Chapter XX: Front Matter (20)

5131 ff. Chaucer tells the story of Virginia as the Tale of the Doctor of Physic, professing to follow Livy, but actually taking his materials chiefly from the _Roman de la Rose_, 5613 ff., from which he transcribes also the reference to ‘Titus Livius.’ His story differs from that of Livy in many respects, and the changes are not at all for the better. For example, Chaucer does not mention the absence of Virginius in the camp, and he makes him kill his daughter at home and carry her head to Appius. Gower follows Livy, or some account drawn from Livy, without material alteration. It may be observed that Chaucer (following the _Rom. de la Rose_) uses the name ‘Apius’ alone for the judge, and ‘Claudius’ for the dependent, while Gower names them more correctly ‘Apius Claudius’ and ‘Marchus Claudius.’ On the subject generally reference may be made to Rumbaur’s dissertation, _Geschichte von Appius und Virginia in der engl. Litteratur_, Breslau, 1890.

5136. _Livius Virginius_, a mistake for ‘Lucius Virginius.’

5151. _Ilicius_, that is, Icilius.

5209. _til that he come_, ‘till he should come,’ the verb being pret. subjunctive.

5254 ff. The sentence is irregular in construction, but intelligible and vigorous: ‘but as to that command, like the hunted wild boar, who when he feels the hounds hard upon him, throws them off on both sides and goes his way, so (we may say) this knight,’ &c. The simile is due to Gower.

5261. _kepte_, ‘waited for.’

5307 ff. From the Book of Tobit, ch. vi-viii. The moral of the story is given by vi. 17, where Raphael says to Tobias, ‘Hi namque qui coniugium ita suscipiunt, ut Deum a se et a sua mente excludant, et suae libidini ita vacent sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus, habet potestatem daemonium super eos.’ This, however, is absent from the English version (which follows the LXX), as are also the precepts which follow, about nights to be spent in prayer by the newly married couple. The same is the case with the five precepts given to Sara by her parents, which are mentioned in the _Mirour_, 17701 ff.

5390. This line, written in F as follows,

‘Hov trewe · hou large · hou ioust · hov chaste,’

is enough to show that _v_ and _u_ are used indifferently in this kind of position: cp. movþe: couþe, 5285 f.

5408. _Do wey_, ‘Have done’: see _New English Dictionary_, ‘do,’ 52.

LIB. VIII.

We may suppose that our author had some embarrassment as regards the subject of his eighth book. It should properly have dealt with the seventh Deadly Sin and its various branches, that is, as the _Mirour de l’Omme_ gives them, ‘Fornicacioun,’ ‘Stupre,’ ‘Avolterie,’ ‘Incest,’ ‘Foldelit.’ Nearly all of these subjects, however, have already been treated of more or less fully, either in the fifth book, where branches of Avarice are spoken of with reference to the case of love, or in the seventh, under the head of Chastity as a point of Policy. Even the author’s commendation of Virginity, which might well have been reserved for this place, and which would have been rather less incongruous at the end than in the middle of the shrift, has already been set forth in the fifth book. There remained only Incest, and of this unpromising subject he has made the best he could, first tracing out the gradual development of the moral (or rather the ecclesiastical) law with regard to it, and then making it an excuse for the Tale of Apollonius (or Appolinus) of Tyre, which extends over the larger half of the book. The last thousand lines or so are occupied with the conclusion of the whole poem.

36. _upon his grace_, that is, free for him to bestow on whom he would.

44. Raphael is not named in Genesis.

48. _Metodre_, that is, Methodius, in whose _Revelationes_ it is written, ‘Sciendum namque est, exeuntes Adam et Evam de Paradiso virgines fuisse,’ so that ‘Into the world’ in l. 53 must mean from Paradise into the outer world.

62 ff. This is not found in Genesis, only ‘genuitque filios et filias,’ but Methodius says that the sisters of Cain and Abel were Calmana and Debora.

110. For the hiatus cp. _Mirour_, 12241,

‘De Isaäk auci je lis.’

158. _ne yit religion._ The seduction of one who was a professed member of a religious order was usually accounted to be incest: cp. _Mirour_, 9085 ff. and l. 175 below.

170. ‘I keep no such booth (or stall) at the fair,’ that is, ‘I do no such trade.’

244. _upsete_: see Introduction, p. cxix, and cp. vii. 2864.

271 ff. Gower tells us here that he finds the story in the _Pantheon_. That is true, no doubt: it is told there in the peculiar kind of verse with which Godfrey of Viterbo diversified his chronicle, and a most useful text of this particular story, showing the differences of three redactions, is given by S. Singer in his _Apollonius von Tyrus_, Halle, 1895, pp. 153-177. There is ample evidence that Gower was acquainted with the _Pantheon_, but it is not the case that he followed it in this story, as has been too readily assumed. Godfrey tells the tale in a much abbreviated form, and Gower unquestionably followed mainly the Latin prose narrative which was commonly current, though he thought the _Pantheon_, as a grave historical authority, more fit to be cited. The very first sentence, with its reference, ‘as seith the bok,’ is enough to indicate this, but a few more points may be mentioned here in which the story of the _Pantheon_ differs from Gower and from the prose _Historia Apollonii Tyrii_. (1) Godfrey of Viterbo does not say what was the problem proposed by Antiochus, nor does he mention the period of thirty days. (2) He gives no details of the flight of Apollonius or of the mourning of his people, and he does not mention the incident of Taliart (or Thaliarchus). (3) The name Pentapolim is not introduced. (4) There is no mention in the _Pantheon_ of the wooing of the daughter of Archistrates by three princes (or nobles) or of the bills which they wrote. (5) There is no mention of the nurse Lichorida being taken with Apollonius and his wife on shipboard, of the master of the ship insisting that the corpse should be thrown into the sea, or of the name of the physician, Cerimon. (6) The _Pantheon_ says nothing of the vow of Apollonius in ll. 1301-1306. (7) The name Theophilus is not given. (8) There is no mention of the tomb of Thaise (or Tharsia) being shown to Apollonius. (9) In the _Pantheon_ the punishment of Strangulio and Dionysia precedes the visit to Ephesus, and there is no mention of the dream which caused Apollonius to sail to Ephesus.

