INTRODUCTIONLIFE OF GOWER.
To write anything like a biography of Gower, with the materials that exist, is an impossibility. Almost the only authentic records of him, apart from his writings, are his marriage-licence, his will, and his tomb in St. Saviour’s Church; and it was this last which furnished most of the material out of which the early accounts of the poet were composed. A succession of writers from Leland down to Todd contribute hardly anything except guesswork, and this is copied by each from his predecessors with little or no pretence of criticism. Some of them, as Berthelette and Stow, describe from their own observation the tomb with its effigy and inscriptions, as it actually was in their time, and these descriptions supply us with positive information of some value, but the rest is almost entirely worthless.
Gower’s will was printed in Gough’sSepulchral Monuments(1796), and in 1828 Sir Harris Nicolas, roused by the uncritical spirit of Todd, published the article in theRetrospective Review1which has ever since been regarded as the one source of authentic information on the subject. It does not appear that Nicolas undertook any very extensive searching of records, indeed he seems to have practically confined his attention to the British Museum; for wherever he cites the Close Rolls or other documents now in the Record Office, it is either from the abstract of the Close Rolls given in MS. Harl. 1176 or as communicated to him by some other person: but he was able to produce several more or less interesting documents connected either with the poet or with somebody who bore the same name and belonged to the same family, and he placed the discussion for the first time upon a sound critical basis. Pauli simply recapitulated the results arrived at by Nicolas with some slight elucidations from the Close Rolls of6 Ric. II on a matter which had been already mentioned by Nicolas on the authority of Mr. Petrie. As the result of a further examination of the Close Rolls and other records I am able to place some of the transactions referred to in a clearer light, while at the same time I find myself obliged to cast serious doubt on the theory that all the documents in question relate to the poet. In short, the conclusions at which I arrive, so far as regards the records, are mostly of a negative character.
It may be taken as proved that the family to which John Gower the poet belonged was of Kent. Caxton indeed says of him that he was born in Wales, but this remark was probably suggested by the name of the ‘land of Gower’ in Wales, and is as little to be trusted as the further statement that his birth was in the reign of Richard II. There was a natural tendency in the sixteenth century to connect him with the well-known Gowers of Stitenham in Yorkshire, whence the present noble family of Gower derives its origin, and Leland says definitely that the poet was of Stitenham2. It is probable, however, that Leland had no very certain information; for when we examine his autograph manuscript, we find that he first wrote, following Caxton, ‘ex Cambria, ut ego accepi, originem duxit,’ and afterwards altered this to ‘ex Stitenhamo, villa Eboracensis prouinciae, originem ducens.’ It is probable that the credit of connexion with the poet had been claimed by the Yorkshire family, whose ‘proud tradition,’ as Todd says, ‘has been and still is that he was of Stitenham,’ and we find reason to think that they had identified him with a certain distinguished lawyer of their house. This family tradition appears in Leland’sItinerarium, vi. 13, ‘The house of Gower the poete sumtyme chief iuge of the commune place’ (i.e. Common Pleas) ‘yet remaineth at Stitenham yn Yorkshire, and diuerse of them syns have been knights.’ He adds that there are Gowers also in Richmondshire and Worcestershire (‘Wicestreshire,’ MS.). The statement that this supposed judge was identical with the poet is afterwards withdrawn; for on a later page Leland inserts a note, ‘Mr. Ferrares told me that Gower the iuge could not be the man that write the booke yn Englisch, for he said that Gower the iuge was about Edward the secundes tyme.’3
All this seems to suggest that Leland had no very trustworthy evidence on the matter. He continued to assert, however, as we have seen, that the poet derived his origin from Stitenham, and to this he adds that he was brought up and practised as a lawyer, ‘Coluit forum et patrias leges lucri causa4.’ It has not been noticed that the author’s manuscript has here in the margin what is probably a reference to authority for this statement: we find there a note in a contemporary hand, ‘Goverus seruiens ad legem 30 Ed. 3.’ From this it is probable that Leland is relying on the Year-book of 30 Ed. III, where we find the name Gower, apparently as that of a serjeant-at-law who took part in the proceedings. It is not likely that Leland had any good reasons for identifying this Gower, who was in a fairly high position at the bar in the year 1356, with John Gower the poet, who died in 14085.
Leland’s statements were copied by Bale and so became public property. They did not, however, long pass unchallenged. Thynne in hisAnimadversionsacutely criticises the suggestion of Yorkshire origin, on the ground of the difference of arms:—‘Bale hath much mistaken it, as he hath done infinite things in that book, being for the most part the collections of Leland. For in truth the arms of Sir John Gower being argent, on a cheveron azure three leopards’ heads or, do prove that he came of a contrary house to the Gowers of Stytenham in Yorkshire, who bare barruly of argent and gules, a cross paty flory sable. Which difference of arms seemeth a difference of families, unless you can prove that being of one family they altered their arms upon some just occasion.’ The arms to which Thynne refers as those of Gower the poet are those which are to be seen upon his tomb6; and the argument is undoubtedly sound. Thynne proceeds to criticise Speght’s statement that Chaucer and Gower were both lawyers of the Inner Temple: ‘You say, It seemeth that these learned men were of the Inner Temple, for that many years since Master Buckley did see a record in the same house, where Geffrey Chaucerwas fined two shillings for beating a Franciscan Friar in Fleet Street. This is a hard collection to prove Gower of the Inner Temple, although he studied the law, for thus you frame your argument: Mr. Buckley found a record in the Temple that Chaucer was fined for beating the friar; ergo Gower and Chaucer were of the Temple.’
