NOTES (continued 2)

15. A pardon was granted to all three in the Parliament of 1387-88, ‘par estatut’ (see Rot. Parl. iii. 350), and a special charter of pardon was granted to the earl of Arundel at Windsor, April 30, 1394 (Rot. Parl. iii. 351; cp. Ann. Ric. II, p. 211). See below, ll. 259 f., where the charters of pardon are said to have been procured by archbishop Arundel who was then Chancellor. It seems to be implied that the other two had similar charters, but nothing is said of this in the Rolls of Parliament; cp. Eulog. Hist. iii. 374.

56. Cp. Ann. Ric. II, p. 202 (Rolls Series, 28. 3) ‘iurans suo solito iuramento, per sanctum Iohannem Baptistam, quod nihil mali pateretur in corpore, si se pacifice reddere voluisset.’

69 f. In the Annales Ricardi II it is definitely stated that Warwick came to the king’s banquet and was arrested after it (p. 202). According to Gower’s account there was no banquet at all, and Gloucester was arrested before Warwick; and this agrees with the accounts given in the Chronique de la Traïson, p. 9, and by Froissart, vol. xvi. p. 73 (ed. Lettenhove).

85 ff. From this account we should gather that the king officially announced the death of the duke of Gloucester to parliament before it had occurred; but this was not so. Parliament met on Sept. 17, and on Sept. 21 a writ was sent in the king’s name to Calais, ordering the earl of Nottingham to produce his prisoner. This was replied to, under date Sept. 24, with the announcement that he was dead (Rot. Parl. iii. 378). It is certain, however, that a report of the duke of Gloucester’s death was circulated and generally believed in the month of August, and equally certain that this was done with the connivance of the king, who probably wished to try what effect the news would produce upon the public mind. Sir William Rickhill, the justice who was sent over to extract a confession from the duke of Gloucester, received on Sept. 5 a commission from the king to proceed to Calais, no purpose stated, the date of the commission being Aug. 17. On arrival he was presented by the earl of Nottingham with another commission from the king, also with date Aug. 17, directing him to examine the duke of Gloucester. He expressed surprise, saying that the duke was dead and that his death had been ‘notified’ to the people both at Calais and in England. On the next day he saw the duke and received his so-called confession (Rot. Parl. iii. 431). When this confession was communicated to parliament, the date of it was suppressed, and things were so arranged as to favour the opinion that the interview with Rickhill took place between the 17th and 25th of August, the latter being the accepted date of Gloucester’s death; cp. the article by Mr. James Tait in the Dict. of National Biography, vol. lvi. pp. 157 f.

It is probable enough that the duke of Gloucester was still living when parliament met, as Gower seems to imply. Unfortunately John Halle, who confessed that he was present at the murder of the duke (Rot. Parl. iii. 453), gave no precise date. The statement of Gower that the king waited until he had secured his condemnation, may mean only that he satisfied himself of the temper of Parliament before taking the final and irrevocable step.

101 ff. The body seems first to have been laid in the Priory of Bermondsey: then it was buried by Richard’s command in Westminster Abbey, but apart from the royal burial-place. Afterwards the body was transferred by Henry IV to the place chosen by Gloucester himself, between the tomb of Edward the Confessor and that of Edward III (Adam of Usk, p. 39).

121 f. For the insults levelled against the earl of Arundel see Ann. Ric. II, p. 215, Adam of Usk, p. 13.

