Chapter 10

‘Si ne semble pas qui la voitQu’ele puisse grant fès porter,’

‘Si ne semble pas qui la voit

Qu’ele puisse grant fès porter,’

and these of Frère Angier,

‘Ses merites et ses vertuz,Ses jeünes, ses oreisons,.......Et sa volontaire poverteOd trestote s’autre desserte,’

‘Ses merites et ses vertuz,

Ses jeünes, ses oreisons,

.......

Et sa volontaire poverte

Od trestote s’autre desserte,’

are quite in accordance with the rules of French verse, but very few such lines will be found in theMirour. Some there are, no doubt, as 3327:

‘D’envie entre la laie gent,’

or 3645:

‘Que nuls en poet estre garny.’

So also 2925, 3069, 4310 &c., but they are exceptional and attract our notice when they occur. An illustration of the difference between the usage of our author and that of the Continent is afforded by the manner in which he quotes from Hélinand’sVers de la Mort. The text as given in theHist. Litt. de la France, xviii. p. 88, is as follows (with correction of the false reading ‘cuevre’):

‘Tex me couve dessous ses dras,Qui cuide estre tous fors et sains.’

‘Tex me couve dessous ses dras,

Qui cuide estre tous fors et sains.’

Gower has it

‘Car tiel me couve soubz ses dras,Q’assetz quide estre fortz et seins.’

‘Car tiel me couve soubz ses dras,

Q’assetz quide estre fortz et seins.’

He may have found this reading in the original, of which there are several variants, but the comparison will none the less illustrate the difference of the rhythms.

Subject-matter and Style.—The scheme of theSpeculum Hominisis, as before stated, of a very ambitious character. It is intended to cover the whole field of man’s religious and moral nature, to set forth the purposes of Providence in dealing with him, the various degrees of human society and the faults chargeable to each class of men, and finally the method whichshould be followed by man in order to reconcile himself with the God whom he has offended by his sin. This is evidently one of those all-comprehending plans to which nothing comes amiss; the whole miscellany of the author’s ideas and knowledge, whether derived from books or from life, might be poured into it and yet fail to fill it up. Nevertheless the work is not an undigested mass: it has a certain unity of its own,—indeed in regard to connexion of parts it is superior to most medieval works of the kind. The author has at least thought out his plan, and he carries it through to the end in a laboriously conscientious manner. M. Jusserand in hisLiterary History of the English Peopleconjectured reasonably enough that if this work should ever be discovered, it would prove to be one of those tirades on the vices of the age which in French were known as ‘bibles.’ It is this and much more than this. In fact it combines the three principal species of moral compositions all in one framework,—the manual of vices and virtues, the attack on the evils of existing society from the highest place downwards, and finally the versified summary of Scripture history and legend, introduced here with a view to the exaltation and praise of the Virgin. In its first division, which extends over nearly two-thirds of the whole, our author’s work somewhat resembles those of Frère Lorenz, William of Waddington and other writers, who compiled books intended to be of practical use to persons preparing for confession. For those who are in the habit of constant and minute self-examination it is necessary that there should be a distinct classification of the forms of error to which they may be supposed to be liable, and sins must be arranged under headings which will help the memory to recall them and to run over them rapidly. The classification which is based upon the seven mortal sins is both convenient and rational, and such books as theSomme des Vices et des Vertusand theManuel des Pechiez, with the English translations or adaptations of them, were composed for practical purposes. While resembling these in some respects, our author’s work is not exactly of the same character. Their object is devotional, and form is sacrificed to utility. This is obvious in the case of the first-named book, the original, as is well known, of theAyenbite of Inwytand of Chaucer’sPersones Tale, and it is also true of theManuel des Pechiez, though that is written in verseand has stories intermingled with the moral rules by way of illustration. The author of this work states his purpose at once on setting forth:

‘La vertu del seint espiritNus seit eidant en cest escrit,A vus les choses ben mustrer,Dunt hom se deit confesser,E ausi en la quele manere.’

‘La vertu del seint espirit

Nus seit eidant en cest escrit,

A vus les choses ben mustrer,

Dunt hom se deit confesser,

E ausi en la quele manere.’

