The complete works of John Gower, volume 1

Chapter II: Part 2

Text size

x. The insertion of a parasitic _e_ in connexion with _r_, and especially between _v_ and _r_, is a recognized feature of the Anglo-Norman dialect. Examples of this in our texts are _avera_, _devera_, _saveroit_, _coverir_, _deliverer_, _overir_, _vivere_, _livere_, _oevere_, _overage_, _povere_, _yvere_, &c. As a rule this _e_ is not sounded as a syllable in the metre, and in most of these words there is an alternative spelling, e.g. _avra_, _savra_, _covrir_, _delivrer_, _ovrir_, _vivre_, _oevre_, &c., but it is not necessary to reduce them to this wherever the _e_ is mute. Less usually the syllable counts in the verse, e.g. _overaigne_ in _Mir._ 3371, _overage_ 8914, _enyverer_ 16448, _avera_ 18532, _deveroit_, _beveroit_ in 20702 ff. _viverai_, _vivera_ in _Bal._ iv.* 1, _Mir._ 3879, _descoverir_ in _Bal._ ix. 1.

xi. About the consonants not much need be said.

(_a_) Initial _c_ before _a_ varies in some words with _ch_, as _caccher_, _caitif_, _camele_, _camp_, _carboun_, _castell_, _catell_, by the side of _chacer_, _chaitif_, _chameal_, _champ_, _charboun_, _chastel_, _chateaux_; cp. _acater_, _achater_. Before _e_, _i_, we find sometimes an interchange of _c_ and _s_, as in _ce_ for _se_ in _Mir._ 1147, _Bal._ xviii. 3; _c’il_ for _s’il_ in _Mir._ 799 &c.; and, on the other hand, _sent_ for _cent_ in _Bal._ xli. 2, _si_ for _ci_ in the title of the _Cinkante Balades_, _sil_ for _cil_ in _Bal._ xlii. 3, _sercher_ for _cercher_ in _Mir._ 712 &c., also _s_ for _sc_ in _septre_, _sintille_, and _sc_ for _s_ in _scilence_.

(_b_) We find often _qant_, _qe_, _qelle_, _qanqe_, &c., for _quant_, _que_, &c., and, on the other hand, the spelling _quar_ for the more usual _car_. In words like _guaign_, _guaire_, _guaite_, _guarant_, _guarde_, _guarir_, _guaster_, _u_ is very frequently omitted before _a_, also occasionally before other vowels, as _gile_, 21394, for _guile_: _w_ is used in _warder_, _rewarder_, _way_.

(_c_) The doubling of single consonants, especially _l_, _m_, _n_, _p_, _s_, is frequent and seems to have no phonetic significance. Especially it is to be observed that _ss_ for _s_ at the end of a word makes no difference to the quantity or quality of the syllable, thus, whether the word be _deces_ or _decess_, _reles_ or _reless_, _engres_ or _engress_, _bas_ or _bass_, _las_ or _lass_, _huiss_ or _huis_, the pronunciation and the rhyme are the same. The final _s_ was sounded in both cases, and not more when double than when single. The doubling of _r_ in futures and conditionals, as _serray_, _dirray_, &c., belongs to the Norman dialect.

(_d_) The final _s_ of inflexion is regularly replaced by _z_ after a dental, as _courtz_, _desfaitz_, _ditz_, _excellentz_, _fitz_, _fortz_, _regentz_, _seintz_, and frequently in past participles of verbs (where there is an original dental), as _perturbez_, _enfanteez_, _rejoïz_, _perduz_; but also elsewhere, especially with the termination _-able_, as _refusablez_, _delitablez_, in rhyme with _acceptables_. Sometimes however a dental drops out before _s_, as in _apers_, _desfais_, _dis_, _dolens_, _presens_. In all these cases however the difference is one of spelling only.

(_e_) Lastly, notice may be directed to the mute consonants either surviving in phonetic change or introduced into the spelling in imitation of the Latin form. The fourteenth century was a time when French writers and copyists were especially prone to the vice of etymological spelling, and many forms both in French and English which have been supposed to be of later date may be traced to this period. I shall point out some instances, etymological and other, most of which occur in rhyme.

