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.

Incipit prohemium Cronice Iohannis Gower.

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

‘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 vo. 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.
36 Rot. Claus. 7 Ric. II. m. 17 d.
37 Duchy of Lancaster, Miscellanea, Bundle X, No. 43 (now in the Record Office).
38 ‘Liverez a Richard Dancastre pour un Coler a luy doné par monseigneur le Conte de Derby par cause d’une autre Coler doné par monditseigneur a un Esquier John Gower, vynt et sys soldz oyt deniers.’
39 Duchy of Lancaster, Household Accounts, 17 Ric. II (July to Feb.).
40 Register of William of Wykeham, ii. f. 299b. The record was kindly verified for me by the Registrar of the diocese of Winchester. The expression used about the place is ‘in Oratorio ipsius Iohannis Gower infra hospicium suum’ (not ‘cum’ as previously printed) ‘in Prioratu Beate Marie de Overee in Southwerke predicta situatum.’ It should be noted that ‘infra’ in these documents means not ‘below,’ as translated by Prof. Morley, but ‘within.’ So also in Gower’s will.
41 Lambeth Library, Register of Abp. Arundel, ff. 256-7.
42 The remark of Nicolas about the omission of Kentwell from the will is hardly appropriate. Even if Gower the poet were identical with the John Gower who possessed Kentwell, this manor could not have been mentioned in his will, because it was disposed of absolutely to Sir J. Cobham in the year 1373. Hence there is no reason to conclude from this that there was other landed property besides that which is dealt with by the will.
43 I am indebted for some of the facts to Canon Thompson of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, who has been kind enough to answer several questions which I addressed to him.
44 The features are quite different, it seems to me, from those represented in the Cotton and Glasgow MSS., and I think it more likely that the latter give us a true contemporary portrait. Gower certainly died in advanced age, yet the effigy on his tomb shows us a man in the flower of life. This then is either an ideal representation or must have been executed from rather distant memory, whereas the miniatures in the MSS., which closely resemble each other, were probably from life, and also preserve their original colouring. The miniatures in MSS. of the Confessio Amantis, which represent the Confession, show the penitent usually as a conventional young lover. The picture in the Fairfax MS. is too much damaged to give us much guidance, but it does not seem to be a portrait, in spite of the collar of SS added later. The miniature in MS. Bodley 902, however, represents an aged man, while that of the Cambridge MS. Mm. 2. 21 rather recalls the effigy on the tomb and may have been suggested by it.
45 We may note that the effigy of Sir Robert Gower in brass above his tomb in Brabourne church is represented as having a similar chaplet round his helmet. See the drawing in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77.
46 So I read them. They are given by Gough and others as ‘merci ihi.’
47 Perhaps rather 1207 or 1208.
48 Script. Brit. i. 415: so also Ant. Coll. iv. 79, where the three books are mentioned. The statement that the chaplet was partly of ivy must be a mistake, as is pointed out by Stow and others.
49 Read rather ‘En toy qu’es fitz de dieu le pere.’
50 Read ‘O bon Jesu, fai ta mercy’ and in the second line ‘dont le corps gist cy.’
51 Survey of London, p. 450 (ed. 1633). In the margin there is the note, ‘John Gower no knight, neither had he any garland of ivy and roses, but a chaplet of four roses only,’ referring to Bale, who repeats Leland’s description.
52 p. 326 (ed. 1615). Stow does not say that the inscription ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c.; was defaced in his time.
53 vol. ii. p. 542.
54 vol. v. pp. 202-4. The description is no doubt from Aubrey.
55 On this subject the reader may be referred to Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 835 f. (ed. 1631).
56 Antiquities of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, 1765.
57 vol. ii. p. 24.
58 Priory Church of St. Mary Overie, 1881.
59 Canon Thompson writes to me, ‘The old sexton used to show visitors a bone, which he said was taken from the tomb in 1832. I tried to have this buried in the tomb on the occasion of the last removal, but I was told it had disappeared.’
60 vol. ii. p. 91.
61 Bp. Braybrooke’s Register, f. 84.
62 Braybrooke Register, f. 151.
63 The date of the resignation by John Gower of the rectory of Great Braxted is nearly a year earlier than the marriage of Gower the poet.
64 I do not know on what authority Rendle states that ‘His apartment seems to have been in what was afterwards known as Montague Close, between the church of St. Mary Overey and the river,’ Old Southwark, p. 182.
65 At the same time I am disposed to attach some weight to the expression in Mir. 21774, where the author says that some may blame him for handling sacred subjects, because he is no ‘clerk,’
‘Ainz ai vestu la raye manche.’