There are indeed some points in which Gower agrees with the _Pantheon_ against the _Historia_, for example in making the princess ask for Apollonius as her teacher on the very night of the banquet instead of the next morning, and in representing that Apollonius went to his kingdom after leaving his daughter at Tharsis (cp. E. Klebs, _Die Erzählung von Apollonius aus Tyrus_, Berlin, 1899). Perhaps however the most marked correspondence is where Gower makes the wife of Apollonius ‘Abbesse’ of Diana’s temple (l. 1849), which is evidently from Godfrey’s line, ‘Sic apud Ephesios velut abbatissa moratur’: cp. also l. 1194 ‘warmed ofte.’ These are both among the later additions to the _Pantheon_, and apparently were overlooked by Singer and Klebs when they pronounced that Gower probably knew only the earlier redaction: cp. notes on vii. 2765, 4181.

The Latin prose narrative has been printed in _Welseri Opera_, ed. 1682, pp. 681-704, and also in the Teubner series (ed. Riese, 1871, 1893). It is a translation from a Greek original, as is sufficiently indicated by the Greek words that occur in it, and by the Greek customs which it refers to or presupposes. Gower agrees with it pretty closely, but the story is not improved in his hands. It loses, of course, the Greek characteristics of which we have spoken, and several of the incidents are related by Gower in a less effective manner than in the original. For example, in the scene near the beginning between Antiochus and Apollonius, the king asks, ‘Nosti nuptiarum conditionem?’ and the young man replies, ‘Novi et ad portam vidi,’ to which there is nothing corresponding in Gower. Again, at a later stage of the story, when the three young nobles send in their proposals to the daughter of Archistrates, the original story makes her reply in a note which declares that she will marry only ‘the ship-wrecked man.’ The king innocently inquires of the three young men which of them has suffered shipwreck, and finally hands the note to Apollonius to see if he can make anything of it. This is much better managed than by Gower. On the other hand our author has done well in dispensing with the rudeness and boastfulness of Apollonius on the occasion when the king’s daughter plays the harp at the feast, and also in modifying the scenes at the brothel and excluding Athenagoras from taking part in them. The quotations given in the following notes are made from the Bodleian MS. Laud 247, a good copy of the twelfth century, which has a form of text more nearly corresponding to that which Gower used than that of any of the printed editions, and by means of which we can account for the names Thaise and Philotenne.

It can hardly be necessary to observe that the play of _Pericles, Prince of Tyre_, had another source besides Gower, and especially as regards its fourth and fifth acts. Marina is waylaid while going to visit the tomb of her old nurse, as in the original story, the scene of the pirates agrees more nearly with the original than with Gower, Lysimachus plays a part very like that which Gower took away from Athenagoras, and the scene between Cleon and Dionyza (iv. 4) seems to be suggested by the original. The story was current in English prose, as is well known.

386. _And seileth_: cp. v. 3291 and note.

395. _he moste_, ‘that he might,’ ‘ut sibi liceret,’ a common use of the word in older English (see examples in Bosworth and Toller’s Dictionary).

405 ff. (margin). The riddle as given in the Laud MS. is, ‘Scelere uehor. Materna carne uescor. Quero patrem meum matris mee uirum uxoris mee filiam, nec inuenio.’ Most copies have ‘fratrem meum’ for ‘patrem meum,’ but Gower agrees with the Laud MS. I do not attempt a solution of it beyond that of Apollonius, which is, ‘Quod dixisti scelere uehor, non es mentitus, ad te ipsum respice. Et quod dixisti materna carne uescor, filiam tuam intuere.’

484. _the Stwes._ For the spelling cp. ‘Jwes,’ v. 1713, 1808.

536. This is by no means in accordance with the original. Antiochus exclaims on hearing of the flight of Apollonius, ‘Fugere modo quidem potest, effugere autem quandoque me minime poterit,’ and at once issues an edict, ‘Quicunque mihi Apollonium contemptorem regni mei uiuum adduxerit, quinquaginta talenta auri a me dabuntur ei: qui uero caput eius mihi optulerit, talentorum c. receptor erit’ (f. 205 v^o), and he causes search to be made after him both by land and sea. The change made by Gower is not a happy one, for it takes away the motive for the flight from Tarsus, where Apollonius heard of this proscription.

542 ff. In the original Apollonius meets ‘Hellanicus’ at once on landing, and is informed by him of the proscription. He makes an offer to Strangulio to sell his wheat at cost price to the citizens, if they will conceal his presence among them. The money which he receives as the price of the wheat is expended by him in public benefits to the state, and the citizens set up a statue of him standing in a two-horse chariot (biga), his right hand holding forth corn and his left foot resting upon a bushel measure.

603. _ferketh_, ‘conveys,’ from OE. ‘fercian’: cp. Anglo-Saxon Chron. 1009, Hī fercodon ða scipo eft to Lundenne’ (quoted in Bosworth and Toller’s Dictionary).

624. ‘But with cable and cord broken asunder ... the ship’ &c., past participle absolute, as ii. 791, viii. 1830.

640. _forto mote To gete ayein._ Apparently this means ‘to wish to get again,’ a meaning derived from the phrase ‘so mot I,’ &c., expressing a wish. The infinitive is very unusual. For the gerund with ‘to’ which follows it cp. ii. 510, vii. 437, where we have this construction with ‘mai,’ ‘mihte.’

679. The account in the original story is here considerably different. Gower did not understand the Greek customs. ‘Et dum cogitaret unde uite peteret auxilium, uidit puerum nudum per plateam currentem, oleo unctum, precinctum sabana, ferentem ludos iuueniles ad gymnasium pertinentes, maxima uoce dicentem: Audite ciues, audite peregrini, liberi et ingenui, gymnasium patet. Apollonius hoc audito exuens se tribunario ingreditur lauacrum, utitur liquore palladio; et dum exercentes singulos intueretur, parem sibi querit et non inuenit. Subito Arcestrates rex totius illius regionis cum turba famulorum ingressus est: dumque cum suis ad pile lusum exerceretur, uolente deo miscuit se Apollonius regi, et dum currenti sustulit pilam, subtili ueiocitate percussam ludenti regi remisit’ &c. (f. 207 v^o).

The story proceeds to say that the king, pleased with the skill of Apollonius in the game of ball, accepted his services at the bath, and was rubbed down by him in a very pleasing manner. The result was an invitation to supper.

Gower agrees here with the _Pantheon_ in making the king a spectator only.

691. _Artestrathes._ The name is Arcestrates in the Laud MS.