Upon which he proceeds to enumerate the various subjects of which he thinks it useful to treat, which are connected by no tie except that of practical convenience: ‘First we shall declare the true faith, which is the foundation of our law.... Next we shall place the commandments, which every one ought to keep; then the seven mortal sins, whence spring so many evils.... Then you will find, if you please, the seven sacraments of the Church, then a sermon, and finally a book on confession, which will be suitable for every one.’

On the other hand theMirour de l’ommeis a literary production, or at least aspires to that character, and as such it has more regularity of form, more ornaments of style, and more display of reading. The division and classification in this first part, which treats of vices and of virtues, have a symmetrical uniformity; instead of enumerating or endeavouring to enumerate all the subdivisions under each head, all the numerous and irregularly growing branches and twigs which spring from each stem, the author confines himself to those that suit his plan, and constructs his whole edifice on a perfectly regular system. The work is in fact so far not a manual of devotion, but rather a religious allegory. The second part, which is ingeniously brought into connexion with the same general plan, resembles, as has been said, such compositions as theBible Guiot de Provins, except that it is very much longer and goes into far more elaborate detail on the various classes of society and their distinctive errors. Here the author speaks more from his own observation and less from books than in the earlier part of his poem, and consequently this division is more original and interesting. Many parts of it will serve usefully to confirm the testimony of other writers, and from some the careful student of manners will be able to glean new facts. The last 2,500 lines, a mere trifle compared with the bulk of the whole, contain a Life of the Virgin, as the principal mediator between Godand man, and the book ends (at least as we have it) with not unpoetical praises and prayers addressed to her.

It remains to be seen how the whole is pieced together.

Sin, we are told, is the cause of all evils, and brought about first the fall of Lucifer and of his following from Heaven, and then the expulsion of Adam from Paradise. In a certain sense Sin existed before all created things, being in fact that void or chaos which preceded creation, but also she was a daughter conceived by the Devil, who upon her engendered Death (1-216). Death and Sin then intermarrying produced the seven deadly Vices, whose names are enumerated, and the Devil, delighted by his progeny, sent Sin and her seven daughters to gain over the World to his side, and then called a conference with a view to defeating the designs of Providence for the salvation of Man, and of consummating the ruin which had already been in part effected (217-396). They resolved to send Temptation as a messenger to Man, and invite him to meet the Devil and his council, who would propose to him something from which he would get great advantage. He came, but before his coming Death had been cunningly hidden away in an inner chamber, so that Man might not see him and be dismayed. The Devil, Sin and the World successively addressed him with their promises, and Temptation, the envoy, added his persuasion, so that at length the Flesh of Man consented to be ruled by their counsels. The Soul, however, rejected them and vehemently expostulated with the Flesh, who was thus resolved to follow a course which would in the end ruin them both (397-612). The Flesh wavered and was in part dismayed, but was unable altogether to give up the promised delights; upon which the Soul informed her of Death, who had been treacherously concealed from her view, and to counteract the renewed enticements of Sin called in Reason and Fear to convince the Flesh of her folly. Reason was overcome in argument by Temptation, but Fear took the Flesh by the hand and led her to the place where Death lay concealed. The Flesh trembled at sight of this horrid creature, and Conscience led her back to Reason, who brought her into agreement with the Soul, and thus for the time the designs of the Devil and of Sin were frustrated (613-756). The Devil demanded that Sin should devise some remedy, and she consulted with the World, who proposed marriage between himself and the seven daughters of Sin, in order that from them offspring might beproduced by means of which Man might the more readily be overcome. The marriage was arranged and the daughters of Sin went in procession to their wedding. Each in turn was taken in marriage by the World, and of them the first was Pride (757-1056). By her he had five daughters, each of whom is described at length, namely Hypocrisy, Vainglory, Arrogance, Boasting and Disobedience, and lastly comes the description of Pride herself (1057-2616). The same order is observed with regard to the rest. The daughters of Envy are Detraction, Sorrow for others’ Joy, Joy for others’ Grief, Supplanting and Treachery (Fals semblant) (2617-3852). Anger has for her daughters Melancholy, Contention, Hatred, Strife, and Homicide (3853-5124). Sloth produces Somnolence, Laziness (or Pusillanimity), Slackness, Idleness, Negligence (5125-6180). Avarice bears Covetousness, Rapine, Usury, Simony and Niggardy (6181-7704). Gluttony’s daughters are Voracity, Delicacy, Drunkenness, Superfluity, Prodigality (7705-8616). Finally, Lechery is the mother of Fornication, Rape, Adultery, Incest and Vain-delight (8617-9720). The Devil assembled all the progeny of the Vices and demanded the fulfilment of the promise made by the World, that Man should be made subject to him, and they all together made such a violent attack upon Man, that he surrendered himself to their guidance and came to be completely in the power of Sin, whose evil influence is described (9721-10032). Reason and Conscience prayed to God for assistance against the Vices and their progeny, and God gave seven Virtues, the contraries of the seven Vices, in marriage to Reason, in order that thence offspring might be born which might contend with that of the Vices (10033-10176). Each of these, as may readily be supposed, had five daughters. Humility, who is the natural enemy of Pride, produced Devotion to set against Hypocrisy, Fear against Vainglory, Discretion against Arrogance, Modesty against Boasting, and Obedience against Disobedience, and after the description of all these in succession follows that of Humility herself (10177-12612). So of the rest; the five daughters of Charity, namely Praise, Congratulation, Compassion, Help and Goodwill, are opposed each in her turn to the daughters of Envy, as Charity is to Envy herself (12613-13380). Patience, the opponent of Anger, has for her daughters Good-temper, Gentleness, Affection, Agreement and Mercy (13381-14100). Prowess, the opposite of Sloth, is the mother ofWatchfulness, Magnanimity, Resolution, Activity and Learning (or Knowledge), to the description of which last is added an exhortation to self-knowledge and confession of sins (14101-15180). Generosity, the contrary of Avarice, produces Justice, Liberality, Alms-giving, Largess and Holy-purpose, this fifth daughter being the opposite of Simony, the fourth daughter of Avarice, as Largess is of Niggardy, the fifth (15181-16212). Measure, the contrary of Gluttony, is the mother of Dieting, Abstinence, Nourishment, Sobriety, Moderation (16213-16572). Chastity, the enemy of Lechery, has for her daughters Good-care (against Fornication), Virginity, Matrimony, Continence and Hard-life (16573-18372).

