¹ For a description of the manuscript, see Mathew, G., The Court of Richard II (London, 1968), pp. 40–1Google Scholar. According to Rickert, E. (The Reconstructed Carmelite Missal (London, 1952), pp. 76 and 92Google Scholar), the manuscript was produced by the same school of illumination as Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS. 1831. Some of the miniatures are reproduced in English Illumination of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar, plate 22.

² Another copy, made for Richard II in the second year of his reign, and apparently by the same scribe, is B.L., Royal MS. 12 C v. See Warner, G. and Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collection, ii (London, 1921), p. 23Google Scholar; and Saxl, F. and Meier, H., Verzeichnis Astrologischer und Mythologischer Illustrierter Handschriften des Lateinischen Mittelalters, III: Handschriften in Englischen Bibliotheken, i (London, 1953), pp. 311–12.Google Scholar

³ i.e., March 1391. In the B.L. manuscript this date has been suppressed, the word ‘geomancie’ has been erased and ‘philosophie’ has been inserted between ‘armorum’ and ‘et utriusque legis’. The tract is also preceded by several elaborate tables.

⁴ M. A. Manzalaoui, ‘The Secreta Secretorum in English Thought and Literature from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century, with a Preliminary Survey of the Origins of the Secreta’, unpublished Oxford D.Phil, thesis, 1954. to which I am much indebted for much of what follows.

⁵ Förster, H. (‘Handschriften und Ausgaben des pseudo-aristotelischen Secretum Secretorum’, Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, i (1889)Google Scholar) lists 207 manuscripts of the version by Philippe de Tripoli, and 62 of that by Johannes Hispalensis.

⁶ Three Prose Versions of the Secreta Secretorum, ed. R. Steele and T. Henderson (E.E.T.S., Extra Series, vol. 74, 1898).Google Scholar

⁷ I have used for comparison the Latin text in Bodleian Library, Hatton MS.62, which is contemporary with Bodley MS. 581.

⁸ Chs. 4–14 of the English translation in B.L., Royal MS. 18 A vii, and chs. 4–15 of that in Lambeth Palace Library, MS. 501. See Three Prose Versions, ed. Steele, and Henderson, , pp. 48–56.Google Scholar

⁹ See especially chs. 96–101 of Lambeth MS. 501, and Three Prose Versions, ed. Steele, and Henderson, , pp. 98–103.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Dr Manzalaoui transcribes eiulus, with sic.

¹¹ For Dr Manzalaoui, this would mean ‘mace-bearer’.

¹² The following list has been compiled from P.R.O., E 364/18 (7 R.II F) and E 364/19 (8 R.II E) (accounts of Alexander Petit of Balscot); E 364/31 (20 R.II B) and E 364/32 (21 R.II F) (accounts of Robert Crull); and E 364/34 (1 H.IV I) (account of Robert Faringdon). There is a gap in the accounts be tween September 1393 and September 1398, corresponding to the Treasurerships of John Thorpe and Richard Metford. The existing lists are inaccurate. Lascelles, R. (Liber Munerum Hiberniae ah anno 1152 usque ad annum 1827, iii, pp. 5–6)Google Scholar gives only Chaumbre, Crull, Thorpe, Metford and Faringdon, whereas the Book of Dignities (London, 1891, p. 561Google Scholar) gives Petit and Coulton, archbishop of Armagh (Coulton was indeed Treasurer, but under Edward III, being Chancellor and Justiciar in the reign of Richard II), Chaumbre, Metford and Bray, abbot of St Mary's, Dublin. The situation is further confused by the existence of a commission sent to the archbishop of Dublin, in March 1403, to audit the accounts of the ‘late Treasurers of Ireland’; the names of Balscot, Metford and Faringdon are omitted from the list, while two new names appear, that of Thomas Bache who, according to P.R.O. accounts, was only a clerk ‘ad vadia hominibus ad anna’ and later a member of the Exchequer of Ireland, and that of William Boltham (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1401–5, pp. 212–13).Google Scholar

¹³ John Thorpe was appointed Treasurer on 13 July 1393; he received his letters of protection by bill of privy seal four days later, and he nominated his attorneys in August (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1391–6, pp. 310–13Google Scholar). According to Crull's account, Thorpe was in Ireland by September 1393. He was still there in July 1394, when he was chosen to act as attorney in Ireland by a canon of Fern's cathedral who was leaving for England (ibid., p. 470); in September 1394, how-ever, Simon Felbrigg, leaving for Ireland, nominated Thorpe and John Felbrigg as his attorneys in England (ibid., p. 476). Was Thorpe already in England, or was he expected soon?

