The complete works of John Gower, volume 1 — A Closer Reading

Finally, the trick of filling up lines with such tags as _en son degré_, _de sa partie_, &c. (e.g. _Mir._ 373, 865), vividly recalls the similar use of ‘in his degree,’ ‘for his partie,’ by the author of the _Confessio Amantis_ (e.g. _Prol._ 123, 930).

The evidence of which I have given an outline, which may be filled up by those who care to look out the references set down above and in the Notes, amounts, I believe, to complete demonstration that this French book called _Mirour de l’omme_ is identical with the _Speculum Hominis_ (or _Speculum Meditantis_) which has been long supposed to be lost; and, that being so, I consider myself at liberty to use it in every way as Gower’s admitted work, together with the other books of which he claims the authorship, for the illustration both of his life and his literary characteristics.

DATE.--The _Speculum Hominis_ stands first in order of the three books enumerated by Gower, and was written therefore before the _Vox Clamantis_. This last was evidently composed shortly after the rising of the peasants in 1381, and to that event, which evidently produced the strongest impression on the author’s mind, there is no reference in this book. There are indeed warnings of the danger of popular insurrection, as 24104 ff., 26485 ff., 27229 ff., but they are of a general character, suggested perhaps partly by the Jacquerie in France and partly by the local disturbances caused by discontented labourers in England, and convey the idea that the writer was uneasy about the future, but not that a catastrophe had already come. In one passage he utters a rather striking prophecy of the evil to be feared, speaking of the strange lethargy in which the lords of the land are sunk, so that they take no note of the growing madness of the commons. On the whole we may conclude without hesitation that the book was completed before the summer of the year 1381.

There are some other considerations which will probably lead us to throw the date back a little further than this. In 2142 ff. it seems to be implied that Edward III is still alive. ‘They of France,’ he says, ‘should know that God abhors their disobedience, in that they, contrary to their allegiance, refuse by way of war to render homage and obedience to him who by his birth receives the right from his mother.’ This can apply to none but Edward III, and we are led to suppose that when these lines were written he was still alive to claim his right. The supposition is confirmed by the manner in which the author speaks of the reigning king in that part of his work which deals with royalty. Nowhere does he address him as a child or youth in the manner of the _Vox Clamantis_, but he complains of the trust placed by the king in flatterers and of the all-prevailing influence of women, calling upon God to remedy those evils which arise from the monstrous fact that a woman reigns in the land and the king is subject to her (22807 ff.). This is precisely the complaint which might have been expected in the latter years of Edward III. On the other hand there is a clear allusion in one place (18817-18840) to the schism of the Church, and this passage therefore must have been written as late as 1378, but, occurring as it does at the conclusion of the author’s attack upon the Court of Rome, it may well have been added after the rest. The expression in l. 22191,

‘Ove deux chiefs es sanz chevetein,’

refers to the Pope and the Emperor, not to the division of the papacy. Finally, it should be observed that the introduction of the name Innocent, l. 18783, is not to be taken to mean that Innocent VI, who died in 1362, was the reigning pope. The name is no doubt only a representative one.

On the whole we shall not be far wrong if we assign the composition of the book to the years 1376-1379.

FORM AND VERSIFICATION.--The poem (if it may be called so) is written in twelve-line stanzas of the common octosyllabic verse, rhyming _aab aab bba bba_, so that there are two sets of rhymes only in each stanza. In its present state it has 28,603 lines, there being lost four leaves at the beginning, which probably contained forty-seven stanzas, that is 564 lines, seven leaves, containing in all 1342 lines, in other places throughout the volume, and an uncertain number at the end, probably containing not more than a few hundred lines. The whole work therefore consisted of about 31,000 lines, a somewhat formidable total.

The twelve-line stanza employed by Gower is one which was in pretty common use among French writers of the ‘moral’ class. It is that in which the celebrated _Vers de la Mort_ were composed by Hélinand de Froidmont in the twelfth century, a poem from which our author quotes. Possibly it was the use of it by this writer that brought it into vogue, for his poem had a great popularity, striking as it did a note which was thoroughly congenial to the spirit of the age[I]. In any case we find the stanza used also by the ‘Reclus de Moiliens,’ by Rutebeuf in several pieces, e. g. _La Complainte de Constantinoble_ and _Les Ordres de Paris_, and often by other poets of the moral school. Especially it seems to have been affected in those ‘Congiés’ in which poets took leave of the world and of their friends, as the _Congiés Adan d’Arras_ (Barb. et Méon, _Fabl._ i. 106), the _Congié Jehan Bodel_ (i. 135), &c. As to the structure of the stanza, at least in the hands of our author, there is not much to be said. The pauses in sense very generally follow the rhyme divisions of the stanza, which has a natural tendency to fall into two equal parts, and the last three lines, or in some cases the last two, frequently contain a moral tag or a summing up of the general drift of the stanza.

The verse is strictly syllabic. We have nothing here of that accent-metre which the later Anglo-Norman writers sometimes adopted after English models, constructing their octosyllable in two halves with a distinct break between them, each half-verse having two accents but an uncertain number of syllables. This appears to have been the idea of the metre in the mind of such writers as Fantosme and William of Waddington. Here however all is as regular in that respect as can be desired. Indeed the fact that in all these thousands of lines there are not more than about a score which even suggest the idea of metrical incorrectness, after due allowance for the admitted licences of which we have taken note, is a striking testimony not only of the accuracy in this respect of the author, but also to the correctness of the copy which we possess of his work. The following are the lines in question:

276. ‘De sa part grantement s’esjoït.’

397. ‘Ly deable grantement s’esjoït’

2742. ‘Prestre, Clerc, Reclus, Hermite,’

2955. ‘Soy mesmes car delivrer’

3116. ‘Q’avoit leur predicacioun oïe,’

3160. ‘Si l’une est male, l’autre est perverse,’

4745. ‘Molt plussoudeinent le blesce’

4832. ‘Ainz est pour soy delivrer,’

6733. ‘Dame Covoitise en sa meson’ (And similarly 13514 and 16579)

9617. ‘Mais oultre trestous autrez estatz’

9786. ‘Me mettroit celle alme en gage,’

10623. ‘L’un ad franchise, l’autre ad servage,’

10628. ‘L’un ad mesure, l’autre ad oultrage,’

13503. ‘Dieus la terre en fin donna,’

14568. ‘Et l’autre contemplacioun enseine.’

19108. ‘D’avoltire et fornicacioun’

24625. ‘Doun, priere, amour, doubtance,’

26830. ‘Homme; et puis de l’omme prist’

27598. ‘Qant l’angle ot ses ditz contez,’

This, it will be allowed, is a sufficiently moderate total to be placed to the joint account of author and scribe in a matter of more than 28,000 lines--on an average one in about 1,500 lines. Of these more than half can be corrected in very obvious ways: in 276, 397, we may read ‘grantment’ as in 8931; in 2955, 4832, we should read ‘deliverer,’ and in 9786 ‘metteroit,’ this _e_ being frequently sounded in the metre, e.g. 3371, 16448, 18532; we may correct 3160, 9617, by altering to ‘mal,’ ‘autre’; in 4745 ‘plussoudeinement’ is certainly meant; 13503 is to be corrected by reading ‘en la fin,’ as in 15299, for ‘en fin,’ 19108 by substituting ‘avoltre’ for ‘avoltire,’ and 27598 by reading ‘angel,’ as in 27731 and elsewhere, for ‘angle.’ Of the irregularities that remain, one, exemplified in 3116 and 14568, consists in the introduction of an additional foot into the measure, and I have little doubt that it proceeds from the scribe, who wrote ‘predicacioun’ and ‘contemplacioun’ for some shorter word with the same meaning, such as ‘prechement’ and ‘contempler.’ In the latter of these cases I have corrected by introducing ‘contempler’ into the text; in the former, as I cannot be so sure of the word intended, the MS. reading is allowed to stand. There is a similar instance of a hypermetrical line in _Bal._ xxvii. 1, and this also might easily be corrected. The other irregularities I attribute to the author. These consist, first, in the use of ‘dame’ in several lines as a monosyllable, and I am disposed to think that this word was sometimes so pronounced, see Phonol. § ix (_c_); secondly, in the introduction of a superfluous unaccented syllable at a pause after the second foot, which occurs in 10623, 10628 (and perhaps 3160); thirdly, in the omission of the unaccented syllable at the beginning of the verse, as:

‘Prestre, Clerc, Reclus, Hermite,’--2742;

‘Doun, priere, amour, doubtance,’--24625;

‘Homme; et puis de l’omme prist’--26830.

Considering how often lines of this kind occur in other Anglo-Norman verse, and how frequent the variation is generally in the English octosyllables of the period, we may believe that even Gower, notwithstanding his metrical strictness, occasionally introduced it into his verse. It may be noted that the three lines just quoted resemble one another in having each a pause after the first word.

With all this ‘correctness,’ however, the verses of the _Mirour_ have an unmistakably English rhythm and may easily be distinguished from French verse of the Continent and from that of the earlier Anglo-Norman writers. One of the reasons for this is that the verse is in a certain sense accentual as well as syllabic, the writer imposing upon himself generally the rule of the alternate beat of accents and seldom allowing absolutely weak syllables[J] to stand in the even places of his verse. Lines such as these of Chrétien de Troyes,

‘Si ne semble pas qui la voit Qu’ele puisse grant fès porter,’

and these of Frère Angier,

‘Ses merites et ses vertuz, Ses jeünes, ses oreisons, . . . . . . . Et sa volontaire poverte Od trestote s’autre desserte,’

are quite in accordance with the rules of French verse, but very few such lines will be found in the _Mirour_. Some there are, no doubt, as 3327:

‘D’envie entre la laie gent,’

‘Que nuls en poet estre garny.’

So also 2925, 3069, 4310 &c., but they are exceptional and attract our notice when they occur. An illustration of the difference between the usage of our author and that of the Continent is afforded by the manner in which he quotes from Hélinand’s _Vers de la Mort_. The text as given in the _Hist. Litt. de la France_, xviii. p. 88, is as follows (with correction of the false reading ‘cuevre’):

‘Tex me couve dessous ses dras, Qui cuide estre tous fors et sains.’

‘Car tiel me couve soubz ses dras, Q’assetz quide estre fortz et seins.’

He may have found this reading in the original, of which there are several variants, but the comparison will none the less illustrate the difference of the rhythms.

SUBJECT-MATTER AND STYLE.--The scheme of the _Speculum Hominis_ is, as before stated, of a very ambitious character. It is intended to cover the whole field of man’s religious and moral nature, to set forth the purposes of Providence in dealing with him, the various degrees of human society and the faults chargeable to each class of men, and finally the method which should be followed by man in order to reconcile himself with the God whom he has offended by his sin. This is evidently one of those all-comprehending plans to which nothing comes amiss; the whole miscellany of the author’s ideas and knowledge, whether derived from books or from life, might be poured into it and yet fail to fill it up. Nevertheless the work is not an undigested mass: it has a certain unity of its own,--indeed in regard to connexion of parts it is superior to most medieval works of the kind. The author has at least thought out his plan, and he carries it through to the end in a laboriously conscientious manner. M. Jusserand in his _Literary History of the English People_ conjectured reasonably enough that if this work should ever be discovered, it would prove to be one of those tirades on the vices of the age which in French were known as ‘bibles.’ It is this and much more than this. In fact it combines the three principal species of moral compositions all in one framework,--the manual of vices and virtues, the attack on the evils of existing society from the highest place downwards, and finally the versified summary of Scripture history and legend, introduced here with a view to the exaltation and praise of the Virgin. In its first division, which extends over nearly two-thirds of the whole, our author’s work somewhat resembles those of Frère Lorenz, William of Waddington and other writers, who compiled books intended to be of practical use to persons preparing for confession. For those who are in the habit of constant and minute self-examination it is necessary that there should be a distinct classification of the forms of error to which they may be supposed to be liable, and sins must be arranged under headings which will help the memory to recall them and to run over them rapidly. The classification which is based upon the seven mortal sins is both convenient and rational, and such books as the _Somme des Vices et des Vertus_ and the _Manuel des Pechiez_, with the English translations or adaptations of them, were composed for practical purposes. While resembling these in some respects, our author’s work is not exactly of the same character. Their object is devotional, and form is sacrificed to utility. This is obvious in the case of the first-named book, the original, as is well known, of the _Ayenbite of Inwyt_ and of Chaucer’s _Persones Tale_, and it is also true of the _Manuel des Pechiez_, though that is written in verse and has stories intermingled with the moral rules by way of illustration. The author of this work states his purpose at once on setting forth:

‘La vertu del seint espirit Nus seit eidant en cest escrit, A vus les choses ben mustrer, Dunt hom se deit confesser, E ausi en la quele manere.’

Upon which he proceeds to enumerate the various subjects of which he thinks it useful to treat, which are connected by no tie except that of practical convenience: ‘First we shall declare the true faith, which is the foundation of our law.... Next we shall place the commandments, which every one ought to keep; then the seven mortal sins, whence spring so many evils.... Then you will find, if you please, the seven sacraments of the Church, then a sermon, and finally a book on confession, which will be suitable for every one.’

On the other hand the _Mirour de l’omme_ is a literary production, or at least aspires to that character, and as such it has more regularity of form, more ornaments of style, and more display of reading. The division and classification in this first part, which treats of vices and of virtues, have a symmetrical uniformity; instead of enumerating or endeavouring to enumerate all the subdivisions under each head, all the numerous and irregularly growing branches and twigs which spring from each stem, the author confines himself to those that suit his plan, and constructs his whole edifice on a perfectly regular system. The work is in fact so far not a manual of devotion, but rather a religious allegory. The second part, which is ingeniously brought into connexion with the same general plan, resembles, as has been said, such compositions as the _Bible Guiot de Provins_, except that it is very much longer and goes into far more elaborate detail on the various classes of society and their distinctive errors. Here the author speaks more from his own observation and less from books than in the earlier part of his poem, and consequently this division is more original and interesting. Many parts of it will serve usefully to confirm the testimony of other writers, and from some the careful student of manners will be able to glean new facts. The last 2,500 lines, a mere trifle compared with the bulk of the whole, contain a Life of the Virgin, as the principal mediator between God and man, and the book ends (at least as we have it) with not unpoetical praises and prayers addressed to her.

It remains to be seen how the whole is pieced together.