A ‘hard collection’ it may be, but no harder than many others that have been made by biographers, and Leland’s ‘vir equestris ordinis7’ must certainly go the way of his other statements, being sufficiently refuted, as Stow remarks, by the ‘Armiger’ of Gower’s epitaph. Leland in calling him a knight was probably misled by the gilt collar of SS upon his recumbent effigy, and Fuller afterwards, on the strength of the same decoration, fancifully revives the old theory that he was a judge, and is copied of course by succeeding writers8. On the whole it may be doubted whether there is anything but guesswork in the statements made by Leland about our author, except so far as they are derived from his writings or from his tomb.
That John Gower the poet was of a Kentish family is proved by definite and positive evidence. The presumption raised by the fact that his English writings certainly have some traces of the Kentish dialect, is confirmed, first by the identity of the arms upon his tomb with those of Sir Robert Gower, who had a tomb in Brabourne Church in Kent, and with reference to whom Weever, writing in 1631, says, ‘From this family John Gower the poet was descended9,’ secondly, by the fact that in the year 1382 a manor which we know to have been eventually in the possession of the poet was granted to John Gower, who is expressly called ‘Esquier de Kent,’ and thirdly, by the names of the executors of the poet’s will, who are of Kentish families. It may be added that several other persons of the name of Gower are mentioned in the records of the time in connexion with the county of Kent. Referring only to cases in which the Christian name also is the same as that of the poet, we may note a John Gower among those complained of by the Earl of Arundel in 1377, as having broken his closes atHigh Rothing and elsewhere, fished in his fishery and assaulted his servants10; John Gower mentioned in connexion with the parishes of Throwley and Stalesfield, Kent, in 1381-211; John Gower who was killed by Elias Taillour, apparently in 138512; John Gower who was appointed with others in 1386 to receive and distribute the stores at Dover Castle13; none of whom can reasonably be identified with the poet. Therefore it cannot be truly said, as it is said by Pauli, that the surname Gower, or even the combination John Gower, is a very uncommon one in the records of the county of Kent14.
Before proceeding further, it may be well to set forth in order certain business transactions recorded in the reign of Edward III, in which a certain John Gower was concerned, who is identified by Nicolas with the poet15.
They are as follows:—
39 Ed. III (1365). An inquiry whether it will be to the prejudice of the king to put John Gower in possession of half the manor of Aldyngton in Kent, acquired by him without licence of the king from William de Septvans, and if so, ‘ad quod damnum.’ This half of Aldyngton is held of the king by the service of paying fourteen shillings a year to the Warden of Rochester Castle on St. Andrew’s day16.
Under date Feb. 15 of the same year it was reported that this would not be to the prejudice of the king, and accordingly on March 9 John Gower pays 53 shillings, which appears to be the annual value of the property, and is pardoned for the offence committed by acquiring it without licence17.
39 Ed. III (June 23). William Sepvanus, son of William Sepvanus knight, grants to John Gower ten pounds rent from the manor of Wygebergh (Wigborough) in Essex and from other lands held by him in the county of Essex18.
By another deed, acknowledged in Chancery on June 25 of the same year, the same William Sepvanus makes over to John Gower all his claims upon the manor of Aldyngton, and also a rent of 14s.6d., with one cock, thirteen hens and 140 eggs from Maplecomb19.
42 Ed. III (1368). Thomas Syward, pewterer and citizen of London, and Joanna his wife, daughter of Sir Robert Gower, grant to John Gower and his heirs the manor of Kentwell. Dated at Melford, Wednesday before the Nativity of St. John Baptist20.
43 Ed. III. Fine between John Gower on the one hand, and John Spenythorn with Joan his wife on the other, by which they give up all right to the Manor of Kentwell, Suffolk, except £10 rent, John Gower paying 200 marks21.
This was confirmed in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II.
By documents of previous date22it may be shown that the manor of Kentwell had been held by Sir Rob. Gower, doubtless the same who is buried in Brabourne Church, who died apparently in 1349; that it was ultimately divided, with other property, between his heirs, two daughters named Katherine and Joanna, of whom one, Katherine, died in 1366. Her moiety was then combined with the other in the possession of her sister Joanna, ‘23 years old and upwards,’ then married to William Neve of Wetyng, but apparently soon afterwards to Thomas Syward. Asto the transaction between John Gower and John Spenythorn with Joanna his wife, we must be content to remain rather in the dark. John Gower had in the year before acquired Kentwell in full possession for himself and his heirs, and he must in the mean time have alienated it, and now apparently acquired it again. It is hardly likely that the Joan who is here mentioned is the same as Joan daughter of Sir Robert Gower, who was married successively to William Neve and Thomas Syward. On the other hand it must be regarded as probable that the John Gower of this document is identical with the John Gower who acquired Kentwell from Thomas Syward and his wife in 1368. The confirmation in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II, was perhaps by way of verifying the title before the grant of Kentwell by Sir J. Cobham to Sir T. Clopton, 4 Ric. II.
