‘Per sordes gradior, sed sordis conscia non sum,Ut rosa in spinis nescit mucrone perire,’ &c.
‘Per sordes gradior, sed sordis conscia non sum,Ut rosa in spinis nescit mucrone perire,’ &c.
‘Per sordes gradior, sed sordis conscia non sum,Ut rosa in spinis nescit mucrone perire,’ &c.
‘Per sordes gradior, sed sordis conscia non sum,
Ut rosa in spinis nescit mucrone perire,’ &c.
1681 ff. Several of her riddles are given in the original story and he succeeds in answering them all at once. One is this,
‘Longa feror uelox formose filia silue,Innumeris pariter comitum stipata cateruis:Curro uias multas, uestigia nulla relinquens.’
‘Longa feror uelox formose filia silue,Innumeris pariter comitum stipata cateruis:Curro uias multas, uestigia nulla relinquens.’
‘Longa feror uelox formose filia silue,Innumeris pariter comitum stipata cateruis:Curro uias multas, uestigia nulla relinquens.’
‘Longa feror uelox formose filia silue,
Innumeris pariter comitum stipata cateruis:
Curro uias multas, uestigia nulla relinquens.’
The answer is ‘Nauis.’
She finally falls on his neck and embraces him, upon which he kicks her severely. She begins to lament, and incidentally lets him know her story. The suggestion contained in ll. 1702 ff., of the mysterious influence of kinship, is Gower’s own, and we find the same idea in the tale of Constance, ii. 1381 f.,
‘This child he loveth kindely,And yit he wot no cause why.’
‘This child he loveth kindely,And yit he wot no cause why.’
‘This child he loveth kindely,And yit he wot no cause why.’
‘This child he loveth kindely,
And yit he wot no cause why.’
1830. ‘And all other business having been left’: cp. ii. 791.
1890.With topseilcole: cp. v. 3119,
‘Bot evene topseilcole it blew.’
‘Bot evene topseilcole it blew.’
‘Bot evene topseilcole it blew.’
‘Bot evene topseilcole it blew.’
The word ‘topseilcole’ (written as one word in the best copies of each recension) does not seem to occur except in these two passages. It is evidently a technical term of the sea, and in both these passages it is used in connexion with a favourable wind. Morley quotes from Godefroy a use of the word ‘cole’ in French in a nautical sense, ‘Se mistrent en barges et alerent aux salandres, et en prisrent les xvii, et l’une eschapa, qui estoit a la cole.’ Unfortunately, however, it is uncertain what this means. The vessels in question were in port when they were attacked, and therefore ‘a la cole’ might reasonably mean with sails (or topsails) set, and so ready to start. A topsail breeze would be one which was fairly strong, but not too strong to allow of sailing under topsails, and this is rather the idea suggested by the two passages in Gower.
It should be noted that in F and in some other MSS. there is a stop after the word ‘topseilcole.’
1948.forto honge and drawe: the verbs are transitive, ‘that men should hang and draw them’ (i. e. pluck out their bowels).
1983. This must mean apparently ‘They had no need to take in a reef.’ The use of ‘slake’ with this meaning does not seem quite appropriate, but a sail or part of a sail is slackened in a certain sense when it is taken in, seeing that it is no longer subject to the pressure of the wind.
2055.leng the lasse: cp. iii. 71, ‘the leng the ferre.’ This form of the comparative is usual in such phrases, as Chaucer,Cant. Tales, A 3872, ‘That ilke fruit is ever leng the wers,’ and perhaps also E 687, F 404,Compl. unto Pite, 95, where the MSS. gives ‘lenger.’ The form ‘leng’ is the original comparative adverb of ‘long.’
2077.toward Venus: cp. v. 6757. Here it means ‘on the side of Venus.’
2095.sett, imperative, like ‘set case,’ i. e. ‘suppose that.’ The reading ‘sith’ is certainly wrong.
2113.his oghne dom.The word ‘dom’ is used here in special reference to ‘kingdom’ in the line above. ‘Every man has a royal rule to exercise, that is the rule over himself.’
2124 f. ‘When he has not kept possession for himself of his own heart.’