706. _lefte it noght_, ‘did not neglect it.’

720 f. ‘Ingressus Apollonius in triclinium, contra regem adsignato loco discubuit.’ Gower apparently sets him at the head of the second table. For ‘beginne’ cp. _Cant. Tales_, Prol. 52, with Skeat’s note.

767 ff. In the original all applaud the performance of the king’s daughter except Apollonius, who being asked by the king why he alone kept silence, replied, ‘Bone rex, si permittis, dicam quod sentio: filia enim tua in artem musicam incidit, nam non didicit. Denique iube mihi tradi liram, et scies quod nescit’ (f. 208 v^o). Gower has toned this down to courtesy.

782. ‘ita stetit ut omnes discumbentes una cum rege non Apollonium sed Apollinem estimarent.’

866 ff. In the original this incident takes place when the king is in company with Apollonius. The king replies that his daughter has fallen ill from too much study, but he bids them each write his name and the sum of money which he is prepared to offer as dowry, and he sends the bills at once to the princess by the hand of Apollonius. She reads them, and then asks whether he is not sorry that she is going to be married. He says, ‘Immo gratulor,’ and she replies, ‘Si amares, doleres.’ Then she writes a note, saying that she wishes to have ‘the shipwrecked man’ as her husband, adding ‘Si miraris, pater, quod pudica uirgo tam inprudenter scripserim, scitote quia quod pudore indicare non potui, per ceram mandaui, que ruborem non habet.’ The king having read the note asks the young men which of them has been shipwrecked. One claims the distinction, but is promptly exposed by his companions, and the king hands the note to Apollonius, saying that he can make nothing of it. Apollonius reads and blushes, and the king asks, ‘Inuenisti naufragum?’ To which he replies discreetly, ‘Bone rex, si permittis, inueni.’ The king at last understood, and dismissed the three young men, promising to send for them when they were wanted.

901 ff. ‘cui si me non tradideris, amittis filiam tuam,’ but this is afterwards, in a personal interview.

930 ff. There is no mention of the queen in the original. The king calls his friends together and announces the marriage. The description of the wedding, &c., ll. 952-974, is due to Gower.

1003 ff. In the original story it is here announced to Apollonius that he has been elected king in succession to Antiochus; but this was regarded by our author as an unnecessary complication.

1037 ff. The details of the description are due to our author.

1054 ff. So far as the original can be understood, it seems to say that the birth of the child was brought about by the storm and that the appearance of death in the mother took place afterwards, owing to a coagulation of the blood caused by the return of fair weather.

1059-1083. This is all Gower, except 1076 f.

1089 ff. Apparently the meaning is that the sea will necessarily cast a dead body up on the shore, and therefore they must throw it out of the ship, otherwise the ship itself will be cast ashore with it. The Latin says only, ‘nauis mortuum non suffert: iube ergo corpus in pelago mitti’ (f. 211 v^o).

1101. The punctuation is that of F.

1128. _tak in his mynde_, ‘let him take thought’: cp. v. 3573, and l. 1420 below.

1165. _the wisest_: cp. Introduction, p. cxi.

1184 ff. In the original it is not Cerimon himself, but a young disciple of his, who discovers the signs of life and takes measures for restoring her. She has already been laid upon the pyre, and he by carefully lighting the four corners of it (cp. l. 1192) succeeds in liquefying the coagulated blood. Then he takes her in and warms her with wool steeped in hot oil.

1195. ‘began’ is singular, and the verbs ‘hete,’ ‘flacke,’ ‘bete’ are used intransitively: ‘to flacke’ means to flutter.

1219. ‘In short, they speak of nothing’: ‘as for an ende’ seems to mean the same as ‘for end’ or ‘for an end’ in later English: cp. _New English Dictionary_, ‘end.’

1248. This daughter is apparently an invention of Gower’s, who perhaps misread the original, ‘adhibitis amicis filiam sibi adoptauit,’ that is, he adopted her as his daughter.

1285. _his In_, ‘his lodging,’ in this case the house of Strangulio. Note the distinction made here by the capital letter between the substantive and the adverb: see Introduction, p. clix.

1293. _whiche_: note the plural, referring to Strangulio and his wife.

1295. The name here in the original is ‘Tharsia,’ given to her by her father’s suggestion from the name of the city, Tharsus, where she was left; but the Laud MS. afterwards regularly calls her Thasia.

1311 ff. This is not in accordance with the Latin prose story. He is there represented as telling Strangulio that he does not care, now that he has lost his wife, either to accept the offered kingdom or to return to his father-in-law, but intends to lead the life of a merchant. Here the expression is ‘ignotas et longinquas petens Egypti regiones.’ On the other hand the _Pantheon_ makes him proceed to his kingdom, apparently Antioch.

1337. _Philotenne_: the name in the Laud MS. is ‘Philothemia,’ but it is not distinguishable in writing from Philothenna. There is much variation as to this name in other copies.

1349 ff. Much is made in the original story of the death of this nurse and of the revelation which she made to Tharsia of her real parentage. Up to this time she had supposed herself to be the daughter of Strangulio. The nurse suspected some evil, and advised Tharsia, if her supposed parents dealt ill with her, to go and take hold of the statue of her father in the market-place and appeal to the citizens for help. After her death Tharsia visited her tomb by the sea-shore every day, ‘et ibi manes parentum suorum inuocabat.’ Here Theophilus lay in wait for her by order of Dionysiades.

1374. _cherles._ This is the reading of the best copies of each recension: cp. ‘lyves’ for ‘livissh’ i. e. living, ‘worldes’ for ‘worldly,’ ‘dethes’ for ‘dedly,’ iii. 2657, iv. 382, &c.

1376. _what sche scholde_, that is, what should become of her.

1391. _Scomerfare._ The first part of this word must be the French ‘escumerie,’ meaning piracy: see Du Cange under ‘escumator,’ e. g. ‘des compaignons du pays de Bretaigne, qui étaient venuz d’Escumerie.’