With regard to the events of this parliament generally, it is worth while here to observe that Adam of Usk must certainly be regarded as a first-hand authority and his account as a contemporary one. It has usually been assumed that, though he says himself that he was present at the parliament (‘In quo parliemento omni die presensium compilator interfuit’), he actually borrowed his account of it from the Monk of Evesham. This assumption rests entirely on the statement of the editor of Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, that he must have written later than 1415, a statement which is repeated without question by Potthast, Gross, and others. It may be observed, however, that the evidence adduced for this late date is absolutely worthless. It is alleged first that Adam of Usk near the beginning of his Chronicle alludes to the Lollard rising in Henry V’s reign, whereas what he actually says is that the Lollards planned an attack on Convocation, but were deterred by the resolute measures of the archbishop of Canterbury, at the time of the second parliament of Henry IV, that is the year 1401, when Convocation was engaged in an endeavour to suppress the Lollards and the archbishop procured the execution of William Sawtree; secondly we are told that the chronicler refers (p. 55) to the death of the dauphin Louis, which happened in 1415, whereas actually his reference is obviously to the death of the dauphin Charles, which took place at the beginning of the year 1402. Mr. James Tait in the Dict. of National Biography, vol. xlviii. p. 157, has already indicated that an earlier date than 1415 is necessary, by his reference to p. 21 of the Chronicle, where the chronicler speaks of Edmund earl of March as a boy not yet arrived at puberty, which points to a date not later than 1405. It seems probable that the Monk of Evesham had before him Adam of Usk’s journal of the parliament of 1397, to which he made some slight additions from other sources, introducing into his account a political colour rather more favourable to Richard II. The close correspondence between them is confined to the proceedings of this parliament at Westminster. It may be added that the account given by Adam of Usk is full of graphic details which suggest an eye-witness.

129. The pardon pleaded by the earl of Arundel had already been revoked by parliament, therefore the plea was not accepted. From the attempts made by the king to recover Arundel’s charter of pardon, even after his execution (Rot. Claus. 21 Ric. II. pt 2, m. 18 d.), we may perhaps gather that some scruples were felt about the revocation of it.

135 ff. Cp. Annales Ric. II, pp. 216 f.

155 f. Annales Ric. II, p. 219.

179 ff. Rot. Parl. iii. 380, Annales Ric. II, p. 220.

199 f. ‘Qu’il demureroit en perpetuel prison hors du Roialme en l’isle de Man par terme de sa vie’ (Rot. Parl. iii. 380).

201 f. By the sentence upon the earl of Warwick all his property was confiscated, but it is stated in the Annales Ric. II (p. 220) that a promise was made that he and his wife should have honourable maintenance from the forfeited revenues, and that this promise was not kept. Adam of Usk says that an income of 500 marks was granted to him and his wife, but was never paid (p. 16).

217 f. It seems impossible to construe this, and I suspect that a line has dropped out.

230. His sentence of death was commuted for that of exile to the isle of Jersey (Rot. Parl. iii. 382).

231 f. So also below, l. 280, our author expresses a hope for the safe return of the archbishop of Canterbury, who came back in company with Henry of Lancaster; cp. 330 f., where a hope is expressed for future vengeance on the king. Yet we can hardly suppose that this second part of the Chronicle was actually written before the events of the third part had come to pass. All that we can say is that the writer gives to his narrative the semblance of having been composed as the events happened. The return of Cobham is mentioned by him afterwards (iii. 262).

233 ff. Our author reserves the case of the archbishop to the last, as a climax of the evil. He was actually sentenced on Sept. 25, before the trial of the earl of Warwick (Rot. Parl. iii. 351). Sir John Cobham, whose sentence is mentioned above, was not put on his trial till Jan. 28, when parliament was sitting at Shrewsbury.

242. That is, the court of Rome was bribed to consent to his translation.

243. The title of his father, who was the second earl of Arundel, was used by him as a surname.

267 ff. This seems to mean that other private reasons were alleged to the Pope.

280. See note on l. 231.

326 f. An allusion to the campaign of 1380.

328 f. Referring especially to the very popular naval victory of Arundel in 1387 (Walsingham, ii. 154).

340. That is, in the twenty-first year of the reign (1397).

Tercia Pars

17. This comparison of Richard’s proceedings to the work of a mole under the ground (see also l. 12, margin) is appropriate enough as a description of the plot which he undoubtedly laid against the liberties of the kingdom, but the comparison is perhaps chiefly intended to suggest that Richard, and not Henry, was the ‘talpa ore dei maledicta’ of prophecy (Glendower’s ‘mould-warp’), cp. Archaeologia, xx. p. 258.

27 ff. This refers to the appointment of a committee with full powers to deal with the petitions and other matters left unfinished in this parliament. The committee consisted of twelve lords, of whom six should be a quorum, and six commons, three to be a quorum: see Rot. Parl. iii. 368, Annales Ric. II, p. 222819. The latter authority accuses the king of altering the Rolls of Parliament ‘contra effectum concessionis praedictae.’