47 Ed. III (1373). John Gower grants his manor of Kentwell in Suffolk to Sir John Cobham and his heirs; a deed executed at Otford in Kent, Thurs. Sept. 2923.
48 Ed. III (1374). Payment of 12 marks by Sir J. Cobham on acquisition of Kentwell and half of Aldyngton from John Gower24.
By this last document it seems pretty certain that the John Gower from whom Sir J. Cobham received Kentwell was the same person as the John Gower who acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans; and he is proved to be a relation of the poet, as well as of Sir Robert Gower, by the fact that the arms on the seal of John Gower, attached to the deed by which Kentwell was alienated, are apparently the same as those which were placed upon Sir Rob. Gower’s tomb at Brabourne, and those which we see on the poet’s tomb in Southwark25. These persons, then, belonged to the same family, so far as we can judge; but evidently it is not proved merely by this fact that the John Gower mentioned in the above document was identical with the poet. We have seen already that the name was not uncommon in Kent, and there are some further considerations which may lead us tohesitate before we identify John Gower the poet with the John Gower who acquired land from William Septvans. This latter transaction in fact had another side, to which attention has not hitherto been called, though Sir H. Nicolas must have been to some extent aware of it, since he has given a reference to the Rolls of Parliament, where the affair is recorded.
It must be noted then in connexion with the deeds of 39 Ed. III, by which John Gower acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans, son of Sir William Septvans, that in the next year, 40 Ed. III, there is record of a commission issued to Sir J. Cobham and others to inquire into the circumstances of this alienation, it having been alleged that William Septvans was not yet of age, and that he had obtained release of his father’s property from the king’s hands by fraudulent misrepresentation. The commission, having sat at Canterbury on the Tuesday before St. George’s day, 1366, reported that this was so, that William Septvans was in fact under twenty years old, and would not attain the age of twenty till the feast of St. Augustine the Doctor next to come (i.e. Aug. 28); that the alienations to John Gower and others had been improperly made by means of a fraudulent proof of age, and that his property ought to be reseized into the king’s hands till he was of age. Moreover the report stated that John Gower had given 24 marks only for property worth £12 a year, with a wood of the value of £100, that after his enfeoffment the said John Gower was in the company of William Septvans at Canterbury and elsewhere, until Sept. 29, inducing him to part with land and other property to various persons26.
The property remained in the king’s hands till the year 1369, when an order was issued to the escheator of the county of Essex to put William Septvans in possession of his father’s lands, which had been confiscated to the Crown, ‘since two years and more have elapsed from the festival of St. Augustine, when he was twenty years old’ (Westm. 21 Feb.)27. Presumably John Gower then entered into possession of the property which he hadirregularly acquired in 1365, and possibly with this may be connected a payment by John Gower of £20 at Michaelmas in the year 1368 to Richard de Ravensere28, who seems to have been keeper of the hanaper in Chancery.
It is impossible without further proof to assume that the villainous misleader of youth who is described to us in the report of the above commission, as encouraging a young man to defraud the Crown by means of perjury, in order that he may purchase his lands from him at a nominal price, can be identical with the grave moralist of theSpeculum Hominisand theVox Clamantis. Gower humbly confesses that he has been a great sinner, but he does not speak in the tone of a converted libertine: we cannot reconcile our idea of him with the proceedings of the disreputable character who for his own ends encouraged the young William Septvans in his dishonesty and extravagance. The two men apparently bore the same arms, and therefore they belonged to the same family, but beyond this we cannot go. It may be observed moreover that the picture suggested to Prof. Morley by the deed of 1373, executed at Otford, of the poet’s residence in the pleasant valley of the Darent, which he describes at some length29, must in any case be dismissed as baseless. Otford was a manor held by Sir John Cobham30, and whether the John Gower of this deed be the poet or no, it is pretty clear that the deed in question was executed there principally for this reason, and not because it was the residence of John Gower.
Dismissing all the above records as of doubtful relevancy to our subject31, we proceed to take note of some which seem actually to refer to the poet. Of these none are earlier than the reign of Richard II. They are as follows:
1 Ric. II. (May, 1378). A record that Geoffrey Chaucer has given general power of attorney to John Gower and RichardForester, to be used during his absence abroad by licence of the king.32Considering that Chaucer and Gower are known to have been personally acquainted with one another, we may fairly suppose that this appointment relates to John Gower the poet.33
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell in Norfolk and Multon in Suffolk to John Gower, Esquire, of Kent, and to his heirs, by Guy de Rouclyf, clerk (Aug. 1), and release of warranty on the above (Aug. 3)34.
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell and Multon by John Gower to Thomas Blakelake, parson of St. Nicholas, Feltwell, and others, for his life, at a rent of £40, to be paid quarterly in the Abbey Church of Westminster35. This grant was repeated 7 Ric. II (Feb. 1384)36.
The mention of Multon in the will of John Gower the poet makes it practically certain that the above documents have to do with him.
