INTRODUCTION
LIFE OF GOWER.
To write anything like a biography of Gower, with the materials that exist, is an impossibility. Almost the only authentic records of him, apart from his writings, are his marriage-licence, his will, and his tomb in St. Saviour’s Church; and it was this last which furnished most of the material out of which the early accounts of the poet were composed. A succession of writers from Leland down to Todd contribute hardly anything except guesswork, and this is copied by each from his predecessors with little or no pretence of criticism. Some of them, as Berthelette and Stow, describe from their own observation the tomb with its effigy and inscriptions, as it actually was in their time, and these descriptions supply us with positive information of some value, but the rest is almost entirely worthless.
Gower’s will was printed in Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments (1796), and in 1828 Sir Harris Nicolas, roused by the uncritical spirit of Todd, published the article in the Retrospective Review1 which has ever since been regarded as the one source of authentic information on the subject. It does not appear that Nicolas undertook any very extensive searching of records, indeed he seems to have practically confined his attention to the British Museum; for wherever he cites the Close Rolls or other documents now in the Record Office, it is either from the abstract of the Close Rolls given in MS. Harl. 1176 or as communicated to him by some other person: but he was able to produce several more or less interesting documents connected either with the poet or with somebody who bore the same name and belonged to the same family, and he placed the discussion for the first time upon a sound critical basis. Pauli simply recapitulated the results arrived at by Nicolas with some slight elucidations from the Close Rolls of 6 Ric. II on a matter which had been already mentioned
by Nicolas on the authority of Mr. Petrie. As the result of a further examination of the Close Rolls and other records I am able to place some of the transactions referred to in a clearer light, while at the same time I find myself obliged to cast serious doubt on the theory that all the documents in question relate to the poet. In short, the conclusions at which I arrive, so far as regards the records, are mostly of a negative character.
It may be taken as proved that the family to which John Gower the poet belonged was of Kent. Caxton indeed says of him that he was born in Wales, but this remark was probably suggested by the name of the ‘land of Gower’ in Wales, and is as little to be trusted as the further statement that his birth was in the reign of Richard II. There was a natural tendency in the sixteenth century to connect him with the well-known Gowers of Stitenham in Yorkshire, whence the present noble family of Gower derives its origin, and Leland says definitely that the poet was of Stitenham2 . It is probable, however, that Leland had no very certain information; for when we examine his autograph manuscript, we find that he first wrote, following Caxton, ‘ex Cambria, ut ego accepi, originem duxit, ’ and afterwards altered this to ‘ex Stitenhamo, villa Eboracensis prouinciae, originem ducens. ’ It is probable that the credit of connexion with the poet had been claimed by the Yorkshire family, whose ‘proud tradition, ’ as Todd says, ‘has been and still is that he was of Stitenham, ’ and we find reason to think that they had identified him with a certain distinguished lawyer of their house. This family tradition appears in Leland’s Itinerarium, vi. 13, ‘The house of Gower the poete sumtyme chief iuge of the commune place’ (i.e. Common Pleas) ‘yet remaineth at Stitenham yn Yorkshire, and diuerse of them syns have been knights. ’ He adds that there are Gowers also in Richmondshire and Worcestershire (‘Wicestreshire, ’ MS.). The statement that this supposed judge was identical with the poet is afterwards withdrawn; for on a later page Leland inserts a note, ‘Mr. Ferrares told me that Gower the iuge could not be the man that write the booke yn Englisch, for he said that Gower the iuge was about Edward the secundes tyme. ’3
All this seems to suggest that Leland had no very trustworthy evidence on the matter. He continued to assert, however, as we have seen, that the poet derived his origin from Stitenham, and to this he adds that he was brought up and practised as a lawyer, ‘Coluit forum et patrias leges lucri causa4 . ’ It has not been noticed that the author’s manuscript has here in the margin what is probably a reference to authority for this statement: we find there a note in a contemporary hand, ‘Goverus seruiens ad legem 30 Ed. 3.’ From this it is probable that Leland is relying on the Year-book of 30 Ed. III, where we find the name Gower, apparently as that of a serjeant-at-law who took part in the proceedings. It is not likely that Leland had any good reasons for identifying this Gower, who was in a fairly high position at the bar in the year 1356, with John Gower the poet, who died in 14085 .