35 ff. Cp. Annales Ric. II, p. 225.

47. Que non audiuit auris, &c. The same expression is used by Adam of Usk about the king’s proceedings in this parliament at Shrewsbury (p. 17).

49 ff. These transactions are related, but not very intelligibly, in the continuation of the Eulogium Historiarum, iii. 378. It seems that the king summoned the archbishop and bishops to his Council at Nottingham, and used their influence to obtain from the city of London and the seventeen counties adjacent acknowledgements of guilt and payments of money to procure pardon. After this the king ordered that the archbishops, bishops, abbots, &c., and also the individual citizens of towns, should set their seals to blank parchments, wherein afterwards a promise to keep the statutes of the last parliament was inscribed, to which it was supposed that the king intended to add acknowledgements placing the persons in question and their property at his own disposal: cp. Monk of Evesham, p. 147. These last are the ‘blanche-chartres’ spoken of below called ‘blanke chartours’ in Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 101, where the form of submission sent in by the city of London, ‘in plesauns of the kynge and by conselle and helpe of Syr Roger Walden, Archebischoppe of Cauntyrbury ande Syr Robert Braybroke, Byschoppe of London,’ is given in full, pp. 98-100. See also Rot. Parl. iii. 426, 432, where they are referred to as ‘les Remembrances appellez Raggemans ou blanches Chartres.’

73. pharisea: that is, hypocritically submissive to the king.

77. melior: comparative for superlative; so ‘probacior,’ l. 79.

85 f. Gower attributes Henry’s exile to what was probably the true cause, namely the king’s jealousy of his popularity and fear that he might take the lead in opposition to the newly established arbitrary system of government. The very occasion of the quarrel with the duke of Norfolk, an allegation on the part of Henry that the duke of Norfolk had warned him of danger from Richard and had said that the king could not be trusted to keep his oaths, made it difficult to take more summary measures against him at that moment. Indeed it seems probable that the conversation was reported to the king with a view to obtain a contradiction of the design imputed to him. Adam of Usk says definitely that the king’s object in appointing the duel at Coventry was to get rid of Henry, and that Richard had been assured by astrologers that the duke of Norfolk would win; but that on seeing them in the lists he was convinced that Henry would be the victor, and therefore he broke off the duel and banished both, intending shortly to recall the duke of Norfolk (p. 23). It is noteworthy that Gower makes no mention whatever of the duke of Norfolk here.

128 (margin). It cannot of course be supposed that Henry embarked at Calais. Probably he sailed from Boulogne. Froissart says that his port of departure was Vannes in Brittany, but he expresses some uncertainty about the matter, and his whole account here is hopelessly inaccurate (xvii. 171, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove).

137. nepote: that is Thomas, son of the late earl of Arundel; see l. 130, margin.

160 ff. The suggestion here that Richard foresaw the coming of Henry and went to Ireland through fear of it, is of course absurd. At the same time it is certain that he received warnings, and that in view of these his expedition to Ireland was very ill-timed. The statement in the margin, that he fatally wasted time in Ireland, is supported both by the English annalists and by Creton. In the Annales Ric. II we read that a week was wasted by Richard’s hesitation as to the port from which he should sail (p. 248), and Creton says that Richard was delayed by the treacherous advice of the duke of Aumerle, who induced him to leave the levying of troops in Wales to the earl of Salisbury and to embark at his leisure at Waterford (Archaeologia, xx. 312). Nothing is said of unfavourable winds in any of these authorities, except that Creton observes that the news of Henry’s landing was delayed by the bad weather (p. 309). Henry landed July 4, and Richard was in Wales before the end of the month.

188. There is no authority for reading ‘sceleris’ in this line, as the former editors have done. Presumably ‘sceleres’ is for ‘celeres,’ and this form of spelling is found occasionally elsewhere in the MSS., as conversely ‘ceptrum’ frequently for ‘sceptrum.’ It is not easy to translate the line, whatever reading we may adopt. It seems to mean ‘So in their ignorance they hesitate,’ (‘few show themselves quick in action’).

205. mundum nec abhorruit istum, ‘nor renounced this world’: ‘istum,’ as usual, for ‘hunc.’