Thus _b_ is mute in _doubte_ (also _doute_) rhyming with _boute_, and also in _debte_ beside _dette_, _soubdeinement_ beside _soudeinement_, &c.:

_p_ in _temps_, _accompte_, _corps_, _hanaps_, _descript_, rhyming with _sens_, _honte_, _tors_, _pas_, _dit_, and in _deceipte_ beside _deceite_;

_d_ before _s_ in _ribalds_ rhyming with _vassals_;

_t_ before _z_ in such words as _fortz_, _courtz_, _certz_, _overtz_, _fitz_, _ditz_, _aletz_, _decretz_, rhyming with _tors_, _destours_, _vers_, _envers_, _sis_, _dignités_, _ées_;

_s_ in such forms as _dist_, _promist_, _quidasmes_, &c., in rhyme with _esjoït_, _espirit_, _dames_; possibly however the 3 pers. sing. pret. of these verbs had an alternative pronunciation in which _s_ was sounded, for they several times occur in rhyme with _Crist_, and then are always written _-ist_, whereas at other times they vary this freely with _-it_.

_g_ in words like _baraign_, _pleigne_, _soveraigne_, rhyming with _gain_, _peine_;

_c_ before _s_ in _clercs_ (also _clers_) rhyming with _vers_;

_l_ in _almes_, _ascoulte_, _moult_, which rhyme with _fames_, _route_, _trestout_ and in _oultrage_, _estoultie_, beside _outrage_, _estoutie_.

On the other hand _v_ is sounded in the occasional form _escrivre_, the word being rhymed with _vivre_, in _Mir._ 6480.

* * * * *

As regards the Vocabulary, I propose to note a few points which are of interest with reference chiefly to English Etymology, and for the rest the reader is referred to the Glossary.

A certain number of words will be found, in addition to those already cited in the remarks on Phonology, § v, which appear in the French of our texts precisely as they stand in modern English, e.g. _able_, _annoy_, _archer_, _carpenter_, _claret_, _courser_, _dean_, _draper_, _ease_, _fee_, _haste_, _host_, _mace_, _mess_, _noise_, _soldier_, _suet_, _treacle_, _truant_, &c., not to mention ‘mots savants’ such as _abject_, _absent_, _official_, _parable_, and so on.

The doubling of consonants in accordance with Latin spelling in _accepter_, _accord_, _accuser_, _commander_, _commun_, &c., is already common in these texts and belongs to an earlier stage of Middle English than is usually supposed.

_ambicioun_: note the etymological meaning of this word in the _Mirour_.

_appetiter_: Chaucer’s verb should be referred directly to this French verb, and not to the English subst. _appetit_.

_assalt_: usually _assaut_ in 14th cent. French and English.

_audit_: the English word is probably from this French form, and not directly from Latin: the same remark applies to several other words, as _complet_, _concluder_, _curet_, _destitut_, _elat_, &c.

_avouer_: in the sense of ‘promise.’

_begant_, _beggerie_, _beguyner_, _beguinage_: see _New Eng. Dict._ under ‘beg.’ The use of _beguinage_ here as equivalent to _beggerie_ is confirmatory of the Romance etymology suggested for the word: _begant_ seems to presuppose a verb _beg(u)er_, a shorter form of _beguiner_; cp. _beguard_.

_braier_, M.E. _brayen_, ‘to bray in a mortar.’ The continental form was _breier_, Mod. _broyer_.

_brusch_: the occurrence of this word in a sense which seems to identify it with _brusque_ should be noted. The modern _brusque_ is commonly said to have been introduced into French from Italy in the 16th century. Caxton however in 1481 has _brussly_, apparently equivalent to ‘brusquely’; see _New Eng. Dict._

_buillon_, in the sense of ‘mint,’ or ‘melting-house,’ is evidently the same as ‘bullion’ in the Anglo-Norman statutes of Edward III (see _New Eng. Dict._). The form which we have here points very clearly to its derivation from the verb _builer_, ‘boil,’ as against the supposed connexion with ‘bulla.’

_chitoun_, ‘kitten.’ This is used also in Bozon’s _Contes Moralizés_. It seems more likely that the M.E. _kitoun_ comes from this form of _chatton_ with hardening of _ch_ to _k_ by the influence of _cat_, than that it is an English ‘kit’ with a French suffix.

