THE COMPLETE WORKS OF JOHN GOWER

G. C. MACAULAY

* THE FRENCH WORKS

HENRY FROWDE, M.A.

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK

THE COMPLETE WORKS OF JOHN GOWER

EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND GLOSSARIES

BY

G. C. MACAULAY, M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

* THE FRENCH WORKS

Oxford

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1899

Oxford PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

BY HORACE HART, M.A. PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

[Pg v]

PREFACE

The publication of this book may most conveniently be explained by a short account of the circumstances which brought it about.

While engaged some years ago in studying the Chaucer manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, I incidentally turned my attention also to those of the Confessio Amantis. The unsatisfactory character of the existing editions of that poem was sufficiently well known, and it was generally recognized that the printed text could not safely be referred to by philologists, except so far as those small portions were concerned which happened to have been published from a good manuscript by Mr. A. J. Ellis in his Early English Pronunciation; so that, in spite of the acknowledged importance of the book in the history of the development of standard literary English, it was practically useless for linguistic studies. I was struck by the excellence of the authorities for its text which existed at Oxford, and on further investigation I convinced myself that it was here that the much needed new edition could best be produced. Accordingly I submitted to the Delegates of the University Press a proposal to edit the Confessio Amantis, and this proposal they accepted on the condition that I

would undertake to edit also the other works, chiefly in French and Latin, of the same author, expressly desiring that the Speculum Meditantis, which I had lately identified[Pg vi] while searching the Cambridge libraries for copies of the Confessio Amantis, should be included in the publication. To this condition I assented with some hesitation, which was due partly to my feeling that the English text was the only one really needed, and partly to doubts about my own competence to edit the French.

Considering, however, the extent to which the writings of this author in various languages illustrate one another, the help which is to be derived from the French works in dealing with the Romance element in the English not only of Gower, but also of Chaucer and other writers of the time, and the clearer view of the literary position of the Confessio Amantis which is gained by approaching it from the French side, I am now disposed to think that the Delegates were right in desiring a complete edition; and as for my own competence as an editor, I can only say that I have learnt much since I first undertook the work, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have avoided many errors into which I should once have fallen. For the faults that remain (I speak now of the contents of the present volume) I ask the indulgence of those who are more competent Romance scholars than myself, on the ground that it was clearly desirable under the circumstances that the French and the English should have the same editor. Moreover, I may fairly claim to have given faithful

and intelligible texts, and if I have gone wrong in other respects, it has been chiefly because I have wished to carry out the principle of dealing with all difficulties fairly, rather than passing them over without notice.

The English works will occupy the second and third volumes of this edition. From what has been said it will be understood that to publish a correct text of the Confessio Amantis has been throughout the main object. For this the materials are so excellent, though hitherto almost completely neglected, that we may with some confidence claim that the work is now presented almost exactly as it left the hand of the author, and that a higher degree of[Pg vii] security has been attained about the details of form and orthography than is possible (for example) in regard to any part of the writings of Chaucer. It is evident, if this be so, that the text must have a considerable value for students of Middle English, and none the less because it is here accompanied by a complete glossary. Besides this, the meaning of the text has been made clear, where necessary, by explanation and illustration, and above all by improved punctuation, and the sources of the stories and the literary connexions of the work generally have been traced as far as possible.

In the edition of the Vox Clamantis, which with the other Latin Works will form the fourth volume of this edition, the most important new contribution, besides the account of the various manuscripts, is perhaps the view presented of the author’s political development, as shown in the successive variations of the text. The historical references generally, both in this work and in the Cronica Tripertita, have been compared with the accounts given of the same events by other contemporary writers. This volume will also contain a statement of such facts as it is possible to gather with regard to the life of the author.

To a great extent this edition breaks fresh ground, and there are unfortunately but few direct obligations to be acknowledged to former workers in precisely the same field. At the same time the very greatest help is afforded to the editor of Gower by the work that has been done upon Chaucer and other fourteenth-century writers both by societies and individuals, work for which in this country Dr. Furnivall and Professor Skeat, and on the Continent Professor ten Brink, are perhaps most largely responsible.

Much of my work has been done in the Bodleian Library and with Bodleian manuscripts, and I should like to acknowledge the courtesy which I have always received there from the Librarian. My thanks are also due to the Librarians of those Colleges, both at Oxford and Cambridge, which possess Gower manuscripts, and to Dr. Young of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, for the trouble which[Pg viii] they have taken in giving me facilities for the use of their books, and especially to the Cambridge University Librarian, Mr. Jenkinson, for assistance of various kinds in connexion with the manuscript of the Mirour de l’Omme. I am obliged to the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, for the loan of their manuscript of the Vox Clamantis, and to several private owners, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Marquess of Bute, the Earl of Ellesmere, Lord Middleton, and J. H. Gurney, Esq., for having allowed me to make use of their manuscripts.

Finally, my thanks are due to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press for having undertaken the publication of a book which can hardly be very profitable, and for the consideration which they have shown for me in the course of my work.

