immense number of quotations. This citation of authorities is of course
a characteristic of medieval morality, and appears in some books, as in
the _Liber Consolationis_ and other writings of Albertano of Brescia,
in an extreme form. Here the tendency is very pronounced, especially
in the part which treats of Vices and Virtues, and it is worth while
to inquire what range of reading they really indicate. A very large
number are from the Bible, and there can be little doubt that Gower
knew the Bible, in the Vulgate version of course, thoroughly well.
There is hardly a book of the Old Testament to which he does not refer,
and he seems to be acquainted with Bible history even in its obscurest
details. The books from which he most frequently quotes are _Job_,
_Psalms_, _Proverbs_, _Isaiah_, _Jeremiah_, and _Ecclesiasticus_, the
proverbial morality of this last book being especially congenial to
him. The quotations are sometimes inexact, and occasionally assigned
to the wrong book; also the book of _Ecclesiasticus_, which is quoted
very frequently, is sometimes referred to under the name of Sidrac and
sometimes of Solomon: but there can be no doubt in my opinion that
these Biblical quotations are at first hand. Of other writers Seneca,
who is quoted by name nearly thirty times, comes easily first. Some
of the references to him seem to be false, but it is possible that
our author had read some of his works. Then come several of the Latin
fathers, Jerome, Augustin, Gregory, Bernard, and, not far behind these,
Ambrose. The quotations are not always easy to verify, and in most
cases there is nothing to indicate that the books from which they are
taken had been read as a whole. No doubt Gower may have been acquainted
with some portions of them, as for instance that part of Jerome’s book
against Jovinian which treats of the objections to marriage, but it
is likely enough that he picked up most of these quotations at second
hand. There are about a dozen quotations from Cicero, mostly from the
_De Officiis_ and _De Amicitia_, but I doubt whether he had read either
of these books. In the _Confessio Amantis_ he speaks as if he did not
know that Tullius was the same person as Cicero (iv. 2648). Boethius
is cited four times, one of the references being false; Cassiodorus
and Isidore each four times, and Bede three times. Stories of natural
history seem to be referred rather indiscriminately to Solinus, for
several of these references prove to be false. Three quotations are
attributed by the author to Horace (‘Orace’), but of these one is in
fact from Ovid and another from Juvenal. He certainly got them all
from some book of commonplaces. The same may be said of the passage
alleged to be from Quintilian and of the references to Aristotle and
to Plato. ‘Marcial,’ who is quoted three times, is not the classical
Martial, but the epigrammatist Godfrey of Winchester, whose writings
were in imitation of the Roman poet and passed commonly under his name.
The distichs of Cato are referred to five times, and it is certain of
course that Gower had read them. Ovid is named only once, and that
is a doubtful reference, but the author of the _Confessio Amantis_
was certainly well acquainted at least with the _Metamorphoses_ and
the _Heroides_. Valerius Maximus is the authority for two stories,
but it is doubtful whether he is quoted at first hand. Fulgentius is
cited twice, and ‘Alphonses,’ that is Petrus Alphonsi, author of the
_Disciplina Clericalis_, twice. ‘Pamphilius’ (i.e. _Pamphilus, de
Amore_) is cited once, but not in such a way as to suggest that Gower
knew the book itself; and so too Maximian, but the passage referred to
does not seem to be in the _Elegies_. The quotation from Ptolemy is, as
usual, from the maxims often prefixed in manuscripts to the _Almagest_.
Other writers referred to are Chrysostom, Cyprian, Remigius, Albertus
Magnus, Hélinand, Haymo, and Gilbert. We know from a passage in the
_Confessio Amantis_ that Gower had read some of the works of Albertus,
and we may assume as probable that he knew Gilbert’s _Opusculum de
Virginitate_, for his reference is rather to the treatise generally
than to any particular passage of it.
He was acquainted, no doubt, with the _Legenda Aurea_ or some similar
collection, and he seems to refer also to the _Vitae Patrum_. The moral
and devotional books of his own day must have been pretty well known
to him, as well as the lighter literature, to which he had himself
contributed (_Mir._ 27340). On the whole we must conclude that he was
a well-read man according to the standard of his age, especially for
a layman, but there is no need to attribute to him a vast stock of
learning on the strength of the large number of authors whom he quotes.
