou bleu chevalier:

Froissart's most recent editor was of the opinion that the chronicler did not know the Prinse et mort,Footnote ¹³⁶ but I venture to disagree. Froissart's account of the deposition of Richard is largely fanciful, but echoes of Creton's description of Richard's being tricked out of the safety of one of his castles are found in Froissart. He has Richard return from Ireland to Bristol, then take himself off to Flint Castle, where Lancaster comes to him with only eleven other men [editor's italics] and persuades him par doulces parolles to come to London.Footnote ¹³⁷ It seems reasonable to suggest that Froissart had been present at a reading of the Prinse et mort; his account omits Northumberland at Conway, and condenses the action to Lancaster at Flint. This has the advantage of having the sneaking trick played on Richard carried out by Lancaster himself, rather than by his agent.

Creton's epistle to the duke of Burgundy, composed April–October 1402 (supra, p. 20), deserves special mention. In it he quotes from Valerius Maximus and other Classical authors. Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia, compiled in the first century ad, was a collection of ‘memorable deeds and sayings’ intended for the teaching of rhetoric.Footnote ¹³⁸

Considering the decline in the ability to read Latin, Charles V in 1375 commissioned Simon de Hesdin to translate Valerius into French. On Hesdin's death in 1383, partway through Book Seven (of nine), Nicolas de Gonesse completed the work in 1401. Les Faits et dits memorables enjoyed a huge success – more than sixty MSS surviveFootnote ¹³⁹ – and it is clear that Creton had unfettered access to an MS; he may even have owned one.

There are more than half-a-dozen substantial borrowings from Valerius Maximus, quoted almost word for word, either from the author's text or from the translator's gloss. Also, when Creton ‘quotes’ from other writers, e.g. Suetonius or St Isidore of Seville, he takes his text not from them but from Valerius Maximus; there can be no doubt about this, as he quotes verbatim from Valerius. All the ‘borrowed’ passages have been made italic, and identified in the notes;Footnote ¹⁴⁰ all come from the beginning of Book I. Creton does not move in a straight line through his model, but ranges to and fro. Obviously it is only in the prose epistle that it can be certain that Creton borrowed directly from Valerius Maximus. In the ballades it seems very likely that he had the information from Valerius, but given that he was writing in verse, and had to condense his source, the borrowing cannot be so easily verified.

This wholesale plagiarism seems underhand to us, but was not perceived that way in Middle French. At exactly the same time as Creton was composing his epistle to Philip the Bold (1402), Christine de Pizan was composing her Chemin de long estude, full of word-for-word borrowings from Valerius Maximus, and ‘second-hand’ borrowings from Valerius’ sources.Footnote ¹⁴¹ Christine employs the same technique in her Livre du corps de policie (1404–1407).Footnote ¹⁴² It is certainly passing strange that two writers should be writing in the same way at the same time.

Thoughts might be entertained of Creton as an early exponent of humanism, but the Middle Ages were studded with moral tales from the Classics; they were a lesson in how to live, they were essentially practical.Footnote ¹⁴³ Creton is not interested in the Classics for themselves, for the beauty of their form; his role is that of preceptor, his approach is quite medieval. The Prinse et mort occasionally looks backwards. Creton's use of an Old French word or expression to fulfil the needs of rhyme or metre shows the marvellous flexibility of the French language in the Middle French period.

Historical Value of the Prinse et mort. By J.J.N. Palmer

Creton was neither a chronicler nor an historian but a bystander involved by chance in events of high political drama. He was urged to recount these events by another of their victims, the earl of Salisbury, who believed that the truth would not otherwise emerge. His story is therefore largely based upon his own personal experiences and drawn from his own memory. It was almost certainly written down after an interval of some months, without the aid of documented sources, but more speedily than many of the other accounts.

Inevitably, such an account has many weaknesses, the most obvious being its chronology. Creton handles dates and figures with all the licence of a versifier. Richard, we are told, toured the castles of North Wales for ‘four or six’ days (l. 1393); Lancaster was accompanied by ‘nine or eleven’ great lords (p. 197, l. 9); an English king would reign for ‘twenty to twenty-two’ years (p. 199, ll. 25–26); Richard was guarded by ‘ten or twelve’ men (p. 205, l. 18). Impossibilities abound, his entire chronology is too ‘long’. He relates that the English army left Kilkenny on 23 June and arrived in Dublin after eleven days of near-starvation and an unspecified number of days on the march. Yet the army was in Dublin by 1 July.Footnote ¹⁴⁴ He further states that the army remained in Dublin more than eight weeks,Footnote ¹⁴⁵ before news of Lancaster's invasion reached the King, and that Richard himself delayed in Ireland for a further eighteen days before leaving (ll. 795–797).Footnote ¹⁴⁶ On this chronology, even the incredible feat which Creton attributes to Richard of riding the 150 or so miles from Milford Haven to Conway between midnight and daybreak would not have brought the King to Conway until weeks after the date which the poet gives for his critical meeting there with the earl of Northumberland.Footnote ¹⁴⁷ On any reconstruction, Creton's Irish chronology is impossible.Footnote ¹⁴⁸