Leland’s statements were copied by Bale and so became public property. They did not, however, long pass unchallenged. Thynne in his Animadversions acutely criticises the suggestion of Yorkshire origin, on the ground of the difference of arms:—‘Bale hath much mistaken it, as he hath done infinite things in that book, being for the most part the collections of Leland. For in truth the arms of Sir John Gower being argent, on a cheveron azure three leopards’ heads or, do prove that he came of a contrary house to the Gowers of Stytenham in Yorkshire, who bare barruly of argent and gules, a cross paty flory sable. Which difference of arms seemeth a difference of families, unless you can prove that being of one family they altered their arms upon some just occasion. ’ The arms to which Thynne refers as those of Gower the poet are those which are to be seen upon his tomb6; and the argument is undoubtedly sound. Thynne proceeds to criticise Speght’s statement that Chaucer and Gower were both lawyers of the Inner Temple: ‘You say, It seemeth that these learned men were of the Inner Temple, for that many years since Master Buckley did see a record in the same house, where Geffrey Chaucer was fined two shillings for beating a Franciscan Friar in Fleet Street. This is a hard collection to prove Gower of the Inner Temple, although he studied the law, for thus you frame your argument: Mr. Buckley found a record in the Temple that Chaucer
was fined for beating the friar; ergo Gower and Chaucer were of the Temple. ’
A ‘hard collection’ it may be, but no harder than many others that have been made by biographers, and Leland’s ‘vir equestris ordinis7’ must certainly go the way of his other statements, being sufficiently refuted, as Stow remarks, by the ‘Armiger’ of Gower’s epitaph. Leland in calling him a knight was probably misled by the gilt collar of SS upon his recumbent effigy, and Fuller afterwards, on the strength of the same decoration, fancifully revives the old theory that he was a judge, and is copied of course by succeeding writers8 . On the whole it may be doubted whether there is anything but guesswork in the statements made by Leland about our author, except so far as they are derived from his writings or from his tomb.
That John Gower the poet was of a Kentish family is proved by definite and positive evidence. The presumption raised by the fact that his English writings certainly have some traces of the Kentish dialect, is confirmed, first by the identity of the arms upon his tomb with those of Sir Robert Gower, who had a tomb in Brabourne Church in Kent, and with reference to whom Weever, writing in 1631, says, ‘From this family John Gower the poet was descended9 , ’ secondly, by the fact that in the year 1382 a manor which we know to have been eventually in the possession of the poet was granted to John Gower, who is expressly called ‘Esquier de Kent, ’ and thirdly, by the names of the executors of the poet’s will, who are of Kentish families. It may be added that several other persons of the name of Gower are mentioned in the records of the time in connexion with the county of Kent. Referring only to cases in which the Christian name also is the same as that of the poet, we may note a John Gower among those complained of by the Earl of Arundel in 1377, as having broken his closes at High Rothing and elsewhere, fished in his fishery and assaulted his servants10; John Gower mentioned in connexion with the parishes of Throwley and Stalesfield, Kent, in 1381-211; John Gower who was killed by Elias Taillour, apparently in 138512; John Gower who was appointed with others in 1386 to receive and
distribute the stores at Dover Castle13; none of whom can reasonably be identified with the poet. Therefore it cannot be truly said, as it is said by Pauli, that the surname Gower, or even the combination John Gower, is a very uncommon one in the records of the county of Kent14 .
Before proceeding further, it may be well to set forth in order certain business transactions recorded in the reign of Edward III, in which a certain John Gower was concerned, who is identified by Nicolas with the poet15 .
They are as follows:
39 Ed. III (1365). An inquiry whether it will be to the prejudice of the king to put John Gower in possession of half the manor of Aldyngton in Kent, acquired by him without licence of the king from William de Septvans, and if so, ‘ad quod damnum. ’ This half of Aldyngton is held of the king by the service of paying fourteen shillings a year to the Warden of Rochester Castle on St. Andrew’s day16 .
Under date Feb. 15 of the same year it was reported that this would not be to the prejudice of the king, and accordingly on March 9 John Gower pays 53 shillings, which appears to be the annual value of the property, and is pardoned for the offence committed by acquiring it without licence17 .
39 Ed. III (June 23). William Sepvanus, son of William Sepvanus knight, grants to John Gower ten pounds rent from the manor of Wygebergh (Wigborough) in Essex and from other lands held by him in the county of Essex18 .
