minimis) 109 Antea 149 sic sunt 185 Virtutem
290 Aucta (_for_ Acta) 339 honorifica 350 credit S
409 servus cap. vi. _heading_ l. 4 sinit (_for_ sunt)
555 vultum 562 ff. Quid (_for_ Quod) 601 quam 602 adesse
(_for_ ad esse) 635 Præceptum (_for_ Preceptumque)
665 agnoscit 707 enim (_for_ eum) cap. ix. _heading om._
postea 736 decus (_for_ pecus) 750 ille (_for_ ipse)
cap. xi. _heading_ dicitur (_for_ loquitur) 798 capit (_for_
rapit) 828 etiam (_for_ iam) 903 _om._ nil 918 est
(_for_ et) S 977 benefecit D 1043 frigor 1129 qui non
jussa Dei servat 1178 eam 1278 opes S 1310 Vix (_for_
Vis) 1369 digna 1454 hic (_for_ hinc) 1474 bona
1479* ipsa
It will be seen that most of the above variants are due to mere
oversight. It is surprising, however, that so many mistakes
seriously affecting sense and metre should have escaped the
correction of the editor.
In the matter of spelling the variation is considerable, but all that
need be said is that the Roxburghe editor preferred the classical to
the medieval forms. On the other hand it is to be regretted that no
attempt is made by him to mark the paragraph divisions of the original.
A minor inconvenience, which is felt by all readers who have to refer
to the Roxburghe text, arises from the fact that the book-numbering is
not set at the head of the page.
In the case of the _Cronica Tripertita_ we have the text printed by
Wright in the Rolls Series as well as that of the Roxburghe edition.
The latter is from the All Souls MS., while the former professes to
be based upon the Cotton MS., so that the two texts ought to be quite
independent. As a matter of fact, however, several of the mistakes or
misprints of the Roxburghe text are reproduced in the Rolls edition,
which was printed probably from a copy of the Roxburghe text collated
with the Cotton MS.
The following are the variations of the Roxburghe text from that of the
present edition.
_Introduction, margin_ 2 prosequi (_for_ persequi).
I. 1 _om._ et per (_for_ fer) 7 bene non 15 consilium
sibi 71 fraudis 93 cum (_for_ dum) 132 hos (_for_ os)
161 _marg. om._ qui S 173 ausam S 182 Sic (_for_ Hic)
199 clientem 204 cepit (_for_ cessat) 209 Regem (_for_ Legem)
219 Qui est (_for_ est qui)
II. 9 sociatus (_for_ associatus) 61 manu tentum 85 _marg._
quia (_for_ qui) 114 de pondere 156 sepulchrum 180 maledictum
220 Transulit 223 omne scelus 237 ipsum 266 Pontifice
271 malefecit 315 _marg._ derisu 330 _marg._ Consulat
333 adeo.
III. 109 prius S 131 viles S 177 conjunctus 188 sceleris
235 mane 239 nunc S 242 freta (_for_ fata) 250 ponere
263 Exilia 285 _marg._ præter (_for_ personaliter) 287 Nec
288 stanno 333 conquescat 341 auget 372 eo (_for_ et)
422 _marg._ fidelissime 428 prius S
Of the above errors several, as we have said, are reproduced by
Wright with no authority from his MS.[74], but otherwise his text is
a tolerably correct representation of that given by the Cotton MS.,
and the same may be said with regard to the other poems _Carmen super
multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _De Lucis Scrutinio_[75], &c.
THE PRESENT EDITION. The text is in the main that of S, which is
supplemented, where it is defective, by C. The Cotton MS. is also the
leading authority for those pieces which are not contained in S, as the
four last poems.
For the _Vox Clamantis_ four manuscripts have been collated with S
word for word throughout, viz. CHDL, and two more, viz. GE, have been
collated generally and examined for every doubtful passage. TH₂ have
been carefully examined and taken as authorities for the original text
of some of the revised passages.