_Civile_, i.e. ‘civil law’: cp. the use of the word as a name in _Piers Plowman_.

_eneauer_, ‘to wet,’ supplies perhaps an etymology for the word _enewing_ or _ennuyng_ used by Lydgate and others as a term of painting, to indicate the laying on or gradation of tints in water-colour, and illustrates the later Anglo-French words _enewer_, _enewage_, used apparently of shrinking cloth by wetting; see Godefroy (who however leaves them unexplained).

_flaket_, the same as the M.E. _flakett_, _flacket_ (French _flaschet_). The form _flaquet_ is assumed as a Northern French word by the _New Eng. Dict._, but not cited as occurring.

_leisour_, as a variation of _loisir_, _leisir_.

_lusard_: cp. _Piers Plowman_, B. xviii. 335.

_menal_, _meynal_, adj. in the sense of ‘subject.’

_nice_: note the development of sense from ‘foolish,’ _Mir._ 1331, 7673, to ‘foolishly scrupulous,’ 24858, and thence to ‘delicate,’ ‘pleasant,’ 264, 979.

_papir_, the same form that we find in the English of Chaucer and Gower.

_parlesie_, M.E. _parlesie_, _palesie_.

_perjurie_, a variation of _perjure_, which established itself in English.

_phesant_: early M.E. _fesaun_, Chaucer _fesaunt_.

_philosophre_, as in M.E., beside _philosophe_.

_queinte_, _a(c)queintance_: the forms which correspond to those used in English; less usually _quointe_, _aquointance_.

_reverie_, ‘revelry,’ which suggests the connexion of the English word with _rêver_, rather than with _reveler_ from ‘rebellare.’ However, _revel_ and _reveller_ occur also in our texts.

_reviler_. Skeat, _Etym. Dict._, says ‘there is no word _reviler_ or _viler_ in French.’ Both are used in the _Mirour_.

_rewarder_, _rewardie_, _rewardise_, in the sense of the English ‘reward.’

_sercher_, Eng. ‘search,’ the more usual form for _cercher_.

_somonce_: this is the form required to account for the M.E. _somouns_, ‘summons.’

_traicier_, _traiçour_, names given (in England) to those who made it their business to pack juries.

_trote_, used for ‘old woman’ in an uncomplimentary sense.

_université_, ‘community.’

_voiage_ (not _viage_): this form is therefore of the 14th century.

MIROUR DE L’OMME.

AUTHORSHIP.--The evidence of authorship rests on two distinct grounds: first, its correspondence in title and contents with the description given by Gower of his principal French work; and secondly, its remarkable resemblance in style and substance to the poet’s acknowledged works.

We return therefore to the statement before referred to about the three principal books claimed by our author: and first an explanation should be made on the subject of the title. The statement in question underwent progressive revision at the hands of the author and appears in three forms, the succession of which is marked by the fact that they are connected with three successive editions of the _Confessio Amantis_. In the two first of these three forms the title of the French work is _Speculum Hominis_, in the third it is _Speculum Meditantis_, the alteration having been made apparently in order to produce similarity of termination with the titles of the two other books[H]. We are justified therefore in assuming that the original title was _Speculum Hominis_, or its French equivalent, _Mirour de l’omme_. The author’s account, then, of his French work is as follows:

‘Primus liber Gallico sermone editus in decem diuiditur partes, et tractans de viciis et virtutibus, necnon et de variis huius seculi gradibus, viam qua peccator transgressus ad sui creatoris agnicionem redire debet recto tramite docere conatur. Titulus (que) libelli istius Speculum hominis (_al._ meditantis) nuncupatus est.’

We are here told that the book is in French, that it is divided into ten parts, that it treats of vices and virtues, and also of the various degrees or classes of people in this world, and finally that it shows how the sinner may return to the knowledge of his Creator.

The division of our _Mirour_ into ten parts might have been a little difficult to make out from the work itself, but it is expressly indicated in the Table of Contents prefixed:

‘Cy apres comence le livre François q’est apellé Mirour de l’omme, le quel se divide en x parties, c’est assavoir’ &c.

