Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors in punctuation have been silently
corrected.
Italics are represented as _italic_. Wide spacing (used for notations
over erasure in the text) is represented as ~gesperrt~.
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER
_G. C. MACAULAY_
* * * *
THE LATIN WORKS
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
[Illustration]
LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK
[Illustration: MS. COTTON TIBERIUS A. IV., F. 9
(_Reduced in size_)]
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER
_EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND GLOSSARIES_
BY
G. C. MACAULAY, M.A.
FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
* * * *
THE LATIN WORKS
De modicis igitur modicum dabo pauper, et inde
Malo valere parum quam valuisse nichil.
=Oxford=
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1902
OXFORD
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION vii
EPISTOLA 1
VOX CLAMANTIS 3
CRONICA TRIPERTITA 314
REX CELI DEUS ETC. 343
H. AQUILE PULLUS ETC. 344
O RECOLENDE ETC. 345
CARMEN SUPER MULTIPLICI VICIORUM PESTILENCIA 346
TRACTATUS DE LUCIS SCRUTINIO 355
ECCE PATET TENSUS ETC. 358
EST AMOR ETC. 359
QUIA VNUSQUISQUE ETC. 360
ENEIDOS BUCOLIS ETC. 361
O DEUS IMMENSE ETC. 362
LAST POEMS 365
NOTES 369
GLOSSARY 421
INDEX TO THE NOTES 428
INTRODUCTION
LIFE OF GOWER.
To write anything like a biography of Gower, with the materials that
exist, is an impossibility. Almost the only authentic records of him,
apart from his writings, are his marriage-licence, his will, and his
tomb in St. Saviour’s Church; and it was this last which furnished
most of the material out of which the early accounts of the poet were
composed. A succession of writers from Leland down to Todd contribute
hardly anything except guesswork, and this is copied by each from his
predecessors with little or no pretence of criticism. Some of them,
as Berthelette and Stow, describe from their own observation the tomb
with its effigy and inscriptions, as it actually was in their time, and
these descriptions supply us with positive information of some value,
but the rest is almost entirely worthless.
Gower’s will was printed in Gough’s _Sepulchral Monuments_ (1796), and
in 1828 Sir Harris Nicolas, roused by the uncritical spirit of Todd,
published the article in the _Retrospective Review_[1] which has ever
since been regarded as the one source of authentic information on the
subject. It does not appear that Nicolas undertook any very extensive
searching of records, indeed he seems to have practically confined his
attention to the British Museum; for wherever he cites the Close Rolls
or other documents now in the Record Office, it is either from the
abstract of the Close Rolls given in MS. Harl. 1176 or as communicated
to him by some other person: but he was able to produce several more
or less interesting documents connected either with the poet or with
somebody who bore the same name and belonged to the same family, and he
placed the discussion for the first time upon a sound critical basis.
Pauli simply recapitulated the results arrived at by Nicolas with some
slight elucidations from the Close Rolls of 6 Ric. II on a matter
which had been already mentioned by Nicolas on the authority of Mr.
Petrie. As the result of a further examination of the Close Rolls and
other records I am able to place some of the transactions referred to
in a clearer light, while at the same time I find myself obliged to
cast serious doubt on the theory that all the documents in question
relate to the poet. In short, the conclusions at which I arrive, so far
as regards the records, are mostly of a negative character.
It may be taken as proved that the family to which John Gower the poet
belonged was of Kent. Caxton indeed says of him that he was born in
Wales, but this remark was probably suggested by the name of the ‘land
of Gower’ in Wales, and is as little to be trusted as the further
statement that his birth was in the reign of Richard II. There was
a natural tendency in the sixteenth century to connect him with the
well-known Gowers of Stitenham in Yorkshire, whence the present noble
family of Gower derives its origin, and Leland says definitely that the
poet was of Stitenham[2]. It is probable, however, that Leland had no
very certain information; for when we examine his autograph manuscript,
we find that he first wrote, following Caxton, ‘ex Cambria, ut ego
accepi, originem duxit,’ and afterwards altered this to ‘ex Stitenhamo,
villa Eboracensis prouinciae, originem ducens.’ It is probable that the
credit of connexion with the poet had been claimed by the Yorkshire
family, whose ‘proud tradition,’ as Todd says, ‘has been and still is
that he was of Stitenham,’ and we find reason to think that they had
identified him with a certain distinguished lawyer of their house.
This family tradition appears in Leland’s _Itinerarium_, vi. 13, ‘The
house of Gower the poete sumtyme chief iuge of the commune place’ (i.e.
Common Pleas) ‘yet remaineth at Stitenham yn Yorkshire, and diuerse of
them syns have been knights.’ He adds that there are Gowers also in
Richmondshire and Worcestershire (‘Wicestreshire,’ MS.). The statement
that this supposed judge was identical with the poet is afterwards
withdrawn; for on a later page Leland inserts a note, ‘Mr. Ferrares
told me that Gower the iuge could not be the man that write the booke
yn Englisch, for he said that Gower the iuge was about Edward the
secundes tyme.’[3]
All this seems to suggest that Leland had no very trustworthy evidence
on the matter. He continued to assert, however, as we have seen, that
the poet derived his origin from Stitenham, and to this he adds that
he was brought up and practised as a lawyer, ‘Coluit forum et patrias
leges lucri causa[4].’ It has not been noticed that the author’s
manuscript has here in the margin what is probably a reference to
authority for this statement: we find there a note in a contemporary
hand, ‘Goverus seruiens ad legem 30 Ed. 3.’ From this it is probable
that Leland is relying on the Year-book of 30 Ed. III, where we find
the name Gower, apparently as that of a serjeant-at-law who took part
in the proceedings. It is not likely that Leland had any good reasons
for identifying this Gower, who was in a fairly high position at the
bar in the year 1356, with John Gower the poet, who died in 1408[5].
