1 Quotations from Gower's writings are from Macaulay, G. C., ed., The Complete Works of John Gower , 4 vols. (Oxford, 1899–1902). Excepting the Modern English verse translations from the Cronica tripertita by Rigg, A. G., other translations are the author's doing. The asterisks indicate lines found in variant manuscripts. See Macaulay, , Complete Works, 2:2, note to lines 24–92, and 2:4, note to lines 53 and following.Google Scholar

2 Complete Works , ed. Macaulay, , 3:492.Google Scholar

3 The “Record and Process” is in the Rotuli parliamentorum: ut et petitiones, et placita in parliamento , ed. Blyke, Richard, Strachey, John, et al., 8 vols. (London, 1780–1832), 3:416–24; on the process of its enrollment, see Richardson, H. G., “Richard II's Last Parliament,” English Historical Review 52 (1937): 40–42. Gower's use of it is noted in Gaillard Lapsley, “The Parliamentary Title of Henry IV,” English Historical Review 49 (1934): 438–40 and 596–600; see also Strohm, Paul, “Saving the Appearances: Chaucer's ‘Purse’ and the Fabrication of the Lancastrian Claim,” in Hochon's Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton, 1992), 75–94, esp. 89–90. There is analysis of the chronology of Gower's writings of this revolutionary period in Yeager, R. F., “Chaucer's To His Purse': Begging, or Begging Off?,” Viator 36 (2005): 400–405; also, for evidence putting Gower's Lancastrian connection back to the early thirteen-eighties, see Yeager, , “Gower's Lancastrian Affinity: The Iberian Connection,” Viator 35 (2004): 483–515. On “In Praise of Peace,” see now the commentary of Michael Livingston, in John Gower: The Minor Latin Works , ed. and trans. Yeager, R. F., TEAMS (Kalamazoo, 2005), 89–132; also Grady, Frank, “The Lancastrian Gower and the Limits of Exemplarity,” Speculum 70 (1995): 552–75.Google Scholar

4 On Richard's relations with Gower, see now Grady, Frank, “Gower's Boat, Richard's Barge, and the True Story of the Confessio Amantis: Text and Gloss,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 44 (2002): 1–15; and esp. Nicholson, Peter, “The Dedications of Gower's Confessio Amantis” Mediaevalia 10 (1984): 159–80. The evidence is reviewed also in Stow, George B., “Richard II in John Gower's Confessio Amantis: Some Historical Perspectives,” Mediaevalia 16 (1993): 3–31.Google Scholar

5 The fundamental work remains Peck, Russell A., Kingship & Common Profit in Gower's Confessio Amantis (Carbondale, 1978); also Coffman, George R., “John Gower in His Most Significant Role,” Elizabethan Studies and Other Essays in Honor of George F. Reynolds, University of Colorado Studies in the Humanities (Boulder, 1945), 52–61; Still-well, Gardiner, “John Gower and the Last Years of Edward III,” Studies in Philology 45 (1948): 454–71; and Coffman, George, “John Gower, Mentor for Royalty: Richard II,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 69 (1954): 953–64.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Parkes, M. B., “Patterns of Scribal Activity and Revisions of the Text in Early Copies of Works by John Gower,” in New Science Out of Old Books: Studies in Manuscripts and Early Printed Books in Honour of A. I. Doyle , ed. Beadle, Richard and Piper, A. J. (Aldershot, 1995), 81–121 at 85.Google Scholar

7 The quoted terms are from Hanna, Ralph III, “Authorial Versions, Rolling Revision, Scribal Error? Or, The Truth about Truth,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 10 (1988): 23–40; cf. also Parkes, , “Patterns of Scribal Activity,” 84 and 86. A pair of instances from other Latin verse by Gower are analyzed in “A Rhyme Distribution Chronology of John Gower's Latin Poetry,” Studies in Philology 104 (2007): 32–35 and n. 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 The manuscripts are described in Complete Works , ed. Macaulay, , 4:lx–lxv and lxx–lxxi, whose sigla have been kept, with the one exception, that Macaulay's H₃ (awkward to type) is replaced herein with Z (the only letter of the alphabet Macaulay does not use). Significant additional particulars are to be found in Karl Friedrich Heinrich Meyer, John Gower's Beziehungen zu Chaucer und König Richard II (Bonn, 1889), 66–69 and 71; also, in the fuller witness-lists of John Hurt Fisher, John Gower: Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer (New York, 1964), 306 (also 308 and 99–106) sub numeris 50 (= S), 51 (= G), 52 (= C), 53 (= H), and 61 (= Z); and Derek Pearsall, “The Manuscripts and Illustrations of Gower's Works,” in A Companion to Gower , ed. Echard, Siân (Cambridge, 2004), 73–97, sub numeris 68 (= G), 71 (= C), 73 (= H), 74 (= S), and 78 (= Z), with discussion, esp. 84–86.Google Scholar

