Richard Ill’s Books: ' XIII. Chivalric Ideals and Reality

ANNE F. SUTTON AND LIVIA VISSER—FUCHS

A YOUNG MAN 0F NOBLE FAMILY, such as Richard himself, was surrounded from the day he was born with the panoply of chivalry: halls would be hung with weapons and amour and hunting trophies, almost every story he was told concerned feats of arms, and the books he knew might be illustrated with dramatic battle-scenes and colourful heraldry. Larger-than-life heroes killing their enemies with one stroke, or surrounded by the rewards of success, fine tents and richly caparisoned horses, were commonplace in the historiated sequences of tapestries, in great palaces. Subjects included the stories of Jason, Hector, Arthur, Charlemagne, Guy of Warwick, as well as the military heroes of the Old Testament. " A nobly-born youth was considered to have an innate inclination towards ‘chivalry’ from which nothing could deflect him. Even if he were brought up among peasants he would show his true nature in the end; The stories and ceremonies of chivalry were supposed to act upon him as the scent of game on a hound. The hero of Blanchardyn and Eglantine was just such a young man. He was brought up by his father, the King, in ignorance of war, military heroes, heraldry or jousting, and instead taught ‘lytterature’, ‘good manners’, grammar, logic and philosophy, with ‘tables’, chess, and hunting and hawking as his ‘passetymes’. He excelled at all these, but nevertheless longed for something that was missing. The inevitable happened: . . . walkynge wythin the paleys. And by adventure entred in to a chambre, hanged wyth right fayre and riche tapysserye of the destruction of Troye, well and alonge fygured. Blanchatdyn, that nevere had taken theratte noo hede, ryght instantly dyde advyse and sette his syght toward the sayde tappysserie. And coude not merveulle hym self to moche, in beholdynge upon the same . . . of thystorye and of the personnages. And first recounted unto hym his mayster the puyssaunce the right ' great cyrcuyte andjhe noblesse of the cyte of Troyes . . . merveyllous bataylles . . . grete valyaubc of Hector, of Troylus, Parys . . . of whom he sawe the representacyon in the sayde tappysserye, that sore movyd and styryd his noble and

190 hyghe corage and gaffe hym awylle for to be lyke unto those noble and worthy knyghtes.. .Blanchardyn concluded m his corage, that he shold fynde hym self, yf god graunted hym helthe, m som place where by experyence he shuld leme to here armes, and shuld exercyce and take payne and dyligence upon hym selfe to knowe the wayes of the same,for the grete plesure that he toke m herynge therof spake” The charming trappings of this story mask the crude facts of what is really happening: the boy’s natural aggressive energy is stimulated by the military display and is ready for release in action and adventure. Such aggression was much admired in the middle ages but needed to be organised, and it was chivalry which channelled all this surplus energy of the upper or knightly class. By Richard’s day generations of clergy and other theorists of chivalry had imposed certain controls over secular rulers and their fighting men, which were occasionally successful and of which the Order of Chzvalry by Lull was one of the most important texts. war was to be 1n a just cause, the knight was to be a protector of the weak, and the highest glory was to fight the infidel. The fact that all soldiers, including knights, were brutalised by war, often encouraged war for their own gain, looted, ruined the country they fought over, and ill-treated and slaughtered the poor was rarely discussed and certainly led to no pacifist conclusions. Nevertheless some questioning of the accepted point of view went on. Even that admiring chronicler of chivalry, Froissart (died 1404/ 10) was shocked at the needless slaughter of citizens of Limoges by the Black Prince he so revered. 2 The poet John Gower (died 1400)_ realised the divergence between the pretensions of knights and their actual motives, he recognised the vanity of fighting for a woman’s love or one ’s own fame, and condemned the greed that motivated the English war in and the misery it caused. 3 Even a noble knight, admittedly a literate one, like Guillebert de Lannoy, soldier and traveller, diplomat and counsellor of Philip the Good (died 1462), insisted that war was to be avoided as much as possible, and advised his prince that when the wish to win battles and gain glory became too strong he should go and fight the heathen ‘ In Chaucer’s Knight' s Tale — of which Richard owned a copy from his youth —- the victorious Theseus is at first irritated by the ill-timed interruption of his triumphal progress by the entreaties of the widowed queens, but the next moment he is gentle and full of pity for them and immediately sets off on a campaign on their behalf. Chaucer shows Theseus caring for the queens and their dead husbands, but at the same time allowing his dead enemies to be plundered and arbitrarily emprisoning the two heroes of the story. One moment he decides that two hundred well-armed knights shall fight over the trivial matter of who is to marry the heroine and the next he imposes _extra rules to prevent the shedding of ‘gentle blood’.’ Chaucer makes this paragon of chivalry a violent, unpredictable prince who sometimes obeys the strict rules of chivalry. In short, Theseus was not unlike the heroes of the Hundred Years War. A variety of such contradictory images would be imprinted on a young man’s mind from the books he read: balancing the continual diet of war and battle in most chronicles and romances, there would be chapters of sage advice, counselling pity, restraint and justice. William WOrcester’s untidy, loosely constructed Bake of Noblesse encouraging Edward IV and then Richard III to make war on France and advising on how to do so successfully is a case in point. On one page there is the exhortation to follow ‘the example of the boar’:

191 ‘avaunsing your corageous hertis to werre . . . furious, egre . . . ayenst all tho nacions that. . .wolde put you_ frome youre. .rightfull enheritance’, as there is no ‘more holier, parfiter, or a juster thing’ than to fight such enemies; while a few pages on Worcester 1s moved by the‘ oppressions and tirannyes, ravynes, and crueltees’ that the King’s officers have done against ‘the pore comons, laborers, paissauntes of . . . Normandie’, these being, of course; the King’s rightful subjects.6 .

Richard III’s books illustrate all the aspects of chivalry: they entertained with ‘many joyous and playsaunt hystoryes . . . of chyvalryes’7 (Palamon and Arcite, Siege of Thebes, Ipomedon, Tristan, and his history books), they gave practical instruction (Vegetius, Boke of Noblesse) and taught the ideals (Order of Chivalry and the historical and fictional stories to some extent). Did Richard therefore share his contemporaries’ attitude to chivalry? Did he enjoy the wars and battles in which he took part and long for a military reputation on a par with Arthur, Edward III or Henry V? Could he distinguish between the.rhetoric of war and the lure of fame and success on the one hand-and the ideals of justice and restraint on the other? Did he set store by the chivalric code of honour and his reputation as a knight sans peur et sans reproche?