Leland’s statements were copied by Bale and so became public
property. They did not, however, long pass unchallenged. Thynne in
his _Animadversions_ acutely criticises the suggestion of Yorkshire
origin, on the ground of the difference of arms:--‘Bale hath much
mistaken it, as he hath done infinite things in that book, being for
the most part the collections of Leland. For in truth the arms of Sir
John Gower being argent, on a cheveron azure three leopards’ heads or,
do prove that he came of a contrary house to the Gowers of Stytenham
in Yorkshire, who bare barruly of argent and gules, a cross paty flory
sable. Which difference of arms seemeth a difference of families,
unless you can prove that being of one family they altered their arms
upon some just occasion.’ The arms to which Thynne refers as those of
Gower the poet are those which are to be seen upon his tomb[6]; and the
argument is undoubtedly sound. Thynne proceeds to criticise Speght’s
statement that Chaucer and Gower were both lawyers of the Inner Temple:
‘You say, It seemeth that these learned men were of the Inner Temple,
for that many years since Master Buckley did see a record in the same
house, where Geffrey Chaucer was fined two shillings for beating a
Franciscan Friar in Fleet Street. This is a hard collection to prove
Gower of the Inner Temple, although he studied the law, for thus you
frame your argument: Mr. Buckley found a record in the Temple that
Chaucer was fined for beating the friar; ergo Gower and Chaucer were of
the Temple.’
A ‘hard collection’ it may be, but no harder than many others that
have been made by biographers, and Leland’s ‘vir equestris ordinis[7]’
must certainly go the way of his other statements, being sufficiently
refuted, as Stow remarks, by the ‘Armiger’ of Gower’s epitaph. Leland
in calling him a knight was probably misled by the gilt collar of SS
upon his recumbent effigy, and Fuller afterwards, on the strength of
the same decoration, fancifully revives the old theory that he was a
judge, and is copied of course by succeeding writers[8]. On the whole
it may be doubted whether there is anything but guesswork in the
statements made by Leland about our author, except so far as they are
derived from his writings or from his tomb.
That John Gower the poet was of a Kentish family is proved by definite
and positive evidence. The presumption raised by the fact that his
English writings certainly have some traces of the Kentish dialect,
is confirmed, first by the identity of the arms upon his tomb with
those of Sir Robert Gower, who had a tomb in Brabourne Church in Kent,
and with reference to whom Weever, writing in 1631, says, ‘From this
family John Gower the poet was descended[9],’ secondly, by the fact
that in the year 1382 a manor which we know to have been eventually in
the possession of the poet was granted to John Gower, who is expressly
called ‘Esquier de Kent,’ and thirdly, by the names of the executors
of the poet’s will, who are of Kentish families. It may be added
that several other persons of the name of Gower are mentioned in the
records of the time in connexion with the county of Kent. Referring
only to cases in which the Christian name also is the same as that of
the poet, we may note a John Gower among those complained of by the
Earl of Arundel in 1377, as having broken his closes at High Rothing
and elsewhere, fished in his fishery and assaulted his servants[10];
John Gower mentioned in connexion with the parishes of Throwley
and Stalesfield, Kent, in 1381-2[11]; John Gower who was killed by
Elias Taillour, apparently in 1385[12]; John Gower who was appointed
with others in 1386 to receive and distribute the stores at Dover
Castle[13]; none of whom can reasonably be identified with the poet.
Therefore it cannot be truly said, as it is said by Pauli, that the
surname Gower, or even the combination John Gower, is a very uncommon
one in the records of the county of Kent[14].
Before proceeding further, it may be well to set forth in order certain
business transactions recorded in the reign of Edward III, in which a
certain John Gower was concerned, who is identified by Nicolas with the
poet[15].
They are as follows:--
39 Ed. III (1365). An inquiry whether it will be to the prejudice of
the king to put John Gower in possession of half the manor of Aldyngton
in Kent, acquired by him without licence of the king from William de
Septvans, and if so, ‘ad quod damnum.’ This half of Aldyngton is held
of the king by the service of paying fourteen shillings a year to the
Warden of Rochester Castle on St. Andrew’s day[16].
Under date Feb. 15 of the same year it was reported that this would
not be to the prejudice of the king, and accordingly on March 9 John
Gower pays 53 shillings, which appears to be the annual value of the
property, and is pardoned for the offence committed by acquiring it
without licence[17].
39 Ed. III (June 23). William Sepvanus, son of William Sepvanus knight,
grants to John Gower ten pounds rent from the manor of Wygebergh
(Wigborough) in Essex and from other lands held by him in the county of
Essex[18].
By another deed, acknowledged in Chancery on June 25 of the same year,
the same William Sepvanus makes over to John Gower all his claims upon
the manor of Aldyngton, and also a rent of 14_s._ 6_d._, with one cock,
thirteen hens and 140 eggs from Maplecomb[19].