9 It may be worth emphasizing that the stemma proposed here means to be restrictedly textualis, i.e.: (1) it accounts for the texts as transmitted only. No correlation can be observed between the textual matter and the palaeographico-codicological evidence that has been published, by Macaulay (see n. 8 above) and more fully by Parkes (“Patterns of Scribal Activity,” 81–121), of the changes of hands and of the written-over erasures in some of the manuscripts. The patterns of these two kinds of scribal activity do not coincide with the patterns of textual variance. At the two points in the Cronica where texts have been scraped out and rewritten, the rewriting once (1.4–12) yielded textual uniformity among the rewritten texts (HGSG) and their concurrence with the single other text wherein no rewriting occured (Z) and on the other occasion (3.478–89) yielded textual divergence among the rewritten texts (H differing from CS, G sometimes with CS but also differing), though also here again concurrence in part with the manuscript that was not rewritten (unrewritten Z with rewritten H). To similar textual inconsequence, Parkes's analysis of scribal stints in four of the manuscripts (HCSG) shows that the same scribe might use different exemplars on different occasions (87–90: Parkes's “Scribe 4” wrote the Cronica in H, S, and G with results differing in ways that reflect differing exemplars); but also that different scribes might use the same exemplar (89: copying the Cronica in C was shared between “Scribe 4” and another copyist but without any observable shift of textual affiliation). It might be felt that Parkes's analysis is put more conclusively than the evidence warrants, as concerns both the scribes' hands and the extent of the cooperation among them; on the other hand, it seems more likely that in this instance the palaeographical-codicological evidence is simply without textually probative value, despite the rare instruction it may yield for publication routines. (2) Likewise, the stemma means to account for texts of the Cronica proper only. No correlation between these texts and the texts of the Vox clamantis occurring in four of the five manuscripts (HCSG) can be observed, probably for reasons developed by Parkes, (“Patterns of Scribal Activity,” 82): in all four cases, the Cronica was always copied separately, later, on blanks and anomalous added quires, after the Vox had been completed. None of the observable copyists ever had access to any exemplar that already had concurrent in it both the Vox and the Cronica at once. Despite the possibility that the same scribe may have written both the Vox and the Cronica at some time or other, and despite the fact that both works ended up written out together in some of the same manuscripts, the surviving copies of the one work and the other come from different, discontinuous exemplars. This too may be an unusual circumstance; nonetheless, despite the coincidences of scribes and manuscripts — accidents without textual consequence — the two works come from discontinuous, non-overlapping textual traditions.Google Scholar

10 See esp. Vox clamantis 4.677–1232 (= chaps. 16–24).Google Scholar

11 On the episode, see Giancarlo, Matthew, “Murder, Lies, and Storytelling: The Manipulation of Justice(s) in the Parliaments of 1397 and 1399,” Speculum 77 (2002): 79–92. The English verse is Shakespeare, Richard II 1.2.17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 On the collar and Gower's effigy, see now Hines, John, Cohen, Nathalie, and Roffey, Simon, “Iohannes Gower, Armiger, Poeta: Records and Memorials of his Life and Death,” in A Companion to Gower , ed. Echard, , 23–41 at 26 and 36–40.Google Scholar

13 On the revision, see Parkes, , “Patterns of Scribal Activity,” 85, 91, and 94; and for Percy's career, see Bean, J. M. W., “Henry IV and the Percies,” History 44 (1959): 212–27.Google Scholar