Knightly Training: Theory and Exercise Even a comparatively pedestrian English romance like the Siege of Melayne (Charlemagne’ srescue of Milan from the Saracens) written c. 1400, could rise to oratory when describing the main themes of chivalry. The Duke of Normandy has been fatally wounded by the pagans and makes his dying speech to Roland asking him to commend him‘ to all chevalrye’, to knight his son and to see him made Duke 1n his father’3 place: . Bid hym hawkes and houndes fox-goo And to dedis of armes hym doo, Thase craftes forto konn; Appon the cursede Sarazens forto werre’ Venge me with dynte of spere,. A, Rawlande! Byhaulde nowe whatt I see’ . . . Loo! I see our vawarde ledde to heven With angells songe and merye steven ' [voice] Reghte as thay faughte' m the felde!‘ The Duke manages to include m a speech of thirty short lines some of the main tenets of chivalry: loyalty to one ’s country, king and family, the training field of hunting, which must be given up at last in favour of real war; the ultimate goal of fighting the pagans and, at the end, the assured and glorious reward of marching into heaven as Christian soldiers in full military formation. It is a simple viewpoint and has never gone out of fashion. The road to this heaven was a long one, however, and the young man had to start early to master all the accomplishments that would make him a knight m the eyes of the world and help him reach his final goal. In Ipomedon — of which Richard owned a prose version’ — the young hero who is to be the best knight in the world 1s taught m childhood‘ to read, sing, carol, dapce, hunt, hawk, joust and toumey’. These accomplishments appear to be given in a more or less rising scale of' 1mportance. W

192 Continual physical training in the shape of hunting and exercise in arms was thought the first priority by all writers on the subject of chivalry, but many mention the need of theoretical grounding as well. Among Richard’s books the Order of Chivalry“ advises going to jousts and tournaments, and hunting the hart and the boar for ‘in doyinge these thynges the knyghtes excercyse them to armes for to mayntene thordre of knighthode’. The author is equally clear, however, that a knight needs a ‘textbook’ on chivalry, hence the composition of the book itself. Vegetius’ De Re militari gave the same overall message: its main, endlessly quoted lesson is again a need for permanent exercise, but balanced by the use of books. Vegetius praises the Athenians for having made such bookys and reweles, and commaunded the maystres of her yonge chivalrie to teche and rede thilke bookys to the yonge werriours.l2 Written in Richard’s day William Worcester’s Boke of Noblesse was such a book for soldiers and commanders, though it cannot be called a manual and was not meant for the beginner. It stresses what a ‘riche tresour’ a well—trained army is, ‘for golde, silver, ne precious stones surmounteth not ne conquerithe not ennemies’ and gives examples of battles lost by men no longer ‘accustomed’ to war, or won by a small company of thoroughly trained omas.13 How seriously did Richard as duke or king take these and similar injunctions to hunt, joust and read? We do not have any book of hunting that he owned, but his interest in Tristan and Ipomedon when a young man may have been partly inspired by their both being hunters par excellence. '4 There is plenty of evidence of hunting at the royal court in Edward IV’s time and in Richard’s. The king and his court needed their ‘disport’ and there was an elaborate hierarchy of officials, animals, parks, forests and chases to provide the most royal hunting and hawking. The English court could lay on an elegant party for Louis de , Lord of Gruuthuse, at Windsor in 1472," and a more jolly and relaxed outing was organised by Edward IV for the mayor and aldermen of London in 1478.“ During the last months of his reign Richard made extensive use of the hunting around Nottingham, where there was a park and a lodge appropriately called the ‘ennitage’."’ As king Richard was as energetic as any other in preserving his game and guarding against over-hunting and poaching.” Hunting, however enjoyable and useful, was not the real thing. Ipomedon is supremely skilful as a hunter, his expertise may prove his social status and make his lady fall in love with him, but he is still suspected of a lack of ‘manhood’, and he can only genuinely establish his reputation by performing deeds of arms and participating in tournaments. There is no evidence that Richard ever took part in a joust or tournament, but it is unlikely he could have avoided them as an adolescent and we can safely assume that as an adult he was at least a spectator on several occasions. The reports of the great tournament at Smithfield in June 1467, when the Bastard of Burgundy, half-brother to the future Duke Charles, came to answer the challenge of Anthony Woodville, Lord Scales, do not mention Richard’s presence; he was only fourteen years old at the time and may have been in Warwick’s household in the north or overlooked by the chroniclers of the event. Olivier de La Marche, the Burgundian courtier and expert on court ceremony, who was present, makes mention of l’admiral as one of the officials who formally allows the participants to enter the lists. Richard had been ‘admiral of the sea’since at least August 1462 and it is just possible that he is the person referred to."

193 In 1478 during the festivities of the wedding of young Richard, Duke of York, and Anne Mowbray, Richard fulfilled a ceremonial role suitable to his rank as duke and constable. He did not take part in the tournament that followed after.20 It is likely that in the week after Richard’s coronation another tournament was held. The relevant sources have disappeared, but since such festivities were part of the coronations of , Henry VII and Elisabeth of York there is no reason to assume that Richard made an exception during the splendid celebrations of his own accession.2l Finally there is Caxton’s well-known exhortation to Richard III in his epilogue to the Order of Chivalry: may it please the king “that twyes of thryes in a yere or at lest ones he wold do crye Iustes of pees to thende that every knight shold . . . tornoye one ageynste one or ii ageynst ii. And the best to have a prys, a dyamond or Iewel suche as shold "please the prynce.”22 Are these mere words, or did Caxton 'really feel that the number of tournaments held in recent years had fallen off?