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.

66 The Lincoln MS. has the same feature, but it is evidently copied from Laud 719.
67 There seems also to have been an alternative numbering, which proceeded on the principle of making five books, beginning with the third, the second being treated as a general prologue to the whole poem. In connexion with this we may take the special invocation of divine assistance in the prologue of the third book, which ends with the couplet,
‘His tibi libatis nouus intro nauta profundum,
Sacrum pneuma rogans vt mea vela regas.’
68 Fuller’s spirited translation of these lines is well known, but may here be quoted again:
‘Tom comes thereat, when called by Wat, and Simm as forward we find,
Bet calls as quick to Gibb and to Hykk, that neither would tarry behind.
Gibb, a good whelp of that litter, doth help mad Coll more mischief to do,
And Will he does vow, the time is come now, he’ll join in their company too.
Davie complains, whiles Grigg gets the gains, and Hobb with them does partake,
Lorkin aloud in the midst of the crowd conceiveth as deep is his stake.
Hudde doth spoil whom Judde doth foil, and Tebb lends his helping hand,
But Jack the mad patch men and houses does snatch, and kills all at his command.’

Church History, Book iv. (p. 139).

69 In the first version, ‘Complaints are heard now of the injustice of the high court: flatterers have power over it, and those who speak the truth are not permitted to come near to the king’s side. The boy himself is blameless, but his councillors are in fault. If the king were of mature age, he would redress the balance of justice, but he is too young as yet to be held responsible for choice of advisers: it is not from the boy but from his elders that the evil springs which overruns the world.’
70 In the first version as follows, ‘O king of heaven, who didst create all things, I pray thee preserve my young king, and let him live long and see good days. O king, mayest thou ever hold thy sceptre with honour and triumph, as Augustus did at Rome. May he who gave thee the power confirm it to thee in the future.

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.’

71 In the first version, ‘I am myself the worst of sinners, but may God grant me relief by his Spirit.’
72 Communicated to me by Miss Bateson.
73 It is even the case in one instance (i. 846) that a blank is left in the line for a word omitted in D which might have been supplied by reference to any other MS. which contained the passage. So difficult was communication between Oxford and London in those days.
74 e.g. i. 209 Regem 219 Qui est ii. 9 sociatus 114 de pondere 266 Pontifice.
75 A few errors may be noted in the poem De Lucis Scrutinio, viz. l. 15 manifestus 36 oculis 66 similatam 89 Ominis (for O nimis): also in ‘O deus immense,’ l. 28 se (for te) 104 sub (for sue).
76 Trifling differences of spelling are as a rule not recorded. Examples of such variations are the following in C: i. 1 ut 11 uidet 23 choruschat 120 talamum 137 sydera 139 themone 141 &c. sed (for set) 196 &c. amodo 234 prohdolor 311 Immundos 586 Egiptus 1056 Symonis 1219 Ocupat 1295 suppremis 1505 loquturus 1514 Obstetit 1755 opprobrium 1832 littora 1947 litora 2094 patiens ii. Prol. 11 etiam ii. 57 fatie 261 Moise 494 synagoga iii. 291 redditus, &c. Variation in the use of capital letters or in regard to the separation of ‘que,’ ‘ve,’ &c. from the words which they follow is usually not recorded. The spelling of H and G is almost identical with that of S.