The ten parts are then enumerated, six of them being made out of the classification of the different orders of society.

The contents of the _Mirour_ also agree with the author’s description of his _Speculum Hominis_. After some prefatory matter it treats of vices in ll. 841-9720 of the present text; of virtues ll. 10033-18372; of the various orders of society ll. 18421-26604; of how man’s sin is the cause of the corruption of the world ll. 26605-27360; and finally how the sinner may return to God, or, as the Table of Contents has it, ‘coment l’omme peccheour lessant ses mals se doit reformer a dieu et avoir pardoun par l’eyde de nostre seigneur Jhesu Crist et de sa doulce Miere la Vierge gloriouse,’ l. 27361 to the end. This latter part includes a Life of the Virgin, through whom the sinner is to obtain the grace of God.

The strong presumption (to say no more) which is raised by the agreement of all these circumstances is converted into a certainty when we come to examine the book more closely and to compare it with the other works of Gower. Naturally we are disposed to turn first to his acknowledged French writings, the _Cinkante Balades_ and the _Traitié_, and to institute a comparison in regard to the language and the forms of words. The agreement here is practically complete, and the Glossary of this edition is arranged especially with a view to exhibit this agreement in the clearest manner. There are differences, no doubt, such as there will always be between different MSS., however correct, but they are very few. Moreover, in the structure of sentences and in many particular phrases there are close correspondences, some of which are pointed out in the Notes. But, while the language test gives quite satisfactory results, so far as it goes, we cannot expect to find a close resemblance in other respects between two literary works so different in form and in motive as the _Mirour_ and the _Balades_. It is only when we institute a comparison between the _Mirour_ and the two other principal works, in Latin and English respectively, which our author used as vehicles for his serious thoughts, that we realize how impossible it is that the three should not all belong to one author. Gower, in fact, was a man of stereotyped convictions, whose thoughts on human society and on the divine government of the world tended constantly to repeat themselves in but slightly varying forms. What he had said in one language he was apt to repeat in another, as may be seen, even if we leave the _Mirour_ out of sight, by comparison of the _Confessio Amantis_ with the _Vox Clamantis_. The _Mirour_ runs parallel with the English work in its description of vices, and with the Latin in its treatment of the various orders of society, and apart from the many resemblances in detail, it is worth while here to call attention to the manner in which the general arrangement of the French work corresponds with that which we find in the other two books.

In that part of the _Mirour_ which treats of vices, each deadly sin is dealt with regularly under five principal heads, or, as the author expresses it, has five daughters. Now this fivefold division is not, so far as I can discover, borrowed from any former writer. It is of course quite usual in moral treatises to deal with the deadly sins by way of subdivision, but usually the number of subdivisions is irregular, and I have not found any authority for the systematic division of each into five. The only work, so far as I know, which shares this characteristic with the _Mirour_ is the _Confessio Amantis_. It is true that in this the rule is not fully carried out; the nature of the work did not lend itself so easily to a quite regular treatment, and considerable variations occur: but the principle which stands as the basis of the arrangement is clearly visible, and it is the same which we find in our _Mirour_.

This is a point which it is worth while to exhibit a little more at large, and here the divisions of the first three deadly sins are set forth in parallel columns:

_Mirour de l’omme._ | _Confessio Amantis._

In the latter part of the _Confessio Amantis_ the fivefold division is not strictly observed, and in some books the author does not profess to deal with all the branches; but in what is given above there is quite enough to show that this method of division was recognized and that the main headings are the same in the two works.

Next we may compare the classes of society given in the _Mirour_ with those that we find in the _Vox Clamantis_. It is not necessary to exhibit these in a tabular form; it is enough to say that with some trifling differences of arrangement the enumeration is the same. In the _Vox Clamantis_ the estate of kings stands last, because the author wished to conclude with a lecture addressed personally to Richard II; and the merchants, artificers and labourers come before the judges, lawyers, sheriffs, &c., because it is intended to bring these last into connexion with the king; but otherwise there is little or no difference even in the smallest details. The contents of the ‘third part’ of the _Mirour_, dealing with prelates and dignitaries of the Church and with the parish clergy, correspond to those of the third book of the _Vox Clamantis_; the fourth part, which treats of those under religious rule, Possessioners and Mendicants, is parallel to the fourth book of the Latin work. In the _Mirour_ as in the _Vox Clamantis_ we have the division of the city population into Merchants, Artificers and Victuallers, and of the ministers of the law into Judges, Advocates, Viscounts (sheriffs), Bailiffs, and Jurymen. Moreover what is said of the various classes is in substance usually the same, most notably so in the case of the parish priests and the tradesmen of the town; but parallels of this kind will be most conveniently pointed out in the Notes.