¹⁴ Metford appointed a lieutenant in Ireland, John de Melton, who was involved in serious trouble and was imprisoned by the Chancellor of Ireland. His petition to the king, dated 20 May 1392, is published in Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, ed. Nicolas, N. H., i (London, 1834), pp. 69–72.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1386–9, p. 91.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Tuck, J. A., ‘Anglo-Irish Relations, 1382–93’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, lxix (1970), pp. 20–3.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Tuck, J. A., Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973), p. 82.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Mostly nominations of feoffees and land transactions. See Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1391–6, pp. 471 and 641Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1396–9, p. 554Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1399–1401, pp. 446 and 526Google Scholar; Cal. Close Rolls, 1389–92, pp. 184 and 489Google Scholar; Cal. Close Rolls, 1396–9, p. 399Google Scholar; Cal. Close Rolls, 1402–5, p. 152Google Scholar (the will of Thomas, lord Morley).

¹⁹ On the family of Thorpe, of Thorpe Nelaton, see Blomefield, F., An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk (11 vols., London, 1805–1862), v, pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

²⁰ Goodman, A., The Loyal Conspiracy. The Lords Appellant under Richard II (London, 1971)Google Scholar, especially p. 102; Virgoe, R., ‘The Crown and Local Government: East Anglia under Richard II’, The Reign of Richard II, Essays in Honour of May McKisack, ed. du Boulay, F. R. H. and Barren, C. M. (London, 1971), pp. 218–41Google Scholar, and especially p. 236.

²¹ Goodman, , The Loyal Conspiracy, p. 36.Google Scholar

²² See supra, p. 25.Google Scholar

²³ Virgoe, , ‘Crown and Local Government’, pp. 233–5.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 235–6.

²⁵ John, E. T., ‘Sir Thomas Erpingham’, Norfolk Archaeology, xxxv, pt 1 (1970), pp. 96–108.Google Scholar

²⁶ Virgoe, , ‘Crown and Local Government’, pp. 230–1.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid., p. 236, where he is described as a ‘Lancastrian retainer’.

²⁸ Ibid., pp. 233–5.

²⁹ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1396–9, p. 582.Google Scholar

³⁰ Mathew, (op. cit., p. 41Google Scholar) seems to imply that the manuscript had but one author or compiler.

³¹ Supra, p. 23.Google Scholar

³² B.R.U.C., pp. 586 and 684.Google Scholar

³³ William de Chaumbre was perhaps a student at Oxford; he deposited with Thomas Hanneye their Lectura Hostiensis in Rothbury Chest as caution for a loan in February 1372 (B.R.U.O., i, p. 396).Google Scholar

³⁴ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1388–92, p. 508Google Scholar (William Merton v. William de Hoo). The four other civilians were John Barnet, Richard Ronhale, John Burbage and John Shillyngforde.

³⁵ There are at least two Sir John Thorpes in the fourteenth century. Another Cambridge man, Master John Thorpe, born c. 1362, was a fellow of Corpus Christi, and died after 1430 (B.R.U.C., p. 586Google Scholar), while a Carmelite of that name became prior of the Cambridge convent in 1410–11, and died in 1440 (ibid., p. 586). The Patent Rolls of Edward III record the activities of a king's clerk who rose to be Keeper of the King Money in the Tower, being prebendary of York and Tamworth, and parson of Cottingham and Nailstone. At the end of the century, another clerk of the same name was employed by the king at Kingston-uppn-Hull, another John Thorpe was a burgess of Bristol and yet another a citizen of Kingston-upon-Thames.

³⁶ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1381–1385, p. 61Google Scholar. He retained this position until 1388 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1385–9, p. 426).Google Scholar

³⁷ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1381–5, p. 280Google Scholar, and Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1385–9, p. 198.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cal. Close Rolls, 1381–5, p. 261.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1385–9, pp. 337–8, 415 and 516Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1388–92, pp. 14 and 168.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1381–5, p. 280.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 106.

⁴² Ibid., p. 280.

⁴³ The Register of William of Wykeham, ed. Kirby, T. F., ii (London-Winchester, 1899), pp. 594–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1385–9, pp. 370 and 382Google Scholar. Walter Donnell, who had received the provision to Fawley, was evicted because Thorpe had secured a writ of quare impedit against him. Thorpe still held the benefice in 1389, when he became prebendary at St Stephen's, Westminster (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1388–92, p. 278).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ His last office seems to have been that of collector of the customs from Ipswich to Tilbury, a post he still held in February 1392 (Cal. Fine Rolls, 1391–9, pp. 3, 12 and 23Google Scholar).

⁴⁶ He is included in the University roll for papal graces as petitioner for a canonry at Lincoln, with reservation of a prebend, in 1390 (B.R.U.C., p. 586Google Scholar). The prebend of Corringham was in the gift of the crown (Le Neve, J., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1300–1541, i (London, 1962), p. 54Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1388–1392, pp. 35 and 262).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1388–92, p. 122.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid., p. 323.

