(eBook PDF) The Cosmic Perspective

8th Edition by Jeffrey O. Bennett

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-the-cosmic-perspective-8th-edition-by-j
effrey-o-bennett/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The complete
works of John Gower, volume 4
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: The complete works of John Gower, volume 4

The Latin works

Author: John Gower

Editor: G. C. Macaulay

Release date: December 13, 2023 [eBook #72396]

Language: English

Credits: Ted Garvin, Stephen Rowland, Krista Zaleski and the

Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE

COMPLETE WORKS OF JOHN GOWER, VOLUME 4 ***
 Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors in punctuation have been silently corrected.
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER
G. C. MACAULAY
****
THE LATIN WORKS
 HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK

MS. COTTON TIBERIUS A. IV., F. 9
(Reduced in size)
 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 LATIN WORKS

De modicis igitur modicum dabo pauper, et inde

Malo valere parum quam valuisse nichil.

Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1902
 Oxford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
 CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction vii
Epistola 1
Vox Clamantis 3
Cronica Tripertita 314
Rex celi deus etc. 343
H. aquile pullus etc. 344
O recolende etc. 345
Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia 346
Tractatus de Lucis Scrutinio 355
Ecce patet tensus etc. 358
Est amor etc. 359
Quia vnusquisque etc. 360
Eneidos Bucolis etc. 361
O deus immense etc. 362
Last Poems 365
Notes 369
Glossary 421
Index to the Notes 428
 INTRODUCTION
LIFE 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’s Sepulchral Monuments
(1796), and in 1828 Sir Harris Nicolas, roused by the uncritical spirit
of Todd, published the article in the Retrospective Review1 which
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 of 6 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’s Itinerarium, 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
his Animadversions acutely 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 Chaucer was 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 at High 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 date22 it 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. As to 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 to hesitate 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 had irregularly 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 the
Speculum Hominis and the Vox 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 Richard Forester, to be
used during his absence abroad by licence of the king.32
Considering 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