Part 8

FORMER EDITIONS. The _Vox Clamantis_ was printed for the Roxburghe Club in the year 1850, edited by H. O. Coxe, Bodley’s Librarian. In the same volume were included the _Cronica Tripertita_, the lines ‘Quicquid homo scribat,’ &c., the complimentary verses of the ‘philosopher,’ ‘Eneidos Bucolis,’ &c., and (in a note to the Introduction) the poem ‘O deus immense,’ &c. In T. Wright’s _Political Poems_, Rolls Series, 14, vol. i. the following pieces were printed: _Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _De Lucis Scrutinio_, ‘O deus immense,’ &c., _Cronica Tripertita_. In the Roxburghe edition of Gower’s _Cinkante Balades_ (1818) were printed also the pieces ‘Rex celi deus,’ and ‘Ecce patet tensus,’ the lines ‘Henrici quarti,’ a variation of ‘Quicquid homo scribat,’ &c. (see p. 365 of this edition). Finally the last poems ‘Vnanimes esse,’ ‘Presul, ouile regis,’ ‘Cultor in ecclesia,’ and ‘Dicunt scripture’ were printed by Karl Meyer in his dissertation _John Gower’s Beziehungen zu Chaucer &c._ pp. 67, 68.

Of Coxe’s edition I wish to speak with all due respect. It has served a very useful purpose, and it was perhaps on a level with the critical requirements of the time when it was published. At the same time it cannot be regarded as satisfactory. The editor tells us that his text is that of the All Souls MS. ‘collated throughout word for word with a MS. preserved among the Digby MSS. in the Bodleian, and here and there with the Cotton MS. [Tib. A. iv.] sufficiently to show the superiority of the All Souls MS.’ The inferior and late Digby MS. was thus uncritically placed on a level with those of first authority, and even preferred to the Cotton MS. It would require a great deal of very careful collation to convince an editor that the text of the All Souls MS. is superior in correctness to that of the Cotton MS., and it is doubtful whether after all he would come to any such conclusion. As regards correctness they stand in fact very nearly on the same level: each might set the other right in a few trifling points. It is not, however, from the Cotton MS. that the Roxburghe editor takes his corrections, when he thinks that any are needed. In such cases he silently adopts readings from the Digby MS., and in a much larger number of instances he gives the text of the All Souls MS. incorrectly, from insufficient care in copying or correcting. The most serious results of the undue appreciation of the Digby MS. are seen in those passages where S is defective, as in the Prologue of the first book, and in the well-known passage i. 783 ff., where the text of D is taken as the sole authority, and accordingly errors abound, which might have been avoided by reference to C or any other good copy[73]. The editor seems not to have been acquainted with the Harleian MS., and he makes no mention even of the second copy of the _Vox Clamantis_ which he had in his own library, MS. Laud 719.

The same uncritical spirit which we have noted in this editor’s choice of manuscripts for collation appears also in his manner of dealing with the revised passages. When he prints variations, it is only because he happens to find them in the Digby MS., and he makes only one definite statement about the differences of handwriting in his authority, which moreover is grossly incorrect. Not being acquainted with Dublin or the Hatfield MSS., he could not give the original text of such passages as _Vox Clamantis_, iii. 1-28 or vi. 545-80, but he might at least have indicated the lines which he found written over erasure, and in different hands from the original text, in the All Souls and Cotton MSS. Dr. Karl Meyer again, who afterwards paid some attention to the handwriting and called attention to Coxe’s misstatement on the subject, was preoccupied with the theory that the revision took place altogether after the accession of Henry IV, and failed to note the evidence afforded by the differences of handwriting for the conclusion that the revision was a gradual one, made in accordance with the development of political events.

I think it well to indicate the chief differences of text between the Roxburghe edition of the _Vox Clamantis_ and the present. The readings in the following list are those of the Roxburghe edition. In cases where the Roxburghe editor has followed the All Souls or Digby MS. that fact is noted by the letters S or D; but the variations are for the most part mere mistakes. It should be noted also that the sense is very often obscured in the Roxburghe edition by bad punctuation, and that the medieval spelling is usually not preserved.