2165.And felt it: we have here the elision-apocope in the case of a preterite subjunctive.
2194.hath nothing set therby, ‘accounted it as nothing.’
2198.withholde, ‘kept’ (in service).
2212 f. Cp. iii. 298,Vox Clam.ii. 1.
2217 ff. This ‘Supplication’ is a finished and successful composition in its way, and it may make us desire that our author had written more of the same kind. The poemIn Praise of Peace, which is written in the same metre and stanza, is too much on a political subject to give scope for poetical fancy. The nearest parallel in style is to be found in some of the author’s French Balades.
2245.Whom nedeth help, ‘He to whom help is needful’: cp. Prol. 800, i. 2446.
2253 ff. Cp. vi. 330 ff.
2259 ff. Cp.Balades, xx.
2265.Danger: see note on i. 2443.
2288. Cp. i. 143 ff.
2312.a Mile: cp. iv. 689. It means apparently the time that it takes to go a mile: cp. Chaucer,Astrol.i. 16, ‘five of these degres maken a milewey and thre mileweie maken an houre.’
2319.a game, for ‘agame’: cp. Chaucer,Troilus, iii. 636, 648. More usually ‘in game,’ as l. 2871.
2341.fulofte hath pleigned: as for example in thePlanctus Naturaeof Alanus de Insulis.
2365. ‘And I will consider the matter’: practically equivalent to a refusal of the petition, as in the form ‘Le Roy s’avisera.’
2367.is noght to sieke, ‘is not wanting’: cp. i. 924, ii. 44, &c.
2378. ‘In no security, but as men draw the chances of Ragman.’To understand this it is necessary to refer to compositions such as we find in the Bodleian MSS., Fairfax 16, and Bodley 638, under the name of ‘Ragman (or Ragmans) Rolle.’ The particular specimen contained in these MSS. begins thus:
‘My ladyes and my maistresses echone,Lyke hit unto your humble wommanhede,Resave in gre of my sympill personeThis rolle, which withouten any dredeKynge Ragman me bad [me] sowe in brede,And cristyned yt the merour of your chaunce.Drawith a strynge and that shal streight yow ledeUnto the verry path of your governaunce.’
‘My ladyes and my maistresses echone,Lyke hit unto your humble wommanhede,Resave in gre of my sympill personeThis rolle, which withouten any dredeKynge Ragman me bad [me] sowe in brede,And cristyned yt the merour of your chaunce.Drawith a strynge and that shal streight yow ledeUnto the verry path of your governaunce.’
‘My ladyes and my maistresses echone,Lyke hit unto your humble wommanhede,Resave in gre of my sympill personeThis rolle, which withouten any dredeKynge Ragman me bad [me] sowe in brede,And cristyned yt the merour of your chaunce.Drawith a strynge and that shal streight yow ledeUnto the verry path of your governaunce.’
‘My ladyes and my maistresses echone,
Lyke hit unto your humble wommanhede,
Resave in gre of my sympill persone
This rolle, which withouten any drede
Kynge Ragman me bad [me] sowe in brede,
And cristyned yt the merour of your chaunce.
Drawith a strynge and that shal streight yow lede
Unto the verry path of your governaunce.’
After two more stanzas about the uncertainty of Fortune and the chances of drawing well or ill, there follows a disconnected series of twenty-two more, each giving a description of the personal appearance and character of a woman, in some cases complimentary and in others very much the reverse, usually in the form of an address to the lady herself, e. g.
‘A smal conceyt may ryght enogh suffyseOf your beaute discripcion for to make;For at on word ther kan no wyght devyseOon that therof hath lasse, I undertake,’ &c.
‘A smal conceyt may ryght enogh suffyseOf your beaute discripcion for to make;For at on word ther kan no wyght devyseOon that therof hath lasse, I undertake,’ &c.
‘A smal conceyt may ryght enogh suffyseOf your beaute discripcion for to make;For at on word ther kan no wyght devyseOon that therof hath lasse, I undertake,’ &c.
