thought better, but the alteration may have been made by the author to
avoid a repetition of the same word that he had used in l. 2796. The
meaning is, ‘he did not remember that there was anything else of worth
except himself.’
2830. _And fedden hem_, i.e. ‘And that they fed themselves,’ &c.; cp.
2833, ‘and seide.’
2883. _sein_: so ii. 170, iii. 757, in rhyme always.
2890. Written in F ‘vnder the þe kinges,’ as if to make a distinction,
but ‘þee’ in the next line.
2939. The punctuation after ‘godd’ is on the authority of F: otherwise
it would be better to take ‘with godd and stonde in good acord’
together.
2951. _He let it passe_ &c. The preceding sentence is broken off, and a
new one begins which takes no account of the negative: see note on i.
98. This seems better than to make ‘it’ refer to his pride, for ‘mynde’
can hardly mean anything here but memory.
3032. ‘He found the same gentleness in his God.’
3050. _can no love assise_, ‘can adapt no love to his liking.’
3067 ff. The tale of the Three Questions is one of which I cannot
trace the origin, notwithstanding the details of name and place
which are given at the end, viz. that the king was of Spain and was
called Alphonso, that the knight’s name was Pedro and his daughter’s
Petronilla. A reference to the second and third questions occurs in the
_Mirour de l’omme_, 12601 ff.
3153. _herd you seid_: so v. 1623, 7609, ‘herd me told.’ This form
of expression, for ‘herd you seie,’ ‘herd me telle,’ may have sprung
from such a use of the participle as we have in v. 3376, ‘Sche hadde
herd spoke of his name’: cp. the use of participle for infinitive with
‘do’ in ii. 1799 and Chaucer, _Cant. Tales_, A 1913, ‘Hath Theseüs doon
wroght,’ E 1098, ‘Hath doon yow kept.’
3203. _par chaunce_: see note on 2049.
3246. _ansuerde._ This seems to be a plural form of the participle,
used here for the rhyme: so iv. 1810, v. 6789.
3296. _leste_: elsewhere ‘lest’; cp. 3106, 3313. Here we have ‘leste’
A, F, ‘lest’ JC, B. The form ‘moste’ is undoubtedly used for ‘most’
(adv.) i. 307.
3308. _reprise_, ‘trouble,’ as we have ‘paine et reprise’ in _Mirour_,
3968.
3365 f. _lete That I ne scholde be_: cp. iv. 454. In both cases ‘lete’
is the past participle of ‘leten’ (lǣtan), and not from ‘letten,’
meaning ‘hinder.’ In these expressions ‘lete’ means ‘left’ in the
sense of ‘omitted’ (like ‘lete Of wrong to don,’ vii. 2726), and in
this usage is naturally followed by a negative: cp. v. 4465, ‘I wol
noght lete, What so befalle of mi beyete, That I ne schal hire yive and
lene.’ The same phrase occurs with the past participle ‘let’ (meaning
‘hindered’) in ii. 128, and the sense is nearly the same.
3369 ff. Several corrections have been made by the author in this
passage, either to make the verse run more smoothly, as 3369 ‘it mot
ben holde’ for ‘mot nede be holde,’ 3374 ‘mad a Pier’ for ‘an Erl
hier,’ 3412 ‘vice be received’ for ‘vice schal be received,’ or to
improve the sense and expression, as 3381 ‘maide’ for ‘place,’ 3396
‘wyse Peronelle’ for ‘name Peronelle,’ 3414 ‘worth, and no reprise’
for ‘worthy, and no prise,’ 3416 ‘If eny thing stond in contraire’ for
‘And it is alway debonaire,’ an awkward parenthesis. It should be noted
that Λ (the Wollaton copy of the second recension) here goes with the
unrevised first recension, whereas B agrees with the revised form,
except in ll. 3369, 3381.
3381. _the maide asterte_, ‘escape the influence of the maiden.’
3442 f. The hellish nature of Envy consists in the fact that it wrongs
both itself and others without cause, that is without having any
further object to gain. It rejoices in evil for the sake of the evil
itself and not for any advantage to be won from it. Cp. ii. 3132 ff.
LIB. II.
11. _if it be so_, equivalent to ‘is it so,’ from the form ‘I ask if it
be so.’
