in Germany under the name of Dr. Edmund Stengel in the series of
‘Ausgaben und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der romanischen Philologie.’
The title of this book is ‘John Gower’s Minnesang und Ehezuchtbüchlein:
LXXII anglonormannische Balladen ... neu herausgegeben von Edmund
Stengel.’ Marburg, 1886. The preface is signed with the initials D.
H. The editor of this convenient little book was unable to obtain
access to the original MS., apparently because he had been wrongly
informed as to the place where it was to be found, and accordingly
printed the _Balades_ from the Roxburghe edition with such emendations
as his scholarship suggested. He removed a good many obvious errors
of a trifling kind, and in a few cases he was successful in emending
the text by conjecture. Some important corrections, however, still
remained to be made, and in several instances he introduced error
into the text either by incorrectly transcribing the Roxburghe edition
or by unsuccessful attempts at emendation. I do not wish to speak
with disrespect of this edition. The editor laboured under serious
disadvantages in not being able to refer to the original MS. and in not
having always available even a copy of the Roxburghe edition, so that
we cannot be surprised that he should have made mistakes. I have found
his text useful to work upon in collation, and some of his critical
remarks are helpful.
THE PRESENT TEXT.--The text of this edition is based directly on the
MS., which remains still in the library at Trentham Hall and to which
access was kindly allowed me by the Duke of Sutherland. I propose to
describe the MS. fully, since it is of considerable interest, and being
in a private library it is not generally accessible.
The Trentham MS., referred to as T., is a thin volume, containing 41
leaves of parchment, measuring about 6¼ in. x 9¼ in., and made up
apparently as follows: a^4, b^1, c^6, d--f^8 (one leaf cut out), g^1,
h^4, i^2 (no catchwords).
The first four leaves and the last two are blank except for notes of
ownership, &c., so that the text of the book extends only from f. 5 to
f. 39, one leaf being lost between f. 33 and f. 34.
The pages are ruled for 35 lines and are written in single column.
The handwriting is of the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the
fifteenth century, and resembles what I elsewhere describe as the
‘third hand’ in MS. Fairfax 3, though I should hesitate to affirm that
it is certainly the same, not having had the opportunity of setting the
texts side by side. There is, however, another hand in the MS., which
appears in the Latin lines on ff. 33 v^o and 39 v^o.
The initial letters of poems and stanzas are coloured, but there is no
other ornamentation.
The book contains (1) ff. 5--10 v^o, the English poem in seven-line
stanzas addressed to Henry IV, beginning ‘O worthi noble kyng.’
(2) f. 10 v^o, 11, the Latin piece beginning ‘Rex celi deus.’
(3) f. 11 v^o--12 v^o, two French balades with a set of Latin verses
between them, addressed to Henry IV (f. 12 is seriously damaged). This
is what I refer to as the Dedication.
(4) ff. 12 v^o--33, _Cinkante balades_.
(5) f. 33 v^o, Latin lines beginning ‘Ecce patet tensus,’ incomplete
owing to the loss of the next leaf. Written in a different hand.
(6) ff. 34--39, ‘Traitié pour ensampler les amantz marietz,’ imperfect
at the beginning owing to the loss of the preceding leaf.
(7) f. 39 v^o, Latin lines beginning ‘Henrici quarti,’ written in the
hand which appears on f. 33 v^o.
On the first blank leaf is the following in the handwriting of Sir
Thomas Fairfax:
‘S^r. John Gower’s learned Poems the same booke by himself
presented to kinge Henry ye fourth before his Coronation.’
(Originally this was ‘att his Coronation,’ then ‘att or before his
Coronation,’ and finally the words ‘att or’ were struck through with
the pen.)
Then lower down in the same hand:
‘For my honorable freind & kinsman s^r. Thomas Gower knt. and
Baronett from
Ffairfax 1656.’
On the verso of the second leaf near the left-hand top corner is
written a name which appears to be ‘Rychemond,’ and there is added in a
different hand of the sixteenth century:
‘Liber Hen: Septimi tunc comitis Richmond manu propria script.’
On the fifth leaf, where the text of the book begins, in the right-hand
top corner, written in the hand of Fairfax:
‘ffairfax N^o 265
by the gift of the learned Gentleman Charles Gedde Esq.
liuinge in the Citty of St Andrews.’
Then below in another hand:
‘Libenter tunc dabam
Id testor Carolus Gedde
Ipsis bis septenis Kalendis
mensis Octobris 1656.’