‘A smal conceyt may ryght enogh suffyse
Of your beaute discripcion for to make;
For at on word ther kan no wyght devyse
Oon that therof hath lasse, I undertake,’ &c.
Apparently these stanzas are to be drawn for and then read out in order as they come, for the game ends with the last,
‘And sythen ye be so jocunde and so good,And in the rolle last as in wrytynge,I rede that this game ende in your hood.’
‘And sythen ye be so jocunde and so good,And in the rolle last as in wrytynge,I rede that this game ende in your hood.’
‘And sythen ye be so jocunde and so good,And in the rolle last as in wrytynge,I rede that this game ende in your hood.’
‘And sythen ye be so jocunde and so good,
And in the rolle last as in wrytynge,
I rede that this game ende in your hood.’
Evidently the same kind of game might be played by men with a view to their mistresses. It is much the same thing as the ‘Chaunces of the Dyse,’ where each stanza is connected with a certain throw made with three dice: cp. note on iv. 2792. The name ‘Ragman Rolle’ seems to be due to the disconnected character of the composition.
2407.olde grisel: cp.Chaucer, To Scogan, 35: ‘grisel’ means grey horse.
2415.upon the fet, that is, when the time comes for action. The rhyme with ‘retret’ shows that this is not the plural of ‘fot’: moreover, that is elsewhere regularly spelt ‘feet’ by Gower.
2428.sittefor ‘sit’: cp. Introduction, p. cxiv.
2435.torned into was: the verb used as a substantive, cp. vi. 923.
2450 ff. The situation here has some resemblance to that in the Prologue of theLegend of Good Women, where the author has a vision of the god of Love coming to him in a meadow, as he lies worshipping the daisy, accompanied by queen Alcestis, and followed first by the nineteen ladies of the Legend, and then by a vast multitude of otherwomen who had been true in love. The differences, however, are considerable. Here we have Venus and Cupid, the latter armed with a bow and blind (whereas Chaucer gives him two fiery darts and his eyesight), with two companies of lovers, both men and women, marshalled by Youth and Eld as leaders; and the colloquy with the poet has for its result to dismiss him with wounds healed from Love’s service, as one who has earned his discharge, while in the case of Chaucer it is a question of imposing penance for transgressions in the past and of enlisting him for the future as the servant of Love. The conception of the god of Love appearing with a company of true lovers in attendance may be regarded as the common property of the poets of the time, and so also was the controversy between the flower and the leaf (l. 2468), which Chaucer introduces as a thing familiar already to his readers. If our author had any particular model before him, it may quite as well have been the description in Froissart’sParadys d’Amours(ed. Scheler, i. 29 f.):
‘Lors regardai en une lande,Si vi une compagne grandeDe dames et de damoisellesFriches et jolies et belles,Et grant foison de damoiseausJolis et amoureus et beaus.“Dame,” di je, “puis je sçavoirQui sont ceuls que puis là veoir?”“Oil,” dit ma dame de pris;“Troïllus y est et Paris,Qui furent fil au roi Priant,Et cesti que tu vois riant,C’est Laiscelos tout pour certain,”’ &c.
‘Lors regardai en une lande,Si vi une compagne grandeDe dames et de damoisellesFriches et jolies et belles,Et grant foison de damoiseausJolis et amoureus et beaus.“Dame,” di je, “puis je sçavoirQui sont ceuls que puis là veoir?”“Oil,” dit ma dame de pris;“Troïllus y est et Paris,Qui furent fil au roi Priant,Et cesti que tu vois riant,C’est Laiscelos tout pour certain,”’ &c.
‘Lors regardai en une lande,Si vi une compagne grandeDe dames et de damoisellesFriches et jolies et belles,Et grant foison de damoiseausJolis et amoureus et beaus.
‘Lors regardai en une lande,
Si vi une compagne grande
De dames et de damoiselles
Friches et jolies et belles,
Et grant foison de damoiseaus
Jolis et amoureus et beaus.
“Dame,” di je, “puis je sçavoirQui sont ceuls que puis là veoir?”“Oil,” dit ma dame de pris;“Troïllus y est et Paris,Qui furent fil au roi Priant,Et cesti que tu vois riant,C’est Laiscelos tout pour certain,”’ &c.