1393. _and he to go_, that is, ‘and he proceeded to go,’ a kind of historic infinitive: cp. Chaucer, _Troilus_, ii. 1108, ‘And she to laughe,’ _Leg. of Good Women_, 653 ‘And al his folk to go.’ (In _Piers Plowman_, A. Prol. 33, ‘And somme murthes to make,’ quoted by Mätzner, it is more probable that ‘to make’ is dependent on ‘chosen.’) In addition to these instances we have the repeated use of ‘to ga’ in Barbour’s _Bruce_, e. g. viii. 251, ix. 263, which is much more probably to be explained in this way than as a compound verb. Cp. Skeat’s _Chaucer_, vol. vi. p. 403, with C. Stoffel’s note on _Troilus_, ii. 1108, which is there quoted.

1410. The Laud MS. has ‘leno leoninus nomine,’ but many copies give no name.

1420. _Lei doun_, ‘let him lay down’: cp. l. 1128.

1423. There is an interesting touch in the original here which would not be intelligible to Gower. When Tharsia is led into the house, the character of which she does not know, she is bidden to do reverence to a statue of Priapus which stands in the entrance hall. She asks her master whether he is a native of Lampsacus, and he explains to her that his interest in this matter is not local but professional.

1424 ff. There is much in the original about the visit of Athenagoras and of other persons, who are successively so far overcome by the tears and entreaties of Tarsia, as not only to spare her but to give her large sums of money, while at the same time they make a jest both of themselves and of one another for doing so.

1451 f. The rhyme is saved from being an identical one by the adverbial use of ‘weie’ in the second line, ‘mi weie’ being equivalent to ‘aweie.’

1513. In the original she is reproached by her husband for the deed, and this is the case in the play of _Pericles_ also.

1518. _of record_, ‘of good repute.’

1534 f. Cp. _Pericles_, iv. 4, ‘The fairest, sweetest, best lies here,’ but the rest of the epitaph compares unfavourably with Gower’s.

1567 ff. Here we have a curious lapse on the part of our author. He represents that the king had no sooner held his parliament and celebrated the sacrifice in memory of his wife, than he began to prepare for his voyage to Tharsis. The story requires however that at least fourteen years should elapse, and this, according to the original narrative, has been spent by Apollonius in travelling about as a merchant, a matter of which Gower says nothing. Probably the _Pantheon_, which is not very clear on the matter, is responsible for the oversight.

1587. ‘For she is continually changing with regard to him.’

1617. _besihe_, ‘attended to.’ The use of this verb was not very common in Gower’s time except in the participle ‘beseie,’ ‘besein.’ The verb means (1) look, see, (2) look to, attend to, (3) provide, arrange: hence the participle is quite naturally used in the sense of ‘furnished,’ ‘provided,’ and we have ‘unbesein of,’ l. 153, for ‘unprovided with.’ It is usually explained by reference to its first sense, as having regard necessarily to appearance. ‘Appearing in respect of dress, &c.,’ ‘Appearing as to accomplishments, furnished’ (so _New English Dictionary_), but it is more natural to take these meanings of the participle as from senses (2) (3) of the verb. It is doubtful whether even the phrase ‘well besein’ used of personal appearance means anything but ‘well furnished.’

1636. _fordrive_, ‘driven about’ by storms, actually and metaphorically.

1670 ff. Her song is given in the original; it is rather pretty, but very much corrupted in the manuscripts. It begins thus,

‘Per sordes gradior, sed sordis conscia non sum,
Ut rosa in spinis nescit mucrone perire,’ &c.

1681 ff. Several of her riddles are given in the original story and he succeeds in answering them all at once. One is this,

‘Longa feror uelox formose filia silue,
Innumeris pariter comitum stipata cateruis:
Curro uias multas, uestigia nulla relinquens.’

The answer is ‘Nauis.’

She finally falls on his neck and embraces him, upon which he kicks her severely. She begins to lament, and incidentally lets him know her story. The suggestion contained in ll. 1702 ff., of the mysterious influence of kinship, is Gower’s own, and we find the same idea in the tale of Constance, ii. 1381 f.,

‘This child he loveth kindely,
And yit he wot no cause why.’

1830. ‘And all other business having been left’: cp. ii. 791.

1890. _With topseilcole_: cp. v. 3119,

‘Bot evene topseilcole it blew.’

The word ‘topseilcole’ (written as one word in the best copies of each recension) does not seem to occur except in these two passages. It is evidently a technical term of the sea, and in both these passages it is used in connexion with a favourable wind. Morley quotes from Godefroy a use of the word ‘cole’ in French in a nautical sense, ‘Se mistrent en barges et alerent aux salandres, et en prisrent les xvii, et l’une eschapa, qui estoit a la cole.’ Unfortunately, however, it is uncertain what this means. The vessels in question were in port when they were attacked, and therefore ‘a la cole’ might reasonably mean with sails (or topsails) set, and so ready to start. A topsail breeze would be one which was fairly strong, but not too strong to allow of sailing under topsails, and this is rather the idea suggested by the two passages in Gower.

It should be noted that in F and in some other MSS. there is a stop after the word ‘topseilcole.’

1948. _forto honge and drawe_: the verbs are transitive, ‘that men should hang and draw them’ (i. e. pluck out their bowels).

1983. This must mean apparently ‘They had no need to take in a reef.’ The use of ‘slake’ with this meaning does not seem quite appropriate, but a sail or part of a sail is slackened in a certain sense when it is taken in, seeing that it is no longer subject to the pressure of the wind.

2055. _leng the lasse_: cp. iii. 71, ‘the leng the ferre.’ This form of the comparative is usual in such phrases, as Chaucer, _Cant. Tales_, A 3872, ‘That ilke fruit is ever leng the wers,’ and perhaps also E 687, F 404, _Compl. unto Pite_, 95, where the MSS. gives ‘lenger.’ The form ‘leng’ is the original comparative adverb of ‘long.’

2077. _toward Venus_: cp. v. 6757. Here it means ‘on the side of Venus.’

2095. _sett_, imperative, like ‘set case,’ i. e. ‘suppose that.’ The reading ‘sith’ is certainly wrong.

2113. _his oghne dom._ The word ‘dom’ is used here in special reference to ‘kingdom’ in the line above. ‘Every man has a royal rule to exercise, that is the rule over himself.’

2124 f. ‘When he has not kept possession for himself of his own heart.’

2165. _And felt it_: we have here the elision-apocope in the case of a preterite subjunctive.

2194. _hath nothing set therby_, ‘accounted it as nothing.’

2198. _withholde_, ‘kept’ (in service).

2212 f. Cp. iii. 298, _Vox Clam._ ii. 1.