_Epistola_ 37 orgine _Heading to Prol._ 3 somnum _Prologus_ 21 Godefri, des atque D 25 ascribens D 27 nil ut laudes D 32 Sicque D 36 sentiat D 37 Sæpeque sunt lachrymis de D 38 Humida fit lachrymis sæpeque penna meis D 44 favent D 49 confracto D 50 At 58 Hujus ergo D

_Heading to_ LIB. I. 1 _om._ eciam D 3 contingebant D 4 terræ illius D 7 etiam (_for_ et) D LIB. I. 12. quisque 26 celsitonantes 40 Fertilis occultam invenit SD 61 Horta 88 sorte 92 et (_for_ ex) Cap. ii. _Heading_ dicet prima 199 geminatis 209 possint D 280 crabs 326 elephantinus 359 segistram 395 Culteque Curræ 396 Linquendo S 455 Thalia D 474 arces 479 nemora 551 pertenui 585 Hæc 603 Tormis bruchiis 743 Cumque 763 alitrixque D 771 dominos superos nec D 784 Recteque D 789 Cebbe D 797 Sæpe 799 Quidem 803 Frendet perspumans D 811 earum D 817 sonitum quoque verberat 821 Congestat D 822 Obstrepuere 824 in (_for_ a) D 827 stupefactus 835 eorum non fortificet 837 furorum D 846 conchos D _om._ sibi D 855 roserat atra rubedo D 863 romphæa 873 gerunt 947 rapit (for stetit) D 953 igne S 1173 viris (_for_ iuris) 1174 aut (_for_ siue) 1241 et (_for_ vt) S 1302 sibi tuta 1312 scit SD 1334 Cantus 1338 ipse 1361 internis D 1390 Reddidit 1425 mutantia 1431 fuit 1440 Poenis 1461 deprimere 1525 statim S 1531 subito D 1587 per longum 1654 in medio 1656 nimis 1662 patebit S 1695 rubens pingit gemmis 1792 dixi (_for_ dedi) 1794 nichil (_for_ nil vel) 1855 coniuncta 1870 imbuet S 1910 tempore 1927 et (_for_ vt) 1941 Claudit 1974 parat 1985 _om._ numen 2009 tunc 2017 inde 2118 ulla

LIB. II. _Prol._ 10 ora 39 ore 40 fugam iste

LIB. II. 9 obstat D 65 Desuper D 70 Et qui pauca tenet 84 Causa tamen credo 175 continuo 191 migratrix 205 Et (_for_ Atque) 253 cum 271 Jonah 303 jam (_for_ tam) 352 ut 401 lecto 461 monent 545 morte (_for_ monte) 570 prædicat 608 fæcundari 628 Dicit

LIB. III. _Prol._ 9 sed et increpo 77 oro 90 potuit (for ponit)

LIB. III. 4* exempla D mundus (_for_ humus) D 18* ei D 27* poterint D 41 sensus 59 cum (_for_ eum) 76 Dicunt 141 possit (_for_ poscit) 176 onus (_for_ ouis) S 191 magnates 207 nimium (_for_ nummi) 209 luxuriatio D 225 expugnareque 333 capiunt 382 ad (_for_ in) 383 teli (_for_ tali) 469 _om._ est _after_ amor 535 Quem (_for_ Quam) 595 terram SD 701 Sublime 845 manu 891 Sic (_for_ Sicque) 933 vertatur 954 nostra 969 portamus nomen 971 nobis data D 976 renovare 989 sic (_for_ sit) S 1214 et 1234 attulerat 1265 fallit S 1357 mundus habet 1376 et (_for_ vt) S 1454 _om._ est 1455 Est; (_for_ Et) 1487 intendit 1538 ibi est 1541 Durius 1546 crebro 1695 sua (_for_ si) S 1747 vovit SD 1759 et sutorem 1863 vulnere SD 1936 intrat 1960 de se 1962 Nam 2049 ese 2085 agunt