On the last leaf of the text, f. 39, there is a note in Latin made in
1651 at St. Andrews (Andreapoli) by C. Gedde at the age of seventy,
with reference to the date of Henry IV’s reign. Then in English,
‘This booke pertaineth to aged Charles Gedde,’
and inserted between the lines by Fairfax,
‘but now to ffairfax of his gift, Jun. 28. 1656.’
Below follows a note in English on the date of the death of Chaucer and
of Gower, and their places of burial.
The first of the blank leaves at the end is covered with Latin anagrams
on the names ‘Carolus Geddeius,’ ‘Carolus Geddie,’ or ‘Carolus Geddee,’
with this heading,
‘In nomen venerandi et annosi Amici sui Caroli Geddei
Anagrammata,’
and ends with the couplet:
‘Serpit amor Jonathæ (Prisciano labe) Chirurgo
Mephiboshæ pedibus tam manibus genibus,’
which is not very intelligible, but is perhaps meant to indicate the
name of the composer of the anagrams.
In the right-hand top corner of the next leaf there is written in what
might be a fifteenth-century hand, ‘Will Sanders vn Just’ (the rest cut
away).
As to the statement made by Fairfax that this book, meaning apparently
this very copy, was presented by the author to Henry IV, it is hardly
likely that he had any trustworthy authority for it. The book must
evidently have been arranged for some such purpose; on the whole
however it is more likely that this was not the actual presentation
copy, but another written about the same time and left in the hands of
the author. The copy intended for presentation to the king, if such a
copy there were, would probably have been more elaborately ornamented;
and moreover the Latin lines on the last leaf, ‘Henrici quarti’ &c.,
bear the appearance of having been added later. The poet there speaks
of himself as having become blind ‘in the first year of king Henry
IV,’ and of having entirely ceased to write in consequence; and in
another version of the same lines, which is found in the Glasgow MS.
of the _Vox Clamantis_, he dates his blindness from the _second_ year
of King Henry’s reign. In any case it seems clear that his blindness
did not come on immediately after Henry’s accession; for the _Cronica
Tripertita_, a work of considerable length, must have been written
after the death of Richard II, which took place some five months after
the accession of Henry IV. It would be quite in accordance with Gower’s
usual practice to keep a copy of the book by him and add to it or alter
it from time to time; the Fairfax MS. of the _Confessio Amantis_ and
the All Souls copy of the _Vox Clamantis_ are examples of this mode
of proceeding: and I should be rather disposed to think that this
volume remained in the author’s hands than that it was presented to the
king. As to its subsequent history, if we are to regard the signature
‘Rychemond’ on the second leaf as a genuine autograph of Henry VII
while Earl of Richmond, it would seem that the book passed at some time
into royal hands, but it can hardly have come to the Earl of Richmond
by any succession from Henry IV. After this we know nothing definite
until we find it in the hands of the ‘aged Charles Gedde’ of St.
Andrews, by whom it was given, as we have seen, to Fairfax in 1656, and
by Fairfax in the same year to his friend and kinsman Sir Thomas Gower,
no doubt on the supposition that he belonged to the family of the poet.
He must have been one of the Gowers of Stittenham, and from him it has
passed by descent to its present possessor.
The text given by the MS. seems to be on the whole a very correct one.
For the _Cinkante Balades_ it is the only manuscript authority, but
as regards the _Traitié_ it may be compared with several other copies
contemporary with the author, and it seems to give as good a text as
any. There seems no reason to doubt that it was written in the lifetime
of the author, who may however have been unable owing to his failing
eyesight to correct it himself. It was nevertheless carefully revised
after being written, as is shown by various erasures and corrections
both in the French and the English portions. This corrector’s hand
is apparently different from both the other hands which appear in
the manuscript. The best proof however of the trustworthiness of the
text is the fact that hardly any emendations are required either by
the metre or the sense. The difficulties presented by the text of the
Roxburghe edition vanish for the most part on collation of the MS.,
and the number of corrections actually made in this edition is very
trifling.
In a few points of spelling this MS. differs from that of the _Mirour_:
for example, _jeo_ (_ieo_) is almost always used in the _Balades_ for
_je_ (but _ie_ in _Ded._ i. 4), and the _-ai_ termination is preferred
to _-ay_, though both occur; similarly _sui_, _joie_, _li_, _poi_,
where the _Mirour_ has more usually _suy_, _joye_, _ly_, _poy_, &c.