By another deed, acknowledged in Chancery on June 25 of the same year, the same William Sepvanus makes over to John Gower all his claims upon the manor of Aldyngton, and also a rent of 14s. 6d., with one cock, thirteen hens and 140 eggs from Maplecomb19 .
42 Ed. III (1368). Thomas Syward, pewterer and citizen of London, and Joanna his wife, daughter of Sir Robert Gower, grant to John
Gower and his heirs the manor of Kentwell. Dated at Melford, Wednesday before the Nativity of St. John Baptist20 .
43 Ed. III. Fine between John Gower on the one hand, and John Spenythorn with Joan his wife on the other, by which they give up all right to the Manor of Kentwell, Suffolk, except £10 rent, John Gower paying 200 marks21 .
This was confirmed in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II.
By documents of previous date22 it may be shown that the manor of Kentwell had been held by Sir Rob. Gower, doubtless the same who is buried in Brabourne Church, who died apparently in 1349; that it was ultimately divided, with other property, between his heirs, two daughters named Katherine and Joanna, of whom one, Katherine, died in 1366. Her moiety was then combined with the other in the possession of her sister Joanna, ‘23 years old and upwards, ’ then married to William Neve of Wetyng, but apparently soon afterwards to Thomas Syward. As to the transaction between John Gower and John Spenythorn with Joanna his wife, we must be content to remain rather in the dark. John Gower had in the year before acquired Kentwell in full possession for himself and his heirs, and he must in the mean time have alienated it, and now apparently acquired it again. It is hardly likely that the Joan who is here mentioned is the same as Joan daughter of Sir Robert Gower, who was married successively to William Neve and Thomas Syward. On the other hand it must be regarded as probable that the John Gower of this document is identical with the John Gower who acquired Kentwell from Thomas Syward and his wife in 1368. The confirmation in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II, was perhaps by way of verifying the title before the grant of Kentwell by Sir J. Cobham to Sir T. Clopton, 4 Ric. II.
47 Ed. III (1373). John Gower grants his manor of Kentwell in Suffolk to Sir John Cobham and his heirs; a deed executed at Otford in Kent, Thurs. Sept. 2923 .
48 Ed. III (1374). Payment of 12 marks by Sir J. Cobham on acquisition of Kentwell and half of Aldyngton from John Gower24 .
By this last document it seems pretty certain that the John Gower from whom Sir J. Cobham received Kentwell was the same person as the John Gower who acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans; and he is proved to be a relation of the poet, as well as of Sir Robert Gower, by the fact that the arms on the seal of John Gower, attached to the deed by which Kentwell was alienated, are apparently the same as those which were placed upon Sir Rob. Gower’s tomb at Brabourne, and those which we see on the poet’s tomb in Southwark25 . These persons, then, belonged to the same family, so far as we can judge; but evidently it is not proved merely by this fact that the John Gower mentioned in the above document was identical with the poet. We have seen already that the name was not uncommon in Kent, and there are some further considerations which may lead us to hesitate before we identify John Gower the poet with the John Gower who acquired land from William Septvans. This latter transaction in fact had another side, to which attention has not hitherto been called, though Sir H. Nicolas must have been to some extent aware of it, since he has given a reference to the Rolls of Parliament, where the affair is recorded.
It must be noted then in connexion with the deeds of 39 Ed. III, by which John Gower acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans, son of Sir William Septvans, that in the next year, 40 Ed. III, there is record of a commission issued to Sir J. Cobham and others to inquire into the circumstances of this alienation, it having been alleged that William Septvans was not yet of age, and that he had obtained release of his father’s property from the king’s hands by fraudulent misrepresentation. The commission, having sat at Canterbury on the Tuesday before St. George’s day, 1366, reported that this was so, that William Septvans was in fact under twenty years old, and would not attain the age of twenty till the feast of St. Augustine the Doctor next to come (i.e. Aug. 28); that the alienations to John Gower and others had been improperly made by means of a fraudulent proof of age, and that his property ought to be reseized into the king’s hands till he was of age. Moreover the report stated that John Gower had given 24 marks only for property worth £12 a year, with a wood of the value of
£100, that after his enfeoffment the said John Gower was in the company of William Septvans at Canterbury and elsewhere, until Sept. 29, inducing him to part with land and other property to various persons26 .