As regards the record of the results of these rather extensive
collations, it may be stated generally that all material variations
of C and H from the text of S have been recorded in the critical
notes[76]. The readings of E, D and L have been printed regularly for
those passages in which material variations of other MSS. are recorded,
and in such cases, if they are not mentioned, it may be assumed that
they agree with S; but otherwise they are mentioned only when they seem
to deserve attention. The readings of G are recorded in a large number
of instances, but they must not be assumed _ex silentio_, and those
of T and H₂ are as a rule only given in passages where they have a
different version of the text.
A trifling liberty has been taken with the text of the MSS. in regard
to the position of the conjunction ‘que’ (and). This is frequently
used by our author like ‘et,’ standing at the beginning of a clause or
between the words which it combines, as
‘Sic lecto vigilans meditabar plura, que mentem
Effudi,’
or
‘Cutte que Curre simul rapidi per deuia currunt,’
but it is also very often used in the correct classical manner. The
MSS. make no distinction between these two uses, but sometimes join the
conjunction to the preceding word and sometimes separate it, apparently
in a quite arbitrary manner. For the sake of clearness the conjunction
is separated in this edition regularly when the sense requires that it
should be taken independently of the preceding word, and the variations
of the manuscripts with regard to this are not recorded.
Again, some freedom has been used in the matter of capital letters,
which have been supplied, where they were wanting, in the case of
proper names and at the beginning of sentences.
The spelling is in every particular the same as that of the MS.
The practice of altering the medieval orthography, which is fairly
consistent and intelligible, so as to make it accord with classical
or conventional usage, has little or nothing to be said for it, and
conceals the evidence which the forms of spelling might give with
regard to the prevalent pronunciation.
The principal differences in our text from the classical
orthography are as follows:
_e_ regularly for the diphthongs _ae_, _oe_.
_i_ for _e_ in _periunt_, _rediat_, _nequio_, &c. (but also
_pereunt_, &c.).
_y_ for _i_ in _ymus_, _ymago_, &c.
_i_ for _y_, e.g. _mirrha_, _ciclus_, _limpha_.
_v_ for _u_ or _v_ regularly as initial letter of words,
elsewhere _u_.
vowels doubled in _hii_, _hee_, _hiis_ (monosyllables).
_u_ for _uu_ after _q_, e.g. _equs_, _iniqus_, _sequntur_.
initial _h_ omitted in _ara_ (hăra), _edus_ (haedus), _ortus_,
_yemps_, &c.
initial _h_ added in _habundat_, _heremus_, _Herebus_, &c.
_ch_ for _h_ in _michi_, _nichil_.
_ch_ for _c_ in _archa_, _archanum_, _inchola_, _choruscat_, &c.
(but _Cristus_, when fully written, for ‘Christus’).
_ci_ for _ti_ regularly before a vowel e.g. _accio_, _alcius_,
_cercius_, _distinccio_, _gracia_, _sentencia_, _vicium_.
_c_ for _s_ or _sc_, in _ancer_, _cerpo_, _ceptrum_, _rocidus_,
_Cilla_.
_s_ for _c_ or _sc_, in _secus_ (occasionally for ‘caecus’),
_sintilla_, &c.
single for double consonants in _apropriat_, _suplet_,
_agredior_, _resurexit_, &c. (also _appropriat_, &c.).
_ph_ for _f_ in _scropha_, _nephas_, _nephandus_, _prophanus_,
&c.
_p_ inserted in _dampnum_, _sompnus_, &c.
_set_ usually in the best MSS. for _sed_ (conjunction), but in
the Cotton MS. usually ‘sed.’
It has been thought better to print the elegiac couplet without
indentation for the pentameter, partly because that is the regular
usage in the MSS. and must of course have been the practice of the
author, but still more in order to mark more clearly the division into
paragraphs, to which the author evidently attached some importance.