As far as Richard’s use of ‘textbooks’ is concerned there is, of course, the Order itself, but we will never know whether the King appreciated this idealistic, semi-religious treatise.” Vegetius’ De Re militari was a purely practical book, of which a copy was actually made for Richard.“ It was used all through the middle ages by writers on military and political theory, but its own theoretical content was small. Soldiers have to be well trained and commanders well prepared is what the book’s ‘philosophy’ amounts to, but the fact that such as John of Salisbury and Giles of quoted Vegetius extensively has given a spurious theoretical aura to his manual. He and his practical examples were used by others to illustrate?) truly Aristotelian fashion their own arguments and prove their point. Medieval commentators were mainly attracted by his emphasis on perpetual training: ‘Thorugh exercise texclude slouth’.‘s For a soldier and commander like Richard, and so many of his contemporaries, the book had more to offer than mere theory. The advice set out in William Worcester’s Bake of Noblesse was not of such general practical use as Vegetius. It was focused on the war in France and old- fashioned by Richard’s time, but it may have offered material to the King and his commanders for a discussion of the possibilities and problems of invasion and occupation. The knowledgeable comments of Sir preserved in the collection of documents that accompanied the Bake may have been especially appreciated.“

Richard’s reputation as a soldier Few people have denied Richard some personal merit as a soldier and commander.” For Pietro Carmeliano, an Italian scholar desperate for patronage, he was unequalled in the prudent keeping of peace and waging of war, a veritable christianus imperatorf‘ at the other end of the scale there is the statement that ‘Even his hostile critics did not stoop to deny his martial prowess on that day [of Bosworth]’.” Apart from a ‘reputation for military valour’ Richard has also been given a ‘professed taste for war’, a statement presumably founded on his rejection of the treaty with Louis XI and his campaigns in

194 Scotland.30 Any deprecation of a taste for war is, however, entirely anachronistic. As mentioned above ‘noble’ men were expected to have such a taste, even an aptitude, for war: men admired their own energy and aggression and the panoply of chivalry was devoted to showing them off. Kings who did not take an active part in these wargames, like Henry VI, failed to command the respect of the ‘naturally’ warlike among their subjects. Whatever his personal inclination — and our present-day judgment — Richard did conform and behave as expected: at eighteen he took an active part in his brother’s campaign to regain the throne. He fought at Barnet and was sufficiently in the thick of battle to get wounded. At Tewkesbury he successfully led the left wing.31 Richard’s role at Barnet gained him a literary comparison to one of the Nine Worthies, the great heroes of chivalry, Hector of Troy: The duke of Glocetter, that nobill prynce, Yonge of age and victorius in batayle, To the honoure of Ectour that he myghte comens, Grace hym folowith, fortune, and good spede. I suppose hes the same that clerkis of rede, Fortune hathe hym chosyn, and forthe wyth hym wall goo, Her husbonde to be, the will of God is 500.

In the kinges forwarde the prynce did ride, Withe nobill lordis of grete renowne;n In his own book of the story of Troy Richard could read about Hector’s virtues: ‘. . . a knight of unheard valour . . . Of the sons of King Priam, there was none who was distinguished by as great a spirit as Hector . . . he surpassed all others in courage. . . . No offensive or improper word ever left his mouth’.” The London author only picks out Hastings and Clarence for similar praise and, though the likening to Hector was standard panegyric, it was no mean compliment: Richard is the only character in the text specifically compared to a named hero. To Edward’s French enterprise in 1475 Richard contributed apparently more men than any other English noble” and was therefore arguably enthusiastic for the campaign. During the conference at Picquigny at which peace was made with Louis XI in return for a pension, Richard was absent comme mal content at this treaty, but later, it is said, he had second thoughts and visited the French king at Amiens, apparently accepting a gift of vaiselle et . . . chevaux bien accoutres.35 The French historian Philippe de Commines, an expert at subtle calumny, implied and modem historians have accepted that Richard became reconciled to the purchased peace when he accepted Louis’ presents. It is equally possible, however, that Richard viewed the visit to the French king as an opportunity to meet him personally and size him up, the acceptance of the presents being a matter of courtesy to both Edward IV and Louis XI. We catch a similar glimpse of Richard on the day of Picquigny itself, having a look at the French army: monsieur l’admiral de France mantra au duc de Clochetre et aultres seigneurs l’armee du roy de France, qui estoit en plain champ.36 It has a ring of truth: what commander would forgo the opportunity of having a good look at the opposing army, as well as at its commander. It also indicates Gloucester did not distance himself from the scene of the treaty, only from the actual interview on the bridge.

195 Whether Richard when king ever actually planned an invasion of France is not known. Commines does not refer to an English threat during Richard’s reign, but the French along the coast still feared the old enemy in 1484; the chronicler Molinet hoped the English would actively support Maximilian against the French as late as 1485; William Worcester’s son apparently thought it worthwhile to ‘do up’ his father’s book and the accompanying documents for presentation to the King.37 Once peace negotiations with Scotland were seriously under way an enterprise against France was possible. Discussion of this question is usually confused. Modern commentators not only regard an invasion of France as unrealistic by Richard’s reign, but are also generally unwilling to allow this King to get anything right. Evidence that he did plan a foreign war would suggest to them an attempt to assuage trouble at home, and evidence that he decided against reconquest of the French territories would be said to prove he faced so much rebellion in that he could not possibly leave it. It is likely that Richard III did study the problems and possibilities and may even have had high hopes of invading France. Richard’s current reputation as a commander seems to hinge on the judgment of his Scots campaign of 1482, and it is unlikely there will ever be agreement on whether this was a success or not.” The Crowland Chronicle continuator, who liked neither Richard nor anything northern, testifies to Edward’s dismay at Richard’s wasteful expenditure and righteously regrets that such a Wealthy town as Edinburgh was not sacked. In contrast to Crowland there is Edward’s letter to the Pope exulting over his brother’s expedition and the regaining of Berwick. The truth must lie in the middle. In some ways Gloucester’s was a model campaign, as he started and finished it with a given number of troops within a set period and gained what was probably the main objective by the capture of Berwick. Putting the rebel prince, the Duke of Albany, on the Scots throne — if that was an objective — proved impossible since the Duke received no support in his own country. Deciding the issue by a pitched battle was also impossible as no one turned up to fight. Despite the Crowland chronicler it is difficult to blame the English commanders for not sacking Edinburgh — there was no lack of burning and plundering on the way — or not seeking to establish English rule in Scotland. This particular campaign, and all military and diplomatic activities in the years immediately before and after, remain debatable for lack of sources, but the latest reaction to it has been among the most positive and realistic: ‘from the point of view of the northern England, Gloucester’s achievement in the field was anything but trivial’. He ‘brought back a sense of pride to northern English society by his exploits against the old enemy’ .39 In Richard III’s copy of Guido delle Colonne’s Historia Troiae there is a passage marked by two marginal comments. It concerns the great advantages of fighting to protect one’s own home, among relatives and friends — ‘note well the fair words’ a fifteenth-century hand wrote in the margin. The author illustrated his dictum by the image of the crow courageously defending its nest against the much stronger falcon.“ In the story the Greek besiegers are told they should expect the Trojans to fight for their city in just that way. It is unlikely that Richard wrote the Latin marginalia, but he would have agreed with the underlying sentiment. He voiced similar ideas when he discussed fighting the Turks with ‘his own people alone’ (see below) and, whatever historians say about