LIB. IV. 26 callidis 67 vivens (_for_ niueus) 72 esse (_for_ ipse) S 259 Sæpe (_for_ Sepeque) 273 et (_for_ vt) S 294 perdant 295 bona qui sibi D 336 non (_for_ iam) S 435 quid tibi 451 Ac 453 cupiensque 531 at (_for_ et) 565 ex (_for_ hee) 567 Simplicitur 583 teneræ 588 præparat 593 ibi S 600 thalamus 610 claustra 662 patet SD 675 Credo 769 In terra 785 ut 799 putabat S 811 et (_for_ ad) S 863 sed nec (_for_ non set) 865 quem fur quasi 958 possit 1000 fratris (_for_ patris) 1038 Livorem 1081 adoptio S 1127 fallat 1214 vanis 1222* Usurpet ipsa

LIB. V. 1 sic D 18 ei (_for_ ita) D 101 cernis 104 atque 159 par est 178 fuit (_for_ sitit) 217 senos (_for_ seuos) 262 Carnis 281 si S 290 sonet 321 valet (_for_ decet) 338 vanis 375 ille 420 Pretia (_for_ Recia) 461 At 486 redemit (_for_ redeunt) 501 non (_for_ nos) S 508 geret 668 Si 672 Maxime 745 foras (_for_ foris) 805 etenim (_for_ eciam) S 928 est (_for_ et) 936 semine 937 pacis (_for_ piscis) 955 ubi (_for_ sibi) S

LIB. VI. 54 renuere 132 ipsa 133 locuples 212 ocius (_for_ cicius) 245 ibi (_for_ sibi) 319 Sæpe (_for_ Sepius) 405 in ‘æque’ (_for_ ineque) 411 descendat 476 quem S 488 Cesset 530 populus, væ (_for_ populus ve) 548 ipse D 646 ruat 679 legit S 746 Num 755 Nam (_for_ Dum) 789 majus (_for_ inanis) 816 Credo 971 Rex (_for_ Pax) 1016 gemmes 1033 quid (_for_ quod) 1041 Hæc (_for_ Hic) 1132 fide (_for_ fine) 1156 minuat D 1171* detangere (_for_ te tangere) D 1172* hæc D 1182* foras D 1197 veteris (_for_ verteris) 1210* Subditus 1224 _om._ carnem 1225* decens (_for_ docens) D lega 1241 Hic (_for_ Dic) 1251 defunctus D 1260 ab hoc 1281 est ille pius (_for_ ille pius est) 1327 nunc moritur

LIB. VII. 9 magnatum S 93 magnates D 96 nummis (_for_ minimis) 109 Antea 149 sic sunt 185 Virtutem 290 Aucta (_for_ Acta) 339 honorifica 350 credit S 409 servus cap. vi. _heading_ l. 4 sinit (_for_ sunt) 555 vultum 562 ff. Quid (_for_ Quod) 601 quam 602 adesse (_for_ ad esse) 635 Præceptum (_for_ Preceptumque) 665 agnoscit 707 enim (_for_ eum) cap. ix. _heading om._ postea 736 decus (_for_ pecus) 750 ille (_for_ ipse) cap. xi. _heading_ dicitur (_for_ loquitur) 798 capit (_for_ rapit) 828 etiam (_for_ iam) 903 _om._ nil 918 est (_for_ et) S 977 benefecit D 1043 frigor 1129 qui non jussa Dei servat 1178 eam 1278 opes S 1310 Vix (_for_ Vis) 1369 digna 1454 hic (_for_ hinc) 1474 bona 1479* ipsa

It will be seen that most of the above variants are due to mere oversight. It is surprising, however, that so many mistakes seriously affecting sense and metre should have escaped the correction of the editor.

In the matter of spelling the variation is considerable, but all that need be said is that the Roxburghe editor preferred the classical to the medieval forms. On the other hand it is to be regretted that no attempt is made by him to mark the paragraph divisions of the original. A minor inconvenience, which is felt by all readers who have to refer to the Roxburghe text, arises from the fact that the book-numbering is not set at the head of the page.

In the case of the _Cronica Tripertita_ we have the text printed by Wright in the Rolls Series as well as that of the Roxburghe edition. The latter is from the All Souls MS., while the former professes to be based upon the Cotton MS., so that the two texts ought to be quite independent. As a matter of fact, however, several of the mistakes or misprints of the Roxburghe text are reproduced in the Rolls edition, which was printed probably from a copy of the Roxburghe text collated with the Cotton MS.

