iii. 1272, vii. 2773.
526. _janglere._ The final ‘-e’ is not pronounced here.
558 f. _the gold ... The which was leid upon the bok._ The gold in
question is that which is laid upon the service-book in payment of the
marriage fees: ‘and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring, laying
the same upon the book with the accustomed duty to the Priest and
Clerk.’ _Marriage Service._
564. ‘though he will not praise it,’ i.e. he gives her no credit for
it: cp. Prol. 154.
635 ff. Ovid, _Ars Am._ ii. 561-592, but the original is not very
closely followed.
665. Cp. iii. 1362 ff.
729 ff. From this arises the very ill-advised digression of ll.
747-1970 about the various forms of Religion. There is no more reason
why this should come in here than anywhere else, indeed if the question
of false gods was to be raised at all, it ought to have come in as an
explanation of the appearance of Venus and Cupid in the first book.
Many stories have been told, for example those of Acteon, of the
Gorgons, of Tiresias, of Phoebus and Daphne, of Phaeton, of Ceix, of
Argus, and of Midas, which required the explanation quite as much as
this one, and the awkwardness of putting it all info the mouth of the
priest of Venus is inexcusable.
The main authority followed in this account of the religions of
Chaldea, Egypt, and Greece is the _Vita Barlaam et Josaphat_, cap.
xxvii. (Migne, _Patrol._ vol. 73, p. 548 ff.), but Gower adds much to
it, especially as regards the gods and goddesses of Greece.
763. _of Accidence_: cp. ii. 3210.
774. _hevenly_: so Prol. 918, but ‘hevenely’ i. 834, 3136, the second
syllable in that case being syncopated, as regularly in ‘hevene.’ So
also in the case of ‘evermore’ and ‘everemore’ as compared with ‘evere.’
782. _les_, that is, ‘falsehood.’
798. _Isirus_, i.e. Osiris.
811. _thegipcienes._ This must be the true reading for the sake of
the metre, both here and in l. 821, though the best copies fail to
give it. A similar case occurs in l. 1119, but there the authority for
‘Jupiteres’ is made much stronger by the accession of S.
897. _Mynitor_, i.e. Numitor.
899 f. _that Remus and Romulus._ For the position of ‘that’ cp. 1166,
1249.
925. _To gete him with_: cp. i. 452.
1004. _wel the more lete by_, ‘much the more esteemed’: cp. _Piers
Plowman_, A vi. 105, ‘to lete wel by thyselve,’ and xi. 29: also with
‘of,’ v. 5840; cp. _Piers Plowm._ iv. 160, ‘Love let of hire lighte and
lewte yit lasse,’ _Orm._ 7523, ‘uss birrth ... lætenn wel off othre
menn.’
1009. _Nonarcigne._ The name is taken no doubt from the adjective
‘Nonacrinus’ (from Nonacris), used as in Ovid, _Met._ i. 690, where it
occurs in the story of Pan and Syrinx, told by Mercury to lull Argus to
sleep: cp. _Conf. Am._ iv. 3345 ff.
1040. Cp. Prol. 118.
1043 ff. The sentence is interrupted and then begun again at l. 1051:
see note on i. 98.
1063. _That he_, i.e. ‘In that he.’ Gower has here mistaken his
authority, which says ‘post autem eum propter Tyndarei Lacedaemonii
filium a Jove fulmine percussum interiisse narrant.’ _Vita Barl. et
Jos._ xxvii.
1071. Delphi and Delos are very naturally confused in the medieval Tale
of Troy and elsewhere; but Delos is mentioned correctly enough below,
1256.
1097. _no reason inne_: cp. i. 3209.
1163. _Philerem_, presumably Philyra, but there is no authority for
making her the mother of Jupiter.
1249. _that_: cp. 899. Apparently it means, ‘that Diane of whom I am
to speak.’ The necessities of rhyme are responsible for these forms of
speech.
1276. ‘Which may not attain to reason.’
1323. The paragraph is made to begin here in the MSS. with what is,
strictly speaking, its second line, because it is marked by a proper
name which indicates its subject, the first line being a mere formal
introduction. So also below, 1453: cp. ii. 2451.
1337. The name ‘Dorus’ seems to have been suggested by that of Doris,
mother of the Nereids.
1389. _alle danger_, that is, all reluctance or coyness.
1397. _Armene_, i.e. Harmonia.
1398. _Andragene_ Androgynus or Hermaphroditus.
1428. _noght forsake To ben_, i.e. ‘not refuse to be.’
1449. ‘whether it was of weal or wo’; ‘wher’ for ‘whether.’
