have been a reminiscence of the _Legend of Good Women_, 696 ff. Chaucer
apparently got it from some such account as that quoted by Vincent of
Beauvais from Hugh of Fleury, ‘in mausoleum odoribus refertum iuxta
suum se collocavit Antonium. Deinde admotis sibi serpentibus morte
sopita est.’ From this to the idea of a grave full of serpents would
not be a difficult step.
2582. _Wo worthe_: cp. l. 1334.
2663. I take ‘lay’ to mean ‘law,’ i. e. the arrangement of his company.
2687. Cp. iv. 2314.
2705 ff. An allusion to some such story as we have in the ‘Lay
d’Aristote’ (Méon et Barbazan, iii. p. 96).
2713. The punctuation follows F.
2714 ff. This refers to the well-known story of Virgil and the daughter
of the Emperor, who left him suspended in a box from her window.
2718. _Sortes._ It is impossible that this can be for ‘Socrates,’ with
whose name Gower was quite well acquainted. Perhaps it stands for the
well-known ‘Sortes Sanctorum’ (Virgilianae, &c.), personified here as a
magician, and even figuring, in company with Virgil and the rest, as an
elderly lover.
2799. Cp. i. 143 ff.
2823. _syhe_, subj., ‘should see.’
2828. _deface_: apparently intransitive, ‘suffer defacement’: cp. iv.
2844.
2833. _Outwith_, ‘outwardly’: so ‘inwith’ often for ‘within,’
‘inwardly.’ Dr. Murray refers me to _Orm._ i. 165, ‘utenn wiþþ,’ and
Hampole, _Prick of Conscience_, 6669, ‘outwith.’ The best MSS. have a
stop after ‘Outwith.’
2904. _A Peire of Bedes_: the usual expression for a rosary: cp. _Cant.
Tales_, Prol. 158 f.,
‘Of smal coral aboute hire arm she bar
A peire of bedes gauded al with grene.’
2926 f. That is the _Speculum Hominis_ and the _Vox Clamantis_.
2931. _pernable._ The best MSS. have this, and it is obviously suitable
to the sense: ‘Do not pursue when the game cannot be caught.’ From
‘prendre’ Gower uses ‘pernons,’ ‘pernetz,’ &c., in the _Mirour_.
2938. At this point begins a new hand in F, and for the rest of this
leaf (f. 184) the text is written over an erasure (ll. 2938-2966). A
note is written opposite l. 2938 for the guidance of the scribe, ‘now
haue &c.’ It may be noted that l. 2940 has a coloured initial A as
for the beginning of a paragraph, and this apparently belongs to the
original writing, whereas in the first recension MSS. the paragraph
begins at l. 2941. The next leaf (f. 185) is a substituted one, and the
text is written still in the same hand.
The orthography of the new hand, in which ll. 2938-3146 are written,
differs in some respects from the standard spelling which we have in
the rest of the manuscript. The chief points of difference are as
follows:
(1) _-id_ (_-yd_) termination almost always in the past participle,
as _enclosid_, _turnyd_, _bewhapid_, _blessid_ (but _sterred_), _iþ_
frequently in the 3rd pers. sing. of verbs, _belongiþ_, _seruiþ_,
_causiþ_ (but _secheþ_, _suieþ_), and _-in_ (_-yn_) in 3rd pers. pl.,
as _takyn_, _sechin_, _hierin_, _schuldyn_ (also _to lokyn_). (2)
_-is_ (_-ys_) in the genit. sing, and in the plural of substantives,
as _londis_, _mannys_, _bedis_, _lawis_, _wordis_ (but _þinges_,
_myghtes_). (3) _-ir_ (_-yr_) termination, as _aftir_, _ouyr_, _wondir_
(but _siker_). (4) _y_ for _i_ (_I_) in many cases, especially as
the pronoun of the first person (once _I_), also _ys_ (sometimes),
_hym_, _wiþynne_. (5) _gh_ for _h_ in such words as _sigh_, _sighte_,
_myghte_, _knyghthode_. (6) _ou_ for _o_ in _nought_, _brought_,
_þoughte_, &c. (7) consonants doubled in _vppon_ and vowels in _maad_
(also _mad_), _book_, _goon_. (8) separation of words, as _in to_, _un
to_, _hym self_, _þer fore_, _þer vpon_, _wher of_, _wiþ outen_.