244. Augusti mensis. Richard left Flint on Aug. 19, and arrived in London Sept. 2 (Annales Ric. II, p. 251).

256. Humfredum natum: that is Humphrey, the young son of the duke of Gloucester. Richard had taken him to Ireland, and on hearing of the landing of Henry had ordered him to be confined, together with young Henry of Lancaster, in Trim castle (Walsingham, ii. 233).

272. transit moriens. He died apparently on the way back from Ireland, in Anglesea according to Adam of Usk, who says that he was poisoned (p. 28). Walsingham says that he died of ‘pestilence’ (ii. 242): cp. Annales Henrici IV, p. 321 (Rolls Series, 28. 3).

276. Cignus: apparently the young duke of Gloucester is here meant, and it is not intended to state that he was killed by grief for the loss of his father, but that his mother died of grief for him: cp. Annales Henrici IV, p. 321.

286. dies Martis, Tuesday, Sept. 30. Richard’s renunciation was made on Sept. 29 (Rot. Parl. iii. 416 ff.).

300 ff. The demise of the crown made new writs necessary, but the same parliament met again six days later (Oct. 6).

310. verbalis ... non iudicialis. This appears to mean that the proceedings were confined to a recital of the circumstances connected with the deposition of Richard, and that no parliamentary business was done until after the coronation, which took place on the next Monday, Oct. 13.

332 ff. The threefold right is stated here by Gower in the same way as by Chaucer:

In the margin, however, Gower places the right by conquest last, and tempers the idea of it by the addition ‘sine sanguinis effusione.’ Henry’s challenge claimed the realm by descent through ‘right line of blood’ (that is, apparently, setting aside descent through females, cp. Eulog. Hist. contin. iii. 383) and by ‘that right which God of his grace hath sent me ... to recover it’ (that is, by conquest). To these was added the right conferred by parliamentary election. It is not at all necessary to suppose that he relied on the legend about Edmund Crouchback, which had been officially examined and rejected (Adam of Usk, p. 30). His reference to Henry III may have been occasioned only by the fact that he was himself of the same name, and would come to the throne as Henry IV.

324. That is Oct. 13, the Translation of Edward the Confessor.

341. augit. This form is given by all the MSS.

352 ff. Rot. Parl. iii. 426.

364 ff. Rot. Parl. iii. 425.

368 ff. Rot. Parl. iii. 430 ff.

378 ff. Rot. Parl. iii. 449 ff.

384 ff. This refers to the fact that the dukes of Aumerle, Surrey, and Exeter, the marquis of Dorset, and the earl of Gloucester, were condemned to lose the titles of duke, marquis, and earl respectively. The case of the earl of Salisbury was reserved for future decision by combat with lord de Morley.

388 f. This seems clearly to imply that Bagot was eventually pardoned, and this conclusion is confirmed by Rot. Parl. iii. 458 (overlooked by the author of Bagot’s life in the Dict. of National Biography), where there is record of a petition presented by the Commons for the restoration of his lands (Feb. 1401), which seems to have been granted by the king.

394 ff. This is confirmed by Walsingham, ii. 242, and Annales Henrici IV, p. 320.

402 f. Holland and Kent are the former dukes of Exeter and Surrey, now earls of Huntingdon and Kent. Spenser is the former earl of Gloucester.

417 f. Kent and Salisbury were put to death by the populace at Cirencester, and Despenser at Bristol. The earl of Huntingdon was captured and irregularly executed in Essex.

420 ff. For the feeling in London cp. Chronique de la Traïson, pp. 92, 93.

432 ff. The statement here is not that Richard deliberately starved himself to death on hearing of the failure of the rising and the death of his associates, but that he lost hope and courage and could not eat, ‘quod vix si prandia sumit, Aut si sponte bibit vinum,’ and that he desired the death which came to him. This is not an incredible account, and it is fairly in accordance with the best evidence. Most of the contemporary authorities give starvation as the cause, or one of the causes, of death, and the account of it given in our text agrees with that of Walsingham (ii. 245), Annales Henrici IV, p. 330, Eulog. Hist. contin. iii. 387. The Monk of Evesham mentions this commonly accepted story, but thinks it more probable that he was starved involuntarily: ‘Aliter tamen dicitur et verius, quod ibidem fame miserabiliter interiit,’ and this is also the assertion of the Percies’ proclamation (Harding’s Chronicle, ed. Ellis, p. 352). Creton says,

and he proceeds to say that he rather believes that Richard is still alive in prison (Archaeologia, xx. p. 408). Adam of Usk (p. 41) says that Richard was brought almost to death by grief and the disappointment of his hopes, but that his death was partly caused by the scantiness of the food supplied to him. The Chronique de la Traïson tells the story about Piers Exton, which was afterwards commonly accepted by historians, but this was certainly not current at the time in England.