42 Ed. III (1368). Thomas Syward, pewterer and citizen of London, and
Joanna his wife, daughter of Sir Robert Gower, grant to John Gower and
his heirs the manor of Kentwell. Dated at Melford, Wednesday before the
Nativity of St. John Baptist[20].
43 Ed. III. Fine between John Gower on the one hand, and John
Spenythorn with Joan his wife on the other, by which they give up all
right to the Manor of Kentwell, Suffolk, except £10 rent, John Gower
paying 200 marks[21].
This was confirmed in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II.
By documents of previous date[22] it may be shown that the manor of
Kentwell had been held by Sir Rob. Gower, doubtless the same who is
buried in Brabourne Church, who died apparently in 1349; that it
was ultimately divided, with other property, between his heirs, two
daughters named Katherine and Joanna, of whom one, Katherine, died in
1366. Her moiety was then combined with the other in the possession of
her sister Joanna, ‘23 years old and upwards,’ then married to William
Neve of Wetyng, but apparently soon afterwards to Thomas Syward. As
to the transaction between John Gower and John Spenythorn with Joanna
his wife, we must be content to remain rather in the dark. John Gower
had in the year before acquired Kentwell in full possession for himself
and his heirs, and he must in the mean time have alienated it, and now
apparently acquired it again. It is hardly likely that the Joan who
is here mentioned is the same as Joan daughter of Sir Robert Gower,
who was married successively to William Neve and Thomas Syward. On the
other hand it must be regarded as probable that the John Gower of this
document is identical with the John Gower who acquired Kentwell from
Thomas Syward and his wife in 1368. The confirmation in the king’s
court, 3 Ric. II, was perhaps by way of verifying the title before the
grant of Kentwell by Sir J. Cobham to Sir T. Clopton, 4 Ric. II.
47 Ed. III (1373). John Gower grants his manor of Kentwell in Suffolk
to Sir John Cobham and his heirs; a deed executed at Otford in Kent,
Thurs. Sept. 29[23].
48 Ed. III (1374). Payment of 12 marks by Sir J. Cobham on acquisition
of Kentwell and half of Aldyngton from John Gower[24].
By this last document it seems pretty certain that the John Gower from
whom Sir J. Cobham received Kentwell was the same person as the John
Gower who acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans; and he is proved to
be a relation of the poet, as well as of Sir Robert Gower, by the fact
that the arms on the seal of John Gower, attached to the deed by which
Kentwell was alienated, are apparently the same as those which were
placed upon Sir Rob. Gower’s tomb at Brabourne, and those which we see
on the poet’s tomb in Southwark[25]. These persons, then, belonged to
the same family, so far as we can judge; but evidently it is not proved
merely by this fact that the John Gower mentioned in the above document
was identical with the poet. We have seen already that the name was
not uncommon in Kent, and there are some further considerations which
may lead us to hesitate before we identify John Gower the poet with
the John Gower who acquired land from William Septvans. This latter
transaction in fact had another side, to which attention has not
hitherto been called, though Sir H. Nicolas must have been to some
extent aware of it, since he has given a reference to the Rolls of
Parliament, where the affair is recorded.
It must be noted then in connexion with the deeds of 39 Ed. III, by
which John Gower acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans, son of
Sir William Septvans, that in the next year, 40 Ed. III, there is
record of a commission issued to Sir J. Cobham and others to inquire
into the circumstances of this alienation, it having been alleged
that William Septvans was not yet of age, and that he had obtained
release of his father’s property from the king’s hands by fraudulent
misrepresentation. The commission, having sat at Canterbury on the
Tuesday before St. George’s day, 1366, reported that this was so, that
William Septvans was in fact under twenty years old, and would not
attain the age of twenty till the feast of St. Augustine the Doctor
next to come (i.e. Aug. 28); that the alienations to John Gower and
others had been improperly made by means of a fraudulent proof of
age, and that his property ought to be reseized into the king’s hands
till he was of age. Moreover the report stated that John Gower had
given 24 marks only for property worth £12 a year, with a wood of the
value of £100, that after his enfeoffment the said John Gower was in
the company of William Septvans at Canterbury and elsewhere, until
Sept. 29, inducing him to part with land and other property to various
persons[26].
The property remained in the king’s hands till the year 1369, when
an order was issued to the escheator of the county of Essex to put
William Septvans in possession of his father’s lands, which had been
confiscated to the Crown, ‘since two years and more have elapsed from
the festival of St. Augustine, when he was twenty years old’ (Westm.
21 Feb.)[27]. Presumably John Gower then entered into possession of
the property which he had irregularly acquired in 1365, and possibly
with this may be connected a payment by John Gower of £20 at Michaelmas
in the year 1368 to Richard de Ravensere[28], who seems to have been
keeper of the hanaper in Chancery.