To proceed, the _Mirour_ will be found to contain a certain number of stories, and of those that we find there by much the greater number reappear in the _Confessio Amantis_ with a similar application. We have the story of the envious man who desired to lose one eye in order that his comrade might be deprived of two (l. 3234), of Socrates and his scolding wife (4168), of the robbery from the statue of Apollo (7093), of Lazarus and Dives (7972), of Ulysses and the Sirens (10909), of the emperor Valentinian (17089), of Sara the daughter of Raguel (17417), of Phirinus, the young man who defaced his beauty in order that he might not be a temptation to women (18301), of Codrus king of Athens (19981), of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and punishment (21979), of the king and his chamberlains (22765). All these are found in the _Mirour_, and afterwards, more fully related as a rule, in the _Confessio Amantis_. Only one or two, the stories of St. Macaire and the devil (12565, 20905), of the very undeserving person who was relieved by St. Nicholas (15757), of the dishonest man who built a church (15553), together with various Bible stories rather alluded to than related, and the long Life of the Virgin at the end of the book, remain the property of the _Mirour_ alone.

If we take next the anecdotes and emblems of Natural History, we shall find them nearly all again in either the Latin or the English work. To illustrate the vice of Detraction we have the ‘escarbud,’ the ‘scharnebud,’ of the _Confessio Amantis_, which takes no delight in the flowery fields or in the May sunshine, but only seeks out vile ordure and filth (2894, _Conf. Am._ ii. 413). Envy is compared to the nettle which grows about the roses and destroys them by its burning (3721, _Conf. Am._ ii. 401). Homicide is made more odious by the story of the bird with a man’s features, which repents so bitterly of slaying the creature that resembles it (5029, _Conf. Am._ iii. 2599); and we may note also that in both books this authentic anecdote is ascribed to Solinus, who after all is not the real authority for it. Idleness is like the cat that would eat fish without wetting her paws (5395, _Conf. Am._ iv. 1108). The covetous man is like the pike that swallows down the little fishes (6253, _Conf. Am._ v. 2015). Prudence is the serpent which refuses to hear the voice of the charmer, and while he presses one ear to the ground, stops the other with his tail (15253, _Conf. Am._ i. 463). And so on.

Then again there are a good many quotations common to the _Mirour_ and one or both of the other books, adduced in the same connexion and sometimes grouped together in the same order. The passage from Gregory’s Homilies about man as a microcosm, partaking of the nature of every creature in the universe, which we find in the Prologue of the _Confessio_ and also in the _Vox Clamantis_, appears at l. 26869 of the _Mirour_; that about Peter presenting Judea in the Day of Judgement, Andrew Achaia, and so on, while our bishops come empty-handed, is also given in all three (_Mir._ 20065, _Vox. Cl._ iii. 903, _Conf. Am._ v. 1900). To illustrate the virtue of Pity the same quotations occur both in the _Mirour_ and the _Confessio Amantis_, from the Epistle of St. James, from Constantine, and from Cassiodorus (_Mir._ 13929, 23055 ff., _Conf Am._ vii. 3149*, 3161*, 3137). Three quotations referred to ‘Orace’ occur in the _Mirour_, and of these three two reappear in the _Confessio_ with the same author’s name (_Mir._ 3801, 10948, 23370, _Conf. Am._ vi. 1513, vii. 3581). Now of these two, one, as it happens, is from Ovid and the other from Juvenal; so that not only the quotations but also the false references are repeated. These are not by any means all the examples of common quotations, but they will perhaps suffice.