2217 ff. This ‘Supplication’ is a finished and successful composition in its way, and it may make us desire that our author had written more of the same kind. The poem _In Praise of Peace_, which is written in the same metre and stanza, is too much on a political subject to give scope for poetical fancy. The nearest parallel in style is to be found in some of the author’s French Balades.

2245. _Whom nedeth help_, ‘He to whom help is needful’: cp. Prol. 800, i. 2446.

2253 ff. Cp. vi. 330 ff.

2259 ff. Cp. _Balades_, xx.

2265. _Danger_: see note on i. 2443.

2288. Cp. i. 143 ff.

2312. _a Mile_: cp. iv. 689. It means apparently the time that it takes to go a mile: cp. Chaucer, _Astrol._ i. 16, ‘five of these degres maken a milewey and thre mileweie maken an houre.’

2319. _a game_, for ‘agame’: cp. Chaucer, _Troilus_, iii. 636, 648. More usually ‘in game,’ as l. 2871.

2341. _fulofte hath pleigned_: as for example in the _Planctus Naturae_ of Alanus de Insulis.

2365. ‘And I will consider the matter’: practically equivalent to a refusal of the petition, as in the form ‘Le Roy s’avisera.’

2367. _is noght to sieke_, ‘is not wanting’: cp. i. 924, ii. 44, &c.

2378. ‘In no security, but as men draw the chances of Ragman.’ To understand this it is necessary to refer to compositions such as we find in the Bodleian MSS., Fairfax 16, and Bodley 638, under the name of ‘Ragman (or Ragmans) Rolle.’ The particular specimen contained in these MSS. begins thus:

‘My ladyes and my maistresses echone,
Lyke hit unto your humble wommanhede,
Resave in gre of my sympill persone
This rolle, which withouten any drede
Kynge Ragman me bad [me] sowe in brede,
And cristyned yt the merour of your chaunce.
Drawith a strynge and that shal streight yow lede
Unto the verry path of your governaunce.’

After two more stanzas about the uncertainty of Fortune and the chances of drawing well or ill, there follows a disconnected series of twenty-two more, each giving a description of the personal appearance and character of a woman, in some cases complimentary and in others very much the reverse, usually in the form of an address to the lady herself, e. g.

‘A smal conceyt may ryght enogh suffyse
Of your beaute discripcion for to make;
For at on word ther kan no wyght devyse
Oon that therof hath lasse, I undertake,’ &c.

Apparently these stanzas are to be drawn for and then read out in order as they come, for the game ends with the last,

‘And sythen ye be so jocunde and so good,
And in the rolle last as in wrytynge,
I rede that this game ende in your hood.’

Evidently the same kind of game might be played by men with a view to their mistresses. It is much the same thing as the ‘Chaunces of the Dyse,’ where each stanza is connected with a certain throw made with three dice: cp. note on iv. 2792. The name ‘Ragman Rolle’ seems to be due to the disconnected character of the composition.

2407. _olde grisel_: cp. _Chaucer, To Scogan_, 35: ‘grisel’ means grey horse.

2415. _upon the fet_, that is, when the time comes for action. The rhyme with ‘retret’ shows that this is not the plural of ‘fot’: moreover, that is elsewhere regularly spelt ‘feet’ by Gower.

2428. _sitte_ for ‘sit’: cp. Introduction, p. cxiv.

2435. _torned into was_: the verb used as a substantive, cp. vi. 923.

2450 ff. The situation here has some resemblance to that in the Prologue of the _Legend of Good Women_, where the author has a vision of the god of Love coming to him in a meadow, as he lies worshipping the daisy, accompanied by queen Alcestis, and followed first by the nineteen ladies of the Legend, and then by a vast multitude of other women who had been true in love. The differences, however, are considerable. Here we have Venus and Cupid, the latter armed with a bow and blind (whereas Chaucer gives him two fiery darts and his eyesight), with two companies of lovers, both men and women, marshalled by Youth and Eld as leaders; and the colloquy with the poet has for its result to dismiss him with wounds healed from Love’s service, as one who has earned his discharge, while in the case of Chaucer it is a question of imposing penance for transgressions in the past and of enlisting him for the future as the servant of Love. The conception of the god of Love appearing with a company of true lovers in attendance may be regarded as the common property of the poets of the time, and so also was the controversy between the flower and the leaf (l. 2468), which Chaucer introduces as a thing familiar already to his readers. If our author had any particular model before him, it may quite as well have been the description in Froissart’s _Paradys d’Amours_ (ed. Scheler, i. 29 f.):

‘Lors regardai en une lande,
Si vi une compagne grande
De dames et de damoiselles
Friches et jolies et belles,
Et grant foison de damoiseaus
Jolis et amoureus et beaus.

* * * * *

“Dame,” di je, “puis je sçavoir
Qui sont ceuls que puis là veoir?”
“Oil,” dit ma dame de pris;
“Troïllus y est et Paris,
Qui furent fil au roi Priant,
Et cesti que tu vois riant,
C’est Laiscelos tout pour certain,”’ &c.

and she proceeds to enumerate the rest, including Tristram and Yseult, Percival, Galehaus, Meliador and Gawain, Helen, Hero, Polyxena, and Medea with Jason.

I do not doubt that Gower may have seen the _Legend of Good Women_, but it was not much his practice to borrow from contemporary poets of his own country, however free he might make with the literature of former times or of foreign lands.

2461. _who was who_: cp. vii. 2001.

2468. Cp. Chaucer, _Leg. of G. Women_, 72, 188, &c.

2470. _the newe guise of Beawme_, that is, the new fashions of dress, &c., introduced from Bohemia by the marriage of Richard II in 1382.

2500 f. _which was believed With bele Ysolde_, ‘who was accepted as a lover by Belle Isolde.’ Apparently ‘believed’ is here used in the primary sense of the verb, from which we have ‘lief.’ For the use of ‘with’ cp. l. 2553. We may note here that the spelling ‘believe’ is regular in Gower, ‘ie’ representing ‘̄ẹ.’

2502. _Galahot_, i. e. Galahalt, called by Mallory ‘the haut prince.’

2504 ff. It may be noted that several of the lovers in the company of Youth are impenitent in their former faithlessness, as Jason, Hercules and Theseus, while Medea, Deianira and Ariadne are left to complain by themselves. Troilus has recovered Cressida, if only for a time. It is hard to say why Pyramus failed of Thisbe’s company, unless indeed she were unable to pardon his lateness (cp. 2582).