196 the lack of support he received at Bosworth, that is how he must have regarded the battle and his fatal effort to decide its outcome. According to Lydgate’s Siege of Thebes, which he read as a youth: . . better it were to every werryour Manly to deye with worship and honour’ Than lik a coward with the lyf endure." A follower of the Stanleys put into Richard’s own mouth a dramatic version of this commonplace of the chivalrous: He said, ‘Give me my battle axe in my hand, Set the crown of England on my head so high, For by him that shope both sea and land, King of England this day I will die! One foot will I never flee Whilst the breath is my breast within!“2

Richard’s reputation as a Christian and courtly knight Thoffyce of a knyght is to mayntene and deffende wymmen, wydowes and orphanes; . . . to doo wrong and force wymmen wydowcs that have nede of ayde, and orphelyns that have nede of governance . . . and to take awey fro them that is gyven to them, these thynges may not accorde to thordre of chyvalrye . . .43 Their chivalric principles failed most knights and princes in their conduct towards women, the poor and those weaker than themselves whenever they stood in the way of their political or material advantage. One of the famous examples of ‘realistic’ behaviour of contemporary princely knights is the case of Jacqueline of Bavaria, in her own right Countess of Holland, Zeeland and Hainault, who was exploited and abandoned by that paragon of English aristocratic learning, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and disinherited by Philip the ‘Good’, ‘Grand Duke of the West’.“ Richard of Gloucester cannot be exonerated from similar treatment of his mother-inalaw, Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Wamick in her own right, and Elizabeth Howard, Countess of Oxford.“ We need not believe all the gruesome details of eye-witness reports recorded long after Richard’s death, and his brother the King may have connived at these activities to keep wealth and land out of the hands of political opponents, but the way in which both Countesses were deprived of the greater part of their lands can hardly be called chivalrous. Probably this did not damage Richard’s reputation at the time — Philip the Good’s certainly survived — as most people did not expect anything else and once gr_eed had been satisfied such behaviour could be covered up by the formal courtesies of chivalry and gifts and annuities to the victim Another instance of Richard’s failure to be an ideal knight was the protection of his nephews. If he did not kill them he certainly deprived them of their inheritance, however needful, justifiable and even inevitable his action may have seemed to him. His own defence would probably have been that he wished to serve the ‘common good’ of the realm which could never benefit from the rule of an illegitimate minor. How Richard wanted to be seen in his earlier. role as protector can only be gleaned from Chancellor Russell’s draft speech for the opening of Edward V’s first parliament, which Richard must have read and approved of, if not inspiredz“6

197 the Protector is the ‘stable land’ in which is to be found the ‘suerte or fermenesse’ of the world. He will protect the kingdom against external and internal enemies and emulate the Roman Lepidus who fulfilled the office of protector of the young King of- Egypt to such perfection that it was not certain whether his charge eventually owed more to his father or to his guardian. The source of the story, Valerius Maximus,“ saw Lepidus’ conduct as an example of fides publica, loyalty to the state,and Richard no doubt would have wished to have his subsequent progress to the throne regarded in the same light. The ‘loyalty’ that ‘bound’ him need not always have been to an individual when a wider application was more relevant, or more opportune. There are two other, less well known, episodes in Richard of Gloucester’s life during which his conduct could be considered ‘unchivalrous’. The first a mysterious plot related only by the Burgundian chronicle: of England, Jean de Wavrin. He describes Edward IV’s campaign to regain his throne in 1471 and how he managed to enter York by pretending he only wanted to take possession of his own duchy. One Martin del See ill-advisedly insisted that Edward should go to la grant eglise and swear a solemn oath to this effect. According to Wavrin this prompted the young Duke of Gloucester and Earl Rivers to plot to kill both Martin and his abettor, the Recorder of York. Rivers, however, decided it was safer to organise the King’s swift and secret departure from the city.“ For this and for the other additional information that Edward left his army under Richard’s command while he first warily entered York, Wavrin is the only source. There must be an element of truth in the story; it suggests that Richard took an active part in his brother’s enterprise and was willing to go to great lengths to prevent its failure. The depiction of Richard’s character may be the most accurate detail in the whole story. Wavrin himself did not comment, he probably regarded the plot merely as one solution to a desperate situation. His story could have reached him from a prejudiced, ‘Lancastrian’ refugee source, but he was certainly not influenced by Richard’s later reputation, as he died in 1474. The other case sometimes regarded as an instance of dishonourable behaviour by Richard (and Edward) is the treatment of Thomas Neville, called the Bastard of Fauconberg, illegitimate son of William Neville, Earl of Kent, kinsman of the Earl of Warwick. A sea captain like his father he had fought with and for Warwick during the early months of 1471 terrorising shipping in the Channel. In May he called himself the ‘leader of King Henry’s people in Kent’ gathering so many men from the county into his existing force of seamen and soldiers from Calais, that in spite of the news of Tewkesbury he risked an attack on London. Beaten back, he retreated into Kent and was sueing for a pardon by the time Edward reached London on 21 May. On 26 May he surrendered to Richard of Gloucester, who had been sent ahead, at Sandwich. His pardon is dated 10 June and was for offences committed before 22 May,49 presumably the day on which his request reached Edward. On 27 September his head could be seen on London Bridge.‘0 What happened between 10 June and 27 September? It is unlikely that Fauconberg was executed ‘notwithstanding he had a charter of pardon’ as Warkworth has it.’1 Stow says,apparently on the authority of a source now unknown, that Fauconberg was not only pardoned but made vice-admiral.’2 By 11 September Fauconberg was being called a traitor whose goods were to be

198 seized.” Again it is Wavrin who fills in the picture: Fauconberg went north with the Duke of Gloucester for safe-keeping — and official sources confirm that he was to serve the Duke in the marches“— he was well treated, but being an homme maligne he escaped aboard ship. According to Stow he was later arrested by Gloucester at Southampton, and other sources report that he was beheaded at Middleham.” Confusion reigns, but if Wavrin’s information is at all reliable, it seems likely that Fauconberg planned some new naval action, or at least an overseas flight, and that there was sufficient reason to re-arrest him. No stain on Richard’s reputation seems to derive from this episode.