14 Here is such a list, nonetheless: Four times quia] Z: qua ω, at 1.90, 2.14, 2.81, and 3.58; also 1.3 quia] Z: qui ω; as well as other misreadings of source q + brevigraph: 1.59 quam] Z: quem ω, 2.174 quo] Z: quoque ω, 3.172 quoque] Z: [enclitic] -que ω, 3.486 [enclitic] -que] Z: qui ω. Contracted forms probably from misread brevigraphs (especially suspensions of nasal consonants): 2.81 adherat] Z: aderant ω, 2.186 sperat] Z: sperabat ω, 2.166 capere] Z: carpere ω, 2.175 morteque] Z: mortemque ω, 2.197 conceptum] Z: contemptum ω, 3.228 quodammodo] Z: quodamodo ω, 3.447 meminit] Z: memorat ω, and possibly also 3.127 Creuit Z: Cernit ω, and 3.177 continet] Z: sustinet ω; also, vowel confusions by contracted nasals: 3.150 homo] Z: humo ω, and 3.222 timor] Z (possibly anticipating 3.223, the same term in the same metrical position): tumor ω. Confusion of “s” and “f”: 1.168 fors] Z: sors ω, 1.182 forte] Z: sorte ω, and 3.259 satis] Z: fatis ω; and possibly 1.26 subtili] Z: fallaci ω. Also, confusion of “r” and “t”: 1.165 petit] Z: perit ω. Spelling variants and errors, including sibilant spellings: 1.142 possit] Z: poscit ω, 1.148 Signum] Z: Cignum ω, and 3.163 sceler] Z: celer ω; and possibly also related to pronunciation: 2.137 facta] Z: fata ω, and 3.283 cuntis] Z: cunctis ω. Also a full range of the possible errors with vowel distributions: 1.6 retrograda] Z: retrogreda ω, 1.115 obliquus] Z: obliqus ω, 1.127 Turrem] Z: Turrim ω, 2.273 perliamentum] Z: parliamentum ω, and 3.121 erat] Z: erit ω. Omissions of et: 2.267, 3.236, 3.372; also omission of 1.158 terra and 3.224 se; and possibly related confusions of biliteral monosyllables: 2.31 vt] Z: et ω, 2.66 ab] Z: in ω, and 3.336 Et] Z: Vt ω. Also, initial omission of a whole line, 2.328, the line then written out in margine with a mark for its insertion to follow 2.326.Google Scholar

15 Z has also the important distinction of being the only independent copy of the Cronica, which is transmitted by the rest of the manuscripts as a kind of appendix to the Vox clamantis. And an independent state would have been the original form of the Cronica's publication — possibly in something like pamphlet form — immediately following its completion, ca. February 1400, at a point of near-crisis for the Lancastrian regime, just after Richard's murder, when the poem's matter would have been of immediate interest. It ought perhaps also to be pointed out that the examination of the textual tradition herein indicates that the state of the text in Z is in fact also early, relatively speaking — that the direction of textual change went from something much like Z (unrevised) to S (revised), for example — not late, as I implied elsewhere, ignorantly, in “Gower's Early Latin Poetry: Text-Genetic Hypotheses of an Epistola ad regem (c. 1377–1380), from the Evidence of John Bale,” Mediaeval Studies 65 (2003): 243–317 at 294 n. 3; see also Fisher, , John Gower, 99–106.Google Scholar

16 Cf. the remarks of Rigg, A History of Anglo-Latin Literature 1066–1422 (Cambridge, 1992), 314 and 391 n. 5; or “Metrics,” in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide , ed. Mantello, F. A. C. and Rigg, A. G. (Washington, DC, 1996), 106–110 at 110. Some near-contemporary Anglo-Latin examples of 1392 are discussed in Carlson, David and Rigg, A. G., eds. and trans., Richard Maidstone: Concordia (The Reconciliation of Richard II with London), TEAMS (Kalamazoo, 2003), 36 and 129–30.Google Scholar

17 The idiosyncratic mechanical errors in C are as follows: Errors reading vowels, for example “i” for “e” twice, at 1.175 Possit] C: Posset ω, and 2.167 fatiatur] C: fateatur ω; also, 2.244 optatus] C: aptatus ω; but especially final vowels: 2.15 do] C: de ω, 2.131 magnificate] C: magnificati ω, and 2.285 variate] C: variata ω. Trouble with minims: 1.186 nimius] C: munus ω, 2.229 ictis] C: ictus ω, 2.287 dicuntur] C: ducuntur ω, and 3.323 sacratus] C: sacratis ω. Trouble twice about marks of suspension of nasal consonants: 3.340 regnant] C: regnat ω, and 3.431 pregnant] C: pregnat ω. Omission of an entire line at 3.468, and twice omissions of a medial consonant: 3.69 affimare] C: affirmare ω, and 3.197 fata] C: facta ω. Finally, variants about the spelling of sibilants (such as occur also in Z): 3.188 celeres] C: sceleres ω, and 3.347 recisum] CZ: rescisum HSG. Google Scholar

