Part 2

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 40_s._, to the subprior 20_s._, to each Canon who is a priest 13_s._ 4_d._, and to each of the other Canons 6_s._ 8_d._, that they may all severally pray for him the more devoutly at his funeral. To the servants of the Priory 2_s._ or 1_s._ each according to their position; to the church of St. Mary Magdalene 40_s._ for lights and ornaments, to the parish priest of that church 10_s._, ‘vt oret et orari faciat pro me’; to the chief clerk of the same church 3_s._ and to the sub-clerk 2_s._ 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, 13_s._ 4_d._ each for ornaments and lights, and to each parish priest or rector in charge of those churches 6_s._ 8_d._, ‘vt orent et orari pro me in suis parochiis faciant et procurent.’ To the master of the hospital of St. Thomas in Southwark 40_s._, to each priest serving there 6_s._ 8_d._ for their prayers; to each sister professed in the said hospital 3_s._ 4_d._, to each attendant on the sick 20_d._, and to each sick person in the hospital 12_d._, 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 10_s._, to be distributed amongst the lepers, for their prayers: to the Prior of Elsingspitell 40s., and to each Canon priest there 6_s._ 8_d._

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,’ called _Martilogium_, 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 in more 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 records[42].

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 in October 1894, and was placed on the supposed site of the chapel of St. John the Baptist, where it now stands[43].

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 upwards[44], and round his head a chaplet of four red roses at intervals upon a band[45], with the words ‘merci ihs[46]’ (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 shield is 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 1212[47], 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 house[48].’ Berthelette in the Preface to his edition of the _Confessio 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 pere[49] Sauvé soit que gist souz cest piere.

‘The second is written Mercye, which holdeth in her hand this device,

O bone Jesu, fait ta mercy Al alme dont le corps gist icy[50].

‘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.

‘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.[51] The 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 the _Annals 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 hands[52],’ 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’s _New View of London_ (date 1708) they are described as appearing with ‘ducal coronets[53].’ In Rawlinson’s _Natural 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.’[54] The writer argues also that the chain should be of silver rather than of gold[55]. 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, 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.[56] The monument, as here described, is engraved in Gough’s _Sepulchral Monuments_ (date 1796), where there is a full description of it[57]. 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 the nave and aisles, which were finally removed in 1833, were of the time of Richard II and Henry IV[58]. 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.’[59] From 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’s _Repertorium Parochiale_[60]. The original record referred to by Newcourt is to be found in the Registry of the diocese of London[61], 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 rector[62].

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 marriage[63], 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 the _Mirour de l’Omme_, and the expression ‘borel clerk’ in the Prologue of the _Confessio Amantis_ must be taken to mean the same thing. The language which in the _Vox Clamantis_ he 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 will[64].

To the information which we derive from records must be added that which is to be drawn from the poet’s own writings. From the _Speculum Meditantis_ we 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 lawyer[65].

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 the _Vox 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 views on 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.