1453. See note on 1323.
As for the letters said to have been exchanged between Alexander and
the king of the Bragmans (or Brahmins), we find them at length in the
_Historia Alexandri Magni de Preliis_, which was the source of most
of the current stories about Alexander. The passage referred to is as
follows: ‘Tot deos colis quot in tuo corpore membra portas. Nam hominem
dicis paruum mundum, et sicut corpus hominis habet multa membra, ita et
in celo dicis multos deos existere. Iunonem credis esse deum cordis, eo
quod iracundia nimia mouebatur. Martem vero deum pectoris esse dicis,
eo quod princeps extitit preliorum. Mercurium deum lingue vocas, ex
eo quod plurimum loquebatur. Herculem deum credis brachiorum, eo quod
duodecim virtutes exercuit preliando. Bachum deum gutturis esse putas,
eo quod ebrietatem primus inuenit. Cupidinem esse deam dicis, eo quod
fornicatrix extitit; tenere dicis facem ardentem, cum qua libidinem
excitat et accendit, et ipsam deam iecoris etiam existimas. Cererem
deam ventris esse dicis, et Venerem, eo quod fuit mater luxurie, deam
genitalium membrorum esse profers’ (e 2, ed. Argent. 1489).
Cp. the English alliterative _Wars of Alexander_, E.E.T.S., 1886, ll.
4494 ff. There is no mention of Minerva in either of these.
1520 ff. The usual account is to the effect that Ninus set up the
first idol: see below, 1541. What we have here seems to be taken
from Fulgentius, _Mythol._ ii. 9, where the authorities here cited,
Nicagoras and Petronius, are quoted. The passage is apparently corrupt,
and our author obviously did not quite understand it: ‘Et quamvis
Nicagoras in Disthemithea libro quem scripsit, primum illum formasse
idolum referat, et quod vulturi iecur praebeat livoris quasi pingat
imaginem: unde et Petronius Arbiter ait,
“Qui vultur iecor intimum pererrat”’ &c.
From the same author, _Mythol._ i. 1, he got the story about
Syrophanes, who set up an image of his dead son, to which offerings
were made by those who wished to gain his favour.
1541. Cp. Godfr. Vit., _Panth._ iv. (p. 102), whose account agrees very
nearly with what we have here, though he represents this image as the
first example of an idol, under the heading, ‘Quare primum idolum in
mundo et quo tempore fuit.’ Cp. Guido, _Hist. Troiana_, lib. x (e 5,
ed. Argent. 1494).
1559. Godf. Vit, _Panth._ iv. (p. 112): ‘His temporibus apud Egyptios
constructum est idolum magnum in honorem Apis, Regis Argivorum; quidam
tamen dicunt in honorem Ioseph, qui liberavit eos a fame; quod idolum
Serapis vocabatur, quasi idolum Apis.’
1571 ff. _Hist. Alexandri_, f 1 v^o, ed. Argent. 1489: ‘Exiens inde
Alexander cum Candeolo profecti sunt iter diei vnius, et venerunt ad
quandam speluncam magnam et hospitati sunt ibi. Dixitque Candeolus,
“Omnes dii concilium in ista spelunca concelebrant.” Cum hoc audisset
Alexander, statim fecit victimas diis suis, et ingressus in speluncam
solus vidit ibi caligines maximasque nubes stellasque lucentes, et
inter ipsas stellas quendam deum maximum,’ &c.
Cp. the English alliterative _Wars of Alexander_, ll. 5387 ff.
1624. _herd me seid_: see note on i. 3153.
1636. There is a stop after ‘Forbad’ in F. The meaning is that he gave
a prohibition commanding them not to bow to an image.
1677. _Riht as who sette_: the verb apparently is subjunctive.
1746 ff. What purports to be the original passage is quoted in the
margin of the second recension.
1747. For the form of expression cp. vi. 56 f.,
‘O which a sorwe
It is a man be drinkeles!’
1756 ff. The substance of this is to be found in Gregory, _In_ i.
_Reg._ viii. 7f. (Migne, _Patrol._ vol. 79. p. 222): ‘Et quidem,
nisi Adam peccaret, Redemptorem nostrum carnem suscipere nostram non
oporteret.... Si ergo pro peccatoribus venit, si peccata deessent, eum
venire non oporteret.... Magna quippe sunt mala quae per primae culpae
meritum patimur, sed quis electus nollet peiora perpeti, quam tantum
Redemptorem non habere?’
1781 ff. Note that here twelve lines are replaced in the second
recension by ten, one of the couplets (or the substance of it) having
been inserted earlier, after l. 1742.