[Pg ix]

INTRODUCTION

From a statement in Latin which is found in many of the Gower manuscripts, and undoubtedly proceeds from the author himself, we learn that the poet desired to rest his fame upon three principal works, the first in French, the second in Latin, and the third in English. These are the three volumes which, lying one upon another, form a pillow for the poet’s effigy in the church of Saint Saviour, Southwark, where he was buried. They are known by the Latin names, Speculum Meditantis, Vox Clamantis, Confessio Amantis, but the first of the three has until recently been looked upon as lost. In addition there are minor poems in each of the three languages, among which are two series of French balades. It will be my duty afterwards to prove the identity of the Mirour de l’Omme printed in this volume with our author’s earliest principal work, commonly known as Speculum Meditantis, but named originally Speculum Hominis; in the mean time I shall ask leave to assume this as proved, in order that a general view may be taken of Gower’s French

writings before we proceed to the examination of each particular work.

The Anglo-Norman[A] literature, properly so called, can hardly[Pg xii] be said to extend beyond the limits of the fourteenth century, and these therefore are among its latest productions. The interest of this literature in itself and its importance with a view to the Romance element in the English language have been adequately recognized within recent years, though the number of literary texts printed is still too small. It is unnecessary therefore to do more here than to call attention to the special position occupied by the works published in this volume, and the interest attaching to them, first on their own merits, then on account of the period to which they belong and the author from whom they proceed, and lastly from the authenticity and correctness of the manuscripts which supply us with their text.

As regards the work which occupies the greater part of the present volume, it would be absurd to claim for it a high degree of literary merit, but it is nevertheless a somewhat noticeable and interesting performance. The all-embracing extent of its design, involving a complete account not only of the moral nature of Man, but of the principles of God’s dealings with the world and with the human race, is hardly less remarkable than the thoroughness with which the scheme is worked out in detail and the familiarity with the Scriptures which the writer constantly displays. He has a far larger conception of his subject as a whole than other authors of ‘Specula’ or classifiers of Vices and Virtues which the age produced. Compare the Mirour de l’Omme with such works as the Speculum Vitae or the Manuel des Pechiez, and we shall be struck not only with the greater unity of its plan, but also with its greater comprehensiveness, while at the same time, notwithstanding its oppressive lengthiness, it has in general a flavour of literary style to which most other works

of the same class can lay no claim. Though intended, like the rest, for edification, it does not aim at edification alone: by the side of the moralist there is occasionally visible also a poet. This was the work upon which Gower’s reputation rested when Chaucer submitted Troilus to his judgement, and[Pg xiii] though he may have been indulging his sense of humour in making Gower one of the correctors of his version of that—

which the moralist had thought only good enough for the indolent worshipper to dream of in church (Mir. 5253), yet the dedication must have been in part at least due to respect for the literary taste of the persons addressed.

If however we must on the whole pronounce the literary value of the Speculum Meditantis to be small, the case is quite different with regard to the Balades, that is to say, the collection of about fifty love-poems which is found in the Trentham manuscript. These will be discussed in detail later, and reasons will be given for assigning them to the later rather than to the earlier years of the poet’s life. Here it is enough to say that they are for the most part remarkably good, better indeed than anything of their kind which was produced in England at that period, and superior in my opinion to the balades of Granson, ‘flour of hem that make in France,’ some of which Chaucer translated. But for the accident that they were written in French, this series of balades would have taken a very distinct place in the history of English literature.

The period to which the Speculum Meditantis belongs, about the beginning of the last quarter of the fourteenth century, is that in which the fusion of French and English elements from which the later language grew may be said to have been finally accomplished. Thanks to the careful work of English and German philologists in recent years, the process by which French words passed into the English language in the period from the beginning of the thirteenth to the end of the fourteenth century has been sufficiently traced, so far as regards the actual facts of their occurrence in English texts. Perhaps however the real nature of the process has not been set forth with sufficient clearness. It is true that before the end of the reign of Edward III the French element may be said to have been almost fully introduced into the vocabulary; the materials lay ready for those writers, the Wycliffite translators of the Bible, Chaucer, and Gower himself, who were to give the stamp of their authority to the language which was to be the literary language of England. Nevertheless, French words

were still French for these writers,[Pg xiv] and not yet English; the fact that the two languages were still used side by side, and that to every Englishman of literary culture the form of French which existed in England was as a second mother tongue, long preserved a French citizenship for the borrowed words. In the earlier part of this period they came in simply as aliens, and their meaning was explained when they were used, ‘in desperaunce, that is in unhope and in unbileave,’ ‘two manere temptaciuns, two kunne vondunges’; and afterwards for long, even though they had been repeatedly employed by English writers, they were not necessarily regarded as English words, but when wanted they were usually borrowed again from the original source, and so had their phonetic development in French rather than in English. When therefore Anglo-Norman forms are to be cited for English etymology, it is evidently more reasonable that the philologist should look to the latter half of the fourteenth century and give the form in which the word finally passed into the literary language, than to