PROVERBS, &C.--Besides quotations from books there will be found to be
a number of proverbial sayings in the _Mirour_, and I have thought it
useful to collect some of these and display them in a manner convenient
for reference. They are given in the order in which they occur:
1726. ‘Chien dormant n’esveilleras.’
1783. ‘l’en voit grever
Petite mosche au fort destrer.’
1944. ‘Pour tout l’avoir du Montpellers.’
2119. ‘Mais cil qui voet le mont monter,
Ainçois l’estoet le doss courber,
Qu’il truist la voie droite et pleine.’
2182. ‘Au despitous despit avient.’
5521. ‘Om dist, manace n’est pas lance.’
5593. ‘Endementiers que l’erbe es vals
Renaist et croist, moert ly chivals.’
5668. ‘Cil qui ne voet quant ad pooir
N’el porra puis qant ad voloir.’
5811. ‘Dieus aide a la charette.’
6660. ‘Poverte parte compaignie.’
7138. ‘Mais l’en dist, qui quiert escorchée
Le pell du chat, dont soit furrée,
Luy fault aucune chose dire.’
7237. ‘Comme cil qui chat achatera
El sac.’
7319. ‘pour le tresor de Pavie.’
7969. ‘Oisel par autre se chastie.’
8789. ‘Aviene ce q’avenir doit.’
8836. ‘Mais en proverbe est contenu,
Ly cous ad tout son fiel perdu
Et ad dieu en son cuer devant.’
9307. ‘Quant fole vait un fol querir,
Du fol trover ne poet faillir.’
9446. ‘Ce que polain prent en danture
Toute sa vie apres dura.’
12724. ‘Escript auci j’en truis lisant,
Au vois commune est acordant
La vois de dieu.’
13116. ‘du mal nage malvois port.’
13489. ‘C’est un proverbe de la gent,
Cil qui plus souffre bonnement
Plus valt.’
14440. ‘l’en dist en essampler
Qe dieus tous biens fait envoier,
Mais par les corns le boef n’apporte.’
15405. ‘Ne fait, comme dire l’en soloit,
De l’autry quir large courroie.’ (Cp. 24995.)
16117. ‘L’en dist ensi communement
Bon fin du bon commencement.’
16511. ‘vendre
Son boef pour manger le perdis.’
16532. ‘Du poy petit.’ (Cp. 15499.)
16943. ‘Qant piere hurte a la viole,
Ou l’ostour luite au russinole,
Savoir poetz q’ad le peiour.’
17257. ‘Om dist, Tant as, tant vals.’
17555. ‘Qant homme ad paié sa monoie,
Quoy valt ce lors a repentir?’
18013. ‘L’en dist ensi communement,
Retrai le fieu bien sagement
Et la fumée exteinderas.’
18020. ‘courser megre ne salt pas.’
20420. ‘Cil qui sanz draps se fait aler,
Mal avera son garçon vestu.’
21085. ‘Ly moigne, ensi comme truis escrit,
Ne sont pas fait de leur habit.’
22927. ‘la fortune a les hardis
S’encline.’
23413. ‘Trop est l’oisel de mesprisure
Q’au son ny propre fait lesure.’
24230. ‘L’un covoitous et l’autre fals
Ils s’entracordont de leger.’
24265. ‘Nul trop nous valt, sicomme l’en dist.’
24962. ‘Sicome crepaldz dist al herice,
Maldit soient tant seigneurant.’
25010. ‘Om doit seignour par la maisnie
Conoistre.’
25015. ‘tiel corsaint, tiel offrendour.’
25302. ‘Te dourra craie pour fourmage.’
27867. ‘qui bien ayme point n’oublie.’
28597. ‘De la proverbe me sovient,
Q’om dist que molt sovent avient
Apres grant joye grant dolour.’
Akin to the proverbs are the illustrations from Natural History, real
or fictitious, of which there is a considerable number in the _Mirour_.