The following are the variations of the Roxburghe text from that of the present edition.

_Introduction, margin_ 2 prosequi (_for_ persequi).

I. 1 _om._ et per (_for_ fer) 7 bene non 15 consilium sibi 71 fraudis 93 cum (_for_ dum) 132 hos (_for_ os) 161 _marg. om._ qui S 173 ausam S 182 Sic (_for_ Hic) 199 clientem 204 cepit (_for_ cessat) 209 Regem (_for_ Legem) 219 Qui est (_for_ est qui)

II. 9 sociatus (_for_ associatus) 61 manu tentum 85 _marg._ quia (_for_ qui) 114 de pondere 156 sepulchrum 180 maledictum 220 Transulit 223 omne scelus 237 ipsum 266 Pontifice 271 malefecit 315 _marg._ derisu 330 _marg._ Consulat 333 adeo.

III. 109 prius S 131 viles S 177 conjunctus 188 sceleris 235 mane 239 nunc S 242 freta (_for_ fata) 250 ponere 263 Exilia 285 _marg._ præter (_for_ personaliter) 287 Nec 288 stanno 333 conquescat 341 auget 372 eo (_for_ et) 422 _marg._ fidelissime 428 prius S

Of the above errors several, as we have said, are reproduced by Wright with no authority from his MS.[74], but otherwise his text is a tolerably correct representation of that given by the Cotton MS., and the same may be said with regard to the other poems _Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _De Lucis Scrutinio_[75], &c.

THE PRESENT EDITION. The text is in the main that of S, which is supplemented, where it is defective, by C. The Cotton MS. is also the leading authority for those pieces which are not contained in S, as the four last poems.

For the _Vox Clamantis_ four manuscripts have been collated with S word for word throughout, viz. CHDL, and two more, viz. GE, have been collated generally and examined for every doubtful passage. TH₂ have been carefully examined and taken as authorities for the original text of some of the revised passages.

As regards the record of the results of these rather extensive collations, it may be stated generally that all material variations of C and H from the text of S have been recorded in the critical notes[76]. The readings of E, D and L have been printed regularly for those passages in which material variations of other MSS. are recorded, and in such cases, if they are not mentioned, it may be assumed that they agree with S; but otherwise they are mentioned only when they seem to deserve attention. The readings of G are recorded in a large number of instances, but they must not be assumed _ex silentio_, and those of T and H₂ are as a rule only given in passages where they have a different version of the text.

A trifling liberty has been taken with the text of the MSS. in regard to the position of the conjunction ‘que’ (and). This is frequently used by our author like ‘et,’ standing at the beginning of a clause or between the words which it combines, as

‘Sic lecto vigilans meditabar plura, que mentem Effudi,’

or

‘Cutte que Curre simul rapidi per deuia currunt,’

but it is also very often used in the correct classical manner. The MSS. make no distinction between these two uses, but sometimes join the conjunction to the preceding word and sometimes separate it, apparently in a quite arbitrary manner. For the sake of clearness the conjunction is separated in this edition regularly when the sense requires that it should be taken independently of the preceding word, and the variations of the manuscripts with regard to this are not recorded.

Again, some freedom has been used in the matter of capital letters, which have been supplied, where they were wanting, in the case of proper names and at the beginning of sentences.

The spelling is in every particular the same as that of the MS. The practice of altering the medieval orthography, which is fairly consistent and intelligible, so as to make it accord with classical or conventional usage, has little or nothing to be said for it, and conceals the evidence which the forms of spelling might give with regard to the prevalent pronunciation.

The principal differences in our text from the classical orthography are as follows:

_e_ regularly for the diphthongs _ae_, _oe_.

_i_ for _e_ in _periunt_, _rediat_, _nequio_, &c. (but also _pereunt_, &c.).

_y_ for _i_ in _ymus_, _ymago_, &c.

_i_ for _y_, e.g. _mirrha_, _ciclus_, _limpha_.

_v_ for _u_ or _v_ regularly as initial letter of words, elsewhere _u_.

vowels doubled in _hii_, _hee_, _hiis_ (monosyllables).