17 Ric. II (1393). Henry of Lancaster presented John Gower, Esquire, with a collar. This was mentioned by Nicolas as communicated to him by Mr. G. F. Beltz from a record in the Duchy of Lancaster Office. No further reference was given, and I have had some difficulty in finding the record. It is, however, among the accounts of the wardrobe of Henry of Lancaster for the year mentioned37, and though not dated, it probably belongs to some time in the autumn of 1393, the neighbouring documents in the same bundle being dated October or November. It proves to be in fact an order, directed no doubt to William Loveney, clerk of the Wardrobe to the earl of Derby, for delivery of 26s. 8d. to one Richard Dancaster, for a collar, on account of another collar given by the earl of Derby to ‘an Esquire John Gower’38. So elsewhere in the household accounts of the earl of Derby we find a charge of 56s.8d.for a silver collar for John Payne, butler,‘because my lord had given his collar to another esquire beyond sea’39. This particular collar given to John Gower was a comparatively cheap one, worth apparently only 26s.8d., while the silver collar to be given to John Payne is valued at 56s.8d., and a gold collar of SS for Henry himself costs no less than £26 8s.11d.The fact that Gower wears a collar of SS on his tomb makes it probable enough that he is the esquire mentioned in this document. It will afterwards be seen that we cannot base any argument upon the fact that the collar upon the effigy is now gilt, and apparently was so also in Leland’s time.
25 Jan. 1397-8. A licence from the bishop of Winchester for solemnizing the marriage between John Gower and Agnes Groundolf, both parishioners of St. Mary Magdalene, Southwark, without further publication of banns and in a place outside their parish church, that is to say, in the oratory of the said John Gower, within his lodging in the Priory of Saint Mary Overey in Southwark. Dated at Highclere, 25 Jan. 139740. At this time then Gower was living in the Priory of St. Mary Overey, and no doubt he continued to do so until his death.
Finally, Aug. 15, 1408, the Will of John Gower, which was proved Oct. 24 of the same year41. His death therefore may be presumed to have taken place in October, 1408.
This will has been printed more than once, in Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments, by Todd in hisIllustrations of Gower and Chaucerand in theRetrospective Review.
The testator bequeathes his soul to the Creator, and his body to be buried in the church of the Canons of St. Mary Overes, in the place specially appointed for this purpose (‘in loco ad hoc specialiter deputato’). To the Prior of the said church he bequeathes 40s., to the subprior 20s., to each Canon who is a priest 13s.4d., and to each of the other Canons 6s.8d., that they may all severally pray for him the more devoutly at his funeral. To the servants of the Priory 2s.or 1s.each according to their position; to the church of St. Mary Magdalene40s.for lights and ornaments, to the parish priest of that church 10s., ‘vt oret et orari faciat pro me’; to the chief clerk of the same church 3s.and to the sub-clerk 2s.To the following four parish churches of Southwark, viz. St. Margaret’s, St. George’s, St. Olave’s, and St. Mary Magdalene’s near Bermondsey, 13s.4d.each for ornaments and lights, and to each parish priest or rector in charge of those churches 6s.8d., ‘vt orent et orari pro me in suis parochiis faciant et procurent.’ To the master of the hospital of St. Thomas in Southwark 40s., to each priest serving there 6s.8d.for their prayers; to each sister professed in the said hospital 3s.4d., to each attendant on the sick 20d., and to each sick person in the hospital 12d., and the same to the sisters (where there are sisters), nurses and patients in the hospitals of St. Anthony, Elsingspitell, Bedlem without Bishopsgate, and St. Maryspitell near Westminster; to every house for lepers in the suburbs of London 10s., to be distributed amongst the lepers, for their prayers: to the Prior of Elsingspitell 40s., and to each Canon priest there 6s.8d.For the service of the altar in the chapel of St. John the Baptist, ‘in qua corpus meum sepeliendum est,’ two vestments of silk, one of blue and white baudkin and the other of white silk, also a large new missal and a new chalice, all which are to be kept for ever for the service of the said altar. Moreover to the Prior and Convent the testator leaves a large book, ‘sumptibus meis nouiter compositum,’ calledMartilogium, on the understanding that the testator shall have a special mention of himself recorded in it every day (‘sic quod in eodem specialem memoriam scriptam secundum eorum promissa cotidie habere debeo,’ not ‘debes,’ as printed).He leaves to his wife Agnes, £100 of lawful money, also three cups, one ‘cooperculum,’ two salt-cellars and twelve spoons of silver, all the testator’s beds and chests, with the furniture of hall, pantry and kitchen and all their vessels and utensils. One chalice and one vestment are left to the altar of the oratory belonging to his apartments (‘pro altare quod est infra oratorium hospicii mei’). He desires also that his wife Agnes, if she survive him, shall have all rents due for his manors of Southwell in the county of Northampton (?) and of Multoun in the county of Suffolk, as he has more fully determined in certain other writings given under his seal.The executors of this will are to be as follows:—Agnes his wife, Arnold Savage, knight, Roger, esquire, William Denne, Canon of the king’s chapel, and John Burton, clerk. Dated in the Priory of St. Mary Overes in Southwark, on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin,Mccccviii.