Spaces of varying width are used to show the larger divisions. It is
impossible that there should not be some errors in the printed text,
but the editor can at least claim to have taken great pains to ensure
correctness, and all the proof-sheets have been carefully compared with
the text of the manuscripts.
For convenience of reference the lines are numbered as in the Roxburghe
edition, though perhaps it would be more satisfactory to combine the
prologues, as regards numbering, with the books to which they belong.
In regard to the Notes there are no doubt many deficiencies. The chief
objects aimed at have been to explain difficulties of language, to
illustrate the matter or the style by reference to the works of the
author in French and in English, and to trace as far as possible the
origin of those parts of his work which are borrowed. In addition to
this, the historical record contained in the _Cronica Tripertita_ has
been carefully compared with the evidence given by others with regard
to the events described, and possibly this part of the editor’s work,
being based entirely upon the original authorities, may be thought to
have some small value as a contribution to the history of a singularly
perplexing political situation.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] 2nd Series, vol. ii. pp. 103-117.
[2] _Script. Brit._ i. 414.
[3] _Itin._ vi. 55. From Foss, _Tabulae Curiales_, it would seem that
there was no judge named Gower in the 14th century.
[4] _Script. Brit._ i. 414. This statement also appears as a later
addition in the manuscript.
[5] ‘Gower’ appears in Tottil’s publication of the Year-books (1585)
both in 29 and 30 Ed. III, e.g. 29 Ed. III, Easter term, ff. 20, 27,
33, 46, and 30 Ed. III, Michaelmas term, ff. 16, 18, 20 v^o. He appears
usually as counsel, but on some occasions he speaks apparently as a
judge. The Year-books of the succeeding years, 31-36 Ed. III, have not
been published.
[6] These arms appear also in the Glasgow MS. of the _Vox Clamantis_.
[7] _Worthies_, ed. 1662, pt. 3, p. 207.
[8] e.g. Winstanley, Jacob, Cibber and others.
[9] _Ancient Funeral Monuments_, p. 270. This Sir Rob. Gower had
property in Suffolk, as we shall see, but the fact that his tomb was at
Brabourne shows that he resided in Kent. The arms which were upon his
tomb are pictured (without colours) in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77.
[10] _Rot. Pat._ dated Nov. 27, 1377.
[11] _Rot. Claus._ 4 Ric. II. m. 15 d.
[12] _Rot. Pat._ dated Dec. 23, 1385.
[13] _Rot. Pat._ dated Aug. 12, Dec. 23, 1386.
[14] It may here be noted that the poet apparently pronounced his
name ‘Gowér,’ in two syllables with accent on the second, as in the
Dedication to the _Balades_, i. 3, ‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestout vos
soubgitz.’ The final syllable bears the rhyme in two passages of
the _Confessio Amantis_ (viii. 2320, 2908), rhyming with the latter
syllables of ‘pouer’ and ‘reposer’. (The rhyme in viii. 2320, ‘Gower:
pouer,’ is not a dissyllabic one, as is assumed in the _Dict. of Nat.
Biogr._ and elsewhere, but of the final syllables only.) In the _Praise
of Peace_, 373, ‘I, Gower, which am al the liege man,’ an almost
literal translation of the French above quoted, the accent is thrown
rather on the first syllable.
[15] See _Retrospective Review_, 2nd Series, vol. ii, pp. 103-117
(1828). Sir H. Nicolas cites the Close Rolls always at second hand
and the _Inquisitiones Post Mortem_ only from the Calendar. Hence the
purport of the documents is sometimes incorrectly or insufficiently
given by him. In the statement here following every document is cited
from the original, and the inaccuracies of previous writers are
corrected, but for the most part silently.