Let us now, says our author, observe the issue of this strife for the conquest of Man, in which the Flesh inclines to the side of the Vices, and the Soul to that of Reason and the Virtues. We must examine the whole of human society, from the Court of Rome downwards, to decide which has gained the victory up to this time, and for my part I declare that Sin is the strongest power in this world and directs all things after her will and pleasure (18373-18420). Every estate of Man, therefore, is passed in review and condemned—the Pope and the Cardinals (18421-19056), the Bishops (19057-20088), the lower dignitaries of the Church, Archdeacons and others (20089-20208), the parish priests, the chantry priests, and those preparing for the priesthood (20209-20832), the members of religious orders, first the monks and then the friars (20833-21780), the secular rulers of the world, Emperors and Kings (21781-23208), great lords (23209-23592), knights and men of arms (23593-24180), the men of the law, pleaders and judges (24181-24816), the sheriffs, reeves and jurymen (24817-25176), the class of merchants and traders (25177-25500), that of artificers (25501-25980), victuallers (25981-26424), labourers (26425-26520). In short, all estates have become corrupted; whether the lay people are more to blame for it or the priests the author will not say, but all agree in throwing the blame on the world (or the age) and in excusing themselves (26521-26604). He addresses the world and asks whence comes all the evil of which he complains. Is it from earth, water, air or fire? No, all these are good in themselves. Is it from the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, stars, planet or comet? No, for the prayer of a good man can overcome all their influences. Is it from plants, birds, or beasts? But these all follow nature and do good.From what then is this evil? It is surely from that creature to whom God has given reason and submitted all things on earth, but who transgresses against God and does not follow the rules of reason. It is from Man that all the evils of the age arise, and we read in prophecy that for the sin of Man all the world, with the creatures which it contains, shall be troubled. Man is a microcosm, an abridgement of the world, and it is no wonder that all the elements should be disturbed when he transgresses (26605-26964). On the other hand the good and just man can command the elements and the powers of the material world, as Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still and as the saints have done at all times by miracles, and he is victorious at last even over Death, and attains to immortality by the grace of God (26965-27120). Surely, then, every man ought to desire to repent of his sin and to turn to God, that so the world may be amended and we may inherit eternal life. The author confesses himself to be as great a sinner as any man; but hope is his shield by the aid and mercy of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding that he has so idly wasted his life and comes so late to repentance (27121-27360). But how can he escape from his sins, how can he dare to pray, with what can he come before his God? Only by the help of his Lady of Pity, Mary, maid and mother, who will intercede for him if he can obtain her favour. Therefore he desires, before finishing his task, to tell of her conception and birth, her life and her death (27361-27480). Upon this follows the tale of the Nativity of the Virgin, as we find it (for example) in theLegenda Aurea, her childhood and espousal, the Nativity of Jesus Christ and the joys of our Lady, the Circumcision and the Purification, the baptism of our Lord, his miracles and his passion, the Resurrection, the sorrows of our Lady and her joys, the Ascension and the descent of the Spirit, the life of the Virgin Mary with St. John, her death, burial, and assumption; and the poet concludes his narrative with a prayer to both Son and Mother that they will have mercy upon his pain because of the pains which they themselves suffered, and give him that joy in which they now rejoice. Especially he is bound to celebrate the praise of his Lady, who is so gentle and fair and so near to God who redeemed us (27481-29904). He begins therefore to tell first of the names by which she is called, and with the praises of her, no doubt, he ended his book, which, as we have it, breaks off at l. 29945.