“Dame,” di je, “puis je sçavoir
Qui sont ceuls que puis là veoir?”
“Oil,” dit ma dame de pris;
“Troïllus y est et Paris,
Qui furent fil au roi Priant,
Et cesti que tu vois riant,
C’est Laiscelos tout pour certain,”’ &c.
and she proceeds to enumerate the rest, including Tristram and Yseult, Percival, Galehaus, Meliador and Gawain, Helen, Hero, Polyxena, and Medea with Jason.
I do not doubt that Gower may have seen theLegend of Good Women, but it was not much his practice to borrow from contemporary poets of his own country, however free he might make with the literature of former times or of foreign lands.
2461.who was who: cp. vii. 2001.
2468. Cp. Chaucer,Leg. of G. Women, 72, 188, &c.
2470.the newe guise of Beawme, that is, the new fashions of dress, &c., introduced from Bohemia by the marriage of Richard II in 1382.
2500 f.which was believed With bele Ysolde, ‘who was accepted as a lover by Belle Isolde.’ Apparently ‘believed’ is here used in the primary sense of the verb, from which we have ‘lief.’ For the use of ‘with’ cp. l. 2553. We may note here that the spelling ‘believe’ is regular in Gower, ‘ie’ representing ‘̄ẹ.’
2502.Galahot, i. e. Galahalt, called by Mallory ‘the haut prince.’
2504 ff. It may be noted that several of the lovers in the company of Youth are impenitent in their former faithlessness, as Jason, Hercules and Theseus, while Medea, Deianira and Ariadne are left to complain by themselves. Troilus has recovered Cressida, if only for a time. It is hard to say why Pyramus failed of Thisbe’s company, unless indeed she were unable to pardon his lateness (cp. 2582).
2515 ff. Cp. v. 7213 ff.
2553.with Enee: cp. vii. 3359 and l. 2501.
2573 ff. It is likely enough that this idea of Cleopatra’s death may have been a reminiscence of theLegend 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 toOrm.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 barA peire of bedes gauded al with grene.’
‘Of smal coral aboute hire arm she barA peire of bedes gauded al with grene.’
‘Of smal coral aboute hire arm she barA peire of bedes gauded al with grene.’
‘Of smal coral aboute hire arm she bar
A peire of bedes gauded al with grene.’
2926 f. That is theSpeculum Hominisand theVox 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 theMirour.
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 colouredinitial 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, asenclosid,turnyd,bewhapid,blessid(butsterred),iþfrequently in the 3rd pers. sing. of verbs,belongiþ,seruiþ,causiþ(butsecheþ,suieþ), and-in(-yn) in 3rd pers. pl., astakyn,sechin,hierin,schuldyn(alsoto lokyn). (2)-is(-ys) in the genit. sing, and in the plural of substantives, aslondis,mannys,bedis,lawis,wordis(butþinges,myghtes). (3)-ir(-yr) termination, asaftir,ouyr,wondir(butsiker). (4)yfori(I) in many cases, especially as the pronoun of the first person (onceI), alsoys(sometimes),hym,wiþynne. (5)ghforhin such words assigh,sighte,myghte,knyghthode. (6)ouforoinnought,brought,þoughte, &c. (7) consonants doubled invpponand vowels inmaad(alsomad),book,goon. (8) separation of words, asin 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 giveyforI,ysforis, normyghte,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 eitherfor 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 theTraitié, 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 theLegend of Good Women, and to argue from this that theConfessio Amantiswas written before theLegendwas given to the public, would be very rash. It is not likely that Usk’sTestament of Lovewas 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 theCronica 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 theVox 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 printedcopy), and I suspect that he was the ‘philosophical Strode’ who is coupled with Gower in the dedication ofTroilus.