It may be observed that something of the same tendency is observable
at this point in the Stafford MS., but the differences appear in a
much less marked manner, and chiefly in the terminations _-id_, _-iþ_,
_-is_, _-ir_. S does not give _y_ for _I_, _ys_ for _is_, nor _myghte_,
_sigh_, _nought_, _oughte_, _vppon_, _þer fore_, &c.
2974 (margin). _orat pro statu regni._ This marks exactly the stage
reached in the second of the three versions which we have of Gower’s
account of his own works (p. 480,) ‘vbi pro statu regni compositor
deuocius exorat.’ The first completely excuses and the third utterly
condemns the king, but the second makes no mention of him either
for praise or blame, and that is the line taken in this form of the
epilogue.
3012. _maintenue_, that is, ‘maintenance’ of quarrels by the lords on
behalf of their followers: cp. _Mirour_, 23732 ff., where the same
subject is dealt with.
3081. _beth_: see Introd. p. cxiv: but it is the reading of F only.
3114. _curiosite_, ‘artful workmanship’: cp. Chaucer, _Compleinte of
Venus_, 81.
3147. Here, at the beginning of f. 186, the hand in F changes again and
the rest of the manuscript, including the _Traitié_, the Latin poems
and the author’s account of his books, is written in the hand which we
have in the first leaf of the Prologue.
* * * * *
2955*. _his testament of love._ There is no reason to suppose that this
is a reference to any particular work which Gower may have known that
Chaucer had in hand. It may be a general suggestion that Chaucer should
before his death compose some further work on love, which should serve
as his last testimony (or last will and testament) on the subject, as
the shrift of the present poem was our author’s leave-taking. To assume
that the poem referred to must be the _Legend of Good Women_, and to
argue from this that the _Confessio Amantis_ was written before the
_Legend_ was given to the public, would be very rash. It is not likely
that Usk’s _Testament of Love_ was known to Gower when he wrote this.
2991*. This quality of mercy, for which Richard is especially praised,
seems to have been precisely the point in which he was afterwards
most found wanting by our author, so that he finally earns the title
of ‘crudelissimus rex.’ Matters had not gone so far as this when the
second form of epilogue was substituted, in which these praises were
simply omitted. Gower was then (in the fourteenth year of the reign) in
a state of suspended judgement, expressed by the ‘orat pro statu regni’
of 2974 (margin). The subsequent events, and especially the treatment
of the duke of Gloucester and his friends, finally decided his opinions
and his allegiance, as we may see in the _Cronica Tripertita_.
3054* ff. See Prol. 83* ff.
3102*. _no contretaile_, ‘no retribution’ afterwards: cp. _Traitié_,
vii. 3, ‘De son mesfait porta le contretaille.’
3104*. That is, it tends rather to set us free from evil consequences
than to bring them upon us.
EXPLICIT, 5 f. The following copies of the first recension contain
these last two lines, XERB₂Cath. Of the rest MH₁YGODAr.Ash. are
imperfect at the end, N₂ omits the Explicit altogether, and I have no
note as regards this point about Ad₂P₁Q. Of the seven which I note as
having the ‘Explicit’ in four lines only, three are of the revised
and four of the unrevised group. All copies of the second and third
recensions have the last two lines, except of course those that are
imperfect here.
QUAM CINXERE FRETA, &c. The ‘philosopher’ who was the author of this
epistle is no doubt responsible also for the lines ‘Eneidos, Bucolis,’
&c. (printed in the Roxb. ed. of the _Vox Clamantis_, p. 427), in
which our author is compared to Virgil, the chief difference being
that whereas Virgil had achieved fame in one language only, Gower had
distinguished himself in three. The writer in that case also is ‘quidam
philosophus’ (not ‘quidam Philippus,’ as he is called in the printed
copy), and I suspect that he was the ‘philosophical Strode’ who is
coupled with Gower in the dedication of _Troilus_.
3. ‘tibi’ belongs to the next line, ‘siue satirus Poeta’ being taken
together.