It is impossible without further proof to assume that the villainous
misleader of youth who is described to us in the report of the above
commission, as encouraging a young man to defraud the Crown by means of
perjury, in order that he may purchase his lands from him at a nominal
price, can be identical with the grave moralist of the _Speculum
Hominis_ and the _Vox Clamantis_. Gower humbly confesses that he has
been a great sinner, but he does not speak in the tone of a converted
libertine: we cannot reconcile our idea of him with the proceedings
of the disreputable character who for his own ends encouraged the
young William Septvans in his dishonesty and extravagance. The two men
apparently bore the same arms, and therefore they belonged to the same
family, but beyond this we cannot go. It may be observed moreover that
the picture suggested to Prof. Morley by the deed of 1373, executed at
Otford, of the poet’s residence in the pleasant valley of the Darent,
which he describes at some length[29], must in any case be dismissed as
baseless. Otford was a manor held by Sir John Cobham[30], and whether
the John Gower of this deed be the poet or no, it is pretty clear that
the deed in question was executed there principally for this reason,
and not because it was the residence of John Gower.
Dismissing all the above records as of doubtful relevancy to our
subject[31], we proceed to take note of some which seem actually to
refer to the poet. Of these none are earlier than the reign of Richard
II. They are as follows:
1 Ric. II. (May, 1378). A record that Geoffrey Chaucer has given
general power of attorney to John Gower and Richard Forester, to be
used during his absence abroad by licence of the king.[32] Considering
that Chaucer and Gower are known to have been personally acquainted
with one another, we may fairly suppose that this appointment relates
to John Gower the poet.[33]
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell in Norfolk and
Multon in Suffolk to John Gower, Esquire, of Kent, and to his heirs, by
Guy de Rouclyf, clerk (Aug. 1), and release of warranty on the above
(Aug. 3)[34].
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell and Multon by
John Gower to Thomas Blakelake, parson of St. Nicholas, Feltwell, and
others, for his life, at a rent of £40, to be paid quarterly in the
Abbey Church of Westminster[35]. This grant was repeated 7 Ric. II
(Feb. 1384)[36].
The mention of Multon in the will of John Gower the poet makes it
practically certain that the above documents have to do with him.
17 Ric. II (1393). Henry of Lancaster presented John Gower, Esquire,
with a collar. This was mentioned by Nicolas as communicated to him
by Mr. G. F. Beltz from a record in the Duchy of Lancaster Office. No
further reference was given, and I have had some difficulty in finding
the record. It is, however, among the accounts of the wardrobe of Henry
of Lancaster for the year mentioned[37], and though not dated, it
probably belongs to some time in the autumn of 1393, the neighbouring
documents in the same bundle being dated October or November. It proves
to be in fact an order, directed no doubt to William Loveney, clerk
of the Wardrobe to the earl of Derby, for delivery of 26s. 8d. to one
Richard Dancaster, for a collar, on account of another collar given
by the earl of Derby to ‘an Esquire John Gower’[38]. So elsewhere in
the household accounts of the earl of Derby we find a charge of 56_s._
8_d._ for a silver collar for John Payne, butler, ‘because my lord had
given his collar to another esquire beyond sea’[39]. This particular
collar given to John Gower was a comparatively cheap one, worth
apparently only 26_s._ 8_d._, while the silver collar to be given to
John Payne is valued at 56_s._ 8_d._, and a gold collar of SS for Henry
himself costs no less than £26 8_s._ 11_d._ The fact that Gower wears
a collar of SS on his tomb makes it probable enough that he is the
esquire mentioned in this document. It will afterwards be seen that we
cannot base any argument upon the fact that the collar upon the effigy
is now gilt, and apparently was so also in Leland’s time.
25 Jan. 1397-8. A licence from the bishop of Winchester for solemnizing
the marriage between John Gower and Agnes Groundolf, both parishioners
of St. Mary Magdalene, Southwark, without further publication of banns
and in a place outside their parish church, that is to say, in the
oratory of the said John Gower, within his lodging in the Priory of
Saint Mary Overey in Southwark. Dated at Highclere, 25 Jan. 1397[40].
At this time then Gower was living in the Priory of St. Mary Overey,
and no doubt he continued to do so until his death.
Finally, Aug. 15, 1408, the Will of John Gower, which was proved Oct.
24 of the same year[41]. His death therefore may be presumed to have
taken place in October, 1408.
This will has been printed more than once, in Gough’s Sepulchral
Monuments, by Todd in his _Illustrations of Gower and Chaucer_ and in
the _Retrospective Review_.
The testator bequeathes his soul to the Creator, and his body
to be buried in the church of the Canons of St. Mary Overes,
in the place specially appointed for this purpose (‘in loco ad
hoc specialiter deputato’). To the Prior of the said church he
bequeathes 40_s._, to the subprior 20_s._, to each Canon who is
a priest 13_s._ 4_d._, and to each of the other Canons 6_s._
8_d._, that they may all severally pray for him the more devoutly
at his funeral. To the servants of the Priory 2_s._ or 1_s._
each according to their position; to the church of St. Mary
Magdalene 40_s._ for lights and ornaments, to the parish priest
of that church 10_s._, ‘vt oret et orari faciat pro me’; to the
chief clerk of the same church 3_s._ and to the sub-clerk 2_s._
To the following four parish churches of Southwark, viz. St.