20. _Ethna_: cp. _Mirour_, 3805 ff.,
‘Ly mons Ethna, quele art toutdiz,
Nulle autre chose du paiis
Forsque soy mesmes poet ardoir;
Ensi q’ Envie tient ou pis
En sentira deinz soy le pis.’
The idea is that Envy, like Mount Etna, burns within itself
continually, but is never consumed: cp. Ovid, _Met._ xiii. 867 (in the
tale which follows below of Acis and Galatea),
‘Uror enim, laesusque exaestuat acrius ignis,
Cumque suis videor translatam viribus Aetnam
Pectore ferre meo.’
83. _Write in Civile._ ‘Civile’ is certainly the Civil Law, for so we
find it in _Mirour_, 15217, 16092, &c., and also personified in _Piers
Plowman_. The reference here has puzzled me rather, but the following,
I believe, is the explanation of it, strange as it may seem at first
sight.
In the Institutions of Justinian, i. 7, ‘De lege Furia Caninia
sublata,’ we read that this law, which restricted the power of owners
of slaves to manumit them by will, was repealed ‘quasi libertatibus
impedientem et quodammodo invidam.’ It seems that medieval commentators
upon this, reading ‘canina’ for Caninia in the title of the law,
explained the supposed epithet by reference to the adjective ‘invidam’
used in the description of it, and conceived the law to have been
called ‘canina’ because it compelled men to imitate the dog in the
manger by withholding liberty from those for whom they no longer had
any use as slaves. In Bromyard’s _Summa Predicantium_ we find the
following under the head of ‘Invidia’: ‘Omnes isti sunt de professione
legis Fusie canine. Ille enim Fusius inventor fuit legis cuius exemplum
seu casus est iste. Quidam habet fontem quo non potest proprium ortum
irrigare ... posset tamen alteri valere sine illius nocumento; ipse
tamen impedit ne alteri prosit quod sibi prodesse non potest, ad modum
canis, sicut predictum est: a cuius condicione lex canina vocata est
inter leges duodecim tabularum, que quia iniqua fuit, in aliis legibus
correcta est, sicut patet Institut. lib. i. de lege Fusia canina
tollenda.’
It seems likely then that Gower took the fable from some comment on
this passage of the Institutions.
88. _who that understode_, ‘if a man understood,’ subjunctive: see notes
on Prol. 13, 460.
104 ff. From Ovid, _Met._ xiii. 750 ff., where it is told at greater
length. The circumstance, however, of Polyphemus running round Etna
and roaring with rage and jealousy before he killed Acis, is added by
Gower, possibly from a misunderstanding of l. 872. It is certainly an
improvement.
128. _it myhte noght be let_ &c. See note on i. 3365.
196. _as he whilom_ &c. This suggestion is due to our author: cp. i.
2355 ff.
252. _who overthrowe, Ne who that stonde._ The verbs are probably
singular and subjunctive: cp. iii. 665.
258. _And am_: cp. note on i. 1895.
261. Cp. Chaucer, _Cant. Tales_, G 746 ff., where the Ellesmere MS. has
in the margin ‘Solacium miseriorum’ &c. The quotation does not seem to
be really from Boethius.
265 f. ‘When I see another man labour where I cannot achieve success.’
For this use of ‘to’ cp. Prol. 133, &c.
283. _to hindre with_, ‘whereby to hinder’: cp. i. 452, 2172.
291 ff. This story, as Prof. Morley points out, is to be found among
the fables of Avian, which were widely known. Gower has amplified it
considerably. The fable is as follows:
xxii. ‘Iuppiter, ambiguas hominum praediscere mentes,
Ad terram Phoebum misit ab arce poli.
Tunc duo diversis poscebant numina votis,
Namque alter cupidus, invidus alter erat;
His sese medium Titan scrutatus utrumque
Obtulit et, “Precibus Iuppiter aecus,” ait,
“Praestandi facilis; nam quae speraverit unus,
Protinus haec alter congeminata feret.”
Sed cui longa iecur nequiit satiare cupido,
Distulit admotas in sua dona preces, 10
Spem sibi confidens alieno crescere voto,
Seque ratus solum munera ferre duo.
Ille ubi captantem socium sua praemia vidit,
Supplicium proprii corporis optat ovans;
Nam petit extincto iam lumine degat ut uno,
Alter ut hoc duplicans vivat utroque carens.