The testator bequeathes his soul to the Creator, and his body to be buried in the church of the Canons of St. Mary Overes, in the place specially appointed for this purpose (‘in loco ad hoc specialiter deputato’). To the Prior of the said church he bequeathes 40s., to the subprior 20s., to each Canon who is a priest 13s.4d., and to each of the other Canons 6s.8d., that they may all severally pray for him the more devoutly at his funeral. To the servants of the Priory 2s.or 1s.each according to their position; to the church of St. Mary Magdalene40s.for lights and ornaments, to the parish priest of that church 10s., ‘vt oret et orari faciat pro me’; to the chief clerk of the same church 3s.and to the sub-clerk 2s.To the following four parish churches of Southwark, viz. St. Margaret’s, St. George’s, St. Olave’s, and St. Mary Magdalene’s near Bermondsey, 13s.4d.each for ornaments and lights, and to each parish priest or rector in charge of those churches 6s.8d., ‘vt orent et orari pro me in suis parochiis faciant et procurent.’ To the master of the hospital of St. Thomas in Southwark 40s., to each priest serving there 6s.8d.for their prayers; to each sister professed in the said hospital 3s.4d., to each attendant on the sick 20d., and to each sick person in the hospital 12d., and the same to the sisters (where there are sisters), nurses and patients in the hospitals of St. Anthony, Elsingspitell, Bedlem without Bishopsgate, and St. Maryspitell near Westminster; to every house for lepers in the suburbs of London 10s., to be distributed amongst the lepers, for their prayers: to the Prior of Elsingspitell 40s., and to each Canon priest there 6s.8d.
For the service of the altar in the chapel of St. John the Baptist, ‘in qua corpus meum sepeliendum est,’ two vestments of silk, one of blue and white baudkin and the other of white silk, also a large new missal and a new chalice, all which are to be kept for ever for the service of the said altar. Moreover to the Prior and Convent the testator leaves a large book, ‘sumptibus meis nouiter compositum,’ calledMartilogium, on the understanding that the testator shall have a special mention of himself recorded in it every day (‘sic quod in eodem specialem memoriam scriptam secundum eorum promissa cotidie habere debeo,’ not ‘debes,’ as printed).
He leaves to his wife Agnes, £100 of lawful money, also three cups, one ‘cooperculum,’ two salt-cellars and twelve spoons of silver, all the testator’s beds and chests, with the furniture of hall, pantry and kitchen and all their vessels and utensils. One chalice and one vestment are left to the altar of the oratory belonging to his apartments (‘pro altare quod est infra oratorium hospicii mei’). He desires also that his wife Agnes, if she survive him, shall have all rents due for his manors of Southwell in the county of Northampton (?) and of Multoun in the county of Suffolk, as he has more fully determined in certain other writings given under his seal.
The executors of this will are to be as follows:—Agnes his wife, Arnold Savage, knight, Roger, esquire, William Denne, Canon of the king’s chapel, and John Burton, clerk. Dated in the Priory of St. Mary Overes in Southwark, on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin,Mccccviii.
The will was proved, Oct. 24, 1408, at Lambeth before the Archbishop of Canterbury (because the testator had property inmore than one diocese of the province of Canterbury), by Agnes the testator’s wife, and administration of the property was granted to her on Nov. 7 of the same year.
It may be observed with reference to this will that the testator evidently stands already in the position of a considerable benefactor to the Priory of St. Mary Overey, in virtue of which position he has his apartments in the Priory and a place of honour assigned for his tomb in the church. He must also have established by previous arrangement the daily mass and the yearly obituary service which Berthelette speaks of as still celebrated in his time. It is evident that his benefactions were made chiefly in his life-time. There is some slight difficulty as regards the manors which are mentioned in the will. Multon in Suffolk we know already to have been in the poet’s possession; but what is this ‘Southwell’? Certainly not the well-known Southwell in Nottinghamshire, which cannot possibly have been in the possession of a private person, belonging, as it did, to the archiepiscopal see of York. Moreover, though ‘in Comitatu Nott.’ has been hitherto printed as the reading of the will, the manuscript has not this, but either ‘Notth.’ or ‘North.,’ more probably the latter. There were apparently other manors of Southwell or Suthwell in the county of Nottingham, and a manor of Suwell in Northamptonshire, but there seems to be no connexion with the name of Gower in the case of any of these. It is possible, but not very readily to be assumed, that the scribe who made the copy of the will in the register carelessly wrote ‘Southwell in Com. North.’ (or ‘Com. Notth.’) for ‘Feltwell in Com. Norff.,’ the name which is found coupled with Multon in the other records42.
The one remaining record is the tomb in St. Saviour’s church. This originally stood in the chapel of St. John the Baptist, on the north side of the church, but in 1832, the nave and north aisle being in ruins, the monument was removed to the south transept and restored at the expense of Earl Gower. After the restoration of the church this tomb was moved back to the north aisle inOctober 1894, and was placed on the supposed site of the chapel of St. John the Baptist, where it now stands43.
In the course of nearly five centuries the tomb has undergone many changes, and the present colouring and inscription are not original. What we have now is a canopy of three arches over an altar tomb, on which lies an effigy of the poet, habited in a long dark-coloured gown, with a standing cape and buttoned down to his feet, wearing a gold collar of SS, fastened in front with a device of a chained swan between two portcullises. His head rests on a pile of three folio volumes marked with the names of his three principal works,Vox Clamantis,Speculum Meditantis,Confessio Amantis. He has a rather round face with high cheek-bones, a moustache and a slightly forked beard, hair long and curling upwards44, and round his head a chaplet of four red roses at intervals upon a band45, with the words ‘merci ihs46’ (repeated) in the intervals between the roses: the hands are put together and raised in prayer: at the feet there is a lion or mastiff lying. The upper ledge of the tomb has this inscription, ‘Hic iacet I. Gower Arm. Angl. poeta celeberrimus ac huic sacro edificio benefac. insignis. Vixit temporibus Edw. III et Ric. II et Henr. IV.’ In front of the tomb there are seven arched niches. Against the wall at the end of the recess, above the feet of the figure, a shieldis suspended bearing arms, argent, on a chevron azure three leopards’ faces or, crest a talbot (or lion) upon a chapeau. The wall behind the tomb under the canopy is at present blank; the original painting of female figures with scrolls has disappeared and has not been renewed, nor has the inscription ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c., been replaced.