the time of the first appearance of the word in English, under a form corresponding perhaps to the Anglo-Norman of the thirteenth century, but different from that which it assumed in the later Anglo-Norman, and thence in English. More precision in these citations is certainly to be desired, even though the time be past when etymologists were content to refer us vaguely to ‘Old French,’ meaning usually the sixteenth-century French of Cotgrave, when the form really required was of the fourteenth century and Anglo-Norman. It is not unreasonable to lay down the rule that for words of Anglo-Norman origin which occur in the English literary language of the Chaucer period, illustration of forms and meanings must first be looked for in the Anglo-Norman texts of that period, since the standard writers, as we may call them, that is those who contributed most to fix the standard of the language, in using them had the Anglo-Norman of their own day before their minds and eyes rather than any of the obscure English books in various dialects,

where the words in question may have been already used to supply the defects of a speech which had lost its literary elements. Moreover, theories as to the pronunciation of the English of Chaucer’s day have been largely supported by reference to the supposed pronunciation of the French words imported into English and the manner in which they are used in rhyme.[Pg xv] Evidently in this case the reference ought to be to the Anglo-Norman speech of this particular period, in the form in which it was used by those writers of English to whose texts we refer.

But this is not all: beside the question of language there is one of literary history. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Anglo-Norman literature had sunk into a very degraded condition. Pierre de Peccham, William of Waddington, Pierre de Langtoft, and the authors of the Apocalypse and the Descente de Saint Paul make the very worst impression as versifiers upon their modern French critics, and it must be allowed that the condemnation is just. They have in fact lost their hold on all the principles of French verse, and their metres are merely English in a French dress. Moreover, the English metres which they resemble are those of the North rather than of the South. If we compare the octosyllables of the Manuel des Pechiez with those of the Prick of Conscience we shall see that their principle is essentially the same, that of half-lines with two accents each, irrespective of the number of unaccented syllables, though naturally in English the irregularity is more marked. The same may be said of Robert Grosseteste’s verse a little earlier than this, e.g.

It cannot be proved that all the writers of French whom I have named were of the North, but it is certain that several of them were so, and it may well be that the French used in England was not really so uniform, ‘univoca,’ as it seemed to Higden, or at least that as the South of England had more metrical regularity in its English verse, witness the octosyllables of The Owl and the Nightingale in the thirteenth century, so also it retained more formal correctness in its French. However that may be, and whether it were by reason of direct continental influence or of the literary traditions of the South of England, it is certain that Gower represents a different school of versification from that of the writers whom we have mentioned, though he uses the same (or nearly the same) Anglo-Norman dialect, and writes[Pg xvi] verse which, as we shall see, is quite distinguishable in rhythm from that of the Continent. Thus we perceive that by the side of that reformation of English verse which was effected chiefly by Chaucer,

there is observable a return of Anglo-Norman verse to something of its former regularity, and this in the hands of the very man who has commonly been placed by the side of Chaucer as a leader of the new school of English poetry.

In what follows I shall endeavour to indicate those points connected with versification and language which are suggested by a general view of Gower’s French works. Details as to his management of particular metres are reserved for consideration in connexion with the works in which they occur.

Gower’s metre, as has already been observed, is extremely regular. He does not allow himself any of those grosser licences of suppression or addition of syllables which have been noticed in Anglo-Norman verse of the later period. Like William of Waddington, he apologizes for his style on the ground that he is an Englishman, but in his case the plea is very much less needed. His rhyming also, after allowance has been made for a few well-established Anglo-Norman peculiarities, may be said to be remarkably pure, more so in some respects than that of Frère Angier, for example, who wrote at least a century and a half earlier and was a decidedly good versifier. It is true that, like other Anglo-Norman writers, he takes liberties with the forms of words in flexion in order to meet the requirements of his rhyme, but these must be regarded as sins against grammar rather than against rhyme, and the French language in England had long been suffering decadence in this respect. Moreover, when we come to examine these vagaries, we

shall find that they are by no means so wild in his case as they had been in that of some other writers, and that there is a good deal of method in the madness. The desired effect is attained principally by two very simple expedients. The first of these is a tolerably extensive disregard of gender, adjectives being often used indifferently in the masculine or the feminine form, according to convenience. Thus in the Balades[B] we have ‘chose humein’ xxiv. 3, but ‘toute autre chose est veine’ xxxiii. 2, ‘ma fortune[Pg xvii] est assis’ ix. 5, ‘la fortune est faili’ xx. 3, ‘corps humeine’ xiv. 1, ‘l’estée vient flori’ ii. 1, ‘l’estée beal flori’ xx. 2, but ‘La cliere estée’ xxxii. 2, and the author says ‘ce (ceo) lettre’ (ii. 4, iii. 4), or ‘ceste lettre’ (xv. 4), according as it suits his metre. Similarly in the Mirour l. 92 ff.,