Tum sortem sapiens humanam risit Apollo,
Invidiaeque malum rettulit ipse Iovi,
Quae dum proventis aliorum gaudet iniquis,
Laetior infelix et sua damna cupit.’ 20
l. 6. Iuppiter aecus _Lachmann_ vt peteretur _codd._
309. _Now lowde wordes_ &c., i.e. Now with loud words, &c.; cp. vii. 170.
317. _That on_, ‘The one.’
323 (margin). _maculauit._ Du Cange has, ‘_Maculare_, Vulnerare, vel
vulnerando deformare.’
389. _Malebouche_, cp. _Roman de la Rose_, 2847 ff., _Mirour de l’omme_,
2677 ff.
390. _pyl ne crouche_, ‘pile nor cross,’ cross and pile being the two
sides of a coin, head and tail.
399 f. The meaning of ‘heraldie’ is rather uncertain here. Probably
it stands for ‘office of herald,’ and the passage means, ‘Holding the
place of herald in the court of liars’; but the _New Engl. Dict._
apparently takes it in the sense of ‘livery,’ comparing the French
‘heraudie,’ a cassock, and an eighteenth-century example in English. In
this case we must understand the lines to mean ‘wearing the livery of
those who lie,’ that is, being in their service.
401 ff. Cp. _Mirour_, 3721 ff.
404. _fals_, see note on Prol. 221. Just below (l. 412) we have ‘his
false tunge.’
413 ff. Cp. _Mirour_, 2893 ff.,
‘La hupe toutdis fait son ny,
Et l’escarbud converse auci,
Entour l’ordure et la merdaille;
Mais de ces champs qui sont flori
N’ont garde: et par semblance ensi
Malvoise langue d’enviaille,’ &c.
447. ‘That many envious tale is stered,’ ‘many’ being a monosyllable
for the metre before the vowel, as frequently in the expression ‘many
a,’ and ‘envious’ accented on the penultimate syllable. For the use of
‘many’ by itself in the singular cp. ii. 89, iv. 1619, &c.
473. That is, she is on her guard against doing that of which she might
afterwards repent. For ‘hadde I wist’ cp. i. 1888.
510 f. _I myhte noght To soffre_ &c. A very unusual construction.
547 ff. ‘I cannot find that I have spoken anything amiss by reason of
envy,’ &c.
565. ‘In which he knows that there is poison’: for the arrangement of
words cp. i. 833.
583. ‘To be amended’: cp. Prol. 83.
587 ff. The tale of Constance is Chaucer’s _Man of Law’s Tale_, and the
story was derived by the two authors from the same source, Nicholas
Trivet’s Anglo-Norman chronicle. The story as told by him has been
printed for the Chaucer Society from MS. Arundel 56, with collation of
a Stockholm copy (_Originals and Analogues_, 1872). The quotations in
these Notes, however, are from the Bodleian MS., Rawlinson B. 178.
Gower has followed the original more closely than Chaucer, but he
diverges from it in a good many points, as will be seen from the
following enumeration:
(1) Gower says nothing of the proficiency of Constance in sciences
and languages, on which Trivet lays much stress. (2) He abridges the
negotiations for marriage with the Souldan (620 ff.). (3) He does not
mention the seven hundred Saracens with whom the Souldan’s mother
conspired. (4) He brings Constance to land in Northumberland in the
summer instead of on Christmas day (732). (5) He omits the talk between
Constance and Hermyngeld which leads to the conversion of the latter
(cp. 752 ff.). (6) According to Trivet the blind man who received
his sight was one of the British Christians who had remained after
the Saxon conquest, and he went to Wales to bring the bishop Lucius.