2515 ff. Cp. v. 7213 ff.

2553. _with Enee_: cp. vii. 3359 and l. 2501.

2573 ff. It is likely enough that this idea of Cleopatra’s death may have been a reminiscence of the _Legend of Good Women_, 696 ff. Chaucer apparently got it from some such account as that quoted by Vincent of Beauvais from Hugh of Fleury, ‘in mausoleum odoribus refertum iuxta suum se collocavit Antonium. Deinde admotis sibi serpentibus morte sopita est.’ From this to the idea of a grave full of serpents would not be a difficult step.

2582. _Wo worthe_: cp. l. 1334.

2663. I take ‘lay’ to mean ‘law,’ i. e. the arrangement of his company.

2687. Cp. iv. 2314.

2705 ff. An allusion to some such story as we have in the ‘Lay d’Aristote’ (Méon et Barbazan, iii. p. 96).

2713. The punctuation follows F.

2714 ff. This refers to the well-known story of Virgil and the daughter of the Emperor, who left him suspended in a box from her window.

2718. _Sortes._ It is impossible that this can be for ‘Socrates,’ with whose name Gower was quite well acquainted. Perhaps it stands for the well-known ‘Sortes Sanctorum’ (Virgilianae, &c.), personified here as a magician, and even figuring, in company with Virgil and the rest, as an elderly lover.

2799. Cp. i. 143 ff.

2823. _syhe_, subj., ‘should see.’

2828. _deface_: apparently intransitive, ‘suffer defacement’: cp. iv. 2844.

2833. _Outwith_, ‘outwardly’: so ‘inwith’ often for ‘within,’ ‘inwardly.’ Dr. Murray refers me to _Orm._ i. 165, ‘utenn wiþþ,’ and Hampole, _Prick of Conscience_, 6669, ‘outwith.’ The best MSS. have a stop after ‘Outwith.’

2904. _A Peire of Bedes_: the usual expression for a rosary: cp. _Cant. Tales_, Prol. 158 f.,

‘Of smal coral aboute hire arm she bar
A peire of bedes gauded al with grene.’

2926 f. That is the _Speculum Hominis_ and the _Vox Clamantis_.

2931. _pernable._ The best MSS. have this, and it is obviously suitable to the sense: ‘Do not pursue when the game cannot be caught.’ From ‘prendre’ Gower uses ‘pernons,’ ‘pernetz,’ &c., in the _Mirour_.

2938. At this point begins a new hand in F, and for the rest of this leaf (f. 184) the text is written over an erasure (ll. 2938-2966). A note is written opposite l. 2938 for the guidance of the scribe, ‘now haue &c.’ It may be noted that l. 2940 has a coloured initial A as for the beginning of a paragraph, and this apparently belongs to the original writing, whereas in the first recension MSS. the paragraph begins at l. 2941. The next leaf (f. 185) is a substituted one, and the text is written still in the same hand.

The orthography of the new hand, in which ll. 2938-3146 are written, differs in some respects from the standard spelling which we have in the rest of the manuscript. The chief points of difference are as follows:

(1) _-id_ (_-yd_) termination almost always in the past participle, as _enclosid_, _turnyd_, _bewhapid_, _blessid_ (but _sterred_), _iþ_ frequently in the 3rd pers. sing. of verbs, _belongiþ_, _seruiþ_, _causiþ_ (but _secheþ_, _suieþ_), and _-in_ (_-yn_) in 3rd pers. pl., as _takyn_, _sechin_, _hierin_, _schuldyn_ (also _to lokyn_). (2) _-is_ (_-ys_) in the genit. sing, and in the plural of substantives, as _londis_, _mannys_, _bedis_, _lawis_, _wordis_ (but _þinges_, _myghtes_). (3) _-ir_ (_-yr_) termination, as _aftir_, _ouyr_, _wondir_ (but _siker_). (4) _y_ for _i_ (_I_) in many cases, especially as the pronoun of the first person (once _I_), also _ys_ (sometimes), _hym_, _wiþynne_. (5) _gh_ for _h_ in such words as _sigh_, _sighte_, _myghte_, _knyghthode_. (6) _ou_ for _o_ in _nought_, _brought_, _þoughte_, &c. (7) consonants doubled in _vppon_ and vowels in _maad_ (also _mad_), _book_, _goon_. (8) separation of words, as _in to_, _un to_, _hym self_, _þer fore_, _þer vpon_, _wher of_, _wiþ outen_.

It may be observed that something of the same tendency is observable at this point in the Stafford MS., but the differences appear in a much less marked manner, and chiefly in the terminations _-id_, _-iþ_, _-is_, _-ir_. S does not give _y_ for _I_, _ys_ for _is_, nor _myghte_, _sigh_, _nought_, _oughte_, _vppon_, _þer fore_, &c.

2974 (margin). _orat pro statu regni._ This marks exactly the stage reached in the second of the three versions which we have of Gower’s account of his own works (p. 480,) ‘vbi pro statu regni compositor deuocius exorat.’ The first completely excuses and the third utterly condemns the king, but the second makes no mention of him either for praise or blame, and that is the line taken in this form of the epilogue.

3012. _maintenue_, that is, ‘maintenance’ of quarrels by the lords on behalf of their followers: cp. _Mirour_, 23732 ff., where the same subject is dealt with.

3081. _beth_: see Introd. p. cxiv: but it is the reading of F only.

3114. _curiosite_, ‘artful workmanship’: cp. Chaucer, _Compleinte of Venus_, 81.

3147. Here, at the beginning of f. 186, the hand in F changes again and the rest of the manuscript, including the _Traitié_, the Latin poems and the author’s account of his books, is written in the hand which we have in the first leaf of the Prologue.

* * * * *

2955*. _his testament of love._ There is no reason to suppose that this is a reference to any particular work which Gower may have known that Chaucer had in hand. It may be a general suggestion that Chaucer should before his death compose some further work on love, which should serve as his last testimony (or last will and testament) on the subject, as the shrift of the present poem was our author’s leave-taking. To assume that the poem referred to must be the _Legend of Good Women_, and to argue from this that the _Confessio Amantis_ was written before the _Legend_ was given to the public, would be very rash. It is not likely that Usk’s _Testament of Love_ was known to Gower when he wrote this.