_u_ for _uu_ after _q_, e.g. _equs_, _iniqus_, _sequntur_.

initial _h_ omitted in _ara_ (hăra), _edus_ (haedus), _ortus_, _yemps_, &c.

initial _h_ added in _habundat_, _heremus_, _Herebus_, &c.

_ch_ for _h_ in _michi_, _nichil_.

_ch_ for _c_ in _archa_, _archanum_, _inchola_, _choruscat_, &c. (but _Cristus_, when fully written, for ‘Christus’).

_ci_ for _ti_ regularly before a vowel e.g. _accio_, _alcius_, _cercius_, _distinccio_, _gracia_, _sentencia_, _vicium_.

_c_ for _s_ or _sc_, in _ancer_, _cerpo_, _ceptrum_, _rocidus_, _Cilla_.

_s_ for _c_ or _sc_, in _secus_ (occasionally for ‘caecus’), _sintilla_, &c.

single for double consonants in _apropriat_, _suplet_, _agredior_, _resurexit_, &c. (also _appropriat_, &c.).

_ph_ for _f_ in _scropha_, _nephas_, _nephandus_, _prophanus_, &c.

_p_ inserted in _dampnum_, _sompnus_, &c.

_set_ usually in the best MSS. for _sed_ (conjunction), but in the Cotton MS. usually ‘sed.’

It has been thought better to print the elegiac couplet without indentation for the pentameter, partly because that is the regular usage in the MSS. and must of course have been the practice of the author, but still more in order to mark more clearly the division into paragraphs, to which the author evidently attached some importance. Spaces of varying width are used to show the larger divisions. It is impossible that there should not be some errors in the printed text, but the editor can at least claim to have taken great pains to ensure correctness, and all the proof-sheets have been carefully compared with the text of the manuscripts.

For convenience of reference the lines are numbered as in the Roxburghe edition, though perhaps it would be more satisfactory to combine the prologues, as regards numbering, with the books to which they belong.

In regard to the Notes there are no doubt many deficiencies. The chief objects aimed at have been to explain difficulties of language, to illustrate the matter or the style by reference to the works of the author in French and in English, and to trace as far as possible the origin of those parts of his work which are borrowed. In addition to this, the historical record contained in the _Cronica Tripertita_ has been carefully compared with the evidence given by others with regard to the events described, and possibly this part of the editor’s work, being based entirely upon the original authorities, may be thought to have some small value as a contribution to the history of a singularly perplexing political situation.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] 2nd Series, vol. ii. pp. 103-117.

[2] _Script. Brit._ i. 414.

[3] _Itin._ vi. 55. From Foss, _Tabulae Curiales_, it would seem that there was no judge named Gower in the 14th century.

[4] _Script. Brit._ i. 414. This statement also appears as a later addition in the manuscript.

[5] ‘Gower’ appears in Tottil’s publication of the Year-books (1585) both in 29 and 30 Ed. III, e.g. 29 Ed. III, Easter term, ff. 20, 27, 33, 46, and 30 Ed. III, Michaelmas term, ff. 16, 18, 20 v^o. He appears usually as counsel, but on some occasions he speaks apparently as a judge. The Year-books of the succeeding years, 31-36 Ed. III, have not been published.

[6] These arms appear also in the Glasgow MS. of the _Vox Clamantis_.

[7] _Worthies_, ed. 1662, pt. 3, p. 207.

[8] e.g. Winstanley, Jacob, Cibber and others.

[9] _Ancient Funeral Monuments_, p. 270. This Sir Rob. Gower had property in Suffolk, as we shall see, but the fact that his tomb was at Brabourne shows that he resided in Kent. The arms which were upon his tomb are pictured (without colours) in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77.

[10] _Rot. Pat._ dated Nov. 27, 1377.

[11] _Rot. Claus._ 4 Ric. II. m. 15 d.

[12] _Rot. Pat._ dated Dec. 23, 1385.

[13] _Rot. Pat._ dated Aug. 12, Dec. 23, 1386.