QUIA VNUSQUISQUE, &c. The form here given is found in no manuscript
of the _Confessio Amantis_ except F and H₂ (copied from F), though
some other third recension copies, as W and K, may probably have
contained it. We have it, however, also in two manuscripts of the _Vox
Clamantis_, the All Souls copy and that in the Hunterian Library at
Glasgow.
It should be noted that whereas the first recension manuscripts
regularly contain the Latin account of the author’s three books in
immediate connexion with the _Confessio Amantis_, in the second
recension it is made to follow the _Traitié_, and SΔ, which do not
contain the _Traitié_, omit this also, while in F it comes later still,
following the Latin _Carmen de multiplici viciorum pestilencia_.
Thus the form which we have in F must be regarded as later than
the accompanying text of the _Confessio Amantis_, from which it is
separated in the MS. both by position and handwriting, and the words
‘ab alto corruens in foueam quam fecit finaliter proiectus est’ seem to
indicate that it was written after the deposition of Richard II.
11 f. ‘Speculum hominis’ in all copies of the first recension.
‘Speculum meditantis’ over an erasure in the Glasgow MS. of the _Vox
Clamantis_.
25 ff. Note the omission here (of nine words which are necessary to
the sense) in every first recension copy except J. Similarly below
all except J have ‘finem’ for ‘sentencie,’ obviously from a mistaken
reading of a contraction (‘ſiē’). These must be original errors, only
removed by later revision, the first no doubt due to dropping a line.
IN PRAISE OF PEACE.
The text of this poem is taken from the manuscript at Trentham Hall
belonging to the Duke of Sutherland, which contains also the _Cinkante
Balades_. Of this book a full description has been given in the
Introduction to Gower’s French Works, pp. lxxix ff. The present poem is
the first piece in the book (ff. 5-10 v^o), and is written in the same
hand as the _Balades_ and _Traitié_, a hand which resembles that which
appears in ff. 184, 185 of the Fairfax MS., though I should hesitate to
say positively that it is the same. Evidently, however, the manuscript
is contemporary with the author, and it gives us an excellent text of
the poem. The date of its composition is doubtless the first year of
king Henry IV, for the manuscript which contains it ends with some
Latin lines (added in a different hand), in which the author speaks of
himself as having become blind in the first year of king Henry IV and
having entirely ceased to write in consequence of this.
As a composition it is not without some merit. The style is dignified,
and the author handles his verse in a craftsmanlike manner, combining
a straightforward simplicity of language with a smooth flow of metre
and a well-balanced stanza, the verse being preserved from monotony by
variety of pause and caesura. Some stanzas are really impressive, as
those which begin with ll. 99, 127, 148. The divisions of the poem,
indicated in the MS. by larger coloured initials, have hitherto escaped
the notice of editors.
The poem was printed first in the collected edition of _Chaucer’s
Works_, 1532, commonly called Thynne’s edition (ff. 375 v^{o}-378), and
reprinted from this in the succeeding folio editions of Chaucer (e. g.
1561, f. 330 v^{o}, 1598, f. 330 v^{o}, 1602, f. 314). There was no
attempt made in any of these to ascribe its authorship to Chaucer,
Gower’s name being always given as the author. It has been published
also by J. Wright in his _Political Poems and Songs_ (Rolls’ Series),
the text being taken from the Trentham MS., and it has been included
by Prof. Skeat in his interesting collection of poems which have been
printed with Chaucer’s works (_Chaucerian and other Pieces_, pp.
205-216).
Thynne followed a manuscript which gave a fair text, but one much
inferior to that of the Trentham copy, both in material correctness and
in spelling, e. g.