1826. ‘So that his word explained his deed’: ‘arawhte’ from ‘arechen’
(āreccan).
1831 ff. _Roman de Troie_, 25504-25559.
1848-1959. With this compare Prol. 193-498.
1865. ‘And they do every man what he pleases,’ the verb being plural.
1879. _Pseudo_: cp. _Mirour_, 21625 ff.,
‘Il estoit dit grant temps y a
Q’un fals prophete a nous vendra,
Q’ad noun Pseudo le decevant;
Sicomme aignel se vestira,
Et cuer du loup il portera.
O comme les freres maintenant
A Pseudo sont bien resemblant!’
So also _Vox Clam._ iv. 787 f.,
‘Nomine sunt plures, pauci tamen ordine fratres;
Vt dicunt aliqui, Pseudo prophetat ibi.’
It seems that the word ‘pseudopropheta,’ used Rev. xix. 20 and
elsewhere, was read ‘Pseudo propheta,’ and ‘Pseudo’ was taken as a
proper name. This was combined with the idea of the wolf in sheep’s
clothing suggested by Matt. vii. 15, ‘Attendite a falsis prophetis,’
&c., and the application was made especially to the friars.
1888. ‘And this I am brought to believe by the argument that where
those above neglect their duty, the people are ignorant of the truth,
(as they now are).’
1900 ff. Cp. _Mirour_, 20065 ff., and _Vox Clamantis_, iii. 903. The
reference is to Gregory, _Hom. in Evang._ xvii. (Migne, _Patrol._ vol.
76, p. 1148): ‘Ibi Petrus cum Iudaea conversa, quam post se traxit,
apparebit: ibi Paulus conversum, ut ita dixerim, mundum ducens.
Ibi Andreas post se Achaiam, ibi Iohannes Asiam, Thomas Indiam in
conspectum sui regis conversam ducet.... Cum igitur tot pastores cum
gregibus suis ante aeterni pastoris oculos venerint, nos miseri quid
dicturi sumus, qui ad Dominum nostrum post negotium vacui redimus?’
1919. Cp. _Mirour_, 16662, ‘U q’il ert mesmes auditour.’ The metaphor
from rendering accounts in the Exchequer is especially appropriate here
for the prelates.
1930. _his lordes besant hedde_: Matt. xxv. 18.
1944. _every Prelat holde_, ‘let every Prelate hold.’
1952 ff. Coloss. iii. 5, ‘avaritiam, quae est simulacrorum servitus.’
END OF VOL. II
OXFORD
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
FOOTNOTES:
[A] In some unpublished papers kindly communicated to me by
Miss Bateson.
[B] Froissart, _Chron._, ed. K. de Lettenhove, vol. xv. p. 167.
[C] B. ten Brink, _Geschichte der Engl. Litt._ ii. 141.
[D] This date has hitherto been omitted from the text of the
printed editions.
[E] The last two lines, which contain the mention of the earl
of Derby, are omitted in some MSS. of the first recension,
and this may be an indication that the author circulated some
copies without them. A full account of the various recensions
of the poem is given later, under the head of ‘Text.’
[F] The term ‘epilogue’ is used for convenience to designate
the conclusion of the poem after viii. 2940, but no such
designation is used by the author: similarly ‘preface’ means
here the opening passage of the Prologue (ll. 1-92).
[G] ‘Minoris etatis causa inde excusabilem pronuncians.’
[H] Dr. Karl Meyer, in his dissertation _John Gower’s
Beziehungen zu Chaucer und König Richard II_ (1889), takes
account of these various notes of time, having made himself to
some extent acquainted with the MSS., but his conclusions are
in my opinion untenable.
[I] This has been equally the procedure of Prof. Hales on
the one hand, who endeavours to throw back the composition
of the first recension to an extravagantly early period, and
of Dr. Karl Meyer on the other, who wishes to bring down the
final form of the book to a time later than the deposition of
Richard II. The theory of the latter, that the sixteenth year
of King Richard is given as the date of the original completion
of the poem, and not of the revised preface, is sufficiently
refuted by the date ‘fourteenth year’ attached to the rewritten
epilogue.
[J] For the connexion between this and the _Confessio Amantis_
see L. Bech in _Anglia_, v. 313 ff.
[K] Lydgate apparently did not take Chaucer’s censure very
seriously, for he quite needlessly introduced the tale of
Canace into his _Falls of Princes_, following Gower’s rendering
of it.