18 See esp. Barron, Caroline M., “The Tyranny of Richard II,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 41 (1968): 1–18.Google Scholar

19 On the episode, see esp. Chrimes, S. B., “Richard II's Questions to the Judges, 1387,” Law Quarterly Review 72 (1956): 365–90; also Clementi, D., “Richard II's Ninth Question to the Judges,” English Historical Review 86 (1971): 96–113.Google Scholar

20 In the prose headnote to the Cronica tripertita, Complete Works , ed. Macaulay, , 4:314.Google Scholar

21 For Gower's manuscript presentation to the archbishop, see Fisher, , John Gower , 99–100 and 105–6; Parkes, “Patterns of Scribal Activity” (n. 6 above), 92–93, expresses reservations about the surviving copy. In “Manuscripts and Illustrations” (n. 8 above), 95, Pearsall remarks: “‘campaign’ is not too strong a word to apply to the impetus given by Lancastrian patrons to the production of copies of Gower's works.” Google Scholar

22 Rotuli Parliamentorum (n. 3 above), 3:417.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., 3:416.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., 3:417.Google Scholar

25 Other evidence for this episode's official forgetting is in Wright, H. G., “The Protestation of Richard II in the Tower in September, 1399,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 23 (1939): 151–65, and Sayles, G. O., “The Deposition of Richard II: Three Lancastrian Narratives,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 54 (1981): 257–70; see also Given-Wilson, Chris, “The Manner of King Richard's Renunciation: A ‘Lancastrian Narrative’?,” English Historical Review 108 (1993): 365–70.Google Scholar

26 See Rotuli Parliamentorum , 3:452–53.Google Scholar

27 The other occurrences of phrases of the type are at 1.124, 2.43, 2.84, 2.112, 2.170, 2.236, 2.266, 2.320, 3.7, 3.26, 3.118, 3.208, 3.219, 3.260, and 3.454. It is noteworthy that all the examples but for the one (1.124) occur in the later books of the Cronica, as if Gower came on to the phrases' convenience only belatedly.Google Scholar

28 On these events of 4–15 January 1400, see Rogers, Alan, “Henry IV and the Revolt of the Earls, 1400,” History Today 18 (1968): 277–83; McNiven, Peter, “The Cheshire Rising of 1400,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 52 (1970): 385–92; also Crook, David, “Central England and the Revolt of the Earls, January 1400,” Historical Research 64 (1991): 403–10.Google Scholar

29 Various accounts of how Richard died were put about, little agreeing among them selves: for a survey, see Saul, Nigel, Richard II (New Haven, 1997), 425–26.Google Scholar