(7) The knight who solicited Constance had been left, according to
Trivet, in charge during Elda’s absence, and planned his accusation
against her for fear she should report his behaviour to Elda on his
return (cp. 792 ff.). (8) The words spoken when the felon knight was
smitten are not the same. Gower moreover makes him confess his crime
and then die, whereas in the French book he is put to death by the
king (cp. 879 ff.). (9) The reasons for Domilde’s hatred of Constance
are omitted by Gower. (10) Trivet says that Domilde gave the messenger
a drugged potion on each occasion (cp. 952 ff., 1008 ff.). (11) The
communication to Constance of the supposed letter from the king, and
her acceptance of her fate, are omitted by Gower. (12) The prayers
of Constance for herself and her child upon the sea and her nursing
of the child are additions made by Gower (1055-1083). (13) According
to Trivet, Constance landed at the heathen admiral’s castle and was
entertained there, going back to her ship for the night. Then in the
night Thelous came to her, and professing to repent of having denied
his faith, prayed that he might go with her and return to a Christian
country. So they put out at sea, and he, moved by the devil, tempted
her to sin. She persuaded him to look out for land, with a promise of
yielding to his desires on reaching the shore, and while he is intent
on this occupation, she pushes him overboard (cp. 1084-1125). (14) The
vengeance of king Alle on his mother is related by Trivet immediately
after this, by Gower later. According to Trivet he hewed her to pieces
(cp. 1226-1301). In the ballad of _Emaré_ the mother is condemned
to be burnt, but her sentence is changed to exile. (15) Gower omits
the entry of king Alle into Rome and the incident of his being seen
by Constance as he passed through the streets. (16) Trivet says that
when Morice took the message to the Emperor, the latter was struck by
his resemblance to his lost daughter. (17) Gower adds the incident of
Constance riding forward to meet her father (1500 ff.). (18) According
to Trivet, Constance returned to Rome because of the illness of her
father (cp. 1580 ff.).
These differences, besides others of detail, show that Gower treated
the story with some degree of freedom.
Before Trivet was known as the common source for Chaucer and Gower,
Tyrrwhitt suggested that Chaucer’s tale was taken from Gower. Chaucer
in fact criticizes and rejects one feature of the tale which occurs in
Gower’s version of it, namely the sending of ‘the child Maurice’ to
invite the Emperor. This incident however comes from Trivet, and it is
probably to him that Chaucer refers.
It has been argued however in recent times from certain minute
resemblances in detail and forms of expression between Chaucer’s tale
and Gower’s, that Chaucer was acquainted with Gower’s rendering of
the story as well as with Trivet’s (E. Lücke in _Anglia_, vol. xiv);
and the same line of reasoning has been employed by others, e.g. Dr.
Skeat in his edition of Chaucer, to prove that Gower borrowed to
some extent from Chaucer. It seems probable that Chaucer’s tale of
Constance was written earlier than Gower’s, and it is likely enough
that Gower was acquainted with his friend’s work and may have conveyed
some expressions from it into his own. Lücke adduces twenty-seven
instances, more than half of them trivial or unconvincing, but
amounting on the whole to a tolerably strong proof that one of the two
poets was acquainted with the other’s story. The most convincing of the
parallels are the following: Gower, ‘Let take anon this Constantine’
706, Chaucer, ‘And Custance have they take anon’ _Cant. Tales_, B 438;
Gower, ‘lich hir oghne lif Constance loveth’ 750, Chaucer, ‘loved hire
right as hir lif’ B 535; Gower, ‘yif me my sihte’ 765, Chaucer, ‘yif me
my sighte again’ B 560, Trivet, ‘qe tu me facetz le signe de la croiz
sur mes eux enveugles’ f. 34; Gower, ‘The king with many another mo
Hath christned’ 907, Chaucer, ‘The kyng and many another in that place
converted was’ B 685; Gower, ‘to kepe his wif’ 925, Chaucer, ‘his wyf
to kepe’ B 717; Gower, ‘goth to seke Ayein the Scottes for to fonde The
werre’ 928 ff.; Chaucer, ‘whan he is gon To Scotlondward, his fomen for
to seke’ B 717 f.; Gower, ‘The time set of kinde is come, This lady
hath hir chambre nome’ 931 f. Chaucer, ‘She halt hire chambre abiding
Cristes wille. The tyme is come’ B 721 f. These resemblances of phrase
are such as we might expect to find if Gower had read Chaucer’s story
before writing his own. In all essentials he is independent, and it
is surely not necessary to suppose, as Dr. Skeat does, that a quarrel
between them was caused by such a matter as this.
590. Tiberius Constantinus was Emperor (at Constantinople) for four
years only, 578-582; his wife’s name was Anastasia. He selected Maurice
of Cappadocia to succeed him, and gave him his daughter in marriage.