[16] _Inquis. Post Mortem_, &c. 39 Ed. III. 36 (2nd number). This is in
fact an ‘Inquisitio ad quod damnum.’ The two classes of Inquisitions
are given without distinction in the Calendar, and the fact leads to
such statements as that ‘John Gower died seized of half the manor of
Aldyngton, 39 Ed. III,’ or ‘John Gower died seized of the manor of
Kentwell, 42 Ed. III.’
[17] _Rot. Orig._ 39 Ed. III. 27.
[18] _Rot. Claus._ 39 Ed. III. m. 21 d.
[19] _Rot. Claus._ 39 Ed. III. m. 21 d.
[20] _Harl. Charters_, 56 G. 42. See also _Rot. Orig._ 42 Ed. III. 33
and _Harl. Charters_, 56 G. 41.
[21] _Harl. Charters_, 50 I. 13.
[22] See _Rot. Orig._ 23 Ed. III. 22, 40 Ed. III. 10, 20, _Inquis. Post
Mortem_, 40 Ed. III. 13, _Rot. Claus._ 40 Ed. III. m. 21.
[23] _Harl. Charters_, 50 I. 14. The deed is given in full by Nicolas
in the _Retrospective Review_.
[24] _Rot. Orig._ 48 Ed. III. 31.
[25] The tinctures are not indicated either upon the drawing of Sir R.
Gower’s coat of arms in MS. Harl. 3917 or on the seal, but the coat
seems to be the same, three leopards’ faces upon a chevron. The seal
has a diaper pattern on the shield that bears the chevron, but this is
probably only ornamental.
[26] ‘Et dicunt quod post predictum feoffamentum, factum predicto
Iohanni Gower, dictus Willelmus filius Willelmi continue morabatur in
comitiva Ricardi de Hurst et eiusdem Iohannis Gower apud Cantuar, et
alibi usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis ultimo preteritum, et per totum
tempus predictum idem Willelmus fil. Will. ibidem per ipsos deductus
fuit et consiliatus ad alienationem de terris et tenementis suis
faciendam.’ _Rot. Parl._ ii. 292.
[27] _Rot. Claus._ 43 Ed. III. m. 30.
[28] _Rot. Claus._ 42 Ed. III. m. 13 d.
[29] _English Writers_, vol. iv. pp. 150 ff.
[30] See _Calendar of Post Mortem Inquisitions_, vol. ii. pp. 300, 302.
[31] So also the deeds of 1 Ric. II releasing lands to Sir J. Frebody
and John Gower (Hasted’s _History of Kent_, iii. 425), and of 4 Ric. II
in which Isabella daughter of Walter de Huntyngfeld gives up to John
Gower and John Bowland all her rights in the parishes of Throwley and
Stalesfield, Kent (_Rot. Claus._ 4 Ric. II. m. 15 d), and again another
in which the same lady remits to John Gower all actions, plaints, &c.,
which may have arisen between them (_Rot. Claus._ 8 Ric. II. m. 5 d).
[32] _Rot. Franc._ 1 Ric. II. pt. 2, m. 6.
[33] See also Sir N. Harris Nicolas, _Life of Chaucer_, pp. 27, 125.
[34] _Rot. Claus._ 6 Ric. II. m. 27 d, and 24 d.
[35] _Rot. Claus._ 6 Ric. II. pt. 1, m. 23 d.
[36] _Rot. Claus._ 7 Ric. II. m. 17 d.
[37] _Duchy of Lancaster, Miscellanea_, Bundle X, No. 43 (now in the
Record Office).
[38] ‘Liverez a Richard Dancastre pour un Coler a luy doné par
monseigneur le Conte de Derby par cause d’une autre Coler doné par
monditseigneur a un Esquier John Gower, vynt et sys soldz oyt deniers.’
[39] _Duchy of Lancaster, Household Accounts_, 17 Ric. II (July to
Feb.).
[40] _Register of William of Wykeham_, ii. f. 299b. The record was
kindly verified for me by the Registrar of the diocese of Winchester.