Margaret’s, St. George’s, St. Olave’s, and St. Mary Magdalene’s
near Bermondsey, 13_s._ 4_d._ each for ornaments and lights,
and to each parish priest or rector in charge of those churches
6_s._ 8_d._, ‘vt orent et orari pro me in suis parochiis faciant
et procurent.’ To the master of the hospital of St. Thomas in
Southwark 40_s._, to each priest serving there 6_s._ 8_d._ for
their prayers; to each sister professed in the said hospital
3_s._ 4_d._, to each attendant on the sick 20_d._, and to each
sick person in the hospital 12_d._, and the same to the sisters
(where there are sisters), nurses and patients in the hospitals
of St. Anthony, Elsingspitell, Bedlem without Bishopsgate, and
St. Maryspitell near Westminster; to every house for lepers in
the suburbs of London 10_s._, to be distributed amongst the
lepers, for their prayers: to the Prior of Elsingspitell 40s.,
and to each Canon priest there 6_s._ 8_d._
For the service of the altar in the chapel of St. John the
Baptist, ‘in qua corpus meum sepeliendum est,’ two vestments
of silk, one of blue and white baudkin and the other of white
silk, also a large new missal and a new chalice, all which are
to be kept for ever for the service of the said altar. Moreover
to the Prior and Convent the testator leaves a large book,
‘sumptibus meis nouiter compositum,’ called _Martilogium_, on the
understanding that the testator shall have a special mention of
himself recorded in it every day (‘sic quod in eodem specialem
memoriam scriptam secundum eorum promissa cotidie habere debeo,’
not ‘debes,’ as printed).
He leaves to his wife Agnes, £100 of lawful money, also three
cups, one ‘cooperculum,’ two salt-cellars and twelve spoons of
silver, all the testator’s beds and chests, with the furniture
of hall, pantry and kitchen and all their vessels and utensils.
One chalice and one vestment are left to the altar of the oratory
belonging to his apartments (‘pro altare quod est infra oratorium
hospicii mei’). He desires also that his wife Agnes, if she
survive him, shall have all rents due for his manors of Southwell
in the county of Northampton (?) and of Multoun in the county
of Suffolk, as he has more fully determined in certain other
writings given under his seal.
The executors of this will are to be as follows:--Agnes his wife,
Arnold Savage, knight, Roger, esquire, William Denne, Canon of
the king’s chapel, and John Burton, clerk. Dated in the Priory of
St. Mary Overes in Southwark, on the feast of the Assumption of
the Virgin, Mccccviii.
The will was proved, Oct. 24, 1408, at Lambeth before the Archbishop of
Canterbury (because the testator had property in more than one diocese
of the province of Canterbury), by Agnes the testator’s wife, and
administration of the property was granted to her on Nov. 7 of the same
year.
It may be observed with reference to this will that the testator
evidently stands already in the position of a considerable benefactor
to the Priory of St. Mary Overey, in virtue of which position he
has his apartments in the Priory and a place of honour assigned for
his tomb in the church. He must also have established by previous
arrangement the daily mass and the yearly obituary service which
Berthelette speaks of as still celebrated in his time. It is evident
that his benefactions were made chiefly in his life-time. There is
some slight difficulty as regards the manors which are mentioned in
the will. Multon in Suffolk we know already to have been in the poet’s
possession; but what is this ‘Southwell’? Certainly not the well-known
Southwell in Nottinghamshire, which cannot possibly have been in
the possession of a private person, belonging, as it did, to the
archiepiscopal see of York. Moreover, though ‘in Comitatu Nott.’ has
been hitherto printed as the reading of the will, the manuscript has
not this, but either ‘Notth.’ or ‘North.,’ more probably the latter.
There were apparently other manors of Southwell or Suthwell in the
county of Nottingham, and a manor of Suwell in Northamptonshire, but
there seems to be no connexion with the name of Gower in the case of
any of these. It is possible, but not very readily to be assumed, that
the scribe who made the copy of the will in the register carelessly
wrote ‘Southwell in Com. North.’ (or ‘Com. Notth.’) for ‘Feltwell in
Com. Norff.,’ the name which is found coupled with Multon in the other
records[42].
The one remaining record is the tomb in St. Saviour’s church. This
originally stood in the chapel of St. John the Baptist, on the north
side of the church, but in 1832, the nave and north aisle being in
ruins, the monument was removed to the south transept and restored at
the expense of Earl Gower. After the restoration of the church this
tomb was moved back to the north aisle in October 1894, and was placed
on the supposed site of the chapel of St. John the Baptist, where it
now stands[43].
In the course of nearly five centuries the tomb has undergone many
changes, and the present colouring and inscription are not original.
What we have now is a canopy of three arches over an altar tomb, on
which lies an effigy of the poet, habited in a long dark-coloured gown,
with a standing cape and buttoned down to his feet, wearing a gold
collar of SS, fastened in front with a device of a chained swan between
two portcullises. His head rests on a pile of three folio volumes
marked with the names of his three principal works, _Vox Clamantis_,
_Speculum Meditantis_, _Confessio Amantis_. He has a rather round face
with high cheek-bones, a moustache and a slightly forked beard, hair
long and curling upwards[44], and round his head a chaplet of four red
roses at intervals upon a band[45], with the words ‘merci ihs[46]’
(repeated) in the intervals between the roses: the hands are put
together and raised in prayer: at the feet there is a lion or mastiff
lying. The upper ledge of the tomb has this inscription, ‘Hic iacet I.