[L] See for example the picture of Nebuchadnezzar transformed
into an ox, ‘Tho thoghte him colde grases goode,’ &c. (i. 2976
ff.), the account of the jealous husband, who after charging
his wife quite unreasonably with wishing she had another there
in his stead, turns away from her in bed and leaves her to
weep all the night, while he sleeps (v. 545 ff.), and the
description of the man who entertains his wife so cheerfully
on his return home with tales of the good sport that he has
had, but carefully avoids all reference to the occurrence which
would have interested her most (v. 6119 ff.).
[M] The reading in the Latin note at the beginning of ‘quarto
<decimo>’ for ‘sexto decimo’ is probably due to a mistake, for
we find ‘sextenthe’ in the text of l. 25. It may be noted that
the MS. mentioned by Pauli as containing the rewritten preface
and also the Chaucer verses (New Coll. 326) is a hybrid, copied
from two different manuscripts.
[N] for King Richard’s sake, to whom my allegiance belongs
and for whom I pray. It chanced that as I rowed in a boat on
the flowing Thames under the town of New Troy, I met my liege
lord, and he bad me come from my boat into his barge, and
there he laid upon me a charge to write some new thing which
he himself might read. Thus I am the more glad to write, and
I have the less fear of envious blame. A gentle heart praises
without malice, but the world is full of evil tongues and my
king’s command shall nevertheless be fulfilled. Though I have
long been sick, yet I will endeavour to write a book which may
be wisdom to the wise and play to those who desire to play.
But the proverb says that a good beginning makes a good end:
therefore I will here begin the prologue of my book, speaking
partly of the former state of the world and partly of the
present.
[O] Adieu, for I must go from thee. And greet Chaucer well, as
my disciple and my poet, who has filled the land with the songs
which he made for my sake. And bid him in his later age make
his testament of love, as thou hast made thy shrift.’
And so enveloped in a starry cloud, Venus was taken to her
place above, and I turned homeward with my beads in hand.
(2940*-2970*.)
To God, the Creator of all things, I pray for my worthy king
Richard the Second, in whom has always been found Justice
mingled with Pity. In his person it may be shown what a king
should be, especially in that he sought no vengeance through
cruelty. Though evil came upon the land, yet his estate was
kept safe by the high God, as the sun is ever bright in
himself, though the air be troubled. He sought love and peace
and accord, not only here at home, but abroad also, following
Christ’s way, and therefore are we bound to serve him, and his
name shall be ever remembered. (2971*-3035*.)
I, his subject, helpless with old age and sickness, desire to
do him some pleasure, and therefore I present to him this poor
book, made both for profit and for sport, and I ask that I may
be excused for lack of curious skill. I have written, as I best
might, in rude plain words.
And now that I am feeble and old, my Muse bids me rest and
write no more of love. He who has achieved what he desired may
fitly do his service to love in songs and sayings; but if a man
fail, it is otherwise: therefore I take now my final leave of
love. But that love which stands confirmed by charity, which
brings no repentance and charges not the conscience, this
may God send us, that in heaven our joy may be without end.
(3036*-3114*.)
[P] The difference in the MS. usually consists only in the line
drawn over the final _on_. So also often in the case of the
words discussed below, _chaunce_, _daunce_, _enchaunte_, &c.
[Q] Very seldom _sh_ in F, as Prol. 938, i. 2171, i. 1458.
[R] M. Konrath in _Archiv für die neueren Sprachen_, 89, p. 153
ff.
[S] In other cases, as with the group _broke_, _loke_, _spoke_,
_wroke_ (past participles), and _ȝoke_ (subst.), there are no
rhyme-words with _ǭ_ from _ā_ by which a distinction can be
established.
[T] _Archiv für n. Sprachen_, 89, p. 392. As I sometimes
have occasion to criticize statements in this paper, I take
the opportunity here of acknowledging its merit, as the only
careful study lately attempted of Gower’s language.
[U] According to ten Brink, _nede_ ought to be regarded as an
uncertain rhyme because of the O. E. _nēades_ beside _nīedes_,
but Gower never rhymes it with open _ē_.
[V] This latter rule explains Chaucer’s use of the inflected
forms _faire_, _fresshe_, &c., in ‘fresshe Beaute,’ ‘gode,
faire White,’ ‘fresshe May,’ &c.
[W] This is a regular use in Chaucer also, e.g. _Cant. Tales_,
E 1749:
‘Fulfild of alle beautee and plesaunce,’
but it has not always been clearly recognized.
[X] In the _Praise of Peace_ however the MS. has _here_ for
_hire_, ll. 108, 329, cp. 254. F has _hire_ for _here_ once
accidentally, iii. 901.
[Y] In a few cases, as Prol. 543, i. 183, 1280, v. 3393, vi.