The expression used about the place is ‘in Oratorio ipsius Iohannis
Gower infra hospicium suum’ (not ‘cum’ as previously printed) ‘in
Prioratu Beate Marie de Overee in Southwerke predicta situatum.’ It
should be noted that ‘infra’ in these documents means not ‘below,’ as
translated by Prof. Morley, but ‘within.’ So also in Gower’s will.
[41] Lambeth Library, _Register of Abp. Arundel_, ff. 256-7.
[42] The remark of Nicolas about the omission of Kentwell from the
will is hardly appropriate. Even if Gower the poet were identical with
the John Gower who possessed Kentwell, this manor could not have been
mentioned in his will, because it was disposed of absolutely to Sir J.
Cobham in the year 1373. Hence there is no reason to conclude from this
that there was other landed property besides that which is dealt with
by the will.
[43] I am indebted for some of the facts to Canon Thompson of St.
Saviour’s, Southwark, who has been kind enough to answer several
questions which I addressed to him.
[44] The features are quite different, it seems to me, from those
represented in the Cotton and Glasgow MSS., and I think it more likely
that the latter give us a true contemporary portrait. Gower certainly
died in advanced age, yet the effigy on his tomb shows us a man in the
flower of life. This then is either an ideal representation or must
have been executed from rather distant memory, whereas the miniatures
in the MSS., which closely resemble each other, were probably from
life, and also preserve their original colouring. The miniatures in
MSS. of the _Confessio Amantis_, which represent the Confession, show
the penitent usually as a conventional young lover. The picture in the
Fairfax MS. is too much damaged to give us much guidance, but it does
not seem to be a portrait, in spite of the collar of SS added later.
The miniature in MS. Bodley 902, however, represents an aged man, while
that of the Cambridge MS. Mm. 2. 21 rather recalls the effigy on the
tomb and may have been suggested by it.
[45] We may note that the effigy of Sir Robert Gower in brass above his
tomb in Brabourne church is represented as having a similar chaplet
round his helmet. See the drawing in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77.
[46] So I read them. They are given by Gough and others as ‘merci ihi.’
[47] Perhaps rather 1207 or 1208.
[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.
[58] _Priory Church of St. Mary Overie_, 1881.
[59] Canon Thompson writes to me, ‘The old sexton used to show visitors
a bone, which he said was taken from the tomb in 1832. I tried to have
this buried in the tomb on the occasion of the last removal, but I was
told it had disappeared.’
[60] vol. ii. p. 91.
[61] _Bp. Braybrooke’s Register_, f. 84.
[62] _Braybrooke Register_, f. 151.
[63] The date of the resignation by John Gower of the rectory of Great
Braxted is nearly a year earlier than the marriage of Gower the poet.
[64] I do not know on what authority Rendle states that ‘His apartment
seems to have been in what was afterwards known as Montague Close,
between the church of St. Mary Overey and the river,’ _Old Southwark_,
p. 182.
[65] At the same time I am disposed to attach some weight to the
expression in _Mir._ 21774, where the author says that some may blame
him for handling sacred subjects, because he is no ‘clerk,’
‘Ainz ai vestu la raye manche.’
This may possibly mean only to indicate the dress of a layman, but on
the other hand it seems clear that some lawyers, perhaps especially
the ‘apprenticii ad legem,’ were distinguished by stripes upon their
sleeves; see for example the painting reproduced in Pulling’s _Order of
the Coif_ (ed. 1897); and serjeants-at-law are referred to in _Piers
Plowman_, A text, Pass. iii. 277, as wearing a ‘ray robe with rich
pelure.’ We must admit, therefore, the possibility that Gower was bred
to the law, though he may not have practised it for a living.
[66] The Lincoln MS. has the same feature, but it is evidently copied
from Laud 719.
