As well in Englande as in other nacyons.
And where mysordre in thy translation is,
Vnto the perceyuer with humble obeysaunce
Excuse thy reducer, blamyng his ygnoraunce.”
All the information which he gives about himself in this prologue is that, when he made his translation, he was “flowring in youth,” but after the “Finis” he has added, “Thus endeth the .C. Hystories of Troye, translated out of Frenche in to Englysshe by me. R.W.” This again is followed by the colophon, “Imprynted by me Robert Wyer, dwellyng in S. Martyns parysshe at Charyng Crosse at the sygne of S. John̄ Euangelist besyde the Duke of Suffolkes place”; and it is therefore highly probable that R. W. and Robert Wyer were identical, though the latter is not otherwise known except as a printer. A list of nearly a hundred books issued by him has been made up,[[91]] ranging in date from 1530 to 1556, and all those which, as in this instance, have the Duke of Suffolk’s name in the imprint must have been published after 1536, when the property referred to, which previously belonged to the Bishop of Norwich, passed into his possession. The date of the book therefore is about 1540–1550, though the translation may have been made some years before. For the sake of comparison with the earlier version of Stephen Scrope, one of the texts with its commentary is here given:
The .xxviii. Texte.
Loue and prayse Cadmus so excellente,
And his dyscyples holde thou in chyerte.
He gaygned the fountayne of the Serpente
With ryght great payne afore that it wolde be.
The .xxviii. Glose.
Cadmus was a moche noble man and founded Thebes, whiche cytie was greatly renomed. He set there a study & he hym selfe was moche profoundly lettered and of great science. And therfore sayth the fable that he daunted the serpent at the fountayne, that is to vnderstande the science and sages that alwayes springeth; the Serpent is noted for the payne and trauayle which it behoueth the student to daunte afore that he maye purchase scyence. And the fable sayth that he hym self became a serpent, which is to vnderstande he was a corrector and mayster of other. So wol Othea say that the good knight ought to loue and honour the clerkes lettered, which ben grounded in science. To this purpose sayeth Arystotle to Alexandre, “Honour thou scyence and fortyfie it by good maysters.”
The .xxviii. Allegorie.
Cadmus whiche daunted the Serpent at the fountayne, whiche the good knyght ought to loue, we may vnderstande the blyssed humanite of Jesu christ, which dompted the serpent and gaigned the fountayne, that is to say the lyfe of this world, from the which he passed afore with great payne and with great trauayle. Wherof he had perfyte victory whan he rose agayne the thyrd day, as sayth S. Thomas, “Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.”
In conclusion it only remains to say a few words on the possible connexion of Stephen Scrope with two other works already mentioned, which, like his “Epistle of Othea” or “Boke of Knyghthode” and his “Sayings of the Philosophers,” were written for Sir John Fastolf or under his influence. One of them, the “Boke of Noblesse,” is preserved in a unique copy in the British Museum, Royal MS. 18 B. xxii., and was edited for the Roxburghe Club in 1860 by Mr. J. Gough Nichols. In the form in which it has come down to us, it was addressed to Edward IV. at the time of his invasion of France in 1475, professing to be “write and entitled to courage and comfort noble men in armes to be in perpetuite of remembraunce for here noble dedis, as right conuenient is soo to bee,” or, more precisely, for the purpose of inciting the English to recover by force of arms their lost foreign conquests. The contents were admirably summarized in the editor’s introduction, and all that need be said of them here is that, in addition to a highly interesting retrospect of English relations with France, they include a large amount of matter derived from a French treatise on the art of war, which is spoken of as the “Arbre de Batailles” and attributed to “Dame Cristyn.” Although the editor failed to identify the author, he pointed out that he must have been intimately associated with Fastolf and had access to his papers. Strictly speaking, Fastolf’s name is not specially prominent except in the marginal insertions and notes, where the writer refers to him as “myne autor” and gives several curious anecdotes as heard from his lips. The body of the MS. is clearly not autograph; but these additions, together with the title and colophon,[[92]] are in a different handwriting, and, although the editor seems to have been unaware of the fact, it is beyond question that of William Worcester, or Botoner, who was not only Fastolf’s servant and secretary, but is also known as an annalist and a diligent collector of matter on historical, topographical and other subjects.