2062, the grammatically correct form has been printed in the
text from less good MSS. and against the combined authority of
F and S. On a review of the whole subject this does not now
seem to me satisfactory.
[Z] Prof. Lounsbury’s criticism on the rhyme of vii. 5103 f.,
as given in Pauli’s edition, is quite sound, and Prof. Skeat’s
defence of it will not do. Gower never rhymes a past participle
in _-ed_ with a weak preterite, though he sometimes drops the
_-e_ of the preterite before a vowel. The rhyme was good enough
for Chaucer, however, as Prof. Lounsbury’s examples abundantly
prove.
[AA] Except in the case of these imperative forms the 2nd pers.
plur. is quite consistently used by the Lover in his shrift,
and the 2nd pers. sing. by the Confessor in reply.
[AB] The copies which have this conclusion have also the
preface in which Richard is mentioned as the occasion of
the author’s undertaking, but this preface is found also in
combination with the other conclusion.
[AC] Berthelette used a manuscript (not now existing) which in
this respect, as in many others, resembled B.
[AD] It may be noted that the four second recension MSS.
which contain the author’s Latin note about his books (‘Quia
vnusquisque,’ &c.), viz. BTΛP₂, agree in a form of it which
is different both from that which is given by first recension
copies and that which we find in F, and is clearly intermediate
between the other two, the first form fully excusing Richard II
for the troubles of his reign and the third entirely condemning
him, while this makes no mention of his merits or demerits, but
simply prays for the state of the kingdom. It is noticeable
that the second recension form definitely substitutes Henry
for Richard as the patron of the _Confessio Amantis_, though
in one at least of the copies to which it is attached this
substitution has not been made in the text of the poem.
[AE] e.g. ii. 193, 365 ff., iii. 168, 1241, iv. 283, 1321, v.
1252, &c.
[AF] For the explanation of the use of letters to designate
MSS. the reader is referred to the list of MSS. given later.
It should be noted that AJM and FWH₃ represent in each case a
group of about seven MSS., and H₁ ... B₂ one of nearly twenty.
We observe in the examples given that B and A are sometimes
found either separately or together on the side of the H₁ ...
B₂ group, and that the same is true occasionally of W, while
on the other hand some MSS. of the H₁ ... B₂ group are apt to
pass over to the other side in a certain part of the text and
support what we call the revised reading.
[AG] S is defective in one of these places and Ad in another,
but a reckoning of the lines contained in the missing leaves
proves that the facts were as stated.
[AH] They do not, however, contain the additions above
mentioned, at Prol. 495, 579, i. 1403, 2267, &c.
[AI] It is doubtful, however, whether the special connexion
between B and T extended over the whole book. It seems rather
to begin about iii. 1500. The question about the relative
position of these two MSS. would be easier of solution if it
were not that T is defective up to ii. 2687, that is as regards
the part where the connexion of B with the first recension is
most apparent. The fact is that until about the middle of the
third book B is found usually in accord with the ERCLB₂ group,
and though it sometimes in these first books presents the
characteristic second recension reading, as ii. 193, 365 ff.,
iii. 168, at other times it departs from it, as i. 1881, 2017.
[AJ] K belongs to the beginning and H₃ to the middle of the
fifteenth century.
[AK] In the case of most of these passages the text proves
them to be taken from Caxton’s edition. Thus in Prol. 497 both
editions omit ‘to,’ Prol. 583 both omit ‘propre,’ i. 2248 both
have ‘Vnder graue’ for ‘Vnder the grene,’ in 2354 ‘other’ for
‘thilke,’ and in 2372 ‘in me’ for ‘I me.’
[AL] These lines have never been printed in any edition before
the present, though published separately by K. Meyer in his
_John Gower’s Beziehungen_, &c., 1889, and by Prof. Easton of
the University of Pennsylvania in his _Readings in Gower_,
1895. There are a large number of sound emendations from the
Brit. Museum MSS. suggested in this latter book, but the author
had no clear idea of the principles on which the text should be
constructed.
[AM] The following will serve as examples of those omitted:
iii. 367 tawh B
422 vngood lieste A
618 is (_for_ it) A
652 softe softe B
658 sely sely B
739 _marg._ litigabant B
864 artow B
923 he (_for_ hem) B
iv. 635 f. betake ... þurghsott A
650 wedde A
1105 no wol no B
1229 herte B
1239 þo (_for_ þou) A, &c.
[AN] On inquiry in the locality I find that Terranova, which
has always had a column for its emblem, claims Guido as a
native: see _Memorie Gelesi_ by Sign. S. D. Navarra, Terranova
1896, pp. 72 f.