Again, if we are not to accept the theory of common authorship, we can hardly account for the resemblance, and something more than resemblance, in passages such as the description of Envy (_Mir._ 3805 ff., _Conf. Am._ ii. 3095, 3122 ff.), of Ingratitude (_Mir._ 6685 ff., _Conf. Am._ v. 4917 ff.), of the effects of intoxication (_Mir._ 8138, 8246, _Conf. Am._ vi. 19, 71), of the flock made to wander among the briars (_Mir._ 20161 ff., _Conf. Am. Prol._ 407 ff.), of the vainglorious knight (_Mir._ 23893 ff., _Conf. Am._ iv. 1627 ff.), and many others, not to mention those lines which occur here and there in the _Confessio_ exactly reproduced from the _Mirour_, such as iv. 893,

‘Thanne is he wys after the hond,’

compared with _Mir._ 5436,

‘Lors est il sage apres la mein.’

_Conf. Am. Prol._ 213,

‘Of armes and of brigantaille,’

compared with _Mir._ 18675,

‘Ou d’armes ou du brigantaille,’

the context in this last case being also the same.

The parallels with the _Vox Clamantis_ are not less numerous and striking, and as many of them as it seems necessary to mention are set down in the Notes to the _Mirour_, especially in the latter part from l. 18421 onwards.

Before dismissing the comparison with the _Confessio Amantis_, we may call attention to two further points of likeness. First, though the _Mirour_ is written in stanzas and the _Confessio_ in couplets, yet the versification of the one distinctly suggests that of the other. Both are in the same octosyllabic line, with the same rather monotonous regularity of metre, and the stanza of the _Mirour_, containing, as it does, no less than four pairs of lines which can be read as couplets so far as the rhyme is concerned, often produces much the same effect as the simple couplet. Secondly, in the structure of sentences there are certain definite characteristics which produce themselves equally in the French and the English work.

Resemblances of this latter kind will be pointed out in the Notes, but a few may be set down here. For example, every reader of Gower’s English is familiar with his trick of setting the conjunctions ‘and,’ ‘but,’ &c., in the middle instead of at the beginning of the clause, as in _Conf. Am. Prol._ 155,

‘With all his herte and make hem chiere,’

and similarly in the _Balades_, e.g. xx. i,

‘A mon avis mais il n’est pas ensi.’

Examples of this are common in the _Mirour_, as l. 100,

‘Pour noble cause et ensement
Estoiont fait,’

cp. 415, 4523, 7739, 7860, &c.

In other cases too there is a tendency to disarrangement of words or clauses for the sake of metre or rhyme, as _Mir._ 15941, 17996, compared with _Conf. Am._ ii. 2642, iv. 3520, v. 6807, &c.

Again, the author of the _Confessio Amantis_ is fond of repeating the same form of expression in successive lines, e.g. _Prol._ 96 ff.,

‘Tho was the lif of man in helthe,
Tho was plente, tho was richesse,
Tho was the fortune of prouesse,’ &c.

Cp. _Prol._ 937, v. 2469, &c.

This also is found often in the _Mirour_, e.g. 4864-9:

‘Cist tue viel, cist tue enfant,
Cist tue femmes enpreignant,’ &c.

and 8294-8304,

‘Les uns en eaue fait perir,
Les uns en flamme fait ardoir,
Les uns du contek fait morir,’ &c.

The habit of breaking off the sentence and resuming it in a different form appears markedly in both the French and the English, as _Mir._ 89, 17743, _Conf. Am._ iv. 2226, 3201; and in several passages obscure forms of expression in the _Confessio Amantis_ are elucidated by parallel constructions in the _Mirour_.

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,’

or 3645:

‘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.’

Gower has it

‘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.