The property remained in the king’s hands till the year 1369, when an order was issued to the escheator of the county of Essex to put William Septvans in possession of his father’s lands, which had been confiscated to the Crown, ‘since two years and more have elapsed from the festival of St. Augustine, when he was twenty years old’ (Westm. 21 Feb.)27 . Presumably John Gower then entered into possession of the property which he had irregularly acquired in 1365, and possibly with this may be connected a payment by John Gower of £20 at Michaelmas in the year 1368 to Richard de Ravensere28 , who seems to have been keeper of the hanaper in Chancery.
It is impossible without further proof to assume that the villainous misleader of youth who is described to us in the report of the above commission, as encouraging a young man to defraud the Crown by means of perjury, in order that he may purchase his lands from him at a nominal price, can be identical with the grave moralist of the Speculum Hominis and the Vox Clamantis. Gower humbly confesses that he has been a great sinner, but he does not speak in the tone of a converted libertine: we cannot reconcile our idea of him with the proceedings of the disreputable character who for his own ends encouraged the young William Septvans in his dishonesty and extravagance. The two men apparently bore the same arms, and therefore they belonged to the same family, but beyond this we cannot go. It may be observed moreover that the picture suggested to Prof. Morley by the deed of 1373, executed at Otford, of the poet’s residence in the pleasant valley of the Darent, which he describes at some length29 , must in any case be dismissed as baseless. Otford was a manor held by Sir John Cobham30 , and whether the John Gower of this deed be the poet or no, it is pretty clear that the deed in question was executed there principally for this reason, and not because it was the residence of John Gower.
Dismissing all the above records as of doubtful relevancy to our subject31 , we proceed to take note of some which seem actually to refer to the poet. Of these none are earlier than the reign of Richard II. They are as follows:
1 Ric. II. (May, 1378). A record that Geoffrey Chaucer has given general power of attorney to John Gower and Richard Forester, to be used during his absence abroad by licence of the king. 32 Considering that Chaucer and Gower are known to have been personally acquainted with one another, we may fairly suppose that this appointment relates to John Gower the poet. 33
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell in Norfolk and Multon in Suffolk to John Gower, Esquire, of Kent, and to his heirs, by Guy de Rouclyf, clerk (Aug. 1), and release of warranty on the above (Aug. 3)34 .
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell and Multon by John Gower to Thomas Blakelake, parson of St. Nicholas, Feltwell, and others, for his life, at a rent of £40, to be paid quarterly in the Abbey Church of Westminster35 . This grant was repeated 7 Ric. II (Feb. 1384)36 .
The mention of Multon in the will of John Gower the poet makes it practically certain that the above documents have to do with him.
17 Ric. II (1393). Henry of Lancaster presented John Gower, Esquire, with a collar. This was mentioned by Nicolas as communicated to him by Mr. G. F. Beltz from a record in the Duchy of Lancaster Office. No further reference was given, and I have had some difficulty in finding the record. It is, however, among the accounts of the wardrobe of Henry of Lancaster for the year mentioned37 , and though not dated, it probably belongs to some time in the autumn of 1393, the neighbouring documents in the same bundle being dated October or November. It proves to be in fact an order, directed no doubt to William Loveney, clerk of the Wardrobe to the earl of Derby, for delivery of 26s. 8d. to one Richard Dancaster, for a collar, on account of another collar given by the earl of Derby to ‘an
Esquire John Gower’38 . So elsewhere in the household accounts of the earl of Derby we find a charge of 56s. 8d. for a silver collar for John Payne, butler, ‘because my lord had given his collar to another esquire beyond sea’39 . This particular collar given to John Gower was a comparatively cheap one, worth apparently only 26s. 8d., while the silver collar to be given to John Payne is valued at 56s. 8d., and a gold collar of SS for Henry himself costs no less than £26 8s. 11d. The fact that Gower wears a collar of SS on his tomb makes it probable enough that he is the esquire mentioned in this document. It will afterwards be seen that we cannot base any argument upon the fact that the collar upon the effigy is now gilt, and apparently was so also in Leland’s time.
25 Jan. 1397-8. A licence from the bishop of Winchester for solemnizing the marriage between John Gower and Agnes Groundolf, both parishioners of St. Mary Magdalene, Southwark, without further publication of banns and in a place outside their parish church, that is to say, in the oratory of the said John Gower, within his lodging in the Priory of Saint Mary Overey in Southwark. Dated at Highclere, 25 Jan. 139740 . At this time then Gower was living in the Priory of St. Mary Overey, and no doubt he continued to do so until his death.