This, it will be seen, is a literary work with due connexion of parts, and not a mere string of sermons. At the same time it must be said that the descriptions of vices and virtues are of such inordinate length that the effect of unity which should be produced by a well-planned design is almost completely lost, and the book becomes very tiresome to read. We are wearied also by the accumulation of texts and authorities and by the unqualified character of the moral judgements. The maxim in l. 25225,

‘Les bons sont bons, les mals sont mals,’

is thoroughly characteristic of Gower, and on the strength of it he holds a kind of perpetual Last Judgement, in which he is always engaged in separating the sheep from the goats and dealing out to the latter their doom of eternal fire. The sentence sounds like a truism, but it contains in fact one of the grossest of fallacies. In short, our author has little sense of proportion and no dramatic powers.

As regards the invention of his allegory he seems to be to some extent original. There is nothing, so far as I know, to which we can point as its source, and such as it is, he is apparently entitled to the credit of having conceived it. The materials, no doubt, were ready to his hand. Allegory was entirely in the taste of the fourteenth century, dominated as it was by the influence of theRoman de la Rose, from which several of Gower’s personifications are taken. TheMariage des Sept Artswas a work of this period, and the marriage of the Deadly Sins was not by any means a new idea. For example in MS. Fairfax 24 (Bodleian Libr.) there is a part of a French poem ‘de Maritagio nouem filiarum diaboli,’ which begins,

‘Li deable se vout marier,Mauveisté prist a sa moiller:.......De ceste ix filles engendraEt diversement les marya,’ &c.

‘Li deable se vout marier,

Mauveisté prist a sa moiller:

.......

De ceste ix filles engendra

Et diversement les marya,’ &c.

And no doubt other pieces of a similar kind exist.

The same is true as regards the other parts of the book, as has been already pointed out; the combination alone is original.

The style is uniformly respectable, but as a rule very monotonous. Occasionally the tedium is relieved by a story, butit is not generally told in much detail, and for the most part the reader has to toil through the desert with little assistance. It must not be supposed, however, that the work is quite without poetical merit. Every now and then by some touch of description the author betrays himself as the graceful poet of theBalades, his better part being crushed under mountains of morality and piles of deadly learning, but surviving nevertheless. For example, the priest who neglects his early morning service is reminded of the example of the lark, who rising very early mounts circling upward and pours forth a service of praise to God from her little throat:

‘Car que l’en doit sanz nul destourLoenge rendre au creatourEssample avons de l’alouette,Que bien matin de tour en tourMonte, et de dieu volant entourLes laudes chante en sa gorgette.’ (5635 ff.)

‘Car que l’en doit sanz nul destour

Loenge rendre au creatour

Essample avons de l’alouette,

Que bien matin de tour en tour

Monte, et de dieu volant entour

Les laudes chante en sa gorgette.’ (5635 ff.)