Sin, we are told, is the cause of all evils, and brought about first the fall of Lucifer and of his following from Heaven, and then the expulsion of Adam from Paradise. In a certain sense Sin existed before all created things, being in fact that void or chaos which preceded creation, but also she was a daughter conceived by the Devil, who upon her engendered Death (1-216). Death and Sin then intermarrying produced the seven deadly Vices, whose names are enumerated, and the Devil, delighted by his progeny, sent Sin and her seven daughters to gain over the World to his side, and then called a conference with a view to defeating the designs of Providence for the salvation of Man, and of consummating the ruin which had already been in part effected (217-396). They resolved to send Temptation as a messenger to Man, and invite him to meet the Devil and his council, who would propose to him something from which he would get great advantage. He came, but before his coming Death had been cunningly hidden away in an inner chamber, so that Man might not see him and be dismayed. The Devil, Sin and the World successively addressed him with their promises, and Temptation, the envoy, added his persuasion, so that at length the Flesh of Man consented to be ruled by their counsels. The Soul, however, rejected them and vehemently expostulated with the Flesh, who was thus resolved to follow a course which would in the end ruin them both (397-612). The Flesh wavered and was in part dismayed, but was unable altogether to give up the promised delights; upon which the Soul informed her of Death, who had been treacherously concealed from her view, and to counteract the renewed enticements of Sin called in Reason and Fear to convince the Flesh of her folly. Reason was overcome in argument by Temptation, but Fear took the Flesh by the hand and led her to the place where Death lay concealed. The Flesh trembled at sight of this horrid creature, and Conscience led her back to Reason, who brought her into agreement with the Soul, and thus for the time the designs of the Devil and of Sin were frustrated (613-756). The Devil demanded that Sin should devise some remedy, and she consulted with the World, who proposed marriage between himself and the seven daughters of Sin, in order that from them offspring might be produced by means of which Man might the more readily be overcome. The marriage was arranged and the daughters of Sin went in procession to their wedding. Each in turn was taken in marriage by the World, and of them the first was Pride (757-1056). By her he had five daughters, each of whom is described at length, namely Hypocrisy, Vainglory, Arrogance, Boasting and Disobedience, and lastly comes the description of Pride herself (1057-2616). The same order is observed with regard to the rest. The daughters of Envy are Detraction, Sorrow for others’ Joy, Joy for others’ Grief, Supplanting and Treachery (Fals semblant) (2617-3852). Anger has for her daughters Melancholy, Contention, Hatred, Strife, and Homicide (3853-5124). Sloth produces Somnolence, Laziness (or Pusillanimity), Slackness, Idleness, Negligence (5125-6180). Avarice bears Covetousness, Rapine, Usury, Simony and Niggardy (6181-7704). Gluttony’s daughters are Voracity, Delicacy, Drunkenness, Superfluity, Prodigality (7705-8616). Finally, Lechery is the mother of Fornication, Rape, Adultery, Incest and Vain-delight (8617-9720). The Devil assembled all the progeny of the Vices and demanded the fulfilment of the promise made by the World, that Man should be made subject to him, and they all together made such a violent attack upon Man, that he surrendered himself to their guidance and came to be completely in the power of Sin, whose evil influence is described (9721-10032). Reason and Conscience prayed to God for assistance against the Vices and their progeny, and God gave seven Virtues, the contraries of the seven Vices, in marriage to Reason, in order that thence offspring might be born which might contend with that of the Vices (10033-10176). Each of these, as may readily be supposed, had five daughters. Humility, who is the natural enemy of Pride, produced Devotion to set against Hypocrisy, Fear against Vainglory, Discretion against Arrogance, Modesty against Boasting, and Obedience against Disobedience, and after the description of all these in succession follows that of Humility herself (10177-12612). So of the rest; the five daughters of Charity, namely Praise, Congratulation, Compassion, Help and Goodwill, are opposed each in her turn to the daughters of Envy, as Charity is to Envy herself (12613-13380). Patience, the opponent of Anger, has for her daughters Good-temper, Gentleness, Affection, Agreement and Mercy (13381-14100). Prowess, the opposite of Sloth, is the mother of Watchfulness, Magnanimity, Resolution, Activity and Learning (or Knowledge), to the description of which last is added an exhortation to self-knowledge and confession of sins (14101-15180). Generosity, the contrary of Avarice, produces Justice, Liberality, Alms-giving, Largess and Holy-purpose, this fifth daughter being the opposite of Simony, the fourth daughter of Avarice, as Largess is of Niggardy, the fifth (15181-16212). Measure, the contrary of Gluttony, is the mother of Dieting, Abstinence, Nourishment, Sobriety, Moderation (16213-16572). Chastity, the enemy of Lechery, has for her daughters Good-care (against Fornication), Virginity, Matrimony, Continence and Hard-life (16573-18372).