This tomb has attracted much attention, and descriptions of it exist from early times. Leland’s account may be thus translated: ‘He was honourably buried in London in the church of the Marian canons on the bank of the Thames, and his wife also is buried in the same place, but in a lower tomb. He has here an effigy adorned with a gold chain and a chaplet of ivy interspersed with roses, the first marking him as a knight and the second as a poet. The reason why he established his place of burial here, was, I believe, as follows. A large part of the suburb adjacent to London Bridge was burnt down in the year 121247, in the reign of King John. The monastery of the Marian canons was much damaged in this fire and was not fully restored till the first year of Richard II. At that time Gower, moved by the calamity, partly through his friends, who were numerous and powerful, and partly at his own expense, repaired the church and restored its ornaments, and the Marian canons even now acknowledge the liberality of Gower towards them, though not to such an extent as I declare it to have been. For this reason it was, in my judgement, that he left his body for burial to the canons of this house48.’ Berthelette in the Preface to his edition of theConfessio Amantis, 1532, gives an interesting account of the tomb: ‘John Gower prepared for his bones a resting-place in the monastery of St. Mary Overes, where somewhat after the old fashion he lieth right sumptuously buried, with a garland on his head in token that he in his life days flourished freshly in literature and science. And the same moniment, in remembrance of him erected, is on the North side of the foresaid church, in the chapel of St. John, where he hath of his own foundation a mass daily sung: and moreover he hath an obit yearly done for him within the same church on the Friday after the feast of the blessed pope St. Gregory.
‘Beside on the wall, whereas he lieth, there be painted three virgins with crowns on their heads, one of the which is written Charitie, and she holdeth this device in her hand,
En toy qui es fitz de dieu le pere49Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.
En toy qui es fitz de dieu le pere49Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.
En toy qui es fitz de dieu le pere49Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.
En toy qui es fitz de dieu le pere49
Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.
‘The second is written Mercye, which holdeth in her hand this device,
O bone Jesu, fait ta mercyAl alme dont le corps gist icy50.
O bone Jesu, fait ta mercyAl alme dont le corps gist icy50.
O bone Jesu, fait ta mercyAl alme dont le corps gist icy50.
O bone Jesu, fait ta mercy
Al alme dont le corps gist icy50.
‘The third of them is written Pite, which holdeth in her hand this device following,
Pur ta pité, Jesu, regarde,Et met cest alme in sauve garde.
Pur ta pité, Jesu, regarde,Et met cest alme in sauve garde.
Pur ta pité, Jesu, regarde,Et met cest alme in sauve garde.
Pur ta pité, Jesu, regarde,
Et met cest alme in sauve garde.
‘And thereby hangeth a table, wherein appeareth that who so ever prayeth for the soul of John Gower, he shall, so oft as he so doth, have a thousand and five hundred days of pardon.’
Stow, writing about 1598, says, ‘This church was again newly rebuilt in the reign of Richard II and king Henry IV. John Gower, a learned gentleman and a famous poet, but no knight, as some have mistaken it, was then an especial benefactor to that work, and was there buried in the north side of the said church, in the chapel of St. John, where he founded a chantry. He lieth under a tomb of stone with his image also of stone being over him. The hair of his head brown, long to his shoulders but curling up, collar of esses of gold about his neck; under his head,’ &c.51The tomb is then further described as by Berthelette, with addition of the epitaph in four Latin hexameters, ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c. (see p. 367 of this volume).
In theAnnals of England(date about 1600) he again describes the tomb, adding to his description of the painting of the three virgins the important note, ‘All which is now washed out and the image defaced by cutting off the nose and striking off the hands52,’from which it would appear that we cannot depend even upon the features of the effigy which now exists, as original.
The figures of the virgins were repainted in the course of the seventeenth century apparently, for in Hatton’sNew View of London(date 1708) they are described as appearing with ‘ducal coronets53.’ In Rawlinson’sNatural History and Antiquities of Surrey(published 1719) the effigy is spoken of as having a ‘scarlet gown,’ the older descriptions, e.g. Stow, giving it as ‘an habit of purple damasked,’ and it is said that there is upon the head ‘a chaplet or diadem of gold about an inch broad, on which are set at equal distances four white quaterfoyles.’54The writer argues also that the chain should be of silver rather than of gold55. The arms are said to be ‘supported by two angels,’ and ‘underneath is this inscription, “Hic iacet Iohannes Gower Armiger Anglorum poeta celeberrimus ac huic sacro Edificio Benefactor insignis temporibus Edw. III et Ric. II. Armigeri scutum,”’ &c. The following remark is added: ‘Our author Mr. John Aubrey gives us an inscription which he says he saw on a limb of this monument, something different from the foregoing, and therefore not unworthy a place here, viz.
