106 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[2nd §, No 6., Fes. 9. °56. 
But Rastell’s edition omits the parenthesis relating 
to Edward IV.’s last illness, and no other edition 
contains it except that in Hardyng’s Chronicle. 
But I think I shall be able presently to show 
that a similar argument exists against More's 
authorship of the Latin History, which is not 
liable to the same objections. The tenor of the 
English and of the Latin work is almost. literally 
the same; the one is a translation of the other, 
and it is a question which is the original. - 
Both versions give the following anecdote in 
illustration of Richard’s design of usurping the 
crown: 
“ And first to show you that by conjecture he pretended 
this thing in his brother’s life, ye shall understand for a 
truth that the same night King Edward died, one called 
Mistelbrooke, long ere the day sprang, came to the house 
of one Potier, dwelling in Redcross Street without Crip- 
plegate of London, and when he was with hasty rapping 
quickly let in, the said Mistelbrooke showed unto Potier 
that King Edward was that night deceased. ‘By my 
troth,’ quoth Potier, ‘then will my master, the Duke of 
Glo’ster, be king, and that I warrant thee.’ What cause 
he had so to think hard it is to say, whether he being 
his servant knew any such thing prepensed, or otherwise 
had any inkling thereof; but of all likelihood he spake it 
not of naught.” 
This is all the English version says about the 
circumstance ; but the Latin makes a very re- 
markable addition to-the story, implying that the 
writer remembered hearing these words of Potier 
reported to his father by some one who had heard 
the conversation at a time when no one yet sus- 
pected the treasonable design of the Duke of 
Glo’ster.* Now, as this design became an accom- 
plished fact by the elevation of the Duke of 
Glo’ster to the throne, it is clear that the con- 
versation at Redcross Street was reported to the 
father of our author some time before the ac- 
cession of Richard III. in June 1483. But in 
1483, as Sir H. Ellis has pointed out, Sir Thomas 
More was only three years old, and it is manifestly 
impossible that he could have remembered any- 
thing of this nature taking place at such an early 
date. It is clear, therefore, that More was not the 
writer of the Zatin History. 
Further, it is evinced, I think, by the same 
passage, that the writer did not translate from 
the English. The Latin writer is the original 
authority for this anecdote, and therefore pre- 
sumably for everything else in the History, for it 
is he alone who gives a personal voucher for the 
truth of this circumstance. 
Nor is other internal evidence wanting to cor- 
roborate this view. It is true that the Latin only 
corrupt in many places, sometimes having less and some- 
times having more, and altered in words and whole sen- 
tences; much varying from the copy of his own hand, by 
which this is printed.” ° 
* « (nem ego sermonem ab eo memini qui colloquentes 
audiverat jam tum patri meo renunciatum, cum adhuc 
nulla proditionis ejus suspicio haberetur.” 
records the events of Edward V.’s reign, while 
the English extends a little way into that of 
Richard IIT. But, so far as it goes, the Latin 
has the appearance of a finished work, while the 
English bears many marks of incompleteness. 
The latter, indeed, is frequently more minute in 
such details as names, places, dates, and distances, 
but sometimes blanks are left for these matters. 
In short, it has all the look of having been written 
by one who had the Latin work before him, and 
sought to amplify while he translated, but did not 
fully complete his undertaking. 
The style also, to my notion, bears similar tes- 
timony. The English is greatly superior to the 
Latin in point of composition ; but on comparing 
parallel passages, it appears as if the ideas had 
been struck off originally in a Latin mint. The 
conciseness and simplicity of the Latin have fre- 
quently a very native look. The following ex- 
tracts may serve to illustrate this, 
1. The description of Edward IY. : 
Latin. 
“ Erat corpore procero, specie vero regia; multum illi 
animi, nec minus consilii, inerat; adversis rebus imper- 
territus, prosperis /etus magis quam elatus ; equus in pace 
clemensque; in bello acer et ferox; in aggrediendis 
periculis promptus; nec ultra tamen quam posceret ratio 
preeceps.” 
English. 
“Te was a goodly personage, and very princely to be- 
hold; of heart courageous; politic in counsel; in adver- 
sity nothing abashed; in prosperity rather joyful than 
proud; in peace just and merciful; in war sharp and 
fierce; in the field bold and hardy, and natheless no 
further than wisdom would, adventurous.” 
2. After mention of the parliamentary settle- 
ment of the succession, by which Richard Duke 
of York was to have the crown after the death of 
Henry VL: 
Latin. 
Quam ille non moratus.” 
English. 
“ But the Duke not enduring so long to tarry.” 
3. The description of Richard IIL. : 
Latin. 
“Supra facultates profusus, que ne deficerent, ex aliis 
exhaurire cogebatur quod in alios effunderet. His artibus 
factum ut amicitiam instabilem stabile odium pareret.” 
English. 
“Free was he called of dispense, and somewhat above 
his power liberal; with large gifts he got him unstead- 
fast friendship, for which he was fain to pil and spoil in 
other places, and get him steadfast hatred.” 
4. His conduct to his nephews: 
Latin. 
“Qnippe Ricardus Glocestrie Dux natura patruus, 
nomine tutor, beneficiis devinctus, obstrictus sacramento, 
ruptis omnibus humane societatis vineulis, contra jus ct 
fas hoe egit, ut nepotibus suis orphanis ac sibi creditis 
auferre vitam, regnumque in se transferre posset.” 