Gower Arm. Angl. poeta celeberrimus ac huic sacro edificio benefac.
insignis. Vixit temporibus Edw. III et Ric. II et Henr. IV.’ In front
of the tomb there are seven arched niches. Against the wall at the end
of the recess, above the feet of the figure, a shield is suspended
bearing arms, argent, on a chevron azure three leopards’ faces or,
crest a talbot (or lion) upon a chapeau. The wall behind the tomb under
the canopy is at present blank; the original painting of female figures
with scrolls has disappeared and has not been renewed, nor has the
inscription ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c., been replaced.
This tomb has attracted much attention, and descriptions of it exist
from early times. Leland’s account may be thus translated: ‘He was
honourably buried in London in the church of the Marian canons on the
bank of the Thames, and his wife also is buried in the same place, but
in a lower tomb. He has here an effigy adorned with a gold chain and
a chaplet of ivy interspersed with roses, the first marking him as a
knight and the second as a poet. The reason why he established his
place of burial here, was, I believe, as follows. A large part of the
suburb adjacent to London Bridge was burnt down in the year 1212[47],
in the reign of King John. The monastery of the Marian canons was
much damaged in this fire and was not fully restored till the first
year of Richard II. At that time Gower, moved by the calamity, partly
through his friends, who were numerous and powerful, and partly at his
own expense, repaired the church and restored its ornaments, and the
Marian canons even now acknowledge the liberality of Gower towards
them, though not to such an extent as I declare it to have been. For
this reason it was, in my judgement, that he left his body for burial
to the canons of this house[48].’ Berthelette in the Preface to his
edition of the _Confessio Amantis_, 1532, gives an interesting account
of the tomb: ‘John Gower prepared for his bones a resting-place in the
monastery of St. Mary Overes, where somewhat after the old fashion he
lieth right sumptuously buried, with a garland on his head in token
that he in his life days flourished freshly in literature and science.
And the same moniment, in remembrance of him erected, is on the North
side of the foresaid church, in the chapel of St. John, where he hath
of his own foundation a mass daily sung: and moreover he hath an obit
yearly done for him within the same church on the Friday after the
feast of the blessed pope St. Gregory.
‘Beside on the wall, whereas he lieth, there be painted three virgins
with crowns on their heads, one of the which is written Charitie, and
she holdeth this device in her hand,
En toy qui es fitz de dieu le pere[49]
Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.
‘The second is written Mercye, which holdeth in her hand this device,
O bone Jesu, fait ta mercy
Al alme dont le corps gist icy[50].
‘The third of them is written Pite, which holdeth in her hand this
device following,
Pur ta pité, Jesu, regarde,
Et met cest alme in sauve garde.
‘And thereby hangeth a table, wherein appeareth that who so ever
prayeth for the soul of John Gower, he shall, so oft as he so doth,
have a thousand and five hundred days of pardon.’
Stow, writing about 1598, says, ‘This church was again newly rebuilt
in the reign of Richard II and king Henry IV. John Gower, a learned
gentleman and a famous poet, but no knight, as some have mistaken it,
was then an especial benefactor to that work, and was there buried in
the north side of the said church, in the chapel of St. John, where
he founded a chantry. He lieth under a tomb of stone with his image
also of stone being over him. The hair of his head brown, long to his
shoulders but curling up, collar of esses of gold about his neck;
under his head,’ &c.[51] The tomb is then further described as by
Berthelette, with addition of the epitaph in four Latin hexameters,
‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c. (see p. 367 of this volume).
In the _Annals of England_ (date about 1600) he again describes the
tomb, adding to his description of the painting of the three virgins
the important note, ‘All which is now washed out and the image defaced
by cutting off the nose and striking off the hands[52],’ from which it
would appear that we cannot depend even upon the features of the effigy
which now exists, as original.
The figures of the virgins were repainted in the course of the
seventeenth century apparently, for in Hatton’s _New View of London_
(date 1708) they are described as appearing with ‘ducal coronets[53].’
In Rawlinson’s _Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey_ (published
1719) the effigy is spoken of as having a ‘scarlet gown,’ the older
descriptions, e.g. Stow, giving it as ‘an habit of purple damasked,’
and it is said that there is upon the head ‘a chaplet or diadem of gold
about an inch broad, on which are set at equal distances four white
quaterfoyles.’[54] The writer argues also that the chain should be of
silver rather than of gold[55]. The arms are said to be ‘supported by
two angels,’ and ‘underneath is this inscription, “Hic iacet Iohannes
Gower Armiger Anglorum poeta celeberrimus ac huic sacro Edificio
Benefactor insignis temporibus Edw. III et Ric. II. Armigeri scutum,”’
&c. The following remark is added: ‘Our author Mr. John Aubrey gives
us an inscription which he says he saw on a limb of this monument,
something different from the foregoing, and therefore not unworthy a
place here, viz.
Johannes Gower, Princeps
Poetarum Angliae, vixit
temporibus Edwardi tertii
et Richardi secundi.’
Later, in 1765, Tyler describes the gown as purple and the arms as
pendent by the dexter corner. The figures of women have ducal coronets
and scrolls of gold, and below them is the epitaph ‘Armigeri scutum.’
Under the statue the inscription ‘Hic iacet,’ &c.[56] The monument, as
here described, is engraved in Gough’s _Sepulchral Monuments_ (date
1796), where there is a full description of it[57]. Blore, under whose
direction the position of the monument was changed, says in 1826 that
the inscription on the ledge of the tomb ‘Hic iacet,’ &c., was then
entirely gone.