Johannes Gower, PrincepsPoetarum Angliae, vixittemporibus Edwardi tertiiet Richardi secundi.’
Johannes Gower, PrincepsPoetarum Angliae, vixittemporibus Edwardi tertiiet Richardi secundi.’
Johannes Gower, PrincepsPoetarum Angliae, vixittemporibus Edwardi tertiiet Richardi secundi.’
Johannes Gower, Princeps
Poetarum Angliae, vixit
temporibus Edwardi tertii
et Richardi secundi.’
Later, in 1765, Tyler describes the gown as purple and the arms as pendent by the dexter corner. The figures of women have ducal coronets and scrolls of gold, and below them is the epitaph ‘Armigeri scutum.’ Under the statue the inscription ‘Hic iacet,’ &c.56The monument, as here described, is engraved in Gough’sSepulchral Monuments(date 1796), where there is a full description of it57. Blore, under whose direction the position of the monument was changed, says in 1826 that the inscription on the ledge of the tomb ‘Hic iacet,’ &c., was then entirely gone.
Dollman says that there was a fire which injured the nave of the church in the reign of Richard II, and that the windows of thenave and aisles, which were finally removed in 1833, were of the time of Richard II and Henry IV58. It is certain, however, that the church remained long in an unfinished state during the period between 1207 (or 1212), the date of the early fire, and the latter part of the fourteenth century. Dollman observes that the remains which may have been contained in the tomb ‘disappeared when the tomb was removed from the north aisle in 1832.’59From what has been said it will be perceived that the tomb has undergone a series of alterations and renovations which have to some extent at least destroyed its original character.
A word must be said finally about Prof. Morley’s theory that Gower was in holy orders and held the living of Great Braxted in Essex from 1390-7. This is founded on the fact that the parson of Great Braxted for the period named was one John Gower, as Professor Morley learns from Newcourt’sRepertorium Parochiale60. The original record referred to by Newcourt is to be found in the Registry of the diocese of London61, and is to the effect that on February 23, 1390-1, the bishop of London admitted and instituted John Gower, clerk, to the parochial church of Great Braksted, vacant by the resignation of John Broun, the late rector, the said John Gower having been duly presented by the king, who at this time was patron of the living, the heir of the late earl of Pembroke being under his wardship. Then later, under date March 31, 1397, there is record of a new institution to the benefice, which is vacant by the resignation of John Gower, late rector62.
Professor Morley thought that the expression ‘John Gower, clerk’ might indicate that the person referred to was in minor orders only, some of the rectors inducted being called ‘priest’ (while others have no title at all). He conceived that this John Gower held the rectory for six or seven years without being admitted to priest’s orders at all, and that he then resigned on his marriage63,and he found confirmation of the theory that this was Gower the poet from the fact that Great Braxted is near to Wigborough, where, as we have seen, a person of this name, supposed by Professor Morley to be the poet, had some claim to rent. We have already seen reason to think that the John Gower who had a rent of £10 from Wigborough was not the poet, and in any case it is evident that the fact could have nothing to do with a presentation by the king five and twenty years afterwards to the rectory of Great Braxted. As to resignation with a view to marriage, it is very unlikely, if not altogether out of the question, that a clergyman who had held an important rectory for six or seven years should not only have been permitted to marry, but should have had his marriage celebrated in the Priory of St. Mary Overy and with the particular sanction of the bishop of Winchester. Add to this the fact that John Gower the poet was undoubtedly ‘Esquire,’ being called so not only on his tomb but also in the documents of 1382 and 1393, the latter belonging to the period when, according to this theory, he was holding the living of Great Braxted. On the whole, the ‘minor orders’ theory must be dismissed as entirely baseless, and the John Gower who was rector of Great Braxted must be set down as another of the rather numerous persons of this name who were to be found in Kent and Essex at this time. There is nothing in Gower’s writings to suggest the idea that he was an ecclesiastic. He distinctly calls himself a layman in theMirour de l’Omme, and the expression ‘borel clerk’ in the Prologue of theConfessio Amantismust be taken to mean the same thing. The language which in theVox Clamantishe uses about rectors who fail to perform the duties of their office, makes it almost inconceivable that he should himself have held a rectory without qualifying himself for the performance of the service of the Church even by taking priest’s orders. Evidently Professor Morley’s idea of the poet as an Essex rector must go the way of his previous attempt to establish him as a country gentleman at Otford. It is probable that he passed a considerable part of his literary life in those lodgings within the Priory of St. Mary Overey which are mentioned in his marriage licence and in his will64.
To the information which we derive from records must be added that which is to be drawn from the poet’s own writings. From theSpeculum Meditantiswe learn that in early life he composed love poems, which he calls ‘fols ditz d’ amour’ (27340), and from two other passages (ll. 8794 and 17649) we may perhaps assume that he was already married at the time when this work was composed. In the former, speaking of those who tell tales to husbands about their wives’ misconduct, he says in effect, ‘I for my part declare (‘Je di pour moi’) that I wish to hear no such tales of my wife:’ in the second he speaks of those wives who dislike servants and other persons simply because their husbands like them, and he adds, ‘I do not say that mine does so’ (‘Ne di pas q’ensi fait la moie’). If the inference be correct, his union with Agnes Groundolf in his old age was a second marriage. We cannot come to any definite conclusion from this poem about any profession or occupation which he may have had besides literature. The statement of Leland that he practised as a lawyer seems rather improbable, in view of the way in which he here speaks of lawyers and their profession. Of all the secular estates that of the law seems to him to be the worst (24085 ff.), and he condemns both advocates and judges in a more unqualified manner than the members of any other calling. Especially the suggestion of a special tax to be levied on lawyers’ gains (24337 ff.) is one that could hardly have come from one who was himself a lawyer65.