What has been said with reference to the _Mirour_ about the use of
_u_ and _v_, _i_ and _j_, applies also here (except that the scribe
of this MS. prefers _i_ initially to _I_ and sometimes writes _u_
initially), and also in general what is said about division of words,
accents and contractions. The latter however in the present text of
the _Balades_ and _Traitié_ are not indicated by italics. It should be
noted that _que_ in the text stands for a contracted form. The word
is _qe_ in the _Balades_, when it is fully written out, but _quil_,
_tanquil_, &c., are used in the MS., _q̅om_ must evidently be meant for
_quom_, and we find _que_ frequently in the _Mirour_. Such forms as
_auerai_, _deuera_, _liuere_, &c., usually have _er_ abbreviated, but
we also find _saueroit_ (viii. 2), _auera_ (xvi. 3), _aueray_ (xvii.
1), written out fully. Where the termination _-ance_ has a line drawn
over it, as in _suffica̅n̅ce_, _fia̅n̅ce_ (iv. 2), it has been printed
_-aunce_, and so _cha̅n̅con_ (xl. 3); but _aun_ is written out fully.
In general it must be assumed that _-oun_ ending a word represents
_o̅n̅_, but in xxi. 4 we have _noun_ written out fully in both cases.
In the matter of capitals the usage of the MS. is followed for the most
part. The punctuation is of course that of the editor, and it may be
observed that the previous editions have none.
TRAITIÉ.
This work, which is called by its author ‘un traitié selonc les
auctours pour essampler les amantz marietz,’ is a series of eighteen
balades, each composed of three seven-line stanzas without envoy,
except in the case of the last, which has an additional stanza
addressed ‘Al université de tout le monde,’ apologizing for the poet’s
French and serving as a general envoy for the whole collection, though
formally belonging to the last balade. The stanzas rhyme _ab ab bcc_,
a form which is used frequently in the _Cinkante Balades_, as also in
Gower’s English poem addressed to Henry IV and in the stanzas which are
introduced into the eighth book of the _Confessio Amantis_. There are
Latin marginal notes summarizing the contents of each balade, and the
whole is concluded by some lines of Latin. As to the date, if we are
to regard the Latin lines ‘Lex docet auctorum’ as a part of the work
(and they are connected with it in all the copies), we have a tolerably
clear indication in the concluding couplet:
‘Hinc vetus annorum Gower sub spe meritorum
Ordine sponsorum tutus adhibo thorum.’
This was written evidently just before the author’s marriage, which
took place, as we know, near the beginning of the year 1398 (by the
modern reckoning), and therefore it would seem that the _Traitié_
belongs to the year 1397. It is true that one MS. (Bodley 294) omits
this concluding couplet, but in view of the fact that it is contained
not only in all the other copies, but also in the Trin. Coll. Camb.
MS., which seems to be derived from the same origin as Bodl. 294, we
cannot attach much importance to the omission.
In several MSS. the _Traitié_ is found attached to the _Confessio
Amantis_, and with a heading to the effect that the author, having
shown above in English the folly of those who love ‘par amour,’
will now write in French for the world generally a book to instruct
married lovers by example to keep the faith of their espousals. But
though appearing thus as a pendant to the English work in the Fairfax,
Harleian, Bodley, Trin. Coll. Camb., Wadham, Keswick Hall and Wollaton
MSS., it does not necessarily belong to it. It is absent in the great
majority of copies of the _Confessio Amantis_, and in the Fairfax MS.
it appears in a different hand from that of the English poem and was
certainly added later. Moreover the _Traitié_ is found by itself in
the Trentham book, and following the _Vox Clamantis_ in the All Souls
and Glasgow MSS., in both these cases having been added later than the
text of that work and in a different hand. We cannot tell what heading
it had in the Trentham or the All Souls MSS., but probably the same
as that of the Glasgow copy, which makes no reference to any other
work. ‘This is a treatise which John Gower has made in accordance
with the authors, touching the estate of matrimony, whereby married
lovers may instruct themselves by example to hold the faith of their
holy espousals.’ This variation of the heading is certainly due to the
author, and we are entitled to regard the _Traitié_ as in some sense an
independent work, occasionally attached by the author to the _Confessio
Amantis_, but also published separately.
As to the versification, the remarks already made upon that of the
_Balades_ apply also to these poems.