Dollman says that there was a fire which injured the nave of the church
in the reign of Richard II, and that the windows of the nave and
aisles, which were finally removed in 1833, were of the time of Richard
II and Henry IV[58]. It is certain, however, that the church remained
long in an unfinished state during the period between 1207 (or 1212),
the date of the early fire, and the latter part of the fourteenth
century. Dollman observes that the remains which may have been
contained in the tomb ‘disappeared when the tomb was removed from the
north aisle in 1832.’[59] From what has been said it will be perceived
that the tomb has undergone a series of alterations and renovations
which have to some extent at least destroyed its original character.
A word must be said finally about Prof. Morley’s theory that Gower
was in holy orders and held the living of Great Braxted in Essex from
1390-7. This is founded on the fact that the parson of Great Braxted
for the period named was one John Gower, as Professor Morley learns
from Newcourt’s _Repertorium Parochiale_[60]. The original record
referred to by Newcourt is to be found in the Registry of the diocese
of London[61], and is to the effect that on February 23, 1390-1, the
bishop of London admitted and instituted John Gower, clerk, to the
parochial church of Great Braksted, vacant by the resignation of John
Broun, the late rector, the said John Gower having been duly presented
by the king, who at this time was patron of the living, the heir of the
late earl of Pembroke being under his wardship. Then later, under date
March 31, 1397, there is record of a new institution to the benefice,
which is vacant by the resignation of John Gower, late rector[62].
Professor Morley thought that the expression ‘John Gower, clerk’ might
indicate that the person referred to was in minor orders only, some of
the rectors inducted being called ‘priest’ (while others have no title
at all). He conceived that this John Gower held the rectory for six or
seven years without being admitted to priest’s orders at all, and that
he then resigned on his marriage[63], and he found confirmation of the
theory that this was Gower the poet from the fact that Great Braxted
is near to Wigborough, where, as we have seen, a person of this name,
supposed by Professor Morley to be the poet, had some claim to rent. We
have already seen reason to think that the John Gower who had a rent
of £10 from Wigborough was not the poet, and in any case it is evident
that the fact could have nothing to do with a presentation by the king
five and twenty years afterwards to the rectory of Great Braxted.
As to resignation with a view to marriage, it is very unlikely, if
not altogether out of the question, that a clergyman who had held an
important rectory for six or seven years should not only have been
permitted to marry, but should have had his marriage celebrated in
the Priory of St. Mary Overy and with the particular sanction of the
bishop of Winchester. Add to this the fact that John Gower the poet was
undoubtedly ‘Esquire,’ being called so not only on his tomb but also
in the documents of 1382 and 1393, the latter belonging to the period
when, according to this theory, he was holding the living of Great
Braxted. On the whole, the ‘minor orders’ theory must be dismissed as
entirely baseless, and the John Gower who was rector of Great Braxted
must be set down as another of the rather numerous persons of this name
who were to be found in Kent and Essex at this time. There is nothing
in Gower’s writings to suggest the idea that he was an ecclesiastic. He
distinctly calls himself a layman in the _Mirour de l’Omme_, and the
expression ‘borel clerk’ in the Prologue of the _Confessio Amantis_
must be taken to mean the same thing. The language which in the _Vox
Clamantis_ he uses about rectors who fail to perform the duties of
their office, makes it almost inconceivable that he should himself
have held a rectory without qualifying himself for the performance of
the service of the Church even by taking priest’s orders. Evidently
Professor Morley’s idea of the poet as an Essex rector must go the
way of his previous attempt to establish him as a country gentleman
at Otford. It is probable that he passed a considerable part of his
literary life in those lodgings within the Priory of St. Mary Overey
which are mentioned in his marriage licence and in his will[64].
To the information which we derive from records must be added that
which is to be drawn from the poet’s own writings. From the _Speculum
Meditantis_ we learn that in early life he composed love poems, which
he calls ‘fols ditz d’ amour’ (27340), and from two other passages (ll.
8794 and 17649) we may perhaps assume that he was already married at
the time when this work was composed. In the former, speaking of those
who tell tales to husbands about their wives’ misconduct, he says in
effect, ‘I for my part declare (‘Je di pour moi’) that I wish to hear
no such tales of my wife:’ in the second he speaks of those wives who
dislike servants and other persons simply because their husbands like
them, and he adds, ‘I do not say that mine does so’ (‘Ne di pas q’ensi
fait la moie’). If the inference be correct, his union with Agnes
Groundolf in his old age was a second marriage. We cannot come to any
definite conclusion from this poem about any profession or occupation
which he may have had besides literature. The statement of Leland that
he practised as a lawyer seems rather improbable, in view of the way
in which he here speaks of lawyers and their profession. Of all the
secular estates that of the law seems to him to be the worst (24085
ff.), and he condemns both advocates and judges in a more unqualified
manner than the members of any other calling. Especially the suggestion
of a special tax to be levied on lawyers’ gains (24337 ff.) is one that
could hardly have come from one who was himself a lawyer[65].
Again the way in which he speaks of physicians (24301, 25621 ff.) seems
almost equally to exclude him from the profession of medicine.