Despite his imprecision, however, Creton's testimony is vital for the chronology of the events of July and August 1399; for he alone provides the information which enables us to make sense of the dates supplied by other sources. The most puzzling feature of this chronology is the delay between Lancaster's invasion and the King's reaction to it. News of Lancaster's arrival had reached Westminster by 28 June at the latest.Footnote ¹⁴⁹ If the government reacted with the urgency we might expect, Richard should have been informed within the week. We do not know the exact date of his return to South Wales, but the earliest suggested is over three weeks later, the latest well over a month.Footnote ¹⁵⁰ Of the various dates supplied by the English chroniclers, that of the monk of Evesham, who dates Richard's return some four weeks after Henry's arrival (c. 25 July), is probably nearest the truth.Footnote ¹⁵¹ Why did Richard take so long to return?

Two of the English chroniclers refer explicitly to this delay but only Walsingham attempts to explain it. But his inconsequential story of the English army embarking for Wales only to disembark in order to change ports,Footnote ¹⁵² would be utterly baffling without the aid of Creton's narrative by which to interpret it. Creton gives two reasons for the delay: the weather, and the strategic decisions taken by the King on the advice of his cousin, Edward Plantagenet, earl of Rutland and duke of Aumale. The first was in many respects the crucial factor. According to Creton, all communication between England and the army in Dublin was interrupted for several weeks by storms in the Irish Sea (ll. 446–456).Footnote ¹⁵³ When they abated, news of the invasion was immediately brought to the King; but by this date, Lancaster was already in control of much of England (ll. 457–512). Creton's story appears, inexplicably, to have been all but ignored by the secondary authorities.

Richard left Dublin on 17 July,Footnote ¹⁵⁴ but his return to England was further delayed by the decision he had taken to divide his forces, sending the earl of Salisbury directly to Conway while he himself marched south to Waterford, whence he sailed to Milford Haven. Creton, who is our only authority for this decision, also supplies the reasoning behind it. The shipping available at Dublin was adequate for only a small force. The remainder of the navy which had brought Richard to Ireland was scattered down the coast as far as Waterford. It made sense to collect these forces, and detachments of the army, at Waterford, and then cross directly to South Wales (ll. 538–557).Footnote ¹⁵⁵

Another factor, unknown to Creton, reinforced this reasoning. The actions of the English Council, and of Lancaster himself, very strongly suggest that it had arranged to join forces with the King near Bristol in order to confront the invader together, a sound enough strategy in view of Lancaster's line of march. The delays involved in communications and in moving the King's forces, however, meant that Lancaster was able to interpose his forces between those of the King and the Council. On 27 July, at about the moment of Richard's disembarcation in South Wales,Footnote ¹⁵⁶ Lancaster came to terms with the Regent, the duke of York, at Berkeley; two days later he was master of Bristol and promptly executed those members of the Council who had attempted to hold the city for the King. Richard's route from South Wales into England was effectively blocked.

The ensuing events in South Wales are perhaps the most obscure of all the episodes leading to the usurpation, not least because Creton was no longer in the King's entourage, having sailed for Conway with the earl of Salisbury. We therefore have no eye-witness account of what Richard did on his arrival; how long he remained with his army; in what circumstances he left it; what caused the army to disperse; or when the King set out for Conway.Footnote ¹⁵⁷ The widespread belief that Richard himself abandoned his army is too evidently propagated in the interests of all concerned to be taken on trust. Only Usk's story of Richard's attempt to secure troops from Glamorgan,Footnote ¹⁵⁸ offers any reliable clue as to his activities in this area.

By contrast, Creton gives a very clear account of Salisbury's attempts to raise an army in North Wales and Cheshire, and of the circumstances in which that army too melted away before the King could join it (ll. 633–749). But for Creton, we would not even have known of Salisbury's presence in North Wales and would therefore be quite unable to make any sense of the King's decision to cross the length of Wales from Pembroke to Conway.