The crusade played an important part in chivalric ideals in Richard’s lifetime. Fighting the infidel was still the best justification for war and aggression. Though western Europe was at a safe distance from the actual theatre of war, princes were very conscious of the Turkish threat, and they all had the defence of Christendom as the next item on their agenda, to be tackled just as soon as their own dynastic and regional problems had been solved. Richard was no better than his peers in this respect, but he does seem to have had a genuine interest in the crusading movement. Evidence of involvement is not extensive but it is strongly personal. First there is the King’s well-known, self- assured remark to the admiring German visitor, Nicholas von Poppelau, telling him that given the opportunity he would defeat the Turks with only his own people to help him.56 Secondly, there is the surviving fragment of what may have been a ‘crusading litany’ among the additions to Richard’s book of hours.” This text appears to be unique and may at least point to an awareness of the languor (inactivity) that affected western leaders as soon as they were actually asked to unite, organise themselves and rise above chivalric display. The litany beseeches God to destroy ‘the peoples of the heathen’ and preserve the earth from desolation. ‘May your anger, Lord, now be lifted from your people’; its words are conventional but none the less forceful for that. Divine assistance against all enemies, both Christian and pagan, was expected from the holy oil used in the anointing of the English kings: the first king to be anointed with it would recover Normandy and Acquitaine, ‘build churches in the holy land and chase all the heathen from Babylon’, and all kings who used it would be vigorous champions of the church. When ‘carried in the breast’the oil in its ampulla would bestow victory over all enemies. Richard gave the oil into the keeping of Westminster Abbey with the reservation that it would be retin'ned to him ‘whensoever it shall please hym to ask it’!"

The Display of Chivalry There is evidence that Richard appreciated the outward display of knighthood as well as kingship. As a boy he may have been impressed by it, as a man his own contribution to the ‘public face’ of chivalry could inspire the next generation. When he went to inspect the French army on the day of Picquigny it may have given him the kind of pleasure that a similar visit gave to Sir John Chandos over a hundred years earlier shortly before the battle of Poitiers ‘to see such a great number of noble knights newly armed and equipped'; to be defeated

199 by such a fine company would be no disgrace, to defeat them would bring great glory.” Richard’s Grandes Chroniques would have provided him with many other similarly splendid scenes. The ceremonial side of the office of constable, a post he held from 1469, he took seriously,“o especially the supervision of the heralds, which he shared with the marshal. He probably issued a set of ordinances for the reformation of the office, of which only later copies survive.“ Above all the heralds were instructed to record the ceremonies and the deeds of chivalry. By letters patent of 2 March 1484 Richard made the heralds and pursuivants a body corporate and conveyed to them the house ‘Coldharbour’ for the use of the twelve principal heralds, ‘a high mark of royal favour’.‘2 Richard himself owned several heraldic manuscripts, privately and professionally:" a version of the so—called St. George’s Roll, 21 ‘general’ roll of which neither the original nor Richard’s copy survive; a copy of the so-called ‘Thomas Jenyns’ Book’, an ordinary with a Yorkshire bias, which also does not survive. He may hav'e had a copy made of the ‘Salisbury Roll’, the splendid pictorial roll of the ancestors of the Earl of Salisbury probably made in 1463.“ Richard must have also been acquainted with a roll-chronicle made by John Rous to celebrate the Beauchamp and Neville Earls of Warwick, as well as with the Beauchamp Pageant, the pictorial life of Richard Beauchamp, both ending with himself and his son in right of his wife, and both full of heraldic and chivalric display. The ceremonial of the coronation vigil procession and the investiture of the Prince of Wales show Richard exploiting and enjoying chivalric display exactly as other contemporary princes did. He also was no exception in his political and ceremonial use of the English orders of chivalry and the lower orders of knighthood. One of the privileges of a knight was to create others. During the Scottish campaigns, 1481-2, Richard as Duke of Gloucester dubbed seventy-five knights and knights-banneret.“s After a military expedition of undoubted success . knighthood in the field was one of the expected rewards. Few of those taking part in such extempore ceremonies would have remembered the idealistic strictures of Lull’s Order that the prospective knight be prepared for the honour, and that the donor he himself a knight of undoubted virtue. No details of the feast and ceremonies — if any at all — accompanying these dubbings by Richard are known: it is unlikely the knights received any of the instruction hoped for by Lull; they may have been expected to confess and hear mass. Such knighting in the field was essentially a secular ceremony, a reward for fighting, and only the great orders of chivalry had refined their ceremonies in line with the vision of such as Lull. Knighthood received in the field was one of the most ancient rewards for prowess and in theory mere martial merit was sufficient to raise a man to such status, but in practice it was conferred, by Richard’s lifetime, on those who had the family and means to support the rank. These considerations would have guided Richard of Gloucester’s choice of knights in 1481-2 just as it guided his choice of young men of good family, county standing and sufficient wealth summoned to become knights of the Bath at his coronation. Knights created by Richard as King included the Spanish ambassador at the investiture of the Prince of Wales in York (1483), and his last Mayor of London,