‘Kyng Salomon whiche had at his askyng
Of god | what thyng him was leuest craue
He chase wysedom vnto gouernyng
Of goddes folke | the whiche he wolde saue
And as he chase it fyl him for to haue
For through his wytte while y^t his reigne last
He gate him peace and rest in to his last’
All the material variations of Thynne are given in the critical notes,
but not his differences of spelling. Wright’s text is not to be trusted
as a reproduction of the Trentham MS. He made several serious mistakes
in copying from or collating it, and he has a good many trifling
inaccuracies of spelling. The following are his worst errors:
l. 3 _om._ this 16 the _for_ thi 71 To stere peace (_following Thynne_)
108 _om._ doth tofalle _for_ to falle 136 than _for_ that 173 But
aftirwards 202 _om._ worthi 211 any _for_ a 246 [good] _seeming to
imply that it is not in the MS._ 263 Which heliples 278 reserved _for_
deserved 289 man _for_ king 292 [up] 306 begete _for_ be gete 356
Resteined _for_ Resceived 363 deleated _for_ debated 382 sese _for_
see. In addition to these rather gross blunders, he has about a hundred
smaller deviations from the manuscript which he professes to follow,
as, for example, 7 for to _for_ forto (_and so afterwards_) 16 him self
_for_ himself (_and so afterwards_) 19 But 27 reqwest _for_ reqweste
39 might _for_ myht 56 shal _for_ schal 83 lefte _for_ left 84 not
_for_ noght 90 charitie _for_ charite 98 Both _for_ Bothe 102 gone
_for_ goon nygth _for_ nyght 110 dothe 112 I 120 Crists 155 fulfilled
172 wille 194 destruied 219 made 254 Ffirst chirche her silf 260 sick
280 life 287 made an end 319 found 355 Which 382 meschiefe and a good
many more. He also omits in a very misleading manner the last lines of
the rubric which follows the poem, ‘Et nunc sequitur epistola’ &c., as
well as the ‘epistle’ itself, ‘Rex celi deus’; and he makes it appear
that the lines ‘Henrici quarti’ &c. follow at once, whereas they are at
the end of the MS. and in a different hand.
I think it worth while to specify these instances because Wright’s
edition has been accepted by Prof. Skeat as an accurate reproduction of
a manuscript which is not generally accessible, and if no notice were
taken here of the readings given by Wright, it would still remain in
doubt whether he or I represented the text more correctly. Especially
in the cases where Wright has bracketed a word as not occurring in the
manuscript, it might be supposed that his positive testimony was to be
preferred.
Prof. Skeat has based his text on Thynne, making such alterations of
spelling as seemed to him suitable, and giving the variants of Wright’s
edition as those of the Trentham MS. Misled by Wright, he has accepted
in his text the readings ‘reserved’ in l. 278, and ‘cese’ in l. 382.
The text given by the Trentham MS. is apparently quite free from
material error, except as regards the word erased in l. 71, and the
points of spelling which require correction are very few in number.
The orthography is not quite in accordance with the standard spelling
of the Fairfax and Stafford MSS., and in some respects resembles that
of the third hand of F, on which we have commented in the note on
_Confessio Amantis_, viii. 2938. Here however there is only a slight
tendency to use _i_ for _e_ in weak terminations. We have _distourbid_
153, _vndefendid_: _amendid_ 223 f., _handlid_ 321, _soeffrin_ 222,
_folwiþ_ 23, _goddis_ 32, 84, _mannys_ 237, but elsewhere almost always
the usual forms, as _affermed_, _cared_, _gouerned_, _aken_, _ledeþ_,
_londes_, _mannes_. On the other hand the _-ir_ termination is used
almost regularly, as _vndir_, _wondir_, _aftir_, _modir_ (but _vnder_
286), and there is a tendency also to substitute _i_ for _e_ in other
places also, as _first_, _chirche_ (also _ferst_, _cherche_), _wirche_,
_dide_ (348), _proprite_, but _here_ for _hire_ 108, 329, cp. 254. For
_I_ (pers. pronoun) we have regularly _y_; _gh_ usually for _h_ in such
words as _right_, _myghti_, _knyght_, _light_, _highe_, _stigh_, but
also _riht_, _rihtwisnesse_, _knyht_; _vppon_ for _vpon_, _schulde_ but
also _scholde_. In addition to these points we may note the dropping
of _-e_ several times in _euer_, _neuer_, which hardly ever occurs in
the Fairfax MS., and also in _heuen_ 79, but we have also _euere_,
_neuere_, _heuene_. The _-e_ of the weak preterite form is dropped
before a vowel in _myht_ 39, _behight_ 41, _had_ 42, _mad_ 103, 345:
_-e_ is inserted in some imperatives, as _Leie_ 122, _sette_ 124,
_Lete_ 129, _putte_ 130, _þenke_ 162, _Beholde_ 276 (but _let_ 158,
_Kep_ 367, 384, _draugh_ 384). As regards the use of _þ_ and _ȝ_ the
Trentham MS. agrees with F.