30 By light of the textual considerations, Macaulay's decision to favor S as he did for establishing the text of his edition was a mistake. It was carefully written and is a presentation copy for the archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Arundel (or a copy of the presentation copy: see n. 21 above) — a personage of importance, both in his relations with Gower and in his own right. Besides its text of the Cronica, the manuscript has other unique Gowerian contents, written for the archbishop, which enable dating its production fairly precisely to 1402: it is a remarkably early copy too, in other words, dating from the Cronica's author's lifetime, within eighteen to thirty months of the poem's first completion and publication. Despite these its strong attractions, the manuscript's texts are at best idiosyncratic, arguably inferior or degenerate, and ought not to be preferred — all else being equal — before other witnesses. However, a critical text of the Cronica tripertita, established along the stemmatic lines set out herein — to make a text as near the ca. February 1400 initial publication as the evidence permits (leaving subsequent authorial revisions for other presentation) — would differ from the text printed in Macaulay's edition at only the following points (Macaulay's edition's lection before the bracket, followed after the bracket by the critically established reading with its witness-list): 1.14 ipsum, qui iure carebat] semper mala <C: mala semper> quin faciebat HZC, 1.34 ille] vbique HZC, 1.71 fraudes] fraudis HZ, 1.93 dum] cum HC, 1.170 amicis] iniquis HZC, 1.182 Hic] Sic HZC, 1.191 sibi] ibi H, 1.213 laude] verba HZC, 2.4 penna] lingua HZC, 2.22 dolus] dolor H, 2.38 vnus] vllus H, 2.75 statuit] statuunt H, .118 fine] labe H, 2.208 dumque] qui HZ, 2.208 inde] ille HZ, 2.209 quamuis sine labe] tetigit de face HZ, 2.210 Tangit] Eius HZ, 2.236 pereant] periant HZC, 2.278 Tunc] Sic HZC, .145 quasi] sua H, 3.291 quibus] et ad HZC, 3.369 iure] labe HZC, 3.444 si] sibi Z, and 3.479 populo set non benedicta] violenta, grauis, maledicta HZ. quin faciebat HZC, 1.34 ille] vbique HZC, 1.71 fraudes] fraudis HZ, 1.93 dum] cum HC, 1.170 amicis] iniquis HZC, 1.182 Hic] Sic HZC, 1.191 sibi] ibi H, 1.213 laude] verba HZC, 2.4 penna] lingua HZC, 2.22 dolus] dolor H, 2.38 vnus] vllus H, 2.75 statuit] statuunt H, .118 fine] labe H, 2.208 dumque] qui HZ, 2.208 inde] ille HZ, 2.209 quamuis sine labe] tetigit de face HZ, 2.210 Tangit] Eius HZ, 2.236 pereant] periant HZC, 2.278 Tunc] Sic HZC, .145 quasi] sua H, 3.291 quibus] et ad HZC, 3.369 iure] labe HZC, 3.444 si] sibi Z, and 3.479 populo set non benedicta] violenta, grauis, maledicta HZ.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=By+light+of+the+textual+considerations,+Macaulay's+decision+to+favor+S+as+he+did+for+establishing+the+text+of+his+edition+was+a+mistake.+It+was+carefully+written+and+is+a+presentation+copy+for+the+archbishop+of+Canterbury+Thomas+Arundel+(or+a+copy+of+the+presentation+copy:+see+n.+21+above)+—+a+personage+of+importance,+both+in+his+relations+with+Gower+and+in+his+own+right.+Besides+its+text+of+the+Cronica,+the+manuscript+has+other+unique+Gowerian+contents,+written+for+the+archbishop,+which+enable+dating+its+production+fairly+precisely+to+1402:+it+is+a+remarkably+early+copy+too,+in+other+words,+dating+from+the+Cronica's+author's+lifetime,+within+eighteen+to+thirty+months+of+the+poem's+first+completion+and+publication.+Despite+these+its+strong+attractions,+the+manuscript's+texts+are+at+best+idiosyncratic,+arguably+inferior+or+degenerate,+and+ought+not+to+be+preferred+—+all+else+being+equal+—+before+other+witnesses.+However,+a+critical+text+of+the+Cronica+tripertita,+established+along+the+stemmatic+lines+set+out+herein+—+to+make+a+text+as+near+the+ca.+February+1400+initial+publication+as+the+evidence+permits+(leaving+subsequent+authorial+revisions+for+other+presentation)+—+would+differ+from+the+text+printed+in+Macaulay's+edition+at+only+the+following+points+(Macaulay's+edition's+lection+before+the+bracket,+followed+after+the+bracket+by+the+critically+established+reading+with+its+witness-list):+1.14+ipsum,+qui+iure+carebat]+semper+mala++quin+faciebat+HZC,+1.34+ille]+vbique+HZC,+1.71+fraudes]+fraudis+HZ,+1.93+dum]+cum+HC,+1.170+amicis]+iniquis+HZC,+1.182+Hic]+Sic+HZC,+1.191+sibi]+ibi+H,+1.213+laude]+verba+HZC,+2.4+penna]+lingua+HZC,+2.22+dolus]+dolor+H,+2.38+vnus]+vllus+H,+2.75+statuit]+statuunt+H,+.118+fine]+labe+H,+2.208+dumque]+qui+HZ,+2.208+inde]+ille+HZ,+2.209+quamuis+sine+labe]+tetigit+de+face+HZ,+2.210+Tangit]+Eius+HZ,+2.236+pereant]+periant+HZC,+2.278+Tunc]+Sic+HZC,+.145+quasi]+sua+H,+3.291+quibus]+et+ad+HZC,+3.369+iure]+labe+HZC,+3.444+si]+sibi+Z,+and+3.479+populo+set+non+benedicta]+violenta,+grauis,+maledicta+HZ.>Google Scholar