462 ff. The epithet ‘pius,’ which Gower attaches to Henry’s name in this passage, means in his mouth ‘merciful,’ and in the margin the ‘pietas’ of the new king is contrasted with the ‘cruelty’ of Richard, the vice to which Gower chiefly attributes his fall. There is no doubt that the execution of Arundel and the murder of Gloucester (or the popular opinion that he had been murdered) produced a very sinister impression, and caused a general feeling of insecurity which was very favourable to Henry’s enterprise. It is true also that Henry showed himself scrupulously moderate at first in his dealings with political opponents. Gower expresses the state of things pretty accurately, when he says below:

486. This is a perilously near approach to the Wycliffite doctrine.

REX CELI Etc. (p. 343)

This piece is here connected by its heading with the Cronica Tripertita, but it occurs also in the Glasgow MS. independently and in the Trentham MS. as a sequel to the poem In Praise of Peace, with the following in place of the present heading, ‘Explicit carmen de pacis commendacione.... Et nunc sequitur epistola, in qua idem Iohannes pro statu et salute dicti domini sui apud altissimum deuocius exorat.’ The poem itself is an adaptation of the original version of Vox Clamantis, vi. cap. 18: see vol. iii. p. 554.

H. AQUILE PULLUS Etc. (p. 344)

The word ‘Prophecia’ in the margin seems to be intended to recall the supposed prophecy of Merlin about the ‘filius (or pullus) aquilae’ (Archaeol. xx. p. 257, Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, p. 133).

These four lines immediately follow the Cronica Tripertita in the Glasgow and Hatton MSS., and are themselves followed by two quotations from the Psalms (lxxxviii. 23, xl. 3):

‘Nichil proficiet inimicus in eo, et filius iniquitatis non apponet nocere ei.’

‘Dominus conseruet eum, et viuificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat cum in animam inimicorum eius.’

In the Trentham MS. we have the lines ‘H. aquile pullus,’ and the above quotations, subjoined to the first eight lines of ‘O recolende,’ as part of the dedication of the Cinkante Balades: see vol. i. p. 336.

1. aquile pullus: Henry is called so because his father was named John and used the eagle as one of his cognisances: cp. Adam of Usk, p. 24, ‘pullus aquile, quia filius Iohannis.’ The reference is to a prophecy, one form of which is quoted by the editor of Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, p. 133. For the use of the eagle by John of Gaunt see Sandford’s Genealogical History, p. 249.

2. colla. The reading of S may be supported by reference to Vox Clamantis, vi. 876, where our author in borrowing from the Aurora substitutes ‘bella’ for ‘corda’ or ‘colla.’

3. aquile ... oleum: this is the oil produced for Henry’s coronation, which was said to have been miraculously delivered to Thomas à Becket in a vial enclosed within an eagle of gold, and deposited by him in the church of St. Gregory at Poitiers. It was said to have been brought to England by Henry, first duke of Lancaster, and to have been delivered by him to the Black Prince. Thus it came into the possession of Richard II, who is said to have worn it constantly about his neck. He had desired to be re-anointed with this oil, but archbishop Arundel had refused to perform the ceremony (Annales Henrici IV, pp. 297-300, Eulog. Hist. contin. iii. 380).

O RECOLENDE, Etc. (p. 345)

The first eight lines of this appear in the Trentham MS. in combination with ‘H. aquile pullus’ as part of the dedication of the Cinkante Balades.

16 ff. For ‘pietas,’ ‘pius,’ see note on Cronica Tripertita, iii. 462.

CARMEN SUPER MULTIPLICI VICIORUM PESTILENCIA (p. 346)

‘Putruerunt et corrupte sunt,’ &c. This is in fact a quotation from the Psalms, ‘Putruerunt et corruptae sunt cicatrices meae a facie insipientiae meae,’ xxxvii. 6. (xxxviii. 5).

32. quasi Iouiniani. Already in the Vox Clamantis we have had reference to the ‘new Jovinian’ who is a sower of heresy (vi. 1267), and the person meant is no doubt Wycliffe. Jovinian, the opponent of Jerome on the marriage question, is taken as a type of the ecclesiastic of lax principles. Milman calls Jovinian and Vigilantius ‘premature Protestants’ (History of Christianity, Bk. III. ch. iv).

36. sub grossa lana: an allusion perhaps to the simple russet garb of Wycliffe’s poor priests.

52 ff. Cp. Vox Clamantis, ii. 437 ff., whence many of these lines are taken, e.g. 54-57, 60-77.

54. mortis ymago: that is, the mortal creature.

86. ‘time’ was probably written originally for ‘stude’ in SCH, as well as in F, but it was perceived perhaps that ‘reuereri,’ which was required for the rhyme, would not stand as an imperative. Similarly in line 88 ‘Que fantasias aliter tibi dant’ stood no doubt originally in SCH, and was altered for grammatical reasons.

181 f. This couplet is repeated from Vox Clamantis, vi. 861 f.

190. quam prius, for ‘prius quam,’ as frequently: cp. ll. 202, 292.

199. This line is from Ovid, Metam. vii. 826, ‘Credula res amor est,’ &c., and is quite without sense as it stands here: cp. Vox Clamantis, v. 165.

203 f. 1 Cor. vi. 18.

246 ff. Cp. Vox Clamantis, vi. 445 ff.

250. semel nisi, i.e. ‘once only’ for ‘non nisi semel’: cp. Vox Clamantis, iii. 22.

312. bis deno Ricardi regis in anno. The twentieth year of Richard II is from June 22, 1396 to the same date of 1397. The arrests of Arundel and Gloucester took place in the first few days of the twenty-first year.

DE LUCIS SCRUTINIO (p. 355)

The Ecton MS. (E) gives a different form of the marginal notes, as follows: 6. Nota de luce prelatorum et curatorum. 18. Nota de luce professorum. 30. Nota de luce regum. 44. Nota de luce procerum. 51. Nota de luce militum. 58. Nota de luce legistarum et causidicorum. 67. Nota de luce mercatorum. 79. Nota de luce vulgari in patria. 89. Nota quod Iohannes Gower auctor huius libri hic in fine tenebras deplangens pro luce optinenda deum exorat.

25 ff. See Praise of Peace, 225 ff.

64 f. Cp. Vox Clamantis, v. 703.

91 ff. The language is of course figurative: we must not assume that the author is referring to any physical blindness.

ECCE PATET TENSUS Etc. (p. 358)

This piece is found in the Trentham MS. f. 33 v^o, following the Cinkante Balades. It is probably imperfect at the end, the manuscript having lost the next leaf.

25. que naturatur, &c., ‘which is irresistibly disposed to that which is unlawful.’ This seems to be the meaning, but it is awkwardly expressed.

EST AMOR Etc. (p. 359)

This piece occurs also in combination with the Traitié: see vol. i. p. 392. For the substance of it cp. Vox Clamantis, v. 53 ff.

QUIA VNUSQUISQUE Etc. (p. 360)

The form given by G is practically identical with that of the Fairfax MS. That of the text, as given by SCH, varies from it in the first paragraph, where it adopts the wording found in the second recension copies, BTA. See vol. iii. pp. 479 and 550.

10. The word ‘meditantis’ is written over an erasure in G.

11 ff. This paragraph, as finally rewritten, seems intended to include the Cronica Tripertita as a sequel to the Vox Clamantis: cp. p. 313, where in the note which connects the two works language is used very similar to that which we have here. The author in his retrospective view of Richard’s reign has brought himself to feel that the earlier calamities were a divine warning, by the neglect of which the later evils and the final catastrophe had been brought about. It has already been pointed out (vol. iii. p. 550) that in the Fairfax MS. this account of the author’s books is completely separated from the text of the Confessio Amantis and is written in a later hand, the same in fact which we have here in the All Souls MS.