Finally, Aug. 15, 1408, the Will of John Gower, which was proved Oct. 24 of the same year41 . His death therefore may be presumed to have taken place in October, 1408.
This will has been printed more than once, in Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments, by Todd in his Illustrations of Gower and Chaucer and in the Retrospective Review.
The testator bequeathes his soul to the Creator, and his body to be buried in the church of the Canons of St. Mary Overes, in the place specially appointed for this purpose (‘in loco ad hoc specialiter deputato’). To the Prior of the said church he bequeathes 40s., to the subprior 20s , to each Canon who is a priest 13s 4d , and to each of the other Canons 6s. 8d., that they may all severally pray for him the more devoutly at his funeral. To the servants of the Priory 2s. or 1s. each according to their position; to the church of St. Mary Magdalene 40s.
for lights and ornaments, to the parish priest of that church 10s., ‘vt oret et orari faciat pro me’; to the chief clerk of the same church 3s. and to the sub-clerk 2s To the following four parish churches of Southwark, viz St Margaret’s, St George’s, St Olave’s, and St Mary Magdalene’s near Bermondsey, 13s. 4d. each for ornaments and lights, and to each parish priest or rector in charge of those churches 6s. 8d., ‘vt orent et orari pro me in suis parochiis faciant et procurent. ’ To the master of the hospital of St. Thomas in Southwark 40s., to each priest serving there 6s. 8d. for their prayers; to each sister professed in the said hospital 3s. 4d., to each attendant on the sick 20d., and to each sick person in the hospital 12d., and the same to the sisters (where there are sisters), nurses and patients in the hospitals of St Anthony, Elsingspitell, Bedlem without Bishopsgate, and St Maryspitell near Westminster; to every house for lepers in the suburbs of London 10s., to be distributed amongst the lepers, for their prayers: to the Prior of Elsingspitell 40s., and to each Canon priest there 6s. 8d.
For the service of the altar in the chapel of St John the Baptist, ‘in qua corpus meum sepeliendum est, ’ two vestments of silk, one of blue and white baudkin and the other of white silk, also a large new missal and a new chalice, all which are to be kept for ever for the service of the said altar. Moreover to the Prior and Convent the testator leaves a large book, ‘sumptibus meis nouiter compositum, ’ called Martilogium, on the understanding that the testator shall have a special mention of himself recorded in it every day (‘sic quod in eodem specialem memoriam scriptam secundum eorum promissa cotidie habere debeo, ’ not ‘debes, ’ as printed)
He leaves to his wife Agnes, £100 of lawful money, also three cups, one ‘cooperculum, ’ two salt-cellars and twelve spoons of silver, all the testator’s beds and chests, with the furniture of hall, pantry and kitchen and all their vessels and utensils. One chalice and one vestment are left to the altar of the oratory belonging to his apartments (‘pro altare quod est infra oratorium hospicii mei’). He desires also that his wife Agnes, if she survive him, shall have all rents due for his manors of Southwell in the county of Northampton (?) and of Multoun in the county of Suffolk, as he has more fully determined in certain other writings given under his seal.
The executors of this will are to be as follows: Agnes his wife, Arnold Savage, knight, Roger, esquire, William Denne, Canon of the king’s chapel, and John Burton, clerk. Dated in the Priory of St. Mary
Overes in Southwark, on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin, Mccccviii.
The will was proved, Oct. 24, 1408, at Lambeth before the Archbishop of Canterbury (because the testator had property in more than one diocese of the province of Canterbury), by Agnes the testator’s wife, and administration of the property was granted to her on Nov. 7 of the same year.