The romance related by Trivet seems to have no historical foundation,
but it was during the reign of Maurice that the mission went from Rome
for the conversion of the English, and this may have had something to
do with the story that Maurice himself was partly of English origin.
Trivet himself mentions the historical form of the story, but pretends
that he finds a different account in the old Saxon chronicles, ‘les
aunciens croniques des Sessouns,’ or ‘l’estoire de Sessons.’
594. _the god_: cp. Prol. 72. We find both ‘god’ and ‘godd’ as forms of
spelling, so ‘rod’ and ‘rodd,’ ‘bed’ and ‘bedd.’ Here ‘godd’ has been
altered in F by erasure.
613. Both Chaucer and Gower make the Souldan send for the merchants,
whereas in Trivet they are brought before him on accusation: but in
fact here Gower agrees in essentials with Trivet, while Chaucer invents
a quite different occasion for the interview.
653. _Betwen hem two_, ‘by themselves together’: cp. 752, 3517, iii.
1466.
684. _Hire clos Envie_: see note on Prol. 221. The metaphor here may
be from spreading a net, or perhaps it means simply she displayed her
secret envy.
693 f. Compare Chaucer’s development of the idea with examples, _Cant.
Tales_, B 470 ff.
709. _withoute stiere_: Chaucer says ‘a ship al steereles’ where Trivet
has ‘sanz sigle et sanz naviroun,’ or ‘sanz viron’ (MS. Rawl.): but
either ‘viron’ or ‘naviron’ might stand for the oar with which the ship
was steered.
709 ff. Note the free transposition of clauses for the sake of the
rhymes. The logical order would be 709, 711, 710, 713, 712.
711. _for yeres fyve._ Trivet says ‘pur treis aunz,’ but he keeps her at
sea nevertheless for nearly five.
736. _gon_, plural, ‘he and his wife go’: cp. 1152.
749 ff. In the MSS. the paragraph begins at ‘Constance loveth,’ l. 751.
752. ‘They speaking every day together alone,’ an absolute use: cp.
1723. For ‘betwen hem two’ cp. 653.
762. Punctuated after ‘hire’ in F.
771. _Thou bysne man._ The word ‘bysne’ is taken from the original
story. Trivet says she spoke in the Saxon language and said, ‘Bisne
man, en Ihesu name in rode yslawe haue þi siht’ (MS. Rawl. f. 34).
785. _As he that._ The reference is to the king, so that we should
rather expect ‘As him that,’ but the phrase is a stereotyped one and
does not always vary in accordance with grammatical construction: cp.
1623. We find however also ‘As him which,’ iii. 1276.
791. ‘The time being appointed moreover’: an absolute use of the
participle.
831. ‘trencha la gowle Hermigild’: therefore the fact that Gower
and Chaucer agree in saying that he cut her throat has no special
significance.
833. The reading ‘that dier,’ or ‘that diere,’ was apparently a mistake
of the original copyist. It appears in all the unrevised copies of the
first recension and also in B. Λ however has the corrected reading.
857. _After_, ‘In accordance with.’
880 ff. Here Chaucer follows the original more closely than Gower, as
also just above, ‘him smoot upon the nekke boon.’ The words of the
miraculous voice are given in Latin by Trivet, ‘Aduersus filiam matris
ecclesie ponebas scandalum: hoc fecisti et tacui’ (‘et non tacui’ Rawl.
Stockh.). Chaucer has (B 674 ff.),
‘And seyde, “Thou hast desclaundred gilteles
The doughter of holy chirche in heigh presence:
Thus hastou doon and yet holde I my pees.”’
895. This line occurs several times, e.g. i. 2106, ii. 2670.
905. _Lucie_, apparently to be pronounced ‘Lucíe.’ Such names usually
appear either in the Latin forms ‘Lucius,’ ‘Tiberius,’ ‘Claudius,’
‘Virginius,’ or with accent on the antepenultimate syllable ‘Tibérie,’
‘Mercúrie,’ the ‘i’ not being counted as a syllable.
947. What the right name really is we can hardly say for certain. The
printed text of the French gives ‘Domulde’ or ‘Domilde,’ the Rawlinson
MS. has ‘Downilde,’ and Chaucer makes it ‘Donegild.’