[[93]] The editor therefore dismissed his claims to the authorship of the work rather too hastily, for, as the final touches were certainly his, the only question is whether he was also responsible for the whole of it from its inception. From the limit of date of the events mentioned there is some reason to believe that it was originally composed within Fastolf’s lifetime and was only revised and enlarged in 1475 for a special occasion; and its date may perhaps be fixed still more exactly, since there is an allusion (p. 42) to “another gret armee and voiage fordone for defaut and lak of spedy payment this yere of Crist Mlccccli.” Apart from the final additions there is evidence to connect Worcester with it in a passage of the prologue to a series of documents relating to the wars in France which were collected by him,[[94]] mainly no doubt from materials that belonged to Fastolf, and which may be regarded as pièces justificatives to the “Boke of Noblesse.” This collection also appears to have been designed for Edward IV., but the original prologue was awkwardly recast, as we now have it, after Worcester’s death by his son for dedication to Richard III. The passage in it referred to, for which he is responsible, is as follows:
“And I, as moost symple of reasone, youre righte humble legemane, cannot atteyne to understond the reasons and bokes that many wise philosophurs of gret auctorite have writtene upone this vertue of Force, but that my pore fadyr, William Worcestre ... toke upone hym to write in this mater and compiled this boke to the most highe and gretly redoubted kyng, your most nobille brodyr and predecessoure, shewyng after his symple connyng, after the seyng of the masters of philosophie, as Renatus Vegesius in his Boke of Batayles, also Julius Frontinus in his Boke of Knyghtly Laboures, callid in Greke Stratagematon, a new auctoure callid The Tree of Batayles.”
Obviously this cannot apply to the purely historical documents of which the collection itself consists. It is, however, strongly suggestive of the “Boke of Noblesse,” to which they are, as it were, an appendix, and coupled with the evidence of the handwriting of the additions, it leaves little room for doubt that William Worcester was its author. At the same time, it is by no means unlikely that Stephen Scrope also had a hand in it. If indeed it was wholly compiled in 1475, this is impossible, since he died in 1472.[[95]] Assuming, however, for the reason given above, that it dates from 1451, or thereabouts, he was residing at the time with Fastolf and was no doubt on familiar terms with Worcester. As already remarked, a prominent feature of the work is the number of extracts translated from the so-called “Arbre de Batailles” of “Dame Cristyn.” This, however, was not, as the editor supposed, Honoré Bonet’s treatise of that name[[96]] assigned to a wrong author, but Christine de Pisan’s “Faits d’armes et de chevalerie” under a wrong title.[[97]] Whether Worcester was capable of making translations from it as early as 1451 is somewhat doubtful; for he seems to have only begun to learn French about August, 1458,[[98]] little more than a year before Fastolf’s death. Scrope on the contrary had before this translated two French works for the latter, one of them being by the same Christine, and it is therefore in this part of the “Boke of Noblesse,” if at all, that he may possibly have collaborated.
Unlike the last-named work, the anonymous English version of Cicero’s “De Senectute” which Caxton printed in 1481 has already been attributed to William Worcester,[[99]] the ground of this assumption being an entry made in his “Itinerarium,”[[100]] that on 10th August, 1473, he presented to Bishop Waynflete at Esher a translation which he had made of this treatise, but got nothing in return. Apart from this statement there is no more reason for attributing Caxton’s text to Worcester than to Scrope. The language is better than might have been expected from either of them, but as no MS. copy exists, we cannot tell to what extent it was edited by Caxton. In the preface, as may be seen above (p. xxx.), it is said that the translation was made from the French of Laurence de Premierfait by Sir John Fastolf’s “ordenaunce and desyre.” As there is no reason to doubt this, its date cannot be later than 1459, so that, if Worcester was the translator, he kept it at least thirteen years before he offered it to Waynflete. This does not seem very likely, and his translation was therefore possibly a different one altogether, completed shortly before the occasion when the bishop so disappointed him by his cold acceptance of it. The earlier version in that case was almost certainly by Scrope; but, where so much is left to conjecture, the most that can be said is that the evidence upon which it has hitherto been assigned to Worcester is not wholly conclusive.