The subject of the work is defined by the title: it is intended to set
forth by argument and example the nature and dignity of the state of
marriage and the evils springing from adultery and incontinence. The
tendency to moralize is naturally much stronger in these poems than in
the _Cinkante Balades_, and they are consequently less poetical. The
most pleasing is perhaps xv, ‘Comunes sont la cronique et l’istoire’:
‘Still is the folly of Lancelot and of Tristram remembered, that others
by it may take warning. All the year round the fair of love is kept,
where Cupid sells or gives away hearts: he makes men drink of one or
the other of his two tuns, the one sweet and the other bitter. Thus
the fortune of love is unstable: the lover is now in joy and now in
torment, but the wise will be warned by others, as a bird avoids the
trap in which he sees another caught, and they will not take delight
in wanton love.’ Many of the examples are from stories already told in
the _Confessio Amantis_, as those of Nectanabus, Hercules and Deianira,
Jason, Clytemnestra, Lucretia, Paulina, Alboin and Rosamond, Tereus,
Valentinian.
TEXT.--Of the _Traitié_ there exist several contemporary copies besides
that of the Trentham MS. It is found appended to the _Confessio
Amantis_ in MS. Fairfax 3, with a heading which closely connects it
with that poem; it occurs among the various Latin pieces which follow
the _Vox Clamantis_ in All Souls MS. 98, and again in much the same
kind of position in the MS. of the _Vox Clamantis_ belonging to the
Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. The first two of these copies are, I have
no doubt, in the same handwriting, that which I call the ‘second hand’
of MS. Fairfax 3, and I am of opinion that the third (that of the
Glasgow MS.) is so also. This question of the handwritings found in
contemporary copies of Gower will be discussed later, when the MSS.
in question are more fully described: suffice it to say at present
that these copies are all good, and they agree very closely both with
one another and with that of the Trentham book, while at the same
time they are independent of one another. They have all been collated
throughout for this edition. Besides these original copies there is one
in Harleian MS. 3869, which appears to be taken from Fairfax 3, and
also in the following MSS., in all of which the _Traitié_ follows the
_Confessio Amantis_: Bodley 294, Trinity College, Cambridge, R. 3. 2,
Wadham Coll. 13, and the Keswick Hall and Wollaton MSS. Of these Bodley
294 has been collated for this edition, and the rest occasionally
referred to.
The MSS. may be tabulated as follows, further description being
reserved for the occasions when they are more fully used:--
F.--FAIRFAX 3, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, containing the
_Confessio Amantis_, the _Traitié pour essampler_, ff. 186 v^o-190, and
several Latin poems.
S.--ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD, 98, containing the _Vox Clamantis_,
_Cronica Tripertita_, a miscellaneous collection of Latin poems, and
the _Traitié_, ff. 132-135.
T.--The TRENTHAM MS., described above.
G.--HUNTERIAN MUSEUM, GLASGOW, T. 2. 17, with nearly the same contents
as S. The _Traitié_ is ff. 124 v^o-128.
H.--HARLEIAN 3869, in the British Museum, agreeing with F.
B.--BODLEY 294, in the Bodleian Library, containing the _Confessio
Amantis_, the _Traitié_, and a few Latin pieces.
Tr.--TRINITY COLL. CAMB. R. 3. 2, with nearly the same contents as B.
W.--WADHAM COLL. OXF. 13, _Confessio Amantis_ and _Traitié_, the latter
imperfect at the end.
K.--In the library of J. H. Gurney, Esq., Keswick Hall, Norwich, with
the same contents as F.
A.--Lord Middleton’s MS., at Wollaton Hall.
The _Traitié_ has been twice printed: first by the Roxburghe Club from
the Trentham MS.[L], and then by Dr. Stengel, in both cases with the
_Cinkante Balades_. The German editor unfortunately took as the basis
of his text the copy in B, which is much inferior in correctness to
those of several other MSS. which were within his reach[M]. He has also
in many cases failed to give a correct representation of the MS. which
he follows, and his collation of other copies is incomplete.
The text of the present edition is based upon that of F, which is at
least as good as any of the three other copies which I have called
contemporary, and has the advantage over two of them that it is
perfect, whereas they have each lost a leaf. These four are so nearly
on the same level of correctness that it matters little on other
grounds which of them we follow. A full collation is here given of T,
S and G, and the readings of B are occasionally mentioned. H and K
are probably dependent on F. Tr. is a moderately good copy, closely
connected with B, but in view of the excellence of the other materials
it is not worth collating; A is a manuscript of the same class, but
rather less correct. Finally the text of W, which is late and full of
blunders, may be set down as worthless.