Again, Praise is like the bee which flies over the meadows in the sunshine, gathering that which is sweet and fragrant, but avoiding all evil odours (12853 ff.). The robe of Conscience is like a cloud with ever-changing hues (10114 ff.). Devotion is like the sea-shell which opens to the dew of heaven and thus conceives the fair white pearl; not an original idea, but gracefully expressed:

‘Si en resçoit le douls rosé,Que chiet du ciel tout en celée,Dont puis deinz soi ad engendréLa margarite blanche et fine;Ensi Devocioun en déeConceipt, s’elle est continué,La Contemplacioun divine.’ (10818 ff.)

‘Si en resçoit le douls rosé,

Que chiet du ciel tout en celée,

Dont puis deinz soi ad engendré

La margarite blanche et fine;

Ensi Devocioun en dée

Conceipt, s’elle est continué,

La Contemplacioun divine.’ (10818 ff.)

The lines in which our author describes the life of the beggar show that, though he disapproves, he has a real understanding of the delights of vagabondage, with its enjoyment of the open-air life, the sunshine, the woods, and the laziness:

‘Car mieulx amont la soule mieOve l’aise q’est appartenant,C’est du solail q’est eschaulfant,Et du sachel acostoiant,Et du buisson l’erbergerie,Que labourer pour leur vivant’ &c. (5801 ff.)

‘Car mieulx amont la soule mie

Ove l’aise q’est appartenant,

C’est du solail q’est eschaulfant,

Et du sachel acostoiant,

Et du buisson l’erbergerie,

Que labourer pour leur vivant’ &c. (5801 ff.)

Other descriptions also have merit, as for example that of theprocession of the Vices to their wedding, each being arrayed and mounted characteristically (841 ff.), a scene which it is interesting to compare with the somewhat similar passage of Spenser,Faery Queene, i. 4, that of Murder rocked in her cradle by the Devil and fed with milk of death (4795), and that of Fortune smiling on her friends and frowning on her enemies (22081 ff.).

Contemplation is described as one who loves solitude and withdraws herself from the sight, but it is not that she may be quite alone: she is like the maiden who in a solitary place awaits her lover, by whose coming she is to have joy in secret (10597 ff.). The truly religious man, already dead in spirit to this world, desires the death of the body ‘more than the mariner longs for his safe port, more than the labourer desires his wage, the husbandman his harvest, or the vine-dresser his vintage, more than the prisoner longs for his ransoming and deliverance, or the pilgrim who has travelled far desires his home-coming’ (10645 ff.). Such passages as these show both imagination and the power of literary expression, and the stanzas which describe the agony of the Saviour are not wholly unworthy of their high subject:

‘Par ce q’il ot le corps humeinEt vist la mort devant la mein,Tant durement il s’effroia,Du quoy parmy le tendre greinDu char les gouttes trestout pleinDu sanc et eaue alors sua;Si dist: O piere, entendes ça,Fai que la mort me passera,Car tu sur tout es soverein;Et nepourqant je vuil celaQue vous vuilletz que fait serra,Car je me tiens a toy certein.’ (28669 ff.)

‘Par ce q’il ot le corps humein

Et vist la mort devant la mein,

Tant durement il s’effroia,

Du quoy parmy le tendre grein

Du char les gouttes trestout plein

Du sanc et eaue alors sua;

Si dist: O piere, entendes ça,

Fai que la mort me passera,

Car tu sur tout es soverein;

Et nepourqant je vuil cela

Que vous vuilletz que fait serra,

Car je me tiens a toy certein.’ (28669 ff.)

The man who wrote this not only showed some idea of the dignified handling of a tragic theme, but also had considerable mastery over the instruments that he used; and in fact the technical skill with which the stanza is used is often remarkable. There is sometimes a completeness and finish about it which takes us by surprise. The directions which our author gives us for a due confession of our sins are not exactly poetical, but the manner in which all the various points ofQuomodoare wrapped up in a stanza, and rounded off at the end of it (14869 ff.) is decidedly neat; and the same may be said of thereference to the lives of the holy fathers, as illustrating the nature of ‘Aspre vie’:

‘Qui list les vies des saintz pieres,Oïr y puet maintes manieresDe la nature d’Aspre vie:Les uns souleins en les rocheres,Les uns en cloistre ove lour confreres,Chascun fist bien de sa partie;Cil plourt, cist preche, cil dieu prie,Cist june et veille, et cil chastieSon corps du froid et des miseres,Cist laist sa terre et manantie,Cil laist sa femme et progenie,Eiant sur tout leur almes cheres.’ (18253 ff.)