Of all the various ranks of society which he reviews, that of which he
speaks with most respect is the estate of Merchants. He takes pains to
point out, both in this poem and in the _Vox Clamantis_, the utility of
their occupation, and the justice of their claim to reasonably large
profits on successful ventures in consideration of the risks they run
(_Mirour_, 25177 ff.; _Vox Clam._ Lib. v. Cap. xi, _Heading_). He makes
a special apology to the honest members of the class for exposing the
abuses to which the occupation is liable, pleading that to blame the
bad is in effect to praise the good (25213 ff., 25975 ff.), and he is
more careful here than elsewhere to point out the fact that honest
members of the class exist. He speaks of ‘our City,’ and has strong
feelings about the interests of the city of London, and about the
proceedings of a certain bad citizen who stirs up strife and aims at
giving privileges in trade to strangers (_Mirour_, 26380 ff.; cp. _Vox
Clamantis_, v. 835 ff.): moreover, the jealousy of Lombards which he
expresses has every appearance of being a prejudice connected with
rivalry in commerce (25429 ff.). He has a special enthusiasm about
the wool-trade, as a national concern of the first importance, and
he has very definite opinions about the abuses of the staple (25360
ff.). At the same time there is no definite evidence that Gower was
a merchant, and his interest in trade and in the affairs of the city
of London may well have arisen from his residence in or near the city
and his personal acquaintance with merchants (cp. _Mir._ 25915 ff.).
His references to the dearness of labour and the unreasonable demands
of the labourer (24625 ff.) are what we might expect from a man who
had property in land; but again we have no sufficient evidence that
Gower was a land-owner in the ordinary sense of the word, for, though
he acquired the manors of Feltwell and Multon, he did not reside upon
either of them, but gave a lease of them at once.
He tells us that he is a man of simple tastes (26293 ff.), and we know
from the whole tone of his writings that he is a just and upright
man, who believes in the subordination of the various members of
society to one another, and who will not allow himself to be ruled in
his own household either by his wife or his servants. But, though a
thorough believer in the principle of gradation in human society, he
constantly emphasizes the equality of all men before God, and refuses
absolutely to admit the accident of birth as constituting any claim
to ‘gentilesce.’ The common descent of all from Adam is as conclusive
on this point for him as it was for John Ball. Considering that his
views on society are essentially the same as those of Wycliff, and
considering also his strong opinions about the corruption of the Church
and the misdeeds of the friars, it is curious to find how strongly he
denounces the Lollards in his later writings.
He has a just abhorrence of war, and draws a very clear distinction
between the debased chivalry of his own day and the true ideal of
knighthood. Above all he has a deep sense of religion, and is very
familiar with the Bible. He strongly believes in the moral government
of the world by Providence, and he feels sure, as others of his age
did also, that the final stage of corruption has almost come. Whatever
others may do, he at least intends to repent of his sins and prepare
himself to render a good account of his stewardship. In both his French
and his Latin work he shows himself a fearless rebuker of evil, even
in the highest places. The charge of time-serving timidity has been
sufficiently dealt with in the Introduction to the English Works.
From the _Vox Clamantis_ it is evident that the rising of the Peasants
produced a very powerful, indeed almost an overwhelming, impression
upon his mind. He describes the terror inspired by it among those of
his social standing in the most impressive manner. The progress of
his political development during the reign of Richard II is clearly
seen in his Latin works, with their successive revisions. He began,
it is evident, with full hope and confidence that the youthful king
would be a worthy representative of his father the Black Prince, both
in war and in peace. As time goes on, and the boy develops into an
ill-regulated young man, under evil influences of various kinds, the
poet begins to have doubts, and these gradually increase until they
amount to certainty, and rebuke and denunciation take the place of
the former favourable anticipations. In the latest version of the
_Confessio Amantis_, which is, no doubt, contemporary with some of
these changes in the text of the _Vox Clamantis_, we see the author’s
confidence transferred from the king to his cousin, not as yet regarded
as a successor to the throne, but thought of as representing a fair
ideal of chivalry and honesty. Finally, in the _Cronica Tripertita_,
he accepts the fall of Richard as the fatal consequence of a course of
evil government and treachery, and rejoices in the prospect of a new
order of things under his predestined hero.
We see here the picture of one who is not devoted to a particular
party, but looks to what he conceives as the common good, deeply
impressed with the sense that things are out of joint, and hoping
against hope that a saviour of society may arise, either in the person
of the young king, or of his vigorous and chivalrous cousin. There
is no sign of any liking for John of Gaunt or of any attachment to
the Lancastrian party generally; but he is stirred to very genuine
indignation at the unfair treatment of men whom he regards as honest
patriots, such as Gloucester, the Arundels, and Cobham. He himself
was evidently a most patriotic Englishman, loving his country and
proud of its former greatness. For this we may refer especially to
_Vox Clamantis_, vii. 1289 ff., but the same feeling is visible also
in many other passages. He is a citizen of the world no doubt, but an
Englishman first, and he cares intensely for the prosperity of his
native land. Even when he writes in French it is for England’s sake,
‘O gentile Engleterre, a toi j’escrits.’
When he decides that the _Confessio Amantis_ could no longer go forth
with Richard as its patron, it is to England that he dedicates his
poem, and for his country that he offers up the prayers which he can
no longer utter with sincerity on behalf of the worthless king (_Conf.
Am._ Prol. 24 and viii. 2987).