In Part One, these are Cicely’s daughters, Alice and Vivien, and her damsels, Margaret and Fina; Meliora, the Queen’s sub-damsel; Hilda la Vileyne, and her relatives. Of all others, the name and position at least are historical facts.
The fictitious persons in Part Two are more numerous, being all the household of the Countess of March (except John Inge the Castellan): and Nichola, damsel of the Countess Agnes.
The three Despenser nuns, Mother Alianora, and the Sisters Annora and Margaret, and Lady Joan de Greystoke, are the only characters in Part Three which are not fictitious.
A difference in the diction will be noticed between Part Three and the earlier parts, the last portion being more modern than the rest. Sister Alianora must not be supposed to write her narrative, which she could not do except by order from her superiors; but rather to be uttering her reflections to herself. Since to her the natural language would be French, there was no need to follow the contemporary diction further than, by a quaint expression now and then, to remind the reader of the period in which the scene is laid.
It may be remarked that the diction of Parts One and Two is not strictly correct. This is true: because to make it perfectly accurate, would be to make it also unintelligible to nine out of ten readers, and this not so much on account of obsolete words, which might be explained in a note, as of the entirely different turn of the phraseology. An imaginary diary of the reign of Elizabeth can be written in pure Elizabethan language, and with an occasional explanatory note, it will be understood by modern readers: but a narrative prior to 1400 at the earliest cannot be so treated. The remaining possibilities are either to use as much of the correct diction of the period as is intelligible, employing modern terms where it is not, or else to write in ordinary modern English. Tastes no doubt differ on this point. I prefer the former; since I extremely dislike to read a mediaeval story where modern expressions alone are used in the dialogue. The reader, if himself acquainted with the true language, finds it impossible to realise or enter into the story, being constantly reminded that he is reading a modern fiction. What I object to read, therefore, I object to write for the reading of others. Where circumstances, as in this case, make perfect accuracy impossible, it seems to me the next best thing is to come as near it as they will permit.
The biographical details given in this Appendix, with few exceptions, have not, I believe, been previously published. For such information as may readily be found in Dugdale’s Baronage, extinct peerages, etcetera, I refer my readers to those works.
The End.
Note 1. This document is mistakenly headed and catalogued as a Compotus of Leonor, Queen of Edward the First. It certainly belongs to Queen Philippa. The internal evidence is abundant and conclusive—eg, “the Countess of Hainault, the Queen’s mother.”
Note 2. The details of this cartload are not uninteresting:—203 quarters, 12 pounds wax; 774 pounds broken sugar, 11 pence per pound; 200 almonds; 100 pounds of rice; 78 ells of Paris napery, 10 pence per ell; 6 and a half ells of Rouen napery, same price; 18 short towels; 15 and a half ells of “cloth of Still;” 100 ells of linen, 100 ells of canvas; 200 pears, at 4 shillins per 100, bought of Isabel Fruiterer; 2000 large nuts, at 1 shilling per 1000; four baskets for the fruit, 10 pence. The journey from London occupied five days, and the travelling expenses were 14 pence per day.