200 Thomas Hill (1485). ‘5 The choice of these recipients was guided yy his desire to reward supporters and friends and encourage diplomatic friendship. Following the same considerations he gave the Order of the Garter to Sir John Conyers, the Earl of Surrey, Lord Lovell, Richard Ratcliffe, Thomas Burgh, Lord Stanley and Richard Tunstall. No foreign princes were admitted in his short reign, ,nor did Richard receive the Golden Fleece.67 He never presided at the April feast of the fraternity of St. George at Windsor; he' ordered the accustomed livery to be issued in 1484, ‘3 but his son had recently died and he did not attend. In 1485 the day before the feast Richard ordered Lord Maltravers to observe the full ceremony in his absence and it was probably the Queen’s death m March that prevented his attendance. ‘9 Lastly it can be noted that Richard effectively employed and perhaps really enjoyed other more trivial trappings of a courtly knight. Both his main motto and his cognizance, loyaulte me lie and the white boar, entirely accorded with chivalric usage and neither was particularly ‘original’. Numberless mottoes witnessed to their owners ’loyalty, faith and love for an overlord or beloved lady. Many owners changed their devise, raison or ‘word’, or_ had several, for use in love, in war or in tournaments. Very attractive were the ‘coupled’ mottoes of man and wife that seem to give an insight in their relationship, such as John, Duke of Bedford’s a vous entier (I am wholly yours) and his first wife’s, Anne _of Burgundy, j ’en suis contente (it pleases me well), or the ambitious je l’ay emprins (I have undertaken it) of and the cautious bien en aviengne (may it turn out well). of Margaret of York that completes it. Unfortunately we do not know Anne Neville’s ‘word’ or whether it could be joined to her husband’s. It is also not known when and for how long Richard used the other mottoes associated with him: a vous me ly, tant le desieree and illa treztant desyre."° Why young Richard of Gloucester really took the white boar as his cognizance will never be known. The boar was a popular heraldic charge, used long before heraldry became standardised. The sanglier was the most dangerous and difficult animal to hunt, a beste noire (like the wolf and the bear) whose killer was greatly honoured. In contrast to the stag (one of the bestes rouges) which came to symbolise the Christian virtues, the boar stood for the sinner,7l but at the same time the boar’s very ferocity and power caused it to develop from a symbol of evil to the emblem of him who defeated it. In most stories the boar of evil is black and it is likely Richard very consciously chose a white boar to exorcise in agivance all Vices that the animal could be thought to possess and leave it only its v1rtues. The unage of the boar fighting for 1ts rights used by William Worcester 1n the Bake of Noblesse has already been mentioned. In the Knight' s Tale Palamon and Arcite fight furiously like wild boars, foaming with mad anger (lines 1658,1699). More relevantly 1n Lydgate’ s Siege of Troy the ever courteous, wise and brave Tydeus bears a boar on his shield, his‘ gypon [was] wroght of the bristles of a wylde boar’ and the same beast was - wroght and beta upon [his] banner, Displaied broode whan [he] shulde fight]z If Richard read his History of the Kings of Britain — and ‘everybody’ did know at least the internationally popular Prophecies of Merlin included in it — 'he must have rejoiced at the mention of the ‘fierce Boar, which will try the sharpness of its

201 tusks in the forests of Gaul; for it will lop down all the larger oak-trees, taking care, however, to protect the smaller ones. The Arabs shall dread the Boar and so shall the Africans . . 3!".

Conclusion: Richard III and Chivalry Richard appears to have been a knight sans peur, but it would seem hard to maintain that he was sans reproche, and to attribute to him an ‘unsophisticated and chivalrous heart’ is to over-simplify his character." To be a prince and at the same time a paragon of chivalry was impossible. Did Richard fail as a knight in his own eyes? He probably regarded himself as a reasonably successful soldier, who had had the right training and read the right books. His activities as a young man under his brother’s command, and his own campaigns in Scotland and against the 1483 rebels were well organised "and successful. He can hardly have doubted that he would crush the Tudor rebellion as well. His wish to go on crusade may have been genuine — though France would always have to come first — and he may have considered himself a failure as a Christian soldier and champion of the church so long as he took no action. Intoning his crusading litany every day, alone or with his chaplain, may have been a genuine and necessary outlet at a time when people had no doubts about the power and effect of prayer. Harsh political actions such as the extinction of Henry VI and the confiscation of the lands of Countesses of Oxford and Warwick probably did not cause the Duke of Gloucester and brother of Edward IV any loss of sleep. Deposing and disinheriting his own nephews was another matter, but he would not have seen that as failing in his ‘knighthood’, rather it was his duty as a prince and ruler. If he disposed of them as well, he, too, like his contemporaries must have thought that the death of his son was divine retribution. He, too, knew the stories, not only of Herod, but of the wicked uncles and tyrants of history and romance. At times he must have linked them to himself. It is likely that Richard was not troubled by the ambiguity of some of the precepts of chivalry or by the clash between courtly display and crude reality. He had been born to it. Ostentation and magnificence came as natural to him as to his brother, Edward IV, the Valois Dukes of Burgundy, or any of his social equals. To do less than others would have been foolish in the extreme, and there was great similarity, and continuity, between the ceremonial display of the courts of Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII, as well as between the Burgundian ducal court and those of the Kings of France and England. In our study of his piety, using his book of hours as our main tool, we were forced to conclude that Richard III was conventional.” Indications of individuality are few and faint. The ‘real’ Richard III must be sought in such small personal things as we know about him and the books he owned should be prime witnesses, but even their evidence remains difficult to interpret and subject to our prejudice. He owned the usual chivalric texts,and as regards his ‘chivalry’ it can be tentatively concluded that he was an active, practical and ambitious man, both in politics and straightforward military matters. He was conscientious in his fulfilment of his offices and not averse to the display they (and his status) demanded, and he was as pious about the ideals of chivalry as were his princely contemporaries.