These are of very various classes, from simple facts of ordinary
observation to the monstrous inventions of the Bestiaries, which were
repeated by one writer after another with a faith which rested not on
any evidence of the facts stated, but upon their supposed agreement
with the fitness of things, that is, practically, their supposed
aptness as moral lessons, the medieval idea of the animal world being
apparently that it was created and kept in being largely for the
instruction of mankind. In taking the glow-worm as an illustration
of hypocrisy (1130), the lark of joyous thankfulness (5637), the
grasshopper of improvidence (5821), the lapwing of female dissimulation
(8869), the turtle-dove of constancy (17881), the drone of indolence
(5437), the camel of revengeful malice (4417), and the blind kitten of
drunken helplessness (8221), the author is merely making a literary
use of every-day observation. There are however, as might be expected,
plenty of illustrations of a more questionable character. Presumption
is like the tiger beguiled with the mirror (1561); the proud man who is
disobedient to law is like the unicorn, which cannot be tamed (2101);
the devil breaking down the virtue of a man by raising him high in his
own conceit is like the osprey, which carries bones high in the air
and breaks them by dropping them upon rocks (1849); Envy, who destroys
with her breath the honour of all around her, is like the basilisk
which kills all vegetation in the place where it is found (3745);
the man-faced bird, which pines away because it has slain a man, is
produced as a lesson to murderers (5029); the bad father, who teaches
his sons to plunder the poor, is like the hawk, which beats its young
and drives them from the nest in order that they may learn to kill prey
for themselves (7009); the partridge is a lesson against stinginess
(7671); the contagiousness of sin is illustrated by the fact that the
panther infects other animals with his spots (9253), and yet in another
place (12865) the sweetness of the human voice when it utters praise
is compared to the fragrance of the panther’s breath. Contemplation
is like the ‘chalandre,’ which flies up at midnight to the sky, and
when on the earth will not look upon a dying person (10705); the fight
between Arimaspians and griffons for emeralds is an image created
for our instruction of the contest between the soul of man and the
devil (10717); Devotion, who opens herself secretly to heaven and
thus attains to the divine contemplation, is like the sea-shell which
opens to the dew by night and from it conceives the pearl (10813); the
spittle of a fasting man (according to Ambrose) will kill a serpent,
and the fast itself will no doubt be effectual against the old serpent
our enemy (18025). The bee does not come off well on the whole in these
comparisons: he is chosen as the likeness of the idle and luxurious
prelate, but this is for reasons which are not in themselves at all
obvious, except that he has a sting and is unduly fond of sweets
(19345). The prelate who protects his flock from encroachments of the
royal or other authority is like the big fish which takes the smaller
into its mouth to shelter them from the storm (19909); Humility is like
the diamond, which refuses a setting of gold, but is drawn to the lowly
iron, a confusion with the load-stone, arising from the name ‘adamant’
applied to both (12463). These are some of the illustrations which are
drawn from the domain of Natural History, not original for the most
part, but worth noting as part of the literary baggage of the period.
THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES.--We may gather from the _Mirour_ some
few facts about the personality of the author, which will serve to
supplement in some degree our rather scanty knowledge of Gower’s
life. He tells us here that he is a layman (21772), but that we knew
already; and that he knows little Latin and little French,--‘Poi sai
latin, poi sai romance’ (21775), but that is only his modesty; he knows
quite enough of both. He has spent his life in what he now regards as
folly or worse; he has committed all the seven deadly sins (27365);
moreover he has composed love poems, which he now calls ‘fols ditz
d’amour’ (27340); but for all this it is probable enough that his life
has been highly respectable. He comes late to repentance (27299), and
means to sing a song different from that which he has sung heretofore
(27347), to atone, apparently, for his former misdeeds. We may assume,
then, that he was not very young at the time when he wrote this book;
and we know that he considered himself an old man when he produced the
_Confessio Amantis_ (viii. 3068*) in the year 1390. Men were counted
old before sixty in those days, and therefore we may suppose him to be
now about forty-six. We may perhaps gather from ll. 8794 and 17649 that
he had a wife. In the former passage he is speaking of those who tell
tales to husbands about their wives’ misconduct, and 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 is correct, then his union with Agnes Groundolf
in his old age was a second marriage, and this is in itself probable
enough. We cannot come to any definite conclusion from this poem
about his profession or occupation in life. It is said by Leland that
Gower was a lawyer, but for this statement no evidence has ever been
produced, and if we may judge from the tone in which he speaks of the
law and lawyers in the _Mirour_, we must reject it. Of all the secular
estates that of the law seems to him to be the worst (24805 ff.), and
he condemns both advocates and judges in a more unqualified manner
than the members of any other calling. He knows apparently a good
deal about them and about the ‘customs of Westminster,’ but, judging
by his tone, we shall probably be led to think that this knowledge
was acquired rather in the character of a litigant than in that of a
member of the legal profession. Especially the suggestion of a special
tax to be levied on lawyers’ gains (24337 ff.) is one which could
hardly have come from one who was himself a lawyer. Again, the way in
which he speaks of physicians, whom he accuses of being in league with
apothecaries to defraud patients, and of deliberately delaying the
cure in order to make more money (24301, 25621 ff.), seems to exclude
him quite as clearly from the profession of medicine, the condemnation
being here again general and unqualified.
Of all the various ranks of society which he reviews, that of which he
seems to speak with most respect is the estate of Merchants. He takes
pains to point out both here 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 which they
run (25177 ff.). 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. These indications
seem to suggest that it was as a merchant that Gower made the money
which he spent in buying his land; and this inference is supported
by the manner in which he speaks of ‘our City,’ and by the fact that
it is with members of the merchant class that he seems to be most in
personal communication. He has evidently discussed with merchants the
comparative value of worldly and spiritual possessions, and he reports
the saying of one of them,
‘Dont un me disoit l’autre jour,’
to the effect that he was a fool who did not make money if he might,
for no one knew the truth about the world to come (25915 ff.). He feels
strongly against a certain bad citizen who aims at giving privileges in
trade to outsiders (26380 ff.), and the jealousy of the Lombards which
he expresses (25429 ff.) has every appearance of being a prejudice
connected with rivalry in commerce. ‘I see Lombards come,’ he says, ‘in
poor attire as servants, and before a year has passed they have gained
so much by deceit and conspiracy that they dress more nobly than the
burgesses of our City; and if they need influence or friendship, they
gain it by fraud and subtlety, so that their interests are promoted and
ours are damaged at their will and pleasure.’
If we are to go further and ask in what branch of trade our author
exercised himself, it is probable that we may see reason to set him
down as a dealer in wool, so enthusiastic is he about wool as the
first of all commodities, and so much has he to say about the abuses
of the staple (25360 ff.). No doubt the business of exporting wool
would be combined with that of importing foreign manufactured goods
of some kind. It is known from other sources that Gower was a man who
gradually acquired considerable property in land, and the references in
the _Mirour_ to the dearness of labour and the unreasonable demands of
the labourer (24625 ff.) are what we might expect from a man in that
position.
He tells us that he is a man of simple tastes, that he does not care
to have ‘partridges, pheasants, plovers, and swans’ served up at his
table (26293 ff.); that he objects however to finding his simple joint
of meat stuck full of wooden skewers by the butcher, so that when he
comes to carve it he blunts the edge of his knife (26237 ff.). We
know moreover from the whole tone of his writings that he is a just
and upright man, who believes in the due 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. He
thinks indeed that the patience of Socrates is much overstrained, and
openly declares that he shall not imitate it:
‘Qui ceste essample voet tenir
Avise soy; car sans mentir
Je ne serray si pacient.’ (4186 ff.)
But, though a thorough believer in the principle of gradation in human
society, he emphasizes constantly the equality of all men before God
and refuses absolutely to admit the accident of birth as constituting
any claim whatever to ‘gentilesce.’ The common descent of all from Adam
is as conclusive on this point for him as it was for John Ball (23389
ff.), and he is not less clear and sound on the subject of wealth.