Again the way in which he speaks of physicians (24301, 25621 ff.) seems almost equally to exclude him from the profession of medicine.
Of all the various ranks of society which he reviews, that of which he speaks with most respect is the estate of Merchants.He takes pains to point out, both in this poem and in theVox Clamantis, the utility of their occupation, and the justice of their claim to reasonably large profits on successful ventures in consideration of the risks they run (Mirour, 25177 ff.;Vox Clam.Lib. v. Cap. xi,Heading). 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. He speaks of ‘our City,’ and has strong feelings about the interests of the city of London, and about the proceedings of a certain bad citizen who stirs up strife and aims at giving privileges in trade to strangers (Mirour, 26380 ff.; cp.Vox Clamantis, v. 835 ff.): moreover, the jealousy of Lombards which he expresses has every appearance of being a prejudice connected with rivalry in commerce (25429 ff.). He has a special enthusiasm about the wool-trade, as a national concern of the first importance, and he has very definite opinions about the abuses of the staple (25360 ff.). At the same time there is no definite evidence that Gower was a merchant, and his interest in trade and in the affairs of the city of London may well have arisen from his residence in or near the city and his personal acquaintance with merchants (cp.Mir.25915 ff.). His references to the dearness of labour and the unreasonable demands of the labourer (24625 ff.) are what we might expect from a man who had property in land; but again we have no sufficient evidence that Gower was a land-owner in the ordinary sense of the word, for, though he acquired the manors of Feltwell and Multon, he did not reside upon either of them, but gave a lease of them at once.
He tells us that he is a man of simple tastes (26293 ff.), and we know from the whole tone of his writings that he is a just and upright man, who believes in the subordination of the various members of society to one another, and who will not allow himself to be ruled in his own household either by his wife or his servants. But, though a thorough believer in the principle of gradation in human society, he constantly emphasizes the equality of all men before God, and refuses absolutely to admit the accident of birth as constituting any claim to ‘gentilesce.’ The common descent of all from Adam is as conclusive on this point for him as it was for John Ball. Considering that his viewson society are essentially the same as those of Wycliff, and considering also his strong opinions about the corruption of the Church and the misdeeds of the friars, it is curious to find how strongly he denounces the Lollards in his later writings.
He has a just abhorrence of war, and draws a very clear distinction between the debased chivalry of his own day and the true ideal of knighthood. Above all he has a deep sense of religion, and is very familiar with the Bible. He strongly believes in the moral government of the world by Providence, and he feels sure, as others of his age did also, that the final stage of corruption has almost come. Whatever others may do, he at least intends to repent of his sins and prepare himself to render a good account of his stewardship. In both his French and his Latin work he shows himself a fearless rebuker of evil, even in the highest places. The charge of time-serving timidity has been sufficiently dealt with in the Introduction to the English Works.
From theVox Clamantisit is evident that the rising of the Peasants produced a very powerful, indeed almost an overwhelming, impression upon his mind. He describes the terror inspired by it among those of his social standing in the most impressive manner. The progress of his political development during the reign of Richard II is clearly seen in his Latin works, with their successive revisions. He began, it is evident, with full hope and confidence that the youthful king would be a worthy representative of his father the Black Prince, both in war and in peace. As time goes on, and the boy develops into an ill-regulated young man, under evil influences of various kinds, the poet begins to have doubts, and these gradually increase until they amount to certainty, and rebuke and denunciation take the place of the former favourable anticipations. In the latest version of theConfessio Amantis, which is, no doubt, contemporary with some of these changes in the text of theVox Clamantis, we see the author’s confidence transferred from the king to his cousin, not as yet regarded as a successor to the throne, but thought of as representing a fair ideal of chivalry and honesty. Finally, in theCronica Tripertita, he accepts the fall of Richard as the fatal consequence of a course of evil government and treachery, and rejoices in the prospect of a new order of things under his predestined hero.
We see here the picture of one who is not devoted to a particular party, but looks to what he conceives as the common good, deeply impressed with the sense that things are out of joint, and hoping against hope that a saviour of society may arise, either in the person of the young king, or of his vigorous and chivalrous cousin. There is no sign of any liking for John of Gaunt or of any attachment to the Lancastrian party generally; but he is stirred to very genuine indignation at the unfair treatment of men whom he regards as honest patriots, such as Gloucester, the Arundels, and Cobham. He himself was evidently a most patriotic Englishman, loving his country and proud of its former greatness. For this we may refer especially toVox Clamantis, vii. 1289 ff., but the same feeling is visible also in many other passages. He is a citizen of the world no doubt, but an Englishman first, and he cares intensely for the prosperity of his native land. Even when he writes in French it is for England’s sake,