§ 9. The truth is that the attempts of Godwin and others to make the autobiographical statements of the author fit into the life of Chaucer, have quite led the critics out of the right track. That the author was not Chaucer is perfectly obvious to every one who reads the passage in the lower half of p. 140 with moderate attention; for the author there refers to Chaucer as Love's 'noble philosophical poet in English,' who wrote a treatise of Love's servant Troilus, and who 'passeth all other makers in wit and in good reason of sentence'; praise which, however true it may be of Chaucer, the writer was certainly not entitled to claim for himself. The sole point in which the circumstances of the author agree with those of Chaucer is this—that they were both born in London; which is, obviously, too slight a coincidence to build upon. Now that we know the author's name to have been Thomas Usk, the matter assumes quite another complexion. Usk was much inclined, in his early days, to a belief in Lollard opinions; but when he found that persistence in such belief was likely to lead to trouble and danger, he deemed it prudent to recant as completely as he could[7], and contemplates his consequent security with some complacency.
In just the same way, it appears that he had changed sides in politics. We first find him in the position of confidential clerk to John of Northampton, mayor of London in 1381–2 and 1382–3. In July, 1384, Usk was arrested and imprisoned in order to induce him to reveal certain secrets implicating Northampton. This he consented to do, and accused Northampton before the king at Reading, on the 18th of August. Northampton strenuously denied the charges against him, but was condemned as guilty, and sent to Corfe castle[8]. After this, Usk joined the party of Sir Nicholas Brembre, mayor of London in 1383–4, 1384–5, and 1385–6, and Collector of Customs in 1381–3, when Chaucer was Comptroller of the same. Brembre had been active in procuring the condemnation of Northampton, and was, at the close of 1386, one of the few personal adherents who remained faithful to the king. In 1387, Richard was busily devising means for the overthrow of the duke of Gloucester's regency, Brembre and Usk being on the king's side; but his attempts were unsuccessful, and, in November of the same year, the duke of Gloucester and his partisans, who were called the 'appellants,' became masters of the situation; they accused the king's councillors of treason, and imprisoned or banished their opponents. On Feb. 3, 1388, the appellants produced their charges against their victims, Brembre and Usk being among the number. Both were condemned and executed, Brembre on Feb. 20, and Usk on the 4th of March. Usk's offence was that he had been appointed sub-sheriff of Middlesex by Brembre's influence[9], with a view to the arrest of the duke of Gloucester and others of his party. His defence was that all that he had done was by the king's orders, a defence on which he doubtless relied. Unfortunately for him, it was an aggravation of his crime. It was declared that he ought to have known that the king was not at the time his own master, but was acting according to the counsel of false advisers; and this sealed his fate. He was sentenced to be drawn, hung, and beheaded, and that his head should be set up over Newgate. The sentence was barbarously carried out; he was hung but immediately cut down, and clumsily beheaded by nearly thirty strokes of a sword. 'Post triginta mucronis ictus fere decapitatus semper usque ad mortem nunquam fatebatur se deliquisse contra Johannem Northampton, sed erant omnia vera quae de eo praedicaverat coram rege in quodam consilio habito apud Radyngum anno elapso.'—Higden, App. 169. John of Malverne speaks as if he had some personal recollection of Usk, of whom he says—'Satagebat namque astu et arte illorum amicitiam sibi attrahere quos procul dubio ante capitales hostes sibi fuisse cognovit,'—Ib. p. 45.
We can now readily understand that Usk's praise of Chaucer must have been more embarrassing than acceptable; and perhaps it was not altogether without design that the poet, in his House of Fame, took occasion to let the world know how he devoted his leisure time to other than political subjects.
§ 10. Some of the events of his life are alluded to by Usk in the present treatise. He justifies his betrayal of Northampton (p. 26, ll. 53–103, p. 28, ll. 116–201), and is grateful for the king's pardon (p. 60, ll. 120–4). He refers to his first imprisonment (p. 60, l. 104), and tells us that he offered wager of battle against all who disputed his statements (p. 60, l, 116; p. 31, l. 10); but no one accepted the wager.
He further tells us how he endeavoured to make his peace with the Church. Taking his cue from the parable of the merchantman seeking goodly pearls (p. 16, l. 84), he likens the visible Church of Christ to the pearl of great price (p. 145, l. 103; p. 94, l. 121), and piteously implores her mercy (p. 8, l. 135); and the whole tone of the piece shews his confidence that he is reasonably safe (p. 144, l. 120). He sees clearly that lollardy is unacceptable, and indulges in the usual spiteful fling against the cockle (lolia) which the Lollards were reproached with sowing (p. 48, l. 93). He had once been a heretic (p. 99, l. 29), and in danger of 'never returning' to the true Church (p. 99, l. 38); but he secured his safety by a full submission (p. 105, l. 133).
At the same time, there is much about the piece that is vague, shifty, and unsatisfactory. He is too full of excuses, and too plausible; in a word, too selfish. Hence he has no real message for others, but only wishes to display his skill, which he does by help of the most barefaced and deliberate plagiarism. It was not from the Consolatio Philosophiae of Boethius, but from the English translation of that work by Chaucer, that he really drew his materials; and he often takes occasion to lift lines or ideas from the poem of Troilus whenever he can find any that come in handy. In one place he turns a long passage from the House of Fame into very inferior prose. There are one or two passages that remind us of the Legend of Good Women (i. pr. 100, ii. 3. 38, iii. 7. 38); but they are remarkably few. But he keeps a copy of Chaucer's Boethius always open before him, and takes from it passage after passage, usually with many alterations, abbreviations, expansions, and other disfigurements; but sometimes without any alteration at all. A few examples will suffice, as a large number of parallel passages are duly pointed out in the Notes.
§ 11. In Chaucer's Boethius (bk. i. pr. 3. 10), when Philosophy, the heavenly visitant, comes to comfort the writer, her first words are:—'O my norry, sholde I forsaken thee now?' In the Testament (p. 10, l. 37), Heavenly Love commences her consolations with the same exclamation:—'O my nory, wenest thou that my maner be, to foryete my frendes or my servaunts?' The Latin text—'An te, alumne, desererem?'—does not suggest this remarkable mode of address.
This, however, is a mere beginning; it is not till further on that plagiarisms begin to be frequent. At first, as at p. 37, the author copies the sense rather than the words; but he gradually begins to copy words and phrases also. Thus, at p. 43, l. 38, his 'chayres of domes' comes from Chaucer's 'heye chayres' in bk. i. met. 5. 27; and then, in the next line, we find 'vertue, shynende naturelly … is hid under cloude,' where Chaucer has 'vertu, cler-shyninge naturelly is hid in derke derknesses'; bk. i. met. 5. 28. At p. 44, l. 66, we have: 'Whan nature brought thee forth, come thou not naked out of thy moders wombe? Thou haddest no richesse'; where Chaucer has: 'Whan that nature broughte thee forth out of thy moder wombe, I receyved thee naked, and nedy of alle thinges'; bk. ii. pr. 2. 10. Just