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 278; Fasti, iv (London, 1963), p. 33.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See supra, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See supra, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁵² e.g. Cal. Close Rolls, 1389–92, pp. 184 and 489.Google Scholar

⁵³ Reg. Despenser, fo. 157v (Russell-Smith, J. M., ‘Walter Hilton and a Tract in Defence of the Veneration of Images’, Dominican Studies, vii (1954), pp. 180–214Google Scholar; all references to this register are taken from this article). Thorpe was presented to Brisley by Thomas Morley, Marshal of Ireland (Blomefield, , op. cit., ix, p. 47).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Reg. Despenser, fo. 184. He was presented by the abbot of Bury St Edmunds, perhaps the greatest ecclesiastical landowner in Norfolk (Blomefield, , op. cit., vi, p. 410).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Reg. Despenser, fo. 211v.

⁵⁶ Ibid., fo. 184. He was presented by Dionysia, widow of William Clere, a connection of the lawyer Geoffrey of Spmerton (Blomefield, , op. cit., x, p. 198Google Scholar). His close associate, Master John Felbrigg, was to succeed him in 1406.

⁵⁷ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1401–3, p. 35.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1408–13, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ In 1406 he was a collector of the clerical subsidy (Cal. Close Rolls, 1405–9, p. 57Google Scholar) and in 1412, as keeper of the bishop's prison, he had to be pardoned for allowing the escape of three convicted priests (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1408–13, p. 10).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ He was collector of the tenth and fifteenth granted to the king in 1401 (Cal. Close Rolls, 1399–1402, p. 347Google Scholar), and acted in that capacity again in later years (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1408–13, p. 432Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1416–22, p. 175Google Scholar). He also appears to have been an important witness at the trial of Robert Westbroom of Bury in July 1402; Westbroom was accused of having said that Richard II was still alive, but was acquitted (Cal. Close Rolls, 1399–1402, p. 548Google Scholar). It is also possible that Thorpe returned to Ireland in 1404 in the following of Thomas of Lancaster (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1401–5, p. 378).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hilton was in Cambridge from at least 1371 until c. 1384 (B.R.U.C., p. 306).Google Scholar

⁶² All of what follows is based upon Russell-Smith, , op. cit.Google Scholar

⁶³ Would this be a reference to Thorpe's difficulties in 1388? A John Thorpe (it is not specified whether he was a clerk) took part in an assault against the countess of Norfolk and was indicted in July 1376 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1374–7, p. 326).Google Scholar

^{page 31 note a} MS. quadrupertita.

^{page 31 note b} MS. largitatus.

⁶⁴ Prov. 1: 5.

^{page 32 note a} MS. protegus.

^{page 33 note a} MS. contrarius.

^{page 33 note b} MS, de desiderum.

⁶⁵ Prov. 2: 6.

⁶⁶ Prov. 2: 9–12, in the following order: 10, part of 9, and 11–12.

⁶⁷ Prov. 4: 7–9.

⁶⁸ Prov. 7: 4.

⁶⁹ Prov. 8: 11.

⁷⁰ Prov. 8: 15.

⁷¹ Prov. 3: 19.

⁷² Prov. 1: 7.

⁷³ Prov. 14: 27.

^{page 36 note a} MS. proverbii.

⁷⁴ Prov. 24: 21.

⁷⁵ Prov. 16: 14. The Vulgate has ‘indignatio regis, nuntii mortis’.

⁷⁶ Prov. 20: 2.

⁷⁷ Walter, H., Lateinische Sprichtwörter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters, ii (Göttingen, 1964), no. 11002.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Prov. 1: 7; 13: 20.

⁷⁹ This derives from a medieval collection of auctoritates, but is wrongly attributed to Aristotle; see Hamesse, J., Auctoritates Aristotelis, i, Concordance (Louvain, 1972)Google Scholar. It is, in fact, a commonplace from Cicero, De Amicitia, xxi, 80Google Scholar (Walter, no. 960a).

⁸⁰ Prov. 19: 29.

⁸¹ Prov. 24: 30–1.

⁸² Prov. 20: 4.

⁸³ Prov. 18: 2.

⁸⁴ Ec. 4: 13–14.

⁸⁵ Prov. 13: 10.

⁸⁶ Prov. 11: 14.

⁸⁷ Walter, no. 14574, under the form ‘mel in ore, fel in corde’.

⁸⁸ Prov. 12: 2.

⁸⁹ Si. 10: 2.

⁹⁰ Probably an English or, perhaps, a French proverb translated into Latin.

⁹¹ Prov. 19: 6.