Let us now, says our author, observe the issue of this strife for the conquest of Man, in which the Flesh inclines to the side of the Vices, and the Soul to that of Reason and the Virtues. We must examine the whole of human society, from the Court of Rome downwards, to decide which has gained the victory up to this time, and for my part I declare that Sin is the strongest power in this world and directs all things after her will and pleasure (18373-18420). Every estate of Man, therefore, is passed in review and condemned--the Pope and the Cardinals (18421-19056), the Bishops (19057-20088), the lower dignitaries of the Church, Archdeacons and others (20089-20208), the parish priests, the chantry priests, and those preparing for the priesthood (20209-20832), the members of religious orders, first the monks and then the friars (20833-21780), the secular rulers of the world, Emperors and Kings (21781-23208), great lords (23209-23592), knights and men of arms (23593-24180), the men of the law, pleaders and judges (24181-24816), the sheriffs, reeves and jurymen (24817-25176), the class of merchants and traders (25177-25500), that of artificers (25501-25980), victuallers (25981-26424), labourers (26425-26520). In short, all estates have become corrupted; whether the lay people are more to blame for it or the priests the author will not say, but all agree in throwing the blame on the world (or the age) and in excusing themselves (26521-26604). He addresses the world and asks whence comes all the evil of which he complains. Is it from earth, water, air or fire? No, all these are good in themselves. Is it from the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, stars, planet or comet? No, for the prayer of a good man can overcome all their influences. Is it from plants, birds, or beasts? But these all follow nature and do good. From what then is this evil? It is surely from that creature to whom God has given reason and submitted all things on earth, but who transgresses against God and does not follow the rules of reason. It is from Man that all the evils of the age arise, and we read in prophecy that for the sin of Man all the world, with the creatures which it contains, shall be troubled. Man is a microcosm, an abridgement of the world, and it is no wonder that all the elements should be disturbed when he transgresses (26605-26964). On the other hand the good and just man can command the elements and the powers of the material world, as Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still and as the saints have done at all times by miracles, and he is victorious at last even over Death, and attains to immortality by the grace of God (26965-27120). Surely, then, every man ought to desire to repent of his sin and to turn to God, that so the world may be amended and we may inherit eternal life. The author confesses himself to be as great a sinner as any man; but hope is his shield by the aid and mercy of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding that he has so idly wasted his life and comes so late to repentance (27121-27360). But how can he escape from his sins, how can he dare to pray, with what can he come before his God? Only by the help of his Lady of Pity, Mary, maid and mother, who will intercede for him if he can obtain her favour. Therefore he desires, before finishing his task, to tell of her conception and birth, her life and her death (27361-27480). Upon this follows the tale of the Nativity of the Virgin, as we find it (for example) in the _Legenda Aurea_, her childhood and espousal, the Nativity of Jesus Christ and the joys of our Lady, the Circumcision and the Purification, the baptism of our Lord, his miracles and his passion, the Resurrection, the sorrows of our Lady and her joys, the Ascension and the descent of the Spirit, the life of the Virgin Mary with St. John, her death, burial, and assumption; and the poet concludes his narrative with a prayer to both Son and Mother that they will have mercy upon his pain because of the pains which they themselves suffered, and give him that joy in which they now rejoice. Especially he is bound to celebrate the praise of his Lady, who is so gentle and fair and so near to God who redeemed us (27481-29904). He begins therefore to tell first of the names by which she is called, and with the praises of her, no doubt, he ended his book, which, as we have it, breaks off at l. 29945.

This, it will be seen, is a literary work with due connexion of parts, and not a mere string of sermons. At the same time it must be said that the descriptions of vices and virtues are of such inordinate length that the effect of unity which should be produced by a well-planned design is almost completely lost, and the book becomes very tiresome to read. We are wearied also by the accumulation of texts and authorities and by the unqualified character of the moral judgements. The maxim in l. 25225,

‘Les bons sont bons, les mals sont mals,’

Previous Next

Comments

The complete works of John Gower, volume 1Chapter II: Part 2

0%37 min left in chapter