‘Qui list les vies des saintz pieres,

Oïr y puet maintes manieres

De la nature d’Aspre vie:

Les uns souleins en les rocheres,

Les uns en cloistre ove lour confreres,

Chascun fist bien de sa partie;

Cil plourt, cist preche, cil dieu prie,

Cist june et veille, et cil chastie

Son corps du froid et des miseres,

Cist laist sa terre et manantie,

Cil laist sa femme et progenie,

Eiant sur tout leur almes cheres.’ (18253 ff.)

In fact, he is a poet in a different sense altogether from his predecessors, superior to former Anglo-Norman writers both in imagination and in technical skill; but at the same time he is hopelessly unreadable, so far as this book as a whole is concerned, because, having been seized by the fatal desire to do good in his generation, ‘villicacionis sue racionem, dum tempus instat, ... alleuiare cupiens,’ as he himself expresses it, he deliberately determined to smother those gifts which had been employed in the service of folly, and to become a preacher instead of a poet. Happily, as time went on, he saw reason to modify his views in this respect (as he tells us plainly in theConfessio Amantis), and he became a poet again; but meanwhile he remains a preacher, and not a very good one after all.

Quotations.—One of the characteristic features of theMirouris the immense number of quotations. This citation of authorities is of course a characteristic of medieval morality, and appears in some books, as in theLiber Consolationisand 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 areJob,Psalms,Proverbs,Isaiah,Jeremiah, andEcclesiasticus, the proverbial morality of this last bookbeing especially congenial to him. The quotations are sometimes inexact, and occasionally assigned to the wrong book; also the book ofEcclesiasticus, 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 theDe OfficiisandDe Amicitia, but I doubt whether he had read either of these books. In theConfessio Amantishe 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 theConfessio Amantiswas certainly well acquainted at least with theMetamorphosesand theHeroides. 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 theDisciplina 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 theElegies. The quotation from Ptolemy is, as usual, from the maxims often prefixed in manuscripts to theAlmagest. Other writers referred to are Chrysostom, Cyprian, Remigius, Albertus Magnus, Hélinand, Haymo, and Gilbert. We know from a passage in theConfessio Amantisthat Gower had read some of the works of Albertus, and we may assume as probable that he knew Gilbert’sOpusculum de Virginitate, for his reference is rather to the treatise generally than to any particular passage of it.

He was acquainted, no doubt, with theLegenda Aureaor some similar collection, and he seems to refer also to theVitae 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 theMirour, 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 greverPetite 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 valsRenaist et croist, moert ly chivals.’5668. ‘Cil qui ne voet quant ad pooirN’el porra puis qant ad voloir.’5811. ‘Dieus aide a la charette.’6660. ‘Poverte parte compaignie.’7138. ‘Mais l’en dist, qui quiert escorchéeLe pell du chat, dont soit furrée,Luy fault aucune chose dire.’7237. ‘Comme cil qui chat achateraEl 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 perduEt 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 dantureToute sa vie apres dura.’12724. ‘Escript auci j’en truis lisant,Au vois commune est acordantLa vois de dieu.’13116. ‘du mal nage malvois port.’13489. ‘C’est un proverbe de la gent,Cil qui plus souffre bonnementPlus valt.’14440.‘l’en dist en essamplerQe 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 communementBon fin du bon commencement.’16511.‘vendreSon 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 sagementEt 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 hardisS’encline.’23413. ‘Trop est l’oisel de mesprisureQ’au son ny propre fait lesure.’24230. ‘L’un covoitous et l’autre falsIls 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 maisnieConoistre.’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 avientApres grant joye grant dolour.’

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 theMirour. 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 theMiroursome 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 orworse; 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 theConfessio 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 ofmywife’; 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 theMirour, 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 toexclude 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 theVox Clamantisthe 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,

Back to Index Next