964. _which is of faierie._ In the French book the letter states that
the queen has been transformed since the king’s departure into the
likeness of another creature and is an evil spirit in woman’s form.
994 f. ‘comaunda qe sanz nul countredit feissent sa femme sauvement
garder’ f. 34 v^o.
1001. I punctuate after ‘Knaresburgh’ on the authority of F.
1010. The manuscript has a stop after ‘drunke’ and this seems best.
1020. Here we have apparently one of the original corruptions of the
author’s text.
1046 ff. The original has only ‘grant duel et grant dolour demeneient.’
1081. _To rocke with_: cp. i. 452.
1110. _if sche him daunger make_, ‘if she resist his desire’: see note
on i. 2443.
1123. _menable_: see note on i. 1067.
1132. _er it be falle And hath_ &c.; that is, ‘until it be so come that
it hath,’ &c.
1152. _scholden_: note the plural verb after ‘I forth with my litel
Sone’: cp. 736.
1163. Trivet adds ‘qar issit l’apelerent les Sessoneis’ f. 35 v^o.
1164. _for noght he preide_ &c., ‘for none of his prayers to be told,’
&c.
1173. The stop after ‘Romeward’ is on the authority of F, with which A
agrees. We can say either, ‘He was coming from Barbarie towards Rome,
and was going home,’ or ‘He was coming from Barbarie, and was going
home towards Rome’; but the latter perhaps is the more natural.
1191. _made sche no chiere._ This must mean here, ‘she gave no outward
sign of her thought.’ Usually ‘to make cheer’ means to be cheerful.
1243. _what child that were_, subjunctive in indirect question: cp.
1943, iii. 708, 771, &c. See note on Prol. 41.
1259. _alle well_: ‘wel’ seems to be a substantive.
1275. _as seith the bok._ The ‘book’ only says ‘ia tut enflammé de ire.’
1285. _I schal be venged_: cp. v. 6766. The first and second recensions
have ‘It schal.’
1300. _was after sunge._ The French book does not say this. It seems
probable that Gower was acquainted with ballads on the subject, such as
that of _Emaré_, printed in Ritson’s _Metrical Romances_, ii. 204 ff.
It is to be noted that _Emaré_ is taken from a Breton lay:
‘Thys ys of Brytayne layes,
That was used by olde dayes
Men callys playn the garye.’
1317. According to Trivet he came especially to get absolution for
having killed his mother, and Chaucer follows him here.
1329. _In help to ben his herbergour._ This seems to mean that the
question was asked with a view to helping to provide a lodging for the
king. The expression is rather obscure however.
1351. _seknesse of the See._ This is absurd here, but not so in the
original story. Constance attributes her weakness to the effects
produced by her long wanderings at sea, ‘se acundut par feblesce de sa
cervele que lui avint en la mere’ f. 36.
1369. _sihe_, subjunctive, ‘so that the king might see him.’
1381 f. Cp. viii. 1702 ff.
1393. ‘a ship which was,’ cp. i. 10.
1405 f. See note on 1163. Trivet speaks here only of the name of Moris.
1423 f. Gower’s more usual form would be, ‘Desireth not the heaven so
much, that he ne longeth more,’ as i. 718, &c.
1464 ff. The connexion of this remark is clearer in the original story,
which says that Constance told her husband, if the Emperor should
refuse his prayer, to ask ‘pur l’amur q’il avoit al alme sa fille
Constaunce’; because she knew that he denied no one who prayed in this
form.
1586 ff. _after that_, ‘according as’: cp. Prol. 544, iii. 1074. The
book says in fact with much apparent accuracy that Alla died nine
months after his return, that Constance returned to Rome half a year
after, ‘pur la novele qe ele oit de la maladie son pere,’ that on
the thirteenth day after her arrival the Emperor died in the arms
of his daughter, and she followed him in a year, the date being St.
Clement’s day of the year 585. It is further stated that Elda, who had
accompanied Constance to Rome, died at Tours on his way back to England.
1599. _the wel meninge of love._ In spite of the variations there can
hardly be a doubt about the true reading here. The word is clearly
‘meninge’ both in F and S, and the change to ‘whel’ was suggested no
doubt by the misreading ‘meuinge.’ For the expression cp. iii. 599, ‘To
love and to his welwillinge.’