There is no title in the manuscript, and Prof. Skeat calls the poem
‘The Praise of Peace,’ a title suggested by Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson.
I have adopted a modification of this, ‘To King Henry the Fourth in
Praise of Peace,’ expressing also the substance of that given by Thynne.
8 ff. The threefold claim of Henry IV is given in this stanza, as in
Chaucer’s well-known Envoy, but the ‘conquest’ is here represented as a
divine sanction.
50. _a place_, ‘into place’: cp. _Conf. Amantis_, v. 735, ‘Hou suche
goddes come aplace.’
53. _in manere_, ‘in due measure’: cp. _Conf. Amantis_, vii. 2132, 4344.
55. _what aftirward betide_, ‘whatever may happen afterwards.’
71. The first word of the line is erased in the manuscript, only the
initial S being left, with a space for five or six letters after it.
The word which is suggested in the text is perhaps as likely as any
other: for the form of it cp. ‘Maintene,’ l. 385. Thynne’s reading, ‘To
stere peace,’ looks like a lame attempt on the part of a copyist to
fill the gap.
78 ff. _Conf. Amantis_, iii. 2265 ff.
89. I write regularly ‘evere’ ‘nevere’ in accordance with Gower’s
practice: so 126, 127, 148, 241, 301, 350, 365.
90. _alle charite._ The MS. has ‘al charite,’ but the metre and the
grammatical usage both require ‘alle,’ as in l. 293 and elsewhere.
94. _wisemennes_: cp. ‘wisemen,’ _Conf. Amantis_, vii. 1792.
106 ff. Cp. _Conf. Amantis_, iii. 2273 ff.
113. _Conf. Amantis_, iii. 2294 f.
115. Cp. _Conf. Amantis_, Prol. 444.
121. ‘Whose faith thou hast partly to guide.’
122. I correct the imperative form ‘Leie,’ and also ‘sette’ 124, ‘Lete’
129, ‘putte’ 130, ‘thenke’ 162, ‘Beholde’ 276, as contrary to Gower’s
practice and in several cases disturbing the metre.
150. Strictly speaking, we ought to have the subjunctive, ‘undirstode,’
but the rhyme will not allow.
155. So Prol. 88 f.,
‘The hyhe god him hath proclamed
Ful of knyhthode and alle grace.’
157 f. ‘Peace with honour’ was a favourite thought of Gower’s, ‘pax et
honor’ in the _Vox Clamantis_, vii. 1415.
174. ‘on earth peace, goodwill towards men.’
177 ff. ‘Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.’
204. _waited_, ‘attended to.’
235. _devised_, ‘divided’: cp. _Conf. Amantis_, ii. 3264.
236 ff. ‘nevertheless the law stands so reasonably established by man’s
wit, that they can stand firm without that’ (i. e. without the help of
the Church).
266. Cp. Prol. 795, ‘The comun ryht hath no felawe,’ that is, none to
take its part.
278 f. _deserved To him._ The reading is right. It means ‘earned by
service rendered to him’: cp. _Conf. Amantis_, iv. 3577, ‘Thogh I no
deth to the deserve.’
281 ff. For the nine worthies see Caxton’s Preface to Mallory’s _Morte
d’Arthur_.
295 f. The question of winning a ‘chase’ at tennis is not one which
is decided at once by the stroke that is made, but depends on later
developments.
330 f. Cp. _Conf. Amantis_, vii. 3161*.
337 ff. _Conf. Amantis_, ii. 3187 ff.
345. _at al_, ‘altogether.’
354. _the lieve of lothe_, ‘they who were now loved but had before been
hated’ (by God).
356. I read ‘weren’ for the metre. However the case may be with
Chaucer, there is no instance elsewhere in Gower of elision prevented
by caesura. The cases that have been quoted are all founded on
misreadings.
365 f. Cp. _Conf. Amantis_, viii. 2988*.
379. _of pes_, ‘with regard to peace.’