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 theConfessio Amantisexcept 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 theVox 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 theConfessio Amantis, in the second recension it is made to follow theTraitié, and SΔ, which do not contain theTraitié, omit this also, while in F it comes later still, following the LatinCarmen de multiplici viciorum pestilencia. Thus the form which we have in F must be regarded as later than the accompanying text of theConfessio 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 theVox 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 theCinkante 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 vo), and is written in the same hand as theBaladesandTraitié, 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 authorspeaks 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 ofChaucer’s Works, 1532, commonly called Thynne’s edition (ff. 375 vo-378), and reprinted from this in the succeeding folio editions of Chaucer (e. g. 1561, f. 330 vo, 1598, f. 330 vo, 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 hisPolitical 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 askyngOf god | what thyng him was leuest craueHe chase wysedom vnto gouernyngOf goddes folke | the whiche he wolde saueAnd as he chase it fyl him for to haueFor through his wytte while ythis reigne lastHe gate him peace and rest in to his last’
‘Kyng Salomon whiche had at his askyngOf god | what thyng him was leuest craueHe chase wysedom vnto gouernyngOf goddes folke | the whiche he wolde saueAnd as he chase it fyl him for to haueFor through his wytte while ythis reigne lastHe gate him peace and rest in to his last’
‘Kyng Salomon whiche had at his askyngOf god | what thyng him was leuest craueHe chase wysedom vnto gouernyngOf goddes folke | the whiche he wolde saueAnd as he chase it fyl him for to haueFor through his wytte while ythis reigne lastHe gate him peace and rest in to his last’
‘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 ythis 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. 3om.this 16 theforthi 71 To stere peace (following Thynne) 108om.doth tofalleforto falle 136 thanforthat 173 But aftirwards 202om.worthi 211 anyfora 246 [good]seeming to imply that it is not in the MS.263 Which heliples 278 reservedfordeserved 289 manforking 292 [up] 306 begeteforbe gete 356 ResteinedforResceived 363 deleatedfordebated 382 seseforsee. 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 toforforto (and so afterwards) 16 him selfforhimself (and so afterwards)19 But 27 reqwestforreqweste 39 mightformyht 56 shalforschal 83 lefteforleft 84 notfornoght 90 charitieforcharite 98 BothforBothe 102 goneforgoon nygthfornyght 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 onConfessio Amantis, viii. 2938. Here however there is only a slight tendency to useiforein weak terminations. We havedistourbid153,vndefendid:amendid223 f.,handlid321,soeffrin222,folwiþ23,goddis32, 84,mannys237, but elsewhere almost always the usual forms, asaffermed,cared,gouerned,aken,ledeþ,londes,mannes. On the other hand the-irtermination is used almost regularly, asvndir,wondir,aftir,modir(butvnder286), and there is a tendency also to substituteiforein other places also, asfirst,chirche(alsoferst,cherche),wirche,dide(348),proprite, buthereforhire108, 329, cp. 254. ForI(pers. pronoun) we have regularlyy;ghusually forhin such words asright,myghti,knyght,light,highe,stigh, but alsoriht,rihtwisnesse,knyht;vpponforvpon,schuldebut alsoscholde. In addition to these points we may note the dropping of-eseveral times ineuer,neuer, which hardly ever occurs in the Fairfax MS., and also inheuen79, but we have alsoeuere,neuere,heuene. The-eof the weak preterite form is dropped before a vowel inmyht39,behight41,had42,mad103, 345:-eis inserted in some imperatives, asLeie122,sette124,Lete129,putte130,þenke162,Beholde276 (butlet158,Kep367, 384,draugh384). As regards the use ofþandȝthe 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 proclamedFul of knyhthode and alle grace.’
‘The hyhe god him hath proclamedFul of knyhthode and alle grace.’
‘The hyhe god him hath proclamedFul of knyhthode and alle grace.’
‘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 theVox 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’sMorte 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 ofVox Clamantis, vi. cap. 18, as it stands in the Digby MS. The first eight lines are identically the same. Then follows in theVox Clamantis,
‘Ipse meum iuuenem conseruet supplico Regem,’ &c.
‘Ipse meum iuuenem conseruet supplico Regem,’ &c.
‘Ipse meum iuuenem conseruet supplico Regem,’ &c.
‘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 theVox Clamantisversion, 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 alsoConf. Amantis, vii,afterl. 1984.