[67] There seems also to have been an alternative numbering, which
proceeded on the principle of making five books, beginning with the
third, the second being treated as a general prologue to the whole
poem. In connexion with this we may take the special invocation of
divine assistance in the prologue of the third book, which ends with
the couplet,
‘His tibi libatis nouus intro nauta profundum,
Sacrum pneuma rogans vt mea vela regas.’
[68] Fuller’s spirited translation of these lines is well known, but
may here be quoted again:
‘Tom comes thereat, when called by Wat, and Simm as forward we find,
Bet calls as quick to Gibb and to Hykk, that neither would tarry
behind.
Gibb, a good whelp of that litter, doth help mad Coll more mischief
to do,
And Will he does vow, the time is come now, he’ll join in their
company too.
Davie complains, whiles Grigg gets the gains, and Hobb with them
does partake,
Lorkin aloud in the midst of the crowd conceiveth as deep is his
stake.
Hudde doth spoil whom Judde doth foil, and Tebb lends his helping
hand,
But Jack the mad patch men and houses does snatch, and kills all
at his command.’
_Church History_, Book iv. (p. 139).
[69] In the first version, ‘Complaints are heard now of the injustice
of the high court: flatterers have power over it, and those who speak
the truth are not permitted to come near to the king’s side. The boy
himself is blameless, but his councillors are in fault. If the king
were of mature age, he would redress the balance of justice, but he
is too young as yet to be held responsible for choice of advisers: it
is not from the boy but from his elders that the evil springs which
overruns the world.’
[70] In the first version as follows, ‘O king of heaven, who didst
create all things, I pray thee preserve my young king, and let him live
long and see good days. O king, mayest thou ever hold thy sceptre with
honour and triumph, as Augustus did at Rome. May he who gave thee the
power confirm it to thee in the future.
For the glory of thy rule I have written these lines with humble
heart. O flower of boyhood, according to thy worthiness I wish thee
prosperity.’
[71] In the first version, ‘I am myself the worst of sinners, but may
God grant me relief by his Spirit.’
[72] Communicated to me by Miss Bateson.
[73] It is even the case in one instance (i. 846) that a blank is left
in the line for a word omitted in D which might have been supplied by
reference to any other MS. which contained the passage. So difficult
was communication between Oxford and London in those days.
[74] e.g. i. 209 Regem 219 Qui est ii. 9 sociatus 114 de pondere
266 Pontifice.
[75] A few errors may be noted in the poem _De Lucis Scrutinio_, viz.
l. 15 manifestus 36 oculis 66 similatam 89 Ominis (_for_ O nimis): also
in ‘O deus immense,’ l. 28 se (_for_ te) 104 sub (_for_ sue).
[76] Trifling differences of spelling are as a rule not recorded.
Examples of such variations are the following in C: i. 1 ut 11 uidet
23 choruschat 120 talamum 137 sydera 139 themone 141 &c. sed (_for_
set) 196 &c. amodo 234 prohdolor 311 Immundos 586 Egiptus 1056 Symonis
1219 Ocupat 1295 suppremis 1505 loquturus 1514 Obstetit 1755 opprobrium
1832 littora 1947 litora 2094 patiens ii. _Prol._ 11 etiam ii. 57 fatie
261 Moise 494 synagoga iii. 291 redditus, &c. Variation in the use of
capital letters or in regard to the separation of ‘que,’ ‘ve,’ &c. from
the words which they follow is usually not recorded. The spelling of H
and G is almost identical with that of S.
EPISTOLA[77]
=Hanc Epistolam subscriptam corde deuoto misit senex et cecus Iohannes
Gower Reuerendissimo in Cristo Patri ac domino suo precipuo, domino
Thome de Arundell, Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, tocius Anglie Primati et
apostolice sedis legato. Cuius statum ad ecclesie sue regimen dirigat
et feliciter conseruet filius virginis gloriose, dominus noster Ihesus
Cristus, qui cum deo patre et spiritu sancto viuit et regnat deus per
omnia secula seculorum. Amen.=