Considering that his views of society are essentially the same as those
of Wycliff, and considering also his strong views about the corruption
of the Church and the misdeeds of the friars, it is curious to find how
strongly he denounces ‘lollardie’ in his later writings.
He has a just abhorrence of war, and draws a very clear-sighted
distinction between the debased chivalry of his day and the true ideal
of knighthood, the one moved only by impulses of vainglorious pride and
love of paramours,
‘Car d’orguil ou du foldelit,
Au jour present, sicomme l’en dist,
Chivalerie est maintenue.’ (23986 ff.)
and the other, set only on serving God and righting the wrong,
represented finely in the character of Prowess:
‘Il ad delit sanz fol amour,
Proufit sanz tricher son prochein,
Honour sanz orguillous atour.’ (15176 ff.)
Above all, our author has a deep sense of religion, and his study has
been much upon the Bible. He deeply believes in the moral government of
the world by Providence, and he feels sure, as others of his age also
did, that the world has almost reached its final stage of corruption.
Whatever others may do, he at least intends to repent of his sins and
prepare himself to render a good account of his stewardship.
Let us pass now from the person of the author and touch upon some of
those illustrations of the manners of the time which are furnished
by the _Mirour_. In the first place it may be said that in certain
points, and especially in what is said of the Court of Rome and the
Mendicant orders, it fully confirms the unfavourable impression which
we get from other writers of the time. Gower has no scruples at any
time in denouncing the temporal possessions of the Church as the root
of almost all the evil in her, and here as elsewhere he tells the story
of the donation of Constantine, with the addition of the angelic voice
which foretold disaster to spring from it. Of dispensations, which
allow men to commit sin with impunity, he takes a very sound view. Not
even God, he says, can grant this, which the Pope claims the power to
grant (18493). The Mendicant friars are for him those ‘false prophets’
of whom the Gospel spoke, who should come in sheep’s clothing, while
inwardly they were ravening wolves. He denounces their worldliness
in the strongest language, and the account of their visits to poor
women’s houses, taking a farthing if they cannot get a penny, or a
single egg if nothing else is forthcoming (21379), reminds us vividly
of Chaucer’s picture of a similar scene. But in fact the whole of the
Church seems to our author to be in a wrong state. He does not relieve
his picture of it by any such pleasing exception as the parish priest
of the _Canterbury Tales_. He thinks that it needs reform from the top
to the bottom; the clergy of the parish churches are almost as much
to blame as the prelates, monks and friars, and for him it is the
corruption of the Church that is mainly responsible for the decadence
of society (21685 ff.). These views he continued to hold throughout his
life, and yet he apparently had no sympathy whatever with Lollardism
(_Conf. Am. Prol._ 346 ff. and elsewhere). His witness against the
Church comes from one who is entirely untainted by schism. Especially
he is to be listened to when he complains how the archdeacons and their
officers abuse the trust committed to them for the correction of vices
in the clergy and in the laity. With the clergy it is a case of ‘huy
a moy, demain a vous’--that is, the archdeacon or dean, being immoral
himself, winks at the vices of the clergy in order that his own may
be overlooked; the clergy, in fact, are judges in their own cause,
and they stand or fall together. If, however, an unfortunate layman
offends, they accuse him forthwith, in order to profit by the penalties
that may be exacted. ‘Purs is the erchedeknes helle,’ as Chaucer’s
Sompnour says, and Gower declares plainly that the Church officials
encourage vice in order that they may profit by it: ‘the harlot is
more profitable to them,’ he says, ‘than the nun, and they let out
fornication to farm, as they let their lands’ (20149 ff.).