There is one other factor in Creton's account of the events between Richard's departure from Dublin and his arrival at Conway which deserves mention: the alleged treachery of Rutland. Creton is the principal witness against Rutland, and many historians have accepted his word and have held Rutland's treachery to have been a major factor in Richard's downfall. Without rejecting Creton's testimony, it is possible to take a different view. Creton's case against Rutland is that he was responsible for the advice to divide the army, with the disastrous consequence which ensued, and to delay his departure from Ireland (ll. 527–557, 730–736, 793–801); that he was one of the two men in charge of the royal forces in South Wales which dispersed without striking a blow for the King (ll. 945–1007; p. 191, ll. 24–30); and that when next seen by Creton, Rutland was in the company of Lancaster, wearing his badge (ll. 1053–1058). In addition Creton knew at the time he was writing that Rutland was believed responsible for betraying to Lancaster the Epiphany Rising of January 1400 (ll. 3074–3091).Footnote ¹⁵⁹

In view of all this, Creton's admission (p. 191, l. 23) that appearances might possibly be deceptive, is remarkable testimony to his fair-mindedness. It is clear that he had witnessed no overt act of treachery by Rutland; nor, it should be stated, does he claim to have done so. His case against him rested upon the dire consequences of his acts, which Creton assumed to have been intentional, but which may not have been.

The most valued part of Creton's poem has long been his circumstantial story of the events surrounding the capture of the King. His account flatly contradicts the official version retailed by the Rolls of Parliament and by the majority of the English chroniclers. While they relate that Richard cheerfully resigned his crown when still a free man at Conway, Creton alleges that Richard was betrayed into surrendering himself by the promise of the earl of Northumberland – given under oath – that Lancaster's grievances were against Ceulx qui aront fait mal, vice ne erreur / Ou traÿson (ll.1883–1884), not the King himself, and that they should be tried in open parliament. To these terms the King agreed, and was thus:

who immediately broke his oath, ambushed the King, and led him captive to Flint.

It has been argued that Creton's account is not to be trusted; that he did not witness many of the events he reported; that he was wrong about a number of key facts; and that his testimony should therefore be rejected in favour of that of the Dieulacres chronicle, which tells essentially the same story, shorn of the rhetoric.Footnote ¹⁶⁰ But Creton is in fact unusually meticulous in reporting which events he personally witnessed; his ‘mistakes’ may not be errors at all; and the very brief account in the anonymous Dieulacres chronicle would carry little weight but for the circumstantial story in Creton with which is agrees, and from which it may well be derived.Footnote ¹⁶¹

For the events surrounding Richard's surrender we are therefore almost entirely dependent upon Creton, whose testimony cannot be directly verified but must be accepted or rejected on grounds of inherent plausibility and the general trustworthiness of the poem. Although Creton makes a number of mistakes, they are the kind of mistakes which might be expected from an eye-witness writing from memory some months after the events had occurred. There is nothing elsewhere in his narrative to suggest that he told deliberate lies or invented scenes which he claimed to have witnessed. When he states that he was present at the meeting of Northumberland and Richard at Conway; was there when the King was ambushed by the earl; and was told the details of Northumberland's desloyale traïson (l. 3687) by the earl of Salisbury, who was present when the terms of Richard's surrender were agreed; there would appear to be no good grounds for rejecting his testimony.

Creton's story of the events of June to August 1399 owes its considerable value to the fact that he personally witnessed many of the key episodes in a major political drama of which our other sources were either ignorant or were misleadingly informed by interested parties. None of this is true of the remainder of his poem. For the events of the Deposition Parliament and the Epiphany Rising, Creton relied on the report of:

His account has all the defects of the earlier part of his poem and none of its merits. Its only possible value is the evidence it supplies as to how these events may have been viewed in Paris.

For the final section of his poem, Creton does not name his sources, the only occasion on which he fails to do so. This is unfortunate since this part of his work offers the best materials by which to judge his abilities as a reporter of current events. The subject matter – the return of Queen Isabella to France – is less contentious than earlier parts of his narrative; there are reliable materials with which his account may be compared; and we may reasonably presume that Creton was no longer constrained to depend entirely upon his own memory in reconstructing events. Whatever his sources, this final section does reveal that Creton was a fair and accurate reporter. The worst error of which he can be convicted is of placing 25 July on the wrong day of the week (ll. 3477–3478).Footnote ¹⁶² This part of his narrative does therefore give some assurance of his essential trustworthiness.