202 NOTES AND REFERENCES l. Caxlan‘ s Blanchardyn and Eglanline c. 1489, ed. L. Keller, EETS ES 58 (1890),p p. 13- 6; u and v and some punctuation have been modernised by the present authors. It was translated for Margaret Beaufort. 2. It seems cynical to ascribe Froissart's disapproval to French ‘partisanship' only, J. Bamie, War in Medieval Society, London 1974, p.77; could not a medieval chronicler be appalled by needless murder on such a scale? lbid.. p.123. C. G. van Leeuwen, Denkbeelden van een Vliesridder. De ilmruction d'un jeune prince van Guillebert van Lannoy. Amsterdam I975, pp.30—4. Knight '3 Tale, lines 8934032, 2537-64. The Bake afNablesse, ed. J. G. Nichols, Roxburghe Club 1860, pp.22, 73. Caxton’s prologue to his edition of Malory's Mane D'Arlhur (1485), see W. B. Crotch, The Prologue: and Epilogue: of William Caxton. EETS OS I76, (I928), p.94. ‘Sege of Melayne’, in M. Mills, ed., Six Middle English Romances, London and Melbourne I973, p.9. lines 295- 324. Marquis of Bath, Longleat M5257, lT.90-lOSb. See the present authors’ Richard III’s Books: II. A Collection of Roma'nces and Old Testament Stories: I Ipomedan. The Ricardian. vol. 7(1986), pp.327-32. E. Kalbing, ed., ‘lpomedon' in drei englb‘chen Bearbeilungen, Breslau 1889, p.324. Carol Meale, The Middle English Romance of Jpamedan: a Late Medieval ‘Mirror' for Princes and Merchants, Reading Medieval Studies, vol. [0 (I984), pp.153-4, stresses the story’s importance as a didactic tale of courtesy. In the version owned by John Colyhs, meme! of London, and discussed by Meale the emphasis on the hero's education is greater than in the text owned by Richard. See the present authors” Richard lll's Books: XI. Ramon Lull's Order of Chivalry translated by William Caxton, The Ricardinn. vol. 9099]), pp.l 10-29. The quote is from p.31 of _the edition by A. T. P. Byles, The Book of the 0rdre of Cllyvulrye . . ., EETS OS I68 (I926); the italics are ours. BL Ms. Royal 18 A xii, £49. See also the edition of the middle English translation. Geoffrey Lester, The Earliest English Translation of Vegen'us'De Re Militari. Middle English Texts 21, Heidelberg I988, pp. 103-4, and the present authors' Richard lll’s Books: IV. Vegetius’ De Re Militari, The Ricardian, vol. 7 (1987), pp.541-52. l3. The Bake (see above n.6), pp.26-9. For Ipomedon see the present authors’ Richard 111's Books: 11 (see n.9), pp.328-9; for Tristan see Richard 111': Books: X. The Prose Tristan. The Ricardian, vol. 9 (1991), pp.30-2. l5. C. L. Kingsford. Engliclu Historical Literature in the fijfieemh Century. Oxford 1913, pp.382-8. [6. The Great Chronicle afLondon. ed. A. H. Thomas and l. D. Thomley, London I938, pp.228-9. l7. P. M. Kendall, Richard III. London 1955, pp.436-7; Rosemary Horrox and P. W. Hammond, Harleian Manuscript 433, 4 vols., Gloucester 1979, vol. I, p.208; vol. 2. p.2l6. l8. Harl. 433 (see n.l7), vol. I, p.l58; vol. 2, pp.ll7, I42, 216, 219. I9. For this event see mainly S. Anglo, Anglo-Burgundian Feats of Arms: Smithfield June I467, Guildhall Miscellany, vol. 2 (19'65), pp.27l-83. For'de La Marche’s memoirs see the edition by H. Beaune and J. d’Arbaumont, 4 vols., SHF, Paris 1883-8, pp.48-56; I 'admiml could be a mistake or copying error for marechal or connemble. 20. For the text see W. H. Black, Illuslralions of Ancient Slate and Chivalry from Manuscripts preserved in the Aslmwlean Museum, Roxburghe Club No. 56, London 1840, pp.27-40. 21. Anne F. Sutton and P. W. Hammond, The Coronation of Richard III. Gloucester I983, p.46. 22. Byles (see n.l l), p.124. 23. It is difficult to establish what ownership of Lull’s Order meant by the end oflhe l5th century. A. J. Vandeljagt, Qui sa verm anoblisl. The Concepts of noblesse and chasepublique in Burgundian Political Thought, Groningen 1980, pp.68-70. sugges‘s that in ‘he Burgundian court circle it was a mark of ‘conservafism'. He maintains that Philip the Good and Charles the Bold ignored the work and only the ‘conservative' Croy family owned a copy (Brussels, Bibliolhequg Royale Ms. 10493-7). The Dukes, however, had copies ‘in the family’, and the soldier and historian of England, Jean de Wavrin, also owned the Order (Paris, BN Ms. fr. 1973); his taste in books was not ‘conservative’. In BL Ms. Royal [4 E iiI made in Flanders for Edward IV or his sons. the Order was used to fill out a volume of didactic chivalric texts, which suggests it was still reasonably popular, as does the choice of the text by a man like Caxton who had an eye for books that would sell.

203 24. See note 12, above. See The Ricardian, vol. 7 (1987), p.543. 26. See Richard Ill's Books: XII. William Worcester’s Bake of Noblesse . . .. The Ricardian. vol. 9 (I991), . pp.l§4-65. 27. E.g. A. B. Ferguson, The Indian Summer of English Chivalry, Durham, N. Carolina, 1960, p.168: ‘. . . the militarily impeccable but otherwise reprehensible Richard Ill.' 28. Carmeliano’s dedicatory epistle to Sir Robert Brackenbury of his ‘Life of St. Katherine ofAlexandria', primed in H. A. Kelly, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare 's Histories, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, App. B. 29. Charles Ross, Richard III, London 1981, p.225. 30. Both quotes ibid., p.191. 3l. E.g. P. W. Hammond. The Bullies afBamel and Tewkesbury. Gloucester 1990, pp.76, 95. 32. BL Ms. Royal 17 D xv, [327; primed in T. Wright, Political Songs and Poems. . ., 2 vols.l Rolls Series, London l859-61, vol. 2, pp.27l-82. 33. Historia Dexlruclionis Twine. Guido delle Colonne. transl. M. E. Meek, Bloomington/ London, 1974, pp.43, 84. 34. C. L. Scofield, The Life and Reign of Edward the Fourth, 2 vols., London I923, vol. 2, p.117, and references given there. 35. Philippe de Commines‘ memoirs in any edition, bk.4, ch.10: ‘plale and well equipped horses’. Richard's disapproval became widely known; Jean Molinet, Le; Faiclzs er Diclzs. . ., ed. N. Dupire, 3 vols., Paris 1936-9, vol. I, p. 109, mentions no other objectors and does not suggest that Richard later accepted the peace. 36. Philippe de Commines’ Memoires, ed. L. M. E. Dupont, 3 vols., Paris 1840-7, vol. 3, pp.307-8, preuve 27. The admiral also visited the French army. The same report from Amiens goes on to say: ‘And while the King of France was at Amiens, the said English each came in peace and the King had them made very welcome‘. Amiens is only some [0 miles from Picquigny. 37. For a discussion of this see also The Ricardian. vol. 9 (1991), pp.lS9-60 (see n.26, above). 38. For this campaign see: The Crow/and Chronicle Confirmations. 1459-1486. ed. N. Pronay and J. Cox, London I986, pp. 146-9; Ross (see n.29), pp.288-90; Scofield (see n34). vol. 2, pp.344-9; N. Macdougall, James III. A Political Study, Edinburgh I982, pp.168-70; the same, Richard III and James II]: contemporary monarchs, parallel mythologies, in Richard, Loyalty, Lordxhip and Law, ed. P. W. Hammond, London 1986, passim; A. J. Pollard, North-Eastern England during the , Oxford I990, pp.235-44; and references given in all these. Pollard, ibitl, p.244. St. Petersburg, Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library Ms. Lat. F IV 74, £43: mam bene pulcra verba,‘and now de cornice e! eius slrenuilate (‘note the crow and its vigour'). For this ms. see the present authors’ Richard Ill’s Books: VII. Guido delle Colonne's flimn‘a Destructioniw Troiue and VIII. GeolTrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britannica, with The Prophecy of the Eagle and Commentary, The Ricardian, vol. 8 (I988), pp.136-48. 41. A. Erdmann and E. Ekwall, eds.,-Lydgale's Siege of Thebes. 2 vols., EETS ES l08 (I911), l25 (1913). lines 4122-4. 42. The Ballad of Bosworth Field, in .l. W. Hales and F. J. Fumivall, eds., Bis/mp Percy ’s Folio Manuscript, vol. 3, London 1868, p.257 (punctuation and spelling modernised). 43. Order (see n.ll), pp.38-9. . See e.g. R. Vaughan, Philip the Good, London 1970,pp.3l-53. 45. See e. 3. Michael Hicks, Descent, Partition and Extinction: The Warwick Inheritance, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vol. 52 (I979), pp.116-28; the same, The Last Days of Elisabeth, Countess of Oxford, English Historical Review. vol. 13 (1988), pp.76-95; Anne Crawford, Victims of Atlainder: The Howard and de Vere Women in the Late Fifteenth Century, Reading Medieval Studies. vol. 15 (1989), pp.59-74. _ 46. The text is printed in J. G. Nichols, ed., Grants from the Crown (luringthe Reign of Edward the Flflh, Camden Old Series 60, "354, pp.xxxvii-xlix; S. B. Chrimes, English Constitutional Ideas in the fijfleemh Century. Cambridge 1936, pp.168-78. 47. Valerius Maximus, Acid 2! Raw Memorabilia. ed. C. Kempf, Leipzig 1888, bk.6, ch.l, De fide publica. 48. W. Hardy and E. L. C. P. Hardy. eds., Recueil des Croniques e! Anchiennes Istaries. . . par Jean de Wavrin. Rolls Series, 5 vols., 1864-91. vol. 5, pp.643-7. For del See,see W. E. Hampton, Memorials of the Wars of the Roses, Upminster 1979, no. 421; Scofield (see n.34), vol. I, p.569, n.2.