2991*. This quality of mercy, for which Richard is especially praised, seems to have been precisely the point in which he was afterwards most found wanting by our author, so that he finally earns the title of ‘crudelissimus rex.’ Matters had not gone so far as this when the second form of epilogue was substituted, in which these praises were simply omitted. Gower was then (in the fourteenth year of the reign) in a state of suspended judgement, expressed by the ‘orat pro statu regni’ of 2974 (margin). The subsequent events, and especially the treatment of the duke of Gloucester and his friends, finally decided his opinions and his allegiance, as we may see in the _Cronica Tripertita_.

3054* ff. See Prol. 83* ff.

3102*. _no contretaile_, ‘no retribution’ afterwards: cp. _Traitié_, vii. 3, ‘De son mesfait porta le contretaille.’

3104*. That is, it tends rather to set us free from evil consequences than to bring them upon us.

EXPLICIT, 5 f. The following copies of the first recension contain these last two lines, XERB₂Cath. Of the rest MH₁YGODAr.Ash. are imperfect at the end, N₂ omits the Explicit altogether, and I have no note as regards this point about Ad₂P₁Q. Of the seven which I note as having the ‘Explicit’ in four lines only, three are of the revised and four of the unrevised group. All copies of the second and third recensions have the last two lines, except of course those that are imperfect here.

QUAM CINXERE FRETA, &c. The ‘philosopher’ who was the author of this epistle is no doubt responsible also for the lines ‘Eneidos, Bucolis,’ &c. (printed in the Roxb. ed. of the _Vox Clamantis_, p. 427), in which our author is compared to Virgil, the chief difference being that whereas Virgil had achieved fame in one language only, Gower had distinguished himself in three. The writer in that case also is ‘quidam philosophus’ (not ‘quidam Philippus,’ as he is called in the printed copy), and I suspect that he was the ‘philosophical Strode’ who is coupled with Gower in the dedication of _Troilus_.

3. ‘tibi’ belongs to the next line, ‘siue satirus Poeta’ being taken together.

QUIA VNUSQUISQUE, &c. The form here given is found in no manuscript of the _Confessio Amantis_ except F and H₂ (copied from F), though some other third recension copies, as W and K, may probably have contained it. We have it, however, also in two manuscripts of the _Vox Clamantis_, the All Souls copy and that in the Hunterian Library at Glasgow.

It should be noted that whereas the first recension manuscripts regularly contain the Latin account of the author’s three books in immediate connexion with the _Confessio Amantis_, in the second recension it is made to follow the _Traitié_, and SΔ, which do not contain the _Traitié_, omit this also, while in F it comes later still, following the Latin _Carmen de multiplici viciorum pestilencia_. Thus the form which we have in F must be regarded as later than the accompanying text of the _Confessio Amantis_, from which it is separated in the MS. both by position and handwriting, and the words ‘ab alto corruens in foueam quam fecit finaliter proiectus est’ seem to indicate that it was written after the deposition of Richard II.

11 f. ‘Speculum hominis’ in all copies of the first recension. ‘Speculum meditantis’ over an erasure in the Glasgow MS. of the _Vox Clamantis_.

25 ff. Note the omission here (of nine words which are necessary to the sense) in every first recension copy except J. Similarly below all except J have ‘finem’ for ‘sentencie,’ obviously from a mistaken reading of a contraction (‘ſiē’). These must be original errors, only removed by later revision, the first no doubt due to dropping a line.

IN PRAISE OF PEACE.

The text of this poem is taken from the manuscript at Trentham Hall belonging to the Duke of Sutherland, which contains also the _Cinkante Balades_. Of this book a full description has been given in the Introduction to Gower’s French Works, pp. lxxix ff. The present poem is the first piece in the book (ff. 5-10 v^o), and is written in the same hand as the _Balades_ and _Traitié_, a hand which resembles that which appears in ff. 184, 185 of the Fairfax MS., though I should hesitate to say positively that it is the same. Evidently, however, the manuscript is contemporary with the author, and it gives us an excellent text of the poem. The date of its composition is doubtless the first year of king Henry IV, for the manuscript which contains it ends with some Latin lines (added in a different hand), in which the author speaks of himself as having become blind in the first year of king Henry IV and having entirely ceased to write in consequence of this.

As a composition it is not without some merit. The style is dignified, and the author handles his verse in a craftsmanlike manner, combining a straightforward simplicity of language with a smooth flow of metre and a well-balanced stanza, the verse being preserved from monotony by variety of pause and caesura. Some stanzas are really impressive, as those which begin with ll. 99, 127, 148. The divisions of the poem, indicated in the MS. by larger coloured initials, have hitherto escaped the notice of editors.

The poem was printed first in the collected edition of _Chaucer’s Works_, 1532, commonly called Thynne’s edition (ff. 375 v^{o}-378), and reprinted from this in the succeeding folio editions of Chaucer (e. g. 1561, f. 330 v^{o}, 1598, f. 330 v^{o}, 1602, f. 314). There was no attempt made in any of these to ascribe its authorship to Chaucer, Gower’s name being always given as the author. It has been published also by J. Wright in his _Political Poems and Songs_ (Rolls’ Series), the text being taken from the Trentham MS., and it has been included by Prof. Skeat in his interesting collection of poems which have been printed with Chaucer’s works (_Chaucerian and other Pieces_, pp. 205-216).

Thynne followed a manuscript which gave a fair text, but one much inferior to that of the Trentham copy, both in material correctness and in spelling, e. g.