31 What would appear to be another witness to the G-version of the conclusion has been published, in Moll, Richard J., “Gower's Cronica tripertita and the Latin Glosses to Hardyng's Chronicle,” Journal of the Early Book Society 7 (2004): 153–58. The glosses to the unpublished earlier version of Hardyng's work (in London, BL, Lansdowne 204) cite Gower's Cronica three times: once by paraphrase of Cronica 1.97–110 (Moll, “Gower's Cronica tripertita” 155); once by quotation of Cronica 1.5–8 + 15–16 + 21–22 as a continuous eight-line passage, with a variant version of 1.15–16 — perfectly satisfactory in itself though otherwise unparalleled (“Stultorum vile cepit consilium iuuenile / Et sectam senium decreuit esse reiectam” in the gloss, by contrast with all the manuscripts' “Stultorum vile sibi consilium iuuenile / Legerat, et sectam senium dedit esse reiectam”), but wanting other variants, of a sort that would indicate the textual affiliation of the copy Hardyng was using (ibid., 154); and finally, by quotation of an apparent excerpt from the concluding verse-paragraph of Cronica 3 (ibid., 155–156): 1 O speculum mundi quod debet in aure refundi 2 Ex quo prouisum sapiens acuat sibi visum 3 = 3.485 Cum male viuentes deus odit in orbe regentes 4 = 3.486 Est qui peccator esse potest dominator 5 = 3.487 Ricardo teste finis probat hoc manifeste 6 Sic diffinita fecit regia sors stabilita 7 Regis vt est vita Cronica stabat ita Line 4 here omits “non” by mistake, evidently: the Gower manuscripts all read “Est qui peccator non esse potest dominator,” sensibly as well as metrically. Lines 1–2 and 6–7 have readings otherwise attested by G alone, distinguishing it from all other texts. Evidently, Hardyng's glosses will adjust the Cronica texts to suit his immediate purposes — paraphrasing and excerpting — and the glosses' tolerance for a high rate of significant error, even in small compass, does not engender credence. Nonetheless, Hardyng does not appear to have been inclined to invent. His witness must have been G or G-like. And his reading “debet in aure refundi” deserves consideration as possibly authorial, in preference to the only other attestation to such a line in the corpus, the difficult (nonsensical?) lection peculiar to G itself 3.478: “debet in ante refundi.” Google Scholar

32 Echard, Siân, “Last Words: Latin at the End of the Confessio Amantis,” in Interstices: Studies in Middle English and Anglo-Latin Texts in Honour of A. G. Rigg , ed. Green, Richard Firth and Mooney, Lynne R. (Toronto, 2004), 99–121 at 99–100.Google Scholar

33 “Hae fuerunt causae, quare decollatus est archiepiscopus Ricardus Scrope,” in Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops , ed. Raine, James, 2 vols., Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores (Rolls Series) 71 (London, 1886), 2:305. On the episode, see esp. McNiven, Peter, “The Betrayal of Archbishop Scrope,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (1971): 173–213; and, on its aftermath, esp. McKenna, John W., “Popular Canonization as Political Propaganda: The Cult of Archbishop Scrope,” Speculum 45 (1970): 608–23; also, for broader context, Walker, Simon, “Political Saints in Later Medieval England,” in The McFarlane Legacy , ed. Britnell, R. H. and Pollard, A. J. (New York, 1995), 77–106; and Stouck, Mary-Ann, “Saints and Rebels: Hagiography and Opposition to the King in Late Fourteenth-Century England,” Medievalia et Humanistica, n. s. 24 (1997): 75–94.Google Scholar

34 The verses “Non … vacuas,” “Anglorum … prospera,” and “Quid … verisimilis” are from the poem “Quis meo capiti,” in London, BL, Cotton Faustina B.ix, fols. 243v–244v, where the penultimate line quoted reads “stages.” The poem was printed from this source by Thomas Wright, in Political Poems and Songs Relating to English History Composed During the Period from the Accession of EDW. III. to that of RIC. III. , 2 vols., Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores (Rolls Series) 14 (London, 1859–61), 2:114–18; another, longer 21-stanza version of the poem (unpublished) is in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 851: see Rigg, A. G., “Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (II),” Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978): 397.Google Scholar

35 The phrases quoted from Gower are “Quern deus elegit,” Cronica tripertita 3.320, and “Electus Cristi,” “In Praise of Peace,” prol.1.Google Scholar