It may be observed with reference to this will that the testator evidently stands already in the position of a considerable benefactor to the Priory of St. Mary Overey, in virtue of which position he has his apartments in the Priory and a place of honour assigned for his tomb in the church. He must also have established by previous arrangement the daily mass and the yearly obituary service which Berthelette speaks of as still celebrated in his time. It is evident that his benefactions were made chiefly in his life-time. There is some slight difficulty as regards the manors which are mentioned in the will. Multon in Suffolk we know already to have been in the poet’s possession; but what is this ‘Southwell’? Certainly not the well-known Southwell in Nottinghamshire, which cannot possibly have been in the possession of a private person, belonging, as it did, to the archiepiscopal see of York. Moreover, though ‘in Comitatu Nott. ’ has been hitherto printed as the reading of the will, the manuscript has not this, but either ‘Notth. ’ or ‘North., ’ more probably the latter. There were apparently other manors of Southwell or Suthwell in the county of Nottingham, and a manor of Suwell in Northamptonshire, but there seems to be no connexion with the name of Gower in the case of any of these. It is possible, but not very readily to be assumed, that the scribe who made the copy of the will in the register carelessly wrote ‘Southwell in Com. North. ’ (or ‘Com. Notth. ’) for ‘Feltwell in Com. Norff., ’ the name which is found coupled with Multon in the other records42 .
The one remaining record is the tomb in St. Saviour’s church. This originally stood in the chapel of St. John the Baptist, on the north side of the church, but in 1832, the nave and north aisle being in ruins, the
monument was removed to the south transept and restored at the expense of Earl Gower. After the restoration of the church this tomb was moved back to the north aisle in October 1894, and was placed on the supposed site of the chapel of St. John the Baptist, where it now stands43 .
In the course of nearly five centuries the tomb has undergone many changes, and the present colouring and inscription are not original. What we have now is a canopy of three arches over an altar tomb, on which lies an effigy of the poet, habited in a long darkcoloured gown, with a standing cape and buttoned down to his feet, wearing a gold collar of SS, fastened in front with a device of a chained swan between two portcullises. His head rests on a pile of three folio volumes marked with the names of his three principal works, Vox Clamantis, Speculum Meditantis, Confessio Amantis. He has a rather round face with high cheek-bones, a moustache and a slightly forked beard, hair long and curling upwards44 , and round his head a chaplet of four red roses at intervals upon a band45 , with the words ‘merci ihs46’ (repeated) in the intervals between the roses: the hands are put together and raised in prayer: at the feet there is a lion or mastiff lying. The upper ledge of the tomb has this inscription, ‘Hic iacet I. Gower Arm. Angl. poeta celeberrimus ac huic sacro edificio benefac. insignis. Vixit temporibus Edw. III et Ric. II et Henr. IV. ’ In front of the tomb there are seven arched niches. Against the wall at the end of the recess, above the feet of the figure, a shield is suspended bearing arms, argent, on a chevron azure three leopards’ faces or, crest a talbot (or lion) upon a chapeau. The wall behind the tomb under the canopy is at present blank; the original painting of female figures with scrolls has disappeared and has not been renewed, nor has the inscription ‘Armigeri scutum, ’ &c., been replaced. This tomb has attracted much attention, and descriptions of it exist from early times. Leland’s account may be thus translated: ‘He was honourably buried in London in the church of the Marian canons on the bank of the Thames, and his wife also is buried in the same
place, but in a lower tomb. He has here an effigy adorned with a gold chain and a chaplet of ivy interspersed with roses, the first marking him as a knight and the second as a poet. The reason why he established his place of burial here, was, I believe, as follows. A large part of the suburb adjacent to London Bridge was burnt down in the year 121247 , in the reign of King John. The monastery of the Marian canons was much damaged in this fire and was not fully restored till the first year of Richard II. At that time Gower, moved by the calamity, partly through his friends, who were numerous and powerful, and partly at his own expense, repaired the church and restored its ornaments, and the Marian canons even now acknowledge the liberality of Gower towards them, though not to such an extent as I declare it to have been. For this reason it was, in my judgement, that he left his body for burial to the canons of this house48 . ’ Berthelette in the Preface to his edition of the Confessio Amantis, 1532, gives an interesting account of the tomb: ‘John Gower prepared for his bones a resting-place in the monastery of St. Mary Overes, where somewhat after the old fashion he lieth right sumptuously buried, with a garland on his head in token that he in his life days flourished freshly in literature and science. And the same moniment, in remembrance of him erected, is on the North side of the foresaid church, in the chapel of St. John, where he hath of his own foundation a mass daily sung: and moreover he hath an obit yearly done for him within the same church on the Friday after the feast of the blessed pope St. Gregory.
‘Beside on the wall, whereas he lieth, there be painted three virgins with crowns on their heads, one of the which is written Charitie, and she holdeth this device in her hand,
En toy qui es fitz de dieu le pere49
Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.
‘The second is written Mercye, which holdeth in her hand this device,