204 49. Calendar afPalem Rolls 1467-1477, p.262: ‘for all olTences against the statum of cloths and capes'[sic]. This presumably refers to the statute against livery and maintenance of I468, Statutes 8 E 1V, ch.2. 50. Scofield (see n.34), vol. I, pp.5l9, 526, 542; vol. 2, pp. 1 -2, 20. See C. Richmond, Fauconberg’s Kentish rising of May 147], English Historical Review. vol. 85 (I970), pp.673-92. SI. John Warkworth, A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years. . . of Edward the Fourth, ed. J. O. Halliwell, Camden Old Series l0, l839, p.20; John Stow. Annales of England. . .. I615, p.425. 52. Stow, ibid. It is curious that Stow is supported by a particularly well-informed Burgundian ballad maker who wrote very shortly after the events and before Fauconberg’s death; this poet has Fauconberg made a knight and vice-admiral and implies that ‘Scales’(= Earl Rivers) had a hand in the reconciliation, A. J. V. le Roux dc Lincy, Chants historiques e! populaires du temps de Charles Vllet Lam‘s XI. Paris 1857, p.70. Rivers’ role is not clear: Warkwonh appears to accuse him of false promises, the Burgundian author has no such accusation. 53. Calendar of Patent Rolls I46 7-14 77, p.288. S4. See The Ricardian, vol. 7 (I986), pp.333-4. 55. ‘Southampton’ may be the result of confusion with the earlier events at Sandwich, but it may at least indicate that the arrest took place at sea or on the coast, as does the rumour that Fauconberg was made (vice-)admiral. On the other hand the whole episode may have occurred in the north, as Fauconberg’s brother is said to have (been wounded and) fled to sanctuary at Beverley,Scofield (see n34), vol. 2, p.20, quoting the Paston letters. 56. See Dominic Mancini, The Usurpmion of Richard III, ed. C. A. J. Armstrong, Gloucester [984, p. 137; and the present authors’ The Hours of Richard III, Stroud 1990, p. l 12 and n.305. Does the reference to ‘his own people alone’ indicate that he suspected ajoin! enterprise would never be undertaken? lbini, pp.62-6. The Coronation (see n.2l), pp.7-IO, and references given there. , Chroniquesed. S. Luce er 0]., IS vols., Paris 1869-[in progress]vol. 5, p.27, quoted by Bamie (sec 11.2), p.73. In this capacity Richard also sat in judgment, together with the Marshal, John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, on a number of defeated opponents after the battle ofTewkesbury; see G. D. Squibb, The High Court of Chivalry, Oxford I959, ch.l; M. H. Keen, Treason Trials under the Law of Arms, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Slh series, vol. 12 (I962), pp.85-103, on such a court and its authority. It is possible that Richard also presided as constable a! the trial of the Bastard of Fauconberg. He played his part as constable at the reburial of his father at Fotheringhay in 1476, see Scofield (see n34) vol. 2, pp.l67-8. 61. A. Wagner, The Herald: of England London 1967,1168. 62. Wagner, ibitt. pp. 123 fl‘.. 131. British Heraldry(cat. of an exhibition atthe British Museum 1978). ed. R. Marks and Ann Payne, London I978, item 78. These mss. will be discussed'In more detail in subsequent issues of The Ricardimz. See Ann Payne. The Salisbury Roll, c. I463, in England in the fifteenth Century. proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxlan Symposium, ed. D. Williams, Woodbridge I987, pp.187-98. The Earl of Northumberland, Lord Stanley and the Duke of Albany also created a number of knights, W. C. Metcalf, A Book of Knighls, London 1885, pp.5-7. But not his second Mayor, Thomas Bullesdon, for some reason. E. Ashmole, The Institutions, Laws and Ceremonies of the Noble Order oflhe Garter, London I672, p. 712. Harl. 433 (see l1. l7), vol. 2, p I29. . lbid., pp. 21 5-6. See The Ricardian, vol. 7 (1985-6), pp.74-5, 259-61. Marcelle Thiebaux, The Mouth of the Boar as a Symbol in Medieval Literature, Romance Philology, vol. 22 (I969), pp.28l-99. - Siege of Thebes (see n.4l), lines 1546-9. Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, transl. L. Thorpe, Harmondsworlh I966, p.176. Ferguson (see n.27), p.139, a View based on the work of Paul Murray Kendall. Hours (see n.56), ch.7.

205