MIROUR DE L’OMME
OR
SPECULUM HOMINIS
Cy apres comence le livre François q’est apellé Mirour de
l’om_m_e, le quel se divide en x parties, c’est assavoir:
¶ la primere p_ar_tie est coment de la malice du diable pecché
fuit conceu, et de la maldite progenie des vices, qe puis de
lui nasquirent, dont le frele hom_m_e a g_ra_nt p_er_il de noet
et jour par forte guerre toutdys est assailli.
¶ la seconde partie est coment reso_u_n fuit conjoint al
alme, dont les vertus morals por l’om_m_e defendre sont deinz
la conscience par la divine grace inspirez et fraunchement
engendrez.
¶ la tierce partie est por considerer p_ar_entre d’eux l’estat
des hom_m_es s_ur_ t_er_re, especialment de les haltz prelatz,
ovesq_ue_ lour archediaknes, officials, deans et autres, q’ont
la governaunce de l’espiritiele cure, et sount lumere et
essample de bien et d’onest vie.
¶ la quarte partie trete l’estat des Religious, si bien
possessioners come mendiantz, q’ont lessé les vanités de cest
present vie por contempler du ciel les joies perdurables.
¶ la quinte partie trete l’estat du temporiel governement
selonc le corps, le quel app_ar_tient as Emperours, Rois et
autres nobles Princes, qe devont maintenir la loy et doner
justice a lour poeple liege.
¶ la sisme partie trete l’estat de la chivalerie et de les
gentz d’armes, qui devont le droit de seint esglise et la
fraunchise supporter et defendre, et qu’ils ne lesserount lour
p_ro_pre paiis destitut por travaillier en est_ra_nges regions
a cause de veine gloire q’ils ont de la renomée mondeine.
¶ la septisme partie trete l’estat des Ministres de la loy,
c’est assavoir Jugges, Pledours, Viscontes, Baillifs et
Questours, qui sont juretz a foi tenir et poiser le droit p_ar_
tiele egalté q_ue_ covetise ascunepart ne lour destorne.
¶ l’oetisme partie trete l’estat des Marchantz, Artificers et
Vitaillers, qui selonc la droite policie des Citées, si fraude
et tricherie ne se mellont, sont au com_m_un profit honests et
necessaires.
¶ la noefisme partie trete de ceo q_ue_ chescun en sou_n_
endroit blasme le Siecle, et coment le siecle des toutz partz
notablement s’escuse, forsque soulement de l’om_m_e pecchour,
en qui defaute les autres creatures sont sovent a meschief et
mesmes dieux en est auci corussez.
¶ la disme partie trete coment l’om_m_e peccheour lessant ses
mals se doit reformer a dieu et avoir p_ar_dou_n_ p_ar_ l’eyde
de n_ost_re s_eigneur_ Jh_es_u Ch_ri_st et de sa doulce Miere
la Vierge gloriouse.
MIROUR DE L’OMME[N]
[After the Table of Contents four leaves are lost, containing probably
about forty-seven stanzas.]
[Sidenote: =f. 5=]
Escoulte cea, chascun amant,
Qui tant p_er_estes desirant
Du pecché, dont l’amour est fals:
Lessetz la Miere ove tout s’enfant,
Car qui plus est leur attendant,
Au fin avra chapeal de sauls:
Lors est il fols qui ses travauls
Met en amour si desloiauls,
Dont au final nuls est joyant.
Mais quiq’ en voet fuïr les mals, 10
Entende et tiegne mes consals,
Que je luy dirray en avant.[1]
Ce n’est pas chose controvée,
Dont pense affaire ma ditée;
Ainz vuill conter tout voirement
Coment les filles du Pecché
Font que tous sont enamouré
Par leur deceipte vilement.
He, amourouse sote gent,
Si scieussetz le diffinement 20
De ce dont avetz com_m_encé,
Je croy que v_ost_re fol talent
Changeast, qui muetz au p_re_sent
Reson en bestialité.
Car s’un soul hom_m_e avoir porroit
Quanq’ en son coer souhaideroit
Du siecle, pour soy deliter,
Trestout come songe passeroit
En nient, et quant l’en meinz quidoit,
Par grant dolour doit terminer: 30
Et puisq_ue_ l’amour seculer
En nient au fin doit retorner,
Pour ce, si bon vous sembleroit,
Un poy du nient je vuill conter;
Dont quant l’en quide avoir plenier
La main, tout vuide passer doit.
=Au com_m_encement de cest oev_er_e, qui p_ar_lera des vices et
des vertus, dirra p_ri_miereme_n_t come_n_t pecché anientist
les creatures et fuist cause originale dez tous lez mals.=