‘Kyng Salomon whiche had at his askyng
Of god | what thyng him was leuest craue
He chase wysedom vnto gouernyng
Of goddes folke | the whiche he wolde saue
And as he chase it fyl him for to haue
For through his wytte while y^t his reigne last
He gate him peace and rest in to his last’

All the material variations of Thynne are given in the critical notes, but not his differences of spelling. Wright’s text is not to be trusted as a reproduction of the Trentham MS. He made several serious mistakes in copying from or collating it, and he has a good many trifling inaccuracies of spelling. The following are his worst errors:

l. 3 _om._ this 16 the _for_ thi 71 To stere peace (_following Thynne_) 108 _om._ doth tofalle _for_ to falle 136 than _for_ that 173 But aftirwards 202 _om._ worthi 211 any _for_ a 246 [good] _seeming to imply that it is not in the MS._ 263 Which heliples 278 reserved _for_ deserved 289 man _for_ king 292 [up] 306 begete _for_ be gete 356 Resteined _for_ Resceived 363 deleated _for_ debated 382 sese _for_ see. In addition to these rather gross blunders, he has about a hundred smaller deviations from the manuscript which he professes to follow, as, for example, 7 for to _for_ forto (_and so afterwards_) 16 him self _for_ himself (_and so afterwards_) 19 But 27 reqwest _for_ reqweste 39 might _for_ myht 56 shal _for_ schal 83 lefte _for_ left 84 not _for_ noght 90 charitie _for_ charite 98 Both _for_ Bothe 102 gone _for_ goon nygth _for_ nyght 110 dothe 112 I 120 Crists 155 fulfilled 172 wille 194 destruied 219 made 254 Ffirst chirche her silf 260 sick 280 life 287 made an end 319 found 355 Which 382 meschiefe and a good many more. He also omits in a very misleading manner the last lines of the rubric which follows the poem, ‘Et nunc sequitur epistola’ &c., as well as the ‘epistle’ itself, ‘Rex celi deus’; and he makes it appear that the lines ‘Henrici quarti’ &c. follow at once, whereas they are at the end of the MS. and in a different hand.

I think it worth while to specify these instances because Wright’s edition has been accepted by Prof. Skeat as an accurate reproduction of a manuscript which is not generally accessible, and if no notice were taken here of the readings given by Wright, it would still remain in doubt whether he or I represented the text more correctly. Especially in the cases where Wright has bracketed a word as not occurring in the manuscript, it might be supposed that his positive testimony was to be preferred.

Prof. Skeat has based his text on Thynne, making such alterations of spelling as seemed to him suitable, and giving the variants of Wright’s edition as those of the Trentham MS. Misled by Wright, he has accepted in his text the readings ‘reserved’ in l. 278, and ‘cese’ in l. 382.

The text given by the Trentham MS. is apparently quite free from material error, except as regards the word erased in l. 71, and the points of spelling which require correction are very few in number. The orthography is not quite in accordance with the standard spelling of the Fairfax and Stafford MSS., and in some respects resembles that of the third hand of F, on which we have commented in the note on _Confessio Amantis_, viii. 2938. Here however there is only a slight tendency to use _i_ for _e_ in weak terminations. We have _distourbid_ 153, _vndefendid_: _amendid_ 223 f., _handlid_ 321, _soeffrin_ 222, _folwiþ_ 23, _goddis_ 32, 84, _mannys_ 237, but elsewhere almost always the usual forms, as _affermed_, _cared_, _gouerned_, _aken_, _ledeþ_, _londes_, _mannes_. On the other hand the _-ir_ termination is used almost regularly, as _vndir_, _wondir_, _aftir_, _modir_ (but _vnder_ 286), and there is a tendency also to substitute _i_ for _e_ in other places also, as _first_, _chirche_ (also _ferst_, _cherche_), _wirche_, _dide_ (348), _proprite_, but _here_ for _hire_ 108, 329, cp. 254. For _I_ (pers. pronoun) we have regularly _y_; _gh_ usually for _h_ in such words as _right_, _myghti_, _knyght_, _light_, _highe_, _stigh_, but also _riht_, _rihtwisnesse_, _knyht_; _vppon_ for _vpon_, _schulde_ but also _scholde_. In addition to these points we may note the dropping of _-e_ several times in _euer_, _neuer_, which hardly ever occurs in the Fairfax MS., and also in _heuen_ 79, but we have also _euere_, _neuere_, _heuene_. The _-e_ of the weak preterite form is dropped before a vowel in _myht_ 39, _behight_ 41, _had_ 42, _mad_ 103, 345: _-e_ is inserted in some imperatives, as _Leie_ 122, _sette_ 124, _Lete_ 129, _putte_ 130, _þenke_ 162, _Beholde_ 276 (but _let_ 158, _Kep_ 367, 384, _draugh_ 384). As regards the use of _þ_ and _ȝ_ the Trentham MS. agrees with F.

There is no title in the manuscript, and Prof. Skeat calls the poem ‘The Praise of Peace,’ a title suggested by Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson. I have adopted a modification of this, ‘To King Henry the Fourth in Praise of Peace,’ expressing also the substance of that given by Thynne.

8 ff. The threefold claim of Henry IV is given in this stanza, as in Chaucer’s well-known Envoy, but the ‘conquest’ is here represented as a divine sanction.

50. _a place_, ‘into place’: cp. _Conf. Amantis_, v. 735, ‘Hou suche goddes come aplace.’

53. _in manere_, ‘in due measure’: cp. _Conf. Amantis_, vii. 2132, 4344.

55. _what aftirward betide_, ‘whatever may happen afterwards.’

71. The first word of the line is erased in the manuscript, only the initial S being left, with a space for five or six letters after it. The word which is suggested in the text is perhaps as likely as any other: for the form of it cp. ‘Maintene,’ l. 385. Thynne’s reading, ‘To stere peace,’ looks like a lame attempt on the part of a copyist to fill the gap.

78 ff. _Conf. Amantis_, iii. 2265 ff.

89. I write regularly ‘evere’ ‘nevere’ in accordance with Gower’s practice: so 126, 127, 148, 241, 301, 350, 365.

90. _alle charite._ The MS. has ‘al charite,’ but the metre and the grammatical usage both require ‘alle,’ as in l. 293 and elsewhere.

94. _wisemennes_: cp. ‘wisemen,’ _Conf. Amantis_, vii. 1792.

106 ff. Cp. _Conf. Amantis_, iii. 2273 ff.

113. _Conf. Amantis_, iii. 2294 f.

115. Cp. _Conf. Amantis_, Prol. 444.

121. ‘Whose faith thou hast partly to guide.’

122. I correct the imperative form ‘Leie,’ and also ‘sette’ 124, ‘Lete’ 129, ‘putte’ 130, ‘thenke’ 162, ‘Beholde’ 276, as contrary to Gower’s practice and in several cases disturbing the metre.

150. Strictly speaking, we ought to have the subjunctive, ‘undirstode,’ but the rhyme will not allow.

155. So Prol. 88 f.,

‘The hyhe god him hath proclamed
Ful of knyhthode and alle grace.’

157 f. ‘Peace with honour’ was a favourite thought of Gower’s, ‘pax et honor’ in the _Vox Clamantis_, vii. 1415.