"The Gracious Conqueror"

Abstract

Legge examines references various chronicles and petitions to Henry IV's claim to throne of England. While Henry was said to be rightful king by election, inheritance, and conquest, last claim seems particularly weak. However, Legge argues that in mouths of contemporaries queer title 'conqueror' was not necessarily either ironical or vainly flattering, but something generally accepted (18). The word conqueror was almost a synonym for victor and was usually applied to heroes; word had meaning of acquest – property gained otherwise than by inheritance. While there was no such thing as a legal right of conquest, case of William I provides proof that there was at least some precedent for claim. Legge next considers order which claims of conquest, inheritance, and election are presented Gower’s CT and Chaucer's Complaint to His Purse. She notes that gloss to CT puts claim to conquest last, whereas text itself places it first. The explanation is that text itself (as well as Chaucer's lines) gives claims order which were presented, and treats them cumulatively, from least to most important. The gloss does not need to take account of (20), and puts shaky right of conquest last, and softened by addition of words: 'sine sanguinis effusione' (20). The latter phrase is explained by a passage Froissart's chronicle that illustrates how Henry though of conquest as the acquisition by peaceful means of an inheritance vacant through misconduct and ineptitude of his predecessor (20). In this context, term conqueror can have a positive valence, one that associates Henry with legend of Brutus Trojan, who conquered Albion and created empire of Britain (20-21). [CvD]