[14] It may here be noted that the poet apparently pronounced his name ‘Gowér,’ in two syllables with accent on the second, as in the Dedication to the _Balades_, i. 3, ‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestout vos soubgitz.’ The final syllable bears the rhyme in two passages of the _Confessio Amantis_ (viii. 2320, 2908), rhyming with the latter syllables of ‘pouer’ and ‘reposer’. (The rhyme in viii. 2320, ‘Gower: pouer,’ is not a dissyllabic one, as is assumed in the _Dict. of Nat. Biogr._ and elsewhere, but of the final syllables only.) In the _Praise of Peace_, 373, ‘I, Gower, which am al the liege man,’ an almost literal translation of the French above quoted, the accent is thrown rather on the first syllable.

[15] See _Retrospective Review_, 2nd Series, vol. ii, pp. 103-117 (1828). Sir H. Nicolas cites the Close Rolls always at second hand and the _Inquisitiones Post Mortem_ only from the Calendar. Hence the purport of the documents is sometimes incorrectly or insufficiently given by him. In the statement here following every document is cited from the original, and the inaccuracies of previous writers are corrected, but for the most part silently.

[16] _Inquis. Post Mortem_, &c. 39 Ed. III. 36 (2nd number). This is in fact an ‘Inquisitio ad quod damnum.’ The two classes of Inquisitions are given without distinction in the Calendar, and the fact leads to such statements as that ‘John Gower died seized of half the manor of Aldyngton, 39 Ed. III,’ or ‘John Gower died seized of the manor of Kentwell, 42 Ed. III.’

[17] _Rot. Orig._ 39 Ed. III. 27.

[18] _Rot. Claus._ 39 Ed. III. m. 21 d.

[19] _Rot. Claus._ 39 Ed. III. m. 21 d.

[20] _Harl. Charters_, 56 G. 42. See also _Rot. Orig._ 42 Ed. III. 33 and _Harl. Charters_, 56 G. 41.

[21] _Harl. Charters_, 50 I. 13.

[22] See _Rot. Orig._ 23 Ed. III. 22, 40 Ed. III. 10, 20, _Inquis. Post Mortem_, 40 Ed. III. 13, _Rot. Claus._ 40 Ed. III. m. 21.

[23] _Harl. Charters_, 50 I. 14. The deed is given in full by Nicolas in the _Retrospective Review_.

[24] _Rot. Orig._ 48 Ed. III. 31.

[25] The tinctures are not indicated either upon the drawing of Sir R. Gower’s coat of arms in MS. Harl. 3917 or on the seal, but the coat seems to be the same, three leopards’ faces upon a chevron. The seal has a diaper pattern on the shield that bears the chevron, but this is probably only ornamental.

[26] ‘Et dicunt quod post predictum feoffamentum, factum predicto Iohanni Gower, dictus Willelmus filius Willelmi continue morabatur in comitiva Ricardi de Hurst et eiusdem Iohannis Gower apud Cantuar, et alibi usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis ultimo preteritum, et per totum tempus predictum idem Willelmus fil. Will. ibidem per ipsos deductus fuit et consiliatus ad alienationem de terris et tenementis suis faciendam.’ _Rot. Parl._ ii. 292.

[27] _Rot. Claus._ 43 Ed. III. m. 30.

[28] _Rot. Claus._ 42 Ed. III. m. 13 d.

[29] _English Writers_, vol. iv. pp. 150 ff.

[30] See _Calendar of Post Mortem Inquisitions_, vol. ii. pp. 300, 302.

[31] So also the deeds of 1 Ric. II releasing lands to Sir J. Frebody and John Gower (Hasted’s _History of Kent_, iii. 425), and of 4 Ric. II in which Isabella daughter of Walter de Huntyngfeld gives up to John Gower and John Bowland all her rights in the parishes of Throwley and Stalesfield, Kent (_Rot. Claus._ 4 Ric. II. m. 15 d), and again another in which the same lady remits to John Gower all actions, plaints, &c., which may have arisen between them (_Rot. Claus._ 8 Ric. II. m. 5 d).

[32] _Rot. Franc._ 1 Ric. II. pt. 2, m. 6.

[33] See also Sir N. Harris Nicolas, _Life of Chaucer_, pp. 27, 125.

[34] _Rot. Claus._ 6 Ric. II. m. 27 d, and 24 d.

[35] _Rot. Claus._ 6 Ric. II. pt. 1, m. 23 d.