Setting aside the Church, we may glean from the _Mirour_ some
interesting details about general society, especially in the city of
London. There is a curious and life-like picture of the gatherings of
city dames at the wine-shop, whither with mincing steps they repair
instead of to church or to market, and how the vintner offers them the
choice of Vernazza and Malvoisie, wine of Candia and Romagna, Provence
and Monterosso--not that he has all these, but to tickle their fancies
and make them pay a higher price--and draws ten kinds of liquor from
a single cask. Thus he makes his gain and they spend their husbands’
money (26077 ff.). We find too a very lively account of the various
devices of shopkeepers to attract custom and cheat their customers. The
mercer, for example, is louder than a sparrow-hawk in his cries; he
seizes on people in the street and drags them by force into his shop,
urging them merely to view his kerchiefs and his ostrich feathers,
his satins and foreign cloth (25285 ff.). The draper will try to sell
you cloth in a dark shop, where you can hardly tell blue from green,
and while making you pay double its value will persuade you that he
is giving it away because of his regard for you and desire for your
acquaintance (25321 ff.). The goldsmith purloins the gold and silver
with which you supply him and puts a base alloy in its place; moreover,
if he has made a cup for you and you do not call for it at once, he
will probably sell it to the first comer as his own, and tell you that
yours was spoilt in the making and you must wait till he can make you
another (25513 ff.). The druggist not only makes profit out of sin
by selling paints and cosmetics to women, but joins in league with
the physician and charges exorbitantly for making up the simplest
prescription (25609 ff.). The furrier stretches the fur with which he
has to trim the mantle, so that after four days’ wear it is obvious
that the cloth and the fur do not match one another (25705 ff.). Every
kind of food is adulterated and is sold by false weights and measures.
The baker is a scoundrel of course, and richly deserves hanging
(26189), but the butcher is also to blame, and especially because he
declines altogether to recognize the farthing as current coin and will
take nothing less than a penny, so that poor people can get no meat
(26227). Wines are mixed, coloured and adulterated; what they call
Rhenish probably grew on the banks of the Thames (26118). If you order
beer for your household, you get it good the first time and perhaps
also the second, but after that no more; and yet for the bad as high a
price is charged as for the good (26161 ff.). Merchants in these days
talk of thousands, where their fathers talked of scores or hundreds;
but their fathers lived honestly and paid their debts, while these
defraud all who have dealings with them. When you enter their houses,
you see tapestried rooms and curtained chambers, and they have fine
plate upon the tables, as if they were dukes; but when they die, they
are found to have spent all their substance, and their debts are left
unpaid (25813 ff.).
In the country the labourers are discontented and disagreeable. They do
less work and demand more pay than those of former times. In old days
the labourer never tasted wheaten bread and rarely had milk or cheese.
Things went better in those days. Now their condition is a constant
danger to society, and one to which the upper classes seem strangely
indifferent (26425 ff.).
Curious accounts are given of the customs of the legal profession, and
when our author comes to deal with the jury-panel, he tells us of a
regularly established class of men whose occupation it is to arrange
for the due packing and bribing of juries. He asserts that of the
corrupt jurors there are certain captains, who are called ‘tracers’
(_traiciers_), because they draw (_treront_) the others to their will.
If they say that white is black, the others will say ‘quite so,’ and
swear it too, for as the tracer will have it, so it shall be. Those
persons who at assizes desire to have corrupt jurymen to try their
case must speak with these ‘tracers,’ for all who are willing to sell
themselves in this manner are hand and glove with them, and so the
matter is arranged (25033 ff.). The existence of a definite name for
this class of undertakers seems to indicate that it was really an
established institution.
These are a few of the points which may interest the reader in the
reflection of the manners of society given by our author’s ‘mirror.’
The whole presents a picture which, though no doubt somewhat
overcharged with gloom, is true nevertheless in its outlines.
TEXT.--It remains to speak of the text of this edition and of the
manuscript on which it depends.
In the year 1895, while engaged in searching libraries for MSS. of the
_Confessio Amantis_, I observed to Mr. Jenkinson, Librarian of the
Cambridge University Library, that if the lost French work of Gower
should ever be discovered, it would in all probability be found to have
the title _Speculum Hominis_, and not that of _Speculum Meditantis_,
under which it was ordinarily referred to. He at once called my
attention to the MS. with the title _Mirour de l’omme_, which he had
lately bought and presented to the University Library. On examining
this I was able to identify it beyond all doubt with the missing book.
It may be thus described:
Camb. Univ. Library, MS. Additional 3035, bought at the Hailstone sale,
May 1891, and presented to the Library by the Librarian.