[48] Script. Brit. i. 415: so also Ant. Coll. iv. 79, where the three books are mentioned. The statement that the chaplet was partly of ivy must be a mistake, as is pointed out by Stow and others.
[49] Read rather ‘En toy qu’es fitz de dieu le pere.’
[50] Read ‘O bon Jesu, fai ta mercy’ and in the second line ‘dont le corps gist cy.’
[51] Survey of London, p. 450 (ed. 1633). In the margin there is the note, ‘John Gower no knight, neither had he any garland of ivy and roses, but a chaplet of four roses only,’ referring to Bale, who repeats Leland’s description.
[52] p. 326 (ed. 1615). Stow does not say that the inscription ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c.; was defaced in his time.
[53] vol. ii. p. 542.
[54] vol. v. pp. 202-4. The description is no doubt from Aubrey.
[55] On this subject the reader may be referred to Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 835 f. (ed. 1631).
[56] Antiquities of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, 1765.
[57] vol. ii. p. 24.