382. _see the werre_, that is, ‘look to the war’: cp. ll. 137, 144, 281
ff. The reading ‘sese’ was invented by Wright.
REX CELI DEUS, &c. This piece is to a great extent an adaptation of the
original version of _Vox Clamantis_, vi. cap. 18, as it stands in the
Digby MS. The first eight lines are identically the same. Then follows
in the _Vox Clamantis_,
‘Ipse meum iuuenem conseruet supplico Regem,’ &c.
Of the remainder, as we have it here, ll. 25 f., 31-33, 36-39, 41 f.,
45-48 correspond with slight variations to lines in the _Vox Clamantis_
version, but the arrangement of them is different.
10. _Te que tuum regnum_, ‘Thee and thy kingdom,’ a quite common
position of ‘que’ in Gower’s Latin. So below, ll. 49, 50, 53, and often
elsewhere.
35. So also _Conf. Amantis_, vii, _after_ l. 1984.
GLOSSARY
AND
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES
The general resemblance between Gower and Chaucer in the matter of
language makes a comparison of their English vocabularies almost a
matter of course. Chaucer’s word-list is naturally much more extensive
than Gower’s, not only on account of the superior genius of the writer,
but also because of the greater extent and variety of his work,
Gower’s English work being less than half of Chaucer’s in amount, and
consisting of verse only, while nearly a fourth part of Chaucer’s is
prose. We find, however, that Gower has more than six hundred words
which are not used by Chaucer. Most of these are comparatively new
formations from French or Latin, but there is also among them a fair
sprinkling of old-established English words, some of which no doubt
were falling into disuse. Such words are, for example: adryh, aghte,
anele, arecche, areche, arere _v._, beȝete, bysne, eldemoder, enderday,
ferke, forȝifte, forlie, forworþe, frede, ȝeme, gladschipe, goodschipe,
grede (gradde), griþ, heveneriche, kingesriche, lere (= loss), lich
(= corpse), metrede, miele, mone (3), mull, orf, orped, rowe _v._ (=
dawn), sawht, skiere, spire _v._, spousebreche, þarmes, tome _s._,
tote, tyh (_pret._), tyt _adv._, wow, yhte.
Of the rest the following (among others) are words for which no
authority earlier than Gower is cited in the _New English Dictionary_
(A-I): those for which Gower is the sole authority are printed in
italics.
abeche, _ablaste_, abord, abroche _adv._, accidence, _agrope_,
altemetrie, _apostazied_, apparantie, approbacion, artificier,
aspirement, assignement, _assobre_, assote _v._, astraied, attempte
_v._, _attitled_, avant _adv._, _avantance_, babe, baldemoine, balke
_v._, baske, bass _adj._ (‘base’), bedawe, bederke, befole (‘befool’),
belwinge, _bethrowe_, _bewympled_, bienvenue, bombard, brothell,
_brygantaille_, calculacion, _caliphe_, carte (= writing), chacable,
chace (at tennis), chance _v._, chevance, circumference, client,
_coise_, cokard, cokerie (‘cookery’), compense, conclave, concordable,
congelacion, congruite, contempt, contourbe, courbe _s._ and _adj._,
decas, deificacion, delaiement, delate (= dilate), depos _s._,
_desclos_ _adj._, desclose _v._, desobeie, desobeissance, dispers,
distillacion, _doubtif_, drunkeschipe, _duistre_, effeminat _adj._,
eloquent, enbrouderie (‘embroidery’), enclin, encluyed, encourtined,
enfile, enheritance, _ensamplerie_, entendable, entendance, entendant,
epitaphe, esmaie, espeir, espleit (‘exploit’), exalacion, excessif,
excitacioun, _excusement_, expectant, faie _adj._, fieverous,
fixacioun, flacke, folhaste, folhastif, forcacche, forge _s._,
_forstormed_, forsueie, forthrere (= furtherer), froise, gaignage,
gamme, genitals, godward, gule, hepe (= hook), heraldie, hovedance,
injustice, interruption, intersticion, inthronize.
Of these nearly half are used in the English of the present day.
For the remainder of the alphabet I content myself with calling
attention to the following, without venturing on any statement about
their earlier use: