This MS., of which the text is fairly correct, is written in one hand throughout, and with T it represents, so far as we can judge, the original form of the text in all the revised passages. In some few cases, as iv. 1073, v. 450, H₂ seems to give the original reading, where T agrees with the revised MSS.
On the last leaf we find an interesting note about the decoration of the book and the parchment used, written small in red below the ‘Explicit,’ which I read as follows: ‘100 and li. 51 blew letteris, 4 co. smale letteris and more, gold letteris 8: 18 quayers. price velom v s. vi d.’ There are in fact about 150 of the larger blue initials with red lines round them, the smaller letters, of which I understand the account reckons 400 and more, being those at the beginning of paragraphs, blue and red alternately. The eight gold letters are those at the beginning of the first prologue and the seven books.
The following notes are in the hand of Lord Burleigh, as I am informed by Mr. R. T. Gunton: ‘Vox Clamantis’ on the first page, ‘nomine Authoris’ and ‘Anno 4 Regis Ricardi’ in the margin of the prologue to the first book, ‘Thomas arch., Simon arch.,’ opposite i. 1055 f., ‘Amoris effectus’ near the beginning of Lib. v, ‘Laus Edw. princ. patris Ricardi 2’ at Lib. vi. cap. xiii, and a few more.
C₂. Cotton, Titus, A, 13, British Museum. Contains on ff. 105-137 a part of the Vox Clamantis, beginning with the Prologue of Lib. i. and continuing to Lib. iii. l. 116, where it is left unfinished. Paper, leaves measuring 8¼ x 6 in. written in a current sixteenth-century hand with an irregular number of lines (about 38-70) to the page. Headed, ‘De populari tumultu et rebellione. Anno quarto Ricardi secundi.’
Text copied from D, as is shown by minute agreement in almost every particular.
H₃. Hatton 92, Bodleian Library, Oxford. This contains, among other things of a miscellaneous kind, Gower’s Cronica Tripertita, followed by ‘[H.] aquile pullus,’ ‘O recolende,’ and ‘Rex celi deus,’ altogether occupying 21½ leaves of parchment, measuring 7¾ x 5½ in. Neatly written in hands of the first half of the fifteenth century about 28-30 lines to the page, the text in one hand and the margin in another.
Begins, ‘Prologus. Opus humanum est—constituit.’
Then the seven lines, ‘Ista tripertita—vincit amor,’ followed by ‘Explicit prologus.’ After this,
‘Incipit cronica iohannis Gower de tempore Regis Ricardi secundi vsque ad secundum annum Henrici quarti.
Postquam in quodam libello, qui vox clamantis dicitur, quem Iohannes Gower nuper versificatum composuit super hoc quod tempore Regis Ricardi secundi anno Regni sui quarto vulgaris in anglia populus contra ipsum Regem quasi ex virga dei notabiliter insurrexit manifestius tractatum existit, iam in hoc presenti Cronica, que tripertita est, super quibusdam aliis infortuniis,’ &c.
Ends (after ‘sint tibi regna poli’), ‘Expliciunt carmina Iohannis Gower, que scripta sunt vsque nunc, quod est in anno domini Regis prenotati secundo, et quia confractus ego tam senectute quam aliis infirmitatibus vlterius scribere discrete non sufficio, Scribat qui veniet post me discrecior Alter, Amodo namque manus et mea penna silent. Hoc tamen infine verborum queso meorum, prospera quod statuat regna futura deus. Amen. Ihesus esto michi ihesus.’
This conclusion seems to be made up out of the piece beginning ‘Henrici quarti’ in the Trentham MS. (see p. 365 of this volume) combined with the prose heading of the corresponding lines as given by CHG. It may be observed here that the Trentham version of this piece is also given in MS. Cotton, Julius F. vii, f. 167, with the heading ‘Epitaphium siue dictum Iohannis Gower Armigeri et per ipsum compositum.’ It is followed by the lines ‘Electus Cristi—sponte data,’ which are the heading of the Praise of Peace.
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 copy73. 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 Scrutinio75, &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 notes76. 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
or
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:
This may possibly mean only to indicate the dress of a layman, but on the other hand it seems clear that some lawyers, perhaps especially the ‘apprenticii ad legem,’ were distinguished by stripes upon their sleeves; see for example the painting reproduced in Pulling’s Order of the Coif (ed. 1897); and serjeants-at-law are referred to in Piers Plowman, A text, Pass. iii. 277, as wearing a ‘ray robe with rich pelure.’ We must admit, therefore, the possibility that Gower was bred to the law, though he may not have practised it for a living.
Church History, Book iv. (p. 139).
For the glory of thy rule I have written these lines with humble heart. O flower of boyhood, according to thy worthiness I wish thee prosperity.’