ENEIDOS BUCOLIS Etc. (p. 361)

These lines, which Gower says were kindly sent to him by ‘a certain philosopher’ (not ‘quidam Philippus,’ as printed by the Roxburghe editor) on the completion of his three books, are found also at the end of the Fairfax MS. The author is probably the same as that of the four lines ‘Quam cinxere freta,’ &c., appended to the Confessio Amantis, which are called ‘Epistola super huius opusculi sui complementum Iohanni Gower a quodam philosopho transmissa.’ I have ventured on the conjecture that this philosopher was in fact Ralph Strode, whom Chaucer couples with Gower in the last stanza of Troilus with the epithet ‘philosophical,’ and of whom we know by tradition that he wrote elegiac verse.

O DEUS IMMENSE Etc. (p. 362)

There is no reason why the heading should not be from the hand of the author, though added of course somewhat later than the date of composition. The phrase ‘adhuc viuens’ or ‘dum vixit’ does not seem to be any objection to this. It is used with a view to future generations, and occurs also in the author’s account of his books (p. 360, l. 4).

2. morosi: opposed here to ‘viciosi’; cp. l. 57 and Epistola (p. 1), l. 33.

7. foret, ‘ought to be.’

19. Isaiah xxxiii. 1.

49. Cp. Traitié, xv. 7, &c.

62. habet speciale, ‘keeps as a secret.’

74. recoletur: apparently meant for subjunctive.

QUICQUID HOMO SCRIBAT, Etc. (p. 365)

Of the three forms given here we must suppose that of the Trentham MS. to be the earliest. It is decidedly shorter than the others, it has no prose heading, and it names the first year of Henry IV in such a manner that we may probably assign it to that year. The poet’s eyesight had then failed to such an extent that it was difficult for him any longer to write; but complete blindness probably had not yet come on, and he does not yet use the word ‘cecus.’ Of the other two forms it is probable that that given by S is the later, if only because the precise date is omitted and the very diffuse heading restrained within reasonable limits. S, it is true, ends with this piece, while CHG have the later pieces; but these were probably added as they were composed, and the All Souls book may have been presented to archbishop Arundel before the last poems were written.

This concluding piece is written in S in the same hand as the Epistola at the beginning of the book, the heading apparently over the writing of another hand, some parts as ‘dicitur,’ l. 2, ‘tripertita—tempore,’ 2, 3, being obviously over erasure. The original hand remains for ‘est qualiter ab illa Cronica que,’ ‘in Anglia—rerum,’ ‘varia carmina—quia.’

ORATE PRO ANIMA Etc. (p. 367)

I have no doubt that this exhortation was set down by Gower himself, who had probably arranged before his death for the promised indulgence, following the principle laid down in the last poem of the collection, of being his own executor in such matters. The verses ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c., which are appended in the Glasgow MS. were originally upon his tomb, and they have every appearance of being his own composition: cp. p. 352, ll. 217 ff. Berthelette after describing the tomb says, ‘And there by hongeth a table, wherin appereth that who so euer praith for the soule of John Gower, he shall, so oft as he so dothe, haue a thousande and fyue hundred dayes of pardon.’

PRESUL, OUILE REGIS, Etc. (p. 368)

This is evidently addressed to archbishop Arundel. The comet referred to is no doubt that of March, 1402. The evils complained of are the conspiracies against the king, and we are told by the chroniclers that the appearance of this comet in the north was taken as a presage of the troubles in Wales and in Northumberland: cp. Walsingham, ii. 248. Adam of Usk, who saw it when on the Continent, says it was visible by day as well as by night, and that it probably prefigured the death of the duke of Milan, whose arms were also seen in the sky (p. 73).

DICUNT SCRIPTURE Etc. (p. 368)

5. The neglect complained of is of prayers for the soul of the departed. Gower seems to have followed his own precept and made arrangements for some of the prayers in his lifetime, though others are provided for by his will. Berthelette in his preface to the Confessio Amantis (1532) speaks of Gower’s place of burial as having been prepared by himself in the church of St. Mary Overes, ‘where he hath of his owne foundation a masse dayly songe. And more ouer he hath an obyte yerely done for hym within the same churche, on fryday after the feaste of the blessed pope saynte Gregory.’ St. Gregory’s day is March 12.

FOOTNOTE: