Chapter L: LAUD 719, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Contains Vox Clamantis (1)

(without Table of Chapters and with omission of Lib. i. 165-2150), _Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _Tractatus de Lucis Scrutinio_, _Carmen de variis in amore passionibus_, ‘Lex docet auctorum,’ ‘Quis sit vel qualis,’ ‘H. aquile pullus,’ and seven more Latin lines of obscure meaning (‘Inter saxosum montem,’ &c.), which are not found in other Gower MSS. Parchment and paper, ff. 170 (not including four original blank leaves at the beginning and several miscellaneous leaves at the end), in quires usually of fourteen leaves, but the first of twelve and the second of six, measuring about 8½ x 5¾ in., about 27 lines to the page, moderately well written with a good many contractions, in the same hand throughout with no corrections, of the second quarter of the fifteenth century. There is a roughly drawn picture of an archer aiming at the globe on f. 21, and the chapters have red initial letters. Original oak binding.

The names ‘Thomas Eymis’ and ‘William Turner’ occur as those of sixteenth-century owners. The note on the inside of the binding, ‘Henry Beauchamp lyeing in St. John strete at the iii. Cuppes,’ can hardly be taken to indicate ownership.

The most noticeable fact about the text of this MS. is one to
which no attention has hitherto been called, viz. the omission
of the whole history of the Peasants’ Revolt. After Lib. i. cap.
i. the whole of the remainder of the first book (nearly 2,000
lines) is omitted without any note of deficiency, and we pass on
to the Prologue of Lib. ii, not so named here, but standing as
the second chapter of Lib. i. (the chapters not being numbered
however in this MS.). After what we commonly call the second book
follows the heading of the Prologue of Lib. iii, but without any
indication that a new book is begun. Lib. iv. is marked by the
rubricator as ‘liber iii^{us},’ Lib. v. as ‘liber iiii^{us},’ and
so on to the end, making six books instead of seven; but there
are traces of another numbering, apparently by the scribe who
wrote the text, according to which Lib. v. was reckoned as ‘liber
iii^{us},’ Lib. iv. as ‘liber iiii^{us},’ and Lib. vii. as ‘liber
v^{us}.’ It has been already observed that there is internal
evidence to show that this arrangement in five (or six) books may
have been the original form of the text of the _Vox Clamantis_.
At the same time it must be noted that this form is given by no
other MS. except the Lincoln book, which is certainly copied from
L, and that the nature of the connexion between L and D seems
to indicate that these two MSS. are ultimately derived from the
same source. This connexion, established by a complete collation
of the two MSS., extends apparently throughout the whole of the
text of L. We have, for example, in both, i. Prol. 27, laudes,
58 Huius ergo, ii. 94 et ibi, 312 causat, 614 Ingenuitque, iii.
4 mundus, 296 ei, 407 amor (_for_ maior), 536 Hec, 750 timidus,
758 curremus, 882 iuris, 1026 Nil, 1223 mundus, 1228 bona, 1491
egras, 1584 racio, 1655 Inde vola, 1777 ibi, 1868 timet, 1906
seruet, 2075, 2080 qui, iv. 52 vrbe, 99 tegit, and so on. The
common source was not an immediate one, for words omitted by D
with a blank or ‘deficit’ as iii. 641, vii. 487 are found in L,
and the words ‘nescit,’ ‘deus,’ which are omitted with a blank
left in L at iii. 1574 and vi. 349 are found in D. If we suppose
a common source, we must assume either that the first book was
found in it entire and deliberately omitted, with alteration of
the numbering of the books, by the copyist of the MS. from which
L is more immediately derived, or that it was not found, and that
the copyist of the original of D supplied it from another source.

It should be noted that the MS. from which L is ultimately
derived must have had alternative versions of some of the revised
passages, for in vi. cap. xviii. and also vi. l. 1208 L gives
both the revised and the unrevised form. As a rule in the matter
of revision L agrees with D, but not in the corrections of vi.
1208-1226, where D has the uncorrected form and L the other. We
may note especially the reading of L in vi. 1224.

The following are the Latin lines which occur on f. 170 after
‘[H.] Aquile pullus,’ &c.

‘Inter saxosum montem campumque nodosum
Periit Anglica gens fraude sua propria.
Homo dicitur, Cristus, virgo, Sathan, non iniustus fragilisque,
Est peccator homo simpliciterque notat.
Vlcio, mandatum, cetus, tutela, potestas,
Pars incarnatus, presencia, vis memorandi,
Ista manus seruat infallax voce sub vna.’

The second of the parchment blanks at the beginning has a note
in the original hand of the MS. on the marriage of the devil and
the birth of his nine daughters, who were assigned to various
classes of human society, Simony to the prelates, Hypocrisy to
the religious orders, and so on. At the end of the book there are
two leaves with theological and other notes in the same hand, and
two cut for purposes of binding from leaves of an older MS. of
Latin hymns, &c. with music.

L₂. LINCOLN CATHEDRAL LIBRARY, A. 72, very obligingly placed at my disposal in the Bodleian by the Librarian, with authority from the Dean and Chapter. Contains the same as L, including the enigmatical lines above quoted. Paper, ff. 184, measuring about 8 x 6 in. neatly written in an early sixteenth-century hand, about 26 lines to the page. No coloured initials, but space left for them and on f. 21 for a picture corresponding to that on f. 21 of the Laud MS. Neither books nor chapters numbered. Marked in pencil as ‘one of Dean Honywood’s, No. 53.’

Certainly copied from L, giving a precisely similar form of text
and agreeing almost always in the minutest details.

T. TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, D. 4, 6, kindly sent to the Bodleian for my use by the Librarian, with the authority of the Provost and Fellows. Contains _Vox Clamantis_ without Table of Chapters, followed by the account of the author’s books, ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ &c. Parchment, ff. 144 (two blank) in seventeen quires, usually of eight leaves, but the first and sixteenth of ten and the last of twelve; written in an early fifteenth-century hand, 36-39 lines to the page, no passages erased or rewritten. Coloured initials.

This, in agreement with the Hatfield book (H₂), gives the
original form of all the passages which were revised or
rewritten. It is apparently a careless copy of a good text, with
many mistakes, some of which are corrected. The scribe either
did not understand what he was writing or did not attend to the
meaning, and a good many lines and couplets have been carelessly
dropped out, as i. 873, 1360, 1749, 1800, ii. Prol. 24 f., ii.
561 f., iii. 281, 394 f., 943 f., 1154, 1767-1770, 1830, iv. 516
f., 684, v. 142-145, 528-530, vi. 829 f., vii. 688 f., 1099 f.

The blank leaf at the beginning, which is partly cut away, has in
an early hand the lines

‘In Kent alle car by gan, ibi pauci sunt sapientes,
In a Route thise Rebaudis ran sua trepida arma gerentes,’

for which cp. Wright’s _Political Poems_, Rolls Series, 14, vol.
i. p. 225.

H₂. HATFIELD HALL, in the possession of the Marquess of Salisbury, by whose kind permission I was allowed to examine it. Contains the _Vox Clamantis_, preceded by the Table of Chapters. Parchment, ff. 144 (not counting blanks), about 9½ x 6¼ in., in eighteen quires of eight with catchwords; neatly written in a hand of the first half of the fifteenth century, 40 lines to the page. There is a richly illuminated border round three sides of the page where the Prologue of the _Vox Clamantis_ begins, and also on the next, at the beginning of the first book, and floreated decorations at the beginning of each succeeding book, with illuminated capitals throughout. The catchwords are sometimes ornamented with neat drawings.

The book has a certain additional interest derived from the fact that it belonged to the celebrated Lord Burleigh, and was evidently read by him with some interest, as is indicated by various notes.

This MS., of which the text is fairly correct, is written in
one hand throughout, and with T it represents, so far as we can
judge, the original form of the text in all the revised passages.
In some few cases, as iv. 1073, v. 450, H₂ seems to give the
original reading, where T agrees with the revised MSS.

On the last leaf we find an interesting note about the decoration
of the book and the parchment used, written small in red below
the ‘Explicit,’ which I read as follows: ‘100 and li. 51 blew
letteris, 4 co. smale letteris and more, gold letteris 8: 18
quayers. price velom v s. vi d.’ There are in fact about 150 of
the larger blue initials with red lines round them, the smaller
letters, of which I understand the account reckons 400 and
more, being those at the beginning of paragraphs, blue and red
alternately. The eight gold letters are those at the beginning of
the first prologue and the seven books.

The following notes are in the hand of Lord Burleigh, as I am
informed by Mr. R. T. Gunton: ‘Vox Clamantis’ on the first page,
‘nomine Authoris’ and ‘Anno 4 Regis Ricardi’ in the margin of the
prologue to the first book, ‘Thomas arch., Simon arch.,’ opposite
i. 1055 f., ‘Amoris effectus’ near the beginning of Lib. v, ‘Laus
Edw. princ. patris Ricardi 2’ at Lib. vi. cap. xiii, and a few
more.

C₂. COTTON, TITUS, A, 13, British Museum. Contains on ff. 105-137 a part of the _Vox Clamantis_, beginning with the Prologue of Lib. i. and continuing to Lib. iii. l. 116, where it is left unfinished. Paper, leaves measuring 8¼ x 6 in. written in a current sixteenth-century hand with an irregular number of lines (about 38-70) to the page. Headed, ‘De populari tumultu et rebellione. Anno quarto Ricardi secundi.’

Text copied from D, as is shown by minute agreement in almost
every particular.

H₃. HATTON 92, Bodleian Library, Oxford. This contains, among other things of a miscellaneous kind, Gower’s _Cronica Tripertita_, followed by ‘[H.] aquile pullus,’ ‘O recolende,’ and ‘Rex celi deus,’ altogether occupying 21½ leaves of parchment, measuring 7¾ x 5½ in. Neatly written in hands of the first half of the fifteenth century about 28-30 lines to the page, the text in one hand and the margin in another.

Begins, ‘Prologus. Opus humanum est--constituit.’

Then the seven lines, ‘Ista tripertita--vincit amor,’ followed by
‘Explicit prologus.’ After this,

‘Incipit cronica iohannis Gower de tempore Regis Ricardi secundi
vsque ad secundum annum Henrici quarti.

Incipit prohemium Cronice Iohannis Gower.

Postquam in quodam libello, qui vox clamantis dicitur, quem
Iohannes Gower nuper versificatum composuit super hoc quod
tempore Regis Ricardi secundi anno Regni sui quarto vulgaris in
anglia populus contra ipsum Regem quasi ex virga dei notabiliter
insurrexit manifestius tractatum existit, iam in hoc presenti
Cronica, que tripertita est, super quibusdam aliis infortuniis,’
&c.

Ends (after ‘sint tibi regna poli’), ‘Expliciunt carmina Iohannis
Gower, que scripta sunt vsque nunc, quod est in anno domini Regis
prenotati secundo, et quia confractus ego tam senectute quam
aliis infirmitatibus vlterius scribere discrete non sufficio,
Scribat qui veniet post me discrecior Alter, Amodo namque manus
et mea penna silent. Hoc tamen infine verborum queso meorum,
prospera quod statuat regna futura deus. Amen. Ihesus esto michi
ihesus.’

This conclusion seems to be made up out of the piece beginning
‘Henrici quarti’ in the Trentham MS. (see p. 365 of this volume)
combined with the prose heading of the corresponding lines as
given by CHG. It may be observed here that the Trentham version
of this piece is also given in MS. Cotton, Julius F. vii, f. 167,
with the heading ‘Epitaphium siue dictum Iohannis Gower Armigeri
et per ipsum compositum.’ It is followed by the lines ‘Electus
Cristi--sponte data,’ which are the heading of the _Praise of
Peace_.

FORMER EDITIONS. The _Vox Clamantis_ was printed for the Roxburghe Club in the year 1850, edited by H. O. Coxe, Bodley’s Librarian. In the same volume were included the _Cronica Tripertita_, the lines ‘Quicquid homo scribat,’ &c., the complimentary verses of the ‘philosopher,’ ‘Eneidos Bucolis,’ &c., and (in a note to the Introduction) the poem ‘O deus immense,’ &c. In T. Wright’s _Political Poems_, Rolls Series, 14, vol. i. the following pieces were printed: _Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _De Lucis Scrutinio_, ‘O deus immense,’ &c., _Cronica Tripertita_. In the Roxburghe edition of Gower’s _Cinkante Balades_ (1818) were printed also the pieces ‘Rex celi deus,’ and ‘Ecce patet tensus,’ the lines ‘Henrici quarti,’ a variation of ‘Quicquid homo scribat,’ &c. (see p. 365 of this edition). Finally the last poems ‘Vnanimes esse,’ ‘Presul, ouile regis,’ ‘Cultor in ecclesia,’ and ‘Dicunt scripture’ were printed by Karl Meyer in his dissertation _John Gower’s Beziehungen zu Chaucer &c._ pp. 67, 68.

Of Coxe’s edition I wish to speak with all due respect. It has served a very useful purpose, and it was perhaps on a level with the critical requirements of the time when it was published. At the same time it cannot be regarded as satisfactory. The editor tells us that his text is that of the All Souls MS. ‘collated throughout word for word with a MS. preserved among the Digby MSS. in the Bodleian, and here and there with the Cotton MS. [Tib. A. iv.] sufficiently to show the superiority of the All Souls MS.’ The inferior and late Digby MS. was thus uncritically placed on a level with those of first authority, and even preferred to the Cotton MS. It would require a great deal of very careful collation to convince an editor that the text of the All Souls MS. is superior in correctness to that of the Cotton MS., and it is doubtful whether after all he would come to any such conclusion. As regards correctness they stand in fact very nearly on the same level: each might set the other right in a few trifling points. It is not, however, from the Cotton MS. that the Roxburghe editor takes his corrections, when he thinks that any are needed. In such cases he silently adopts readings from the Digby MS., and in a much larger number of instances he gives the text of the All Souls MS. incorrectly, from insufficient care in copying or correcting. The most serious results of the undue appreciation of the Digby MS. are seen in those passages where S is defective, as in the Prologue of the first book, and in the well-known passage i. 783 ff., where the text of D is taken as the sole authority, and accordingly errors abound, which might have been avoided by reference to C or any other good copy[73]. The editor seems not to have been acquainted with the Harleian MS., and he makes no mention even of the second copy of the _Vox Clamantis_ which he had in his own library, MS. Laud 719.

The same uncritical spirit which we have noted in this editor’s choice of manuscripts for collation appears also in his manner of dealing with the revised passages. When he prints variations, it is only because he happens to find them in the Digby MS., and he makes only one definite statement about the differences of handwriting in his authority, which moreover is grossly incorrect. Not being acquainted with Dublin or the Hatfield MSS., he could not give the original text of such passages as _Vox Clamantis_, iii. 1-28 or vi. 545-80, but he might at least have indicated the lines which he found written over erasure, and in different hands from the original text, in the All Souls and Cotton MSS. Dr. Karl Meyer again, who afterwards paid some attention to the handwriting and called attention to Coxe’s misstatement on the subject, was preoccupied with the theory that the revision took place altogether after the accession of Henry IV, and failed to note the evidence afforded by the differences of handwriting for the conclusion that the revision was a gradual one, made in accordance with the development of political events.

I think it well to indicate the chief differences of text between the Roxburghe edition of the _Vox Clamantis_ and the present. The readings in the following list are those of the Roxburghe edition. In cases where the Roxburghe editor has followed the All Souls or Digby MS. that fact is noted by the letters S or D; but the variations are for the most part mere mistakes. It should be noted also that the sense is very often obscured in the Roxburghe edition by bad punctuation, and that the medieval spelling is usually not preserved.

_Epistola_ 37 orgine _Heading to Prol._ 3 somnum
_Prologus_ 21 Godefri, des atque D 25 ascribens D 27 nil
ut laudes D 32 Sicque D 36 sentiat D 37 Sæpeque sunt
lachrymis de D 38 Humida fit lachrymis sæpeque penna meis D
44 favent D 49 confracto D 50 At 58 Hujus ergo D

_Heading to_ LIB. I. 1 _om._ eciam D 3 contingebant D
4 terræ illius D 7 etiam (_for_ et) D LIB. I. 12.
quisque 26 celsitonantes 40 Fertilis occultam invenit SD
61 Horta 88 sorte 92 et (_for_ ex) Cap. ii. _Heading_
dicet prima 199 geminatis 209 possint D 280 crabs
326 elephantinus 359 segistram 395 Culteque Curræ
396 Linquendo S 455 Thalia D 474 arces 479 nemora
551 pertenui 585 Hæc 603 Tormis bruchiis 743 Cumque
763 alitrixque D 771 dominos superos nec D 784 Recteque
D 789 Cebbe D 797 Sæpe 799 Quidem 803 Frendet
perspumans D 811 earum D 817 sonitum quoque verberat
821 Congestat D 822 Obstrepuere 824 in (_for_ a) D
827 stupefactus 835 eorum non fortificet 837 furorum D
846 conchos D _om._ sibi D 855 roserat atra rubedo D
863 romphæa 873 gerunt 947 rapit (for stetit) D
953 igne S 1173 viris (_for_ iuris) 1174 aut (_for_ siue)
1241 et (_for_ vt) S 1302 sibi tuta 1312 scit SD
1334 Cantus 1338 ipse 1361 internis D 1390 Reddidit
1425 mutantia 1431 fuit 1440 Poenis 1461 deprimere
1525 statim S 1531 subito D 1587 per longum 1654 in
medio 1656 nimis 1662 patebit S 1695 rubens pingit
gemmis 1792 dixi (_for_ dedi) 1794 nichil (_for_ nil
vel) 1855 coniuncta 1870 imbuet S 1910 tempore
1927 et (_for_ vt) 1941 Claudit 1974 parat 1985 _om._
numen 2009 tunc 2017 inde 2118 ulla

LIB. II. _Prol._ 10 ora 39 ore 40 fugam iste

LIB. II. 9 obstat D 65 Desuper D 70 Et qui pauca tenet
84 Causa tamen credo 175 continuo 191 migratrix 205 Et
(_for_ Atque) 253 cum 271 Jonah 303 jam (_for_ tam)
352 ut 401 lecto 461 monent 545 morte (_for_ monte)
570 prædicat 608 fæcundari 628 Dicit

LIB. III. _Prol._ 9 sed et increpo 77 oro 90 potuit (for
ponit)

LIB. III. 4* exempla D mundus (_for_ humus) D 18* ei D
27* poterint D 41 sensus 59 cum (_for_ eum)
76 Dicunt 141 possit (_for_ poscit) 176 onus (_for_
ouis) S 191 magnates 207 nimium (_for_ nummi)
209 luxuriatio D 225 expugnareque 333 capiunt
382 ad (_for_ in) 383 teli (_for_ tali) 469 _om._
est _after_ amor 535 Quem (_for_ Quam) 595 terram
SD 701 Sublime 845 manu 891 Sic (_for_ Sicque)
933 vertatur 954 nostra 969 portamus nomen 971 nobis
data D 976 renovare 989 sic (_for_ sit) S 1214 et
1234 attulerat 1265 fallit S 1357 mundus habet 1376 et
(_for_ vt) S 1454 _om._ est 1455 Est; (_for_ Et)
1487 intendit 1538 ibi est 1541 Durius 1546 crebro
1695 sua (_for_ si) S 1747 vovit SD 1759 et sutorem
1863 vulnere SD 1936 intrat 1960 de se 1962 Nam
2049 ese 2085 agunt

LIB. IV. 26 callidis 67 vivens (_for_ niueus) 72 esse
(_for_ ipse) S 259 Sæpe (_for_ Sepeque) 273 et (_for_ vt)
S 294 perdant 295 bona qui sibi D 336 non (_for_ iam)
S 435 quid tibi 451 Ac 453 cupiensque 531 at (_for_
et) 565 ex (_for_ hee) 567 Simplicitur 583 teneræ
588 præparat 593 ibi S 600 thalamus 610 claustra
662 patet SD 675 Credo 769 In terra 785 ut
799 putabat S 811 et (_for_ ad) S 863 sed nec (_for_ non
set) 865 quem fur quasi 958 possit 1000 fratris (_for_
patris) 1038 Livorem 1081 adoptio S 1127 fallat
1214 vanis 1222* Usurpet ipsa

LIB. V. 1 sic D 18 ei (_for_ ita) D 101 cernis
104 atque 159 par est 178 fuit (_for_ sitit) 217 senos
(_for_ seuos) 262 Carnis 281 si S 290 sonet
321 valet (_for_ decet) 338 vanis 375 ille 420 Pretia
(_for_ Recia) 461 At 486 redemit (_for_ redeunt) 501 non
(_for_ nos) S 508 geret 668 Si 672 Maxime
745 foras (_for_ foris) 805 etenim (_for_ eciam) S 928 est
(_for_ et) 936 semine 937 pacis (_for_ piscis) 955 ubi
(_for_ sibi) S

LIB. VI. 54 renuere 132 ipsa 133 locuples 212 ocius
(_for_ cicius) 245 ibi (_for_ sibi) 319 Sæpe (_for_
Sepius) 405 in ‘æque’ (_for_ ineque) 411 descendat
476 quem S 488 Cesset 530 populus, væ (_for_ populus
ve) 548 ipse D 646 ruat 679 legit S 746 Num
755 Nam (_for_ Dum) 789 majus (_for_ inanis) 816 Credo
971 Rex (_for_ Pax) 1016 gemmes 1033 quid (_for_ quod)
1041 Hæc (_for_ Hic) 1132 fide (_for_ fine) 1156 minuat
D 1171* detangere (_for_ te tangere) D 1172* hæc
D 1182* foras D 1197 veteris (_for_ verteris)
1210* Subditus 1224 _om._ carnem 1225* decens (_for_
docens) D lega 1241 Hic (_for_ Dic) 1251 defunctus D
1260 ab hoc 1281 est ille pius (_for_ ille pius est)
1327 nunc moritur

LIB. VII. 9 magnatum S 93 magnates D 96 nummis (_for_
minimis) 109 Antea 149 sic sunt 185 Virtutem
290 Aucta (_for_ Acta) 339 honorifica 350 credit S
409 servus cap. vi. _heading_ l. 4 sinit (_for_ sunt)
555 vultum 562 ff. Quid (_for_ Quod) 601 quam 602 adesse
(_for_ ad esse) 635 Præceptum (_for_ Preceptumque)
665 agnoscit 707 enim (_for_ eum) cap. ix. _heading om._
postea 736 decus (_for_ pecus) 750 ille (_for_ ipse)
cap. xi. _heading_ dicitur (_for_ loquitur) 798 capit (_for_
rapit) 828 etiam (_for_ iam) 903 _om._ nil 918 est
(_for_ et) S 977 benefecit D 1043 frigor 1129 qui non
jussa Dei servat 1178 eam 1278 opes S 1310 Vix (_for_
Vis) 1369 digna 1454 hic (_for_ hinc) 1474 bona
1479* ipsa

It will be seen that most of the above variants are due to mere
oversight. It is surprising, however, that so many mistakes
seriously affecting sense and metre should have escaped the
correction of the editor.

In the matter of spelling the variation is considerable, but all that need be said is that the Roxburghe editor preferred the classical to the medieval forms. On the other hand it is to be regretted that no attempt is made by him to mark the paragraph divisions of the original. A minor inconvenience, which is felt by all readers who have to refer to the Roxburghe text, arises from the fact that the book-numbering is not set at the head of the page.

In the case of the _Cronica Tripertita_ we have the text printed by Wright in the Rolls Series as well as that of the Roxburghe edition. The latter is from the All Souls MS., while the former professes to be based upon the Cotton MS., so that the two texts ought to be quite independent. As a matter of fact, however, several of the mistakes or misprints of the Roxburghe text are reproduced in the Rolls edition, which was printed probably from a copy of the Roxburghe text collated with the Cotton MS.

The following are the variations of the Roxburghe text from that of the present edition.

_Introduction, margin_ 2 prosequi (_for_ persequi).

I. 1 _om._ et per (_for_ fer) 7 bene non 15 consilium
sibi 71 fraudis 93 cum (_for_ dum) 132 hos (_for_ os)
161 _marg. om._ qui S 173 ausam S 182 Sic (_for_ Hic)
199 clientem 204 cepit (_for_ cessat) 209 Regem (_for_ Legem)
219 Qui est (_for_ est qui)

II. 9 sociatus (_for_ associatus) 61 manu tentum 85 _marg._
quia (_for_ qui) 114 de pondere 156 sepulchrum 180 maledictum
220 Transulit 223 omne scelus 237 ipsum 266 Pontifice
271 malefecit 315 _marg._ derisu 330 _marg._ Consulat
333 adeo.

III. 109 prius S 131 viles S 177 conjunctus 188 sceleris
235 mane 239 nunc S 242 freta (_for_ fata) 250 ponere
263 Exilia 285 _marg._ præter (_for_ personaliter) 287 Nec
288 stanno 333 conquescat 341 auget 372 eo (_for_ et)
422 _marg._ fidelissime 428 prius S

Of the above errors several, as we have said, are reproduced by Wright with no authority from his MS.[74], but otherwise his text is a tolerably correct representation of that given by the Cotton MS., and the same may be said with regard to the other poems _Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia_, _De Lucis Scrutinio_[75], &c.

THE PRESENT EDITION. The text is in the main that of S, which is supplemented, where it is defective, by C. The Cotton MS. is also the leading authority for those pieces which are not contained in S, as the four last poems.

For the _Vox Clamantis_ four manuscripts have been collated with S word for word throughout, viz. CHDL, and two more, viz. GE, have been collated generally and examined for every doubtful passage. TH₂ have been carefully examined and taken as authorities for the original text of some of the revised passages.

As regards the record of the results of these rather extensive collations, it may be stated generally that all material variations of C and H from the text of S have been recorded in the critical notes[76]. The readings of E, D and L have been printed regularly for those passages in which material variations of other MSS. are recorded, and in such cases, if they are not mentioned, it may be assumed that they agree with S; but otherwise they are mentioned only when they seem to deserve attention. The readings of G are recorded in a large number of instances, but they must not be assumed _ex silentio_, and those of T and H₂ are as a rule only given in passages where they have a different version of the text.

A trifling liberty has been taken with the text of the MSS. in regard to the position of the conjunction ‘que’ (and). This is frequently used by our author like ‘et,’ standing at the beginning of a clause or between the words which it combines, as

‘Sic lecto vigilans meditabar plura, que mentem
Effudi,’

or

‘Cutte que Curre simul rapidi per deuia currunt,’

but it is also very often used in the correct classical manner. The MSS. make no distinction between these two uses, but sometimes join the conjunction to the preceding word and sometimes separate it, apparently in a quite arbitrary manner. For the sake of clearness the conjunction is separated in this edition regularly when the sense requires that it should be taken independently of the preceding word, and the variations of the manuscripts with regard to this are not recorded.

Again, some freedom has been used in the matter of capital letters, which have been supplied, where they were wanting, in the case of proper names and at the beginning of sentences.

The spelling is in every particular the same as that of the MS. The practice of altering the medieval orthography, which is fairly consistent and intelligible, so as to make it accord with classical or conventional usage, has little or nothing to be said for it, and conceals the evidence which the forms of spelling might give with regard to the prevalent pronunciation.

The principal differences in our text from the classical
orthography are as follows:

_e_ regularly for the diphthongs _ae_, _oe_.

_i_ for _e_ in _periunt_, _rediat_, _nequio_, &c. (but also
_pereunt_, &c.).

_y_ for _i_ in _ymus_, _ymago_, &c.

_i_ for _y_, e.g. _mirrha_, _ciclus_, _limpha_.

_v_ for _u_ or _v_ regularly as initial letter of words,
elsewhere _u_.

vowels doubled in _hii_, _hee_, _hiis_ (monosyllables).

_u_ for _uu_ after _q_, e.g. _equs_, _iniqus_, _sequntur_.

initial _h_ omitted in _ara_ (hăra), _edus_ (haedus), _ortus_,
_yemps_, &c.

initial _h_ added in _habundat_, _heremus_, _Herebus_, &c.

_ch_ for _h_ in _michi_, _nichil_.

_ch_ for _c_ in _archa_, _archanum_, _inchola_, _choruscat_, &c.
(but _Cristus_, when fully written, for ‘Christus’).

_ci_ for _ti_ regularly before a vowel e.g. _accio_, _alcius_,
_cercius_, _distinccio_, _gracia_, _sentencia_, _vicium_.

_c_ for _s_ or _sc_, in _ancer_, _cerpo_, _ceptrum_, _rocidus_,
_Cilla_.

_s_ for _c_ or _sc_, in _secus_ (occasionally for ‘caecus’),
_sintilla_, &c.

single for double consonants in _apropriat_, _suplet_,
_agredior_, _resurexit_, &c. (also _appropriat_, &c.).

_ph_ for _f_ in _scropha_, _nephas_, _nephandus_, _prophanus_,
&c.

_p_ inserted in _dampnum_, _sompnus_, &c.

_set_ usually in the best MSS. for _sed_ (conjunction), but in
the Cotton MS. usually ‘sed.’

It has been thought better to print the elegiac couplet without indentation for the pentameter, partly because that is the regular usage in the MSS. and must of course have been the practice of the author, but still more in order to mark more clearly the division into paragraphs, to which the author evidently attached some importance. Spaces of varying width are used to show the larger divisions. It is impossible that there should not be some errors in the printed text, but the editor can at least claim to have taken great pains to ensure correctness, and all the proof-sheets have been carefully compared with the text of the manuscripts.

For convenience of reference the lines are numbered as in the Roxburghe edition, though perhaps it would be more satisfactory to combine the prologues, as regards numbering, with the books to which they belong.

In regard to the Notes there are no doubt many deficiencies. The chief objects aimed at have been to explain difficulties of language, to illustrate the matter or the style by reference to the works of the author in French and in English, and to trace as far as possible the origin of those parts of his work which are borrowed. In addition to this, the historical record contained in the _Cronica Tripertita_ has been carefully compared with the evidence given by others with regard to the events described, and possibly this part of the editor’s work, being based entirely upon the original authorities, may be thought to have some small value as a contribution to the history of a singularly perplexing political situation.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] 2nd Series, vol. ii. pp. 103-117.

[2] _Script. Brit._ i. 414.

[3] _Itin._ vi. 55. From Foss, _Tabulae Curiales_, it would seem that there was no judge named Gower in the 14th century.

[4] _Script. Brit._ i. 414. This statement also appears as a later addition in the manuscript.

[5] ‘Gower’ appears in Tottil’s publication of the Year-books (1585) both in 29 and 30 Ed. III, e.g. 29 Ed. III, Easter term, ff. 20, 27, 33, 46, and 30 Ed. III, Michaelmas term, ff. 16, 18, 20 v^o. He appears usually as counsel, but on some occasions he speaks apparently as a judge. The Year-books of the succeeding years, 31-36 Ed. III, have not been published.

[6] These arms appear also in the Glasgow MS. of the _Vox Clamantis_.

[7] _Worthies_, ed. 1662, pt. 3, p. 207.

[8] e.g. Winstanley, Jacob, Cibber and others.

[9] _Ancient Funeral Monuments_, p. 270. This Sir Rob. Gower had property in Suffolk, as we shall see, but the fact that his tomb was at Brabourne shows that he resided in Kent. The arms which were upon his tomb are pictured (without colours) in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77.

[10] _Rot. Pat._ dated Nov. 27, 1377.

[11] _Rot. Claus._ 4 Ric. II. m. 15 d.

[12] _Rot. Pat._ dated Dec. 23, 1385.

[13] _Rot. Pat._ dated Aug. 12, Dec. 23, 1386.

[14] It may here be noted that the poet apparently pronounced his name ‘Gowér,’ in two syllables with accent on the second, as in the Dedication to the _Balades_, i. 3, ‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestout vos soubgitz.’ The final syllable bears the rhyme in two passages of the _Confessio Amantis_ (viii. 2320, 2908), rhyming with the latter syllables of ‘pouer’ and ‘reposer’. (The rhyme in viii. 2320, ‘Gower: pouer,’ is not a dissyllabic one, as is assumed in the _Dict. of Nat. Biogr._ and elsewhere, but of the final syllables only.) In the _Praise of Peace_, 373, ‘I, Gower, which am al the liege man,’ an almost literal translation of the French above quoted, the accent is thrown rather on the first syllable.

[15] See _Retrospective Review_, 2nd Series, vol. ii, pp. 103-117 (1828). Sir H. Nicolas cites the Close Rolls always at second hand and the _Inquisitiones Post Mortem_ only from the Calendar. Hence the purport of the documents is sometimes incorrectly or insufficiently given by him. In the statement here following every document is cited from the original, and the inaccuracies of previous writers are corrected, but for the most part silently.

[16] _Inquis. Post Mortem_, &c. 39 Ed. III. 36 (2nd number). This is in fact an ‘Inquisitio ad quod damnum.’ The two classes of Inquisitions are given without distinction in the Calendar, and the fact leads to such statements as that ‘John Gower died seized of half the manor of Aldyngton, 39 Ed. III,’ or ‘John Gower died seized of the manor of Kentwell, 42 Ed. III.’

[17] _Rot. Orig._ 39 Ed. III. 27.

[18] _Rot. Claus._ 39 Ed. III. m. 21 d.

[19] _Rot. Claus._ 39 Ed. III. m. 21 d.

[20] _Harl. Charters_, 56 G. 42. See also _Rot. Orig._ 42 Ed. III. 33 and _Harl. Charters_, 56 G. 41.

[21] _Harl. Charters_, 50 I. 13.

[22] See _Rot. Orig._ 23 Ed. III. 22, 40 Ed. III. 10, 20, _Inquis. Post Mortem_, 40 Ed. III. 13, _Rot. Claus._ 40 Ed. III. m. 21.

[23] _Harl. Charters_, 50 I. 14. The deed is given in full by Nicolas in the _Retrospective Review_.

[24] _Rot. Orig._ 48 Ed. III. 31.

[25] The tinctures are not indicated either upon the drawing of Sir R. Gower’s coat of arms in MS. Harl. 3917 or on the seal, but the coat seems to be the same, three leopards’ faces upon a chevron. The seal has a diaper pattern on the shield that bears the chevron, but this is probably only ornamental.

[26] ‘Et dicunt quod post predictum feoffamentum, factum predicto Iohanni Gower, dictus Willelmus filius Willelmi continue morabatur in comitiva Ricardi de Hurst et eiusdem Iohannis Gower apud Cantuar, et alibi usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis ultimo preteritum, et per totum tempus predictum idem Willelmus fil. Will. ibidem per ipsos deductus fuit et consiliatus ad alienationem de terris et tenementis suis faciendam.’ _Rot. Parl._ ii. 292.

[27] _Rot. Claus._ 43 Ed. III. m. 30.

[28] _Rot. Claus._ 42 Ed. III. m. 13 d.

[29] _English Writers_, vol. iv. pp. 150 ff.

[30] See _Calendar of Post Mortem Inquisitions_, vol. ii. pp. 300, 302.

[31] So also the deeds of 1 Ric. II releasing lands to Sir J. Frebody and John Gower (Hasted’s _History of Kent_, iii. 425), and of 4 Ric. II in which Isabella daughter of Walter de Huntyngfeld gives up to John Gower and John Bowland all her rights in the parishes of Throwley and Stalesfield, Kent (_Rot. Claus._ 4 Ric. II. m. 15 d), and again another in which the same lady remits to John Gower all actions, plaints, &c., which may have arisen between them (_Rot. Claus._ 8 Ric. II. m. 5 d).

[32] _Rot. Franc._ 1 Ric. II. pt. 2, m. 6.

[33] See also Sir N. Harris Nicolas, _Life of Chaucer_, pp. 27, 125.

[34] _Rot. Claus._ 6 Ric. II. m. 27 d, and 24 d.

[35] _Rot. Claus._ 6 Ric. II. pt. 1, m. 23 d.

[36] _Rot. Claus._ 7 Ric. II. m. 17 d.

[37] _Duchy of Lancaster, Miscellanea_, Bundle X, No. 43 (now in the Record Office).

[38] ‘Liverez a Richard Dancastre pour un Coler a luy doné par monseigneur le Conte de Derby par cause d’une autre Coler doné par monditseigneur a un Esquier John Gower, vynt et sys soldz oyt deniers.’

[39] _Duchy of Lancaster, Household Accounts_, 17 Ric. II (July to Feb.).

[40] _Register of William of Wykeham_, ii. f. 299b. The record was kindly verified for me by the Registrar of the diocese of Winchester. The expression used about the place is ‘in Oratorio ipsius Iohannis Gower infra hospicium suum’ (not ‘cum’ as previously printed) ‘in Prioratu Beate Marie de Overee in Southwerke predicta situatum.’ It should be noted that ‘infra’ in these documents means not ‘below,’ as translated by Prof. Morley, but ‘within.’ So also in Gower’s will.

[41] Lambeth Library, _Register of Abp. Arundel_, ff. 256-7.

[42] The remark of Nicolas about the omission of Kentwell from the will is hardly appropriate. Even if Gower the poet were identical with the John Gower who possessed Kentwell, this manor could not have been mentioned in his will, because it was disposed of absolutely to Sir J. Cobham in the year 1373. Hence there is no reason to conclude from this that there was other landed property besides that which is dealt with by the will.

[43] I am indebted for some of the facts to Canon Thompson of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, who has been kind enough to answer several questions which I addressed to him.

[44] The features are quite different, it seems to me, from those represented in the Cotton and Glasgow MSS., and I think it more likely that the latter give us a true contemporary portrait. Gower certainly died in advanced age, yet the effigy on his tomb shows us a man in the flower of life. This then is either an ideal representation or must have been executed from rather distant memory, whereas the miniatures in the MSS., which closely resemble each other, were probably from life, and also preserve their original colouring. The miniatures in MSS. of the _Confessio Amantis_, which represent the Confession, show the penitent usually as a conventional young lover. The picture in the Fairfax MS. is too much damaged to give us much guidance, but it does not seem to be a portrait, in spite of the collar of SS added later. The miniature in MS. Bodley 902, however, represents an aged man, while that of the Cambridge MS. Mm. 2. 21 rather recalls the effigy on the tomb and may have been suggested by it.

[45] We may note that the effigy of Sir Robert Gower in brass above his tomb in Brabourne church is represented as having a similar chaplet round his helmet. See the drawing in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77.

[46] So I read them. They are given by Gough and others as ‘merci ihi.’

[47] Perhaps rather 1207 or 1208.

[48] _Script. Brit._ i. 415: so also _Ant. Coll._ iv. 79, where the three books are mentioned. The statement that the chaplet was partly of ivy must be a mistake, as is pointed out by Stow and others.

[49] Read rather ‘En toy qu’es fitz de dieu le pere.’

[50] Read ‘O bon Jesu, fai ta mercy’ and in the second line ‘dont le corps gist cy.’

[51] _Survey of London_, p. 450 (ed. 1633). In the margin there is the note, ‘John Gower no knight, neither had he any garland of ivy and roses, but a chaplet of four roses only,’ referring to Bale, who repeats Leland’s description.

[52] p. 326 (ed. 1615). Stow does not say that the inscription ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c.; was defaced in his time.

[53] vol. ii. p. 542.

[54] vol. v. pp. 202-4. The description is no doubt from Aubrey.

[55] On this subject the reader may be referred to Selden, _Titles of Honour_, p. 835 f. (ed. 1631).

[56] _Antiquities of St. Saviour’s, Southwark_, 1765.

[57] vol. ii. p. 24.

[58] _Priory Church of St. Mary Overie_, 1881.

[59] Canon Thompson writes to me, ‘The old sexton used to show visitors a bone, which he said was taken from the tomb in 1832. I tried to have this buried in the tomb on the occasion of the last removal, but I was told it had disappeared.’

[60] vol. ii. p. 91.

[61] _Bp. Braybrooke’s Register_, f. 84.

[62] _Braybrooke Register_, f. 151.

[63] The date of the resignation by John Gower of the rectory of Great Braxted is nearly a year earlier than the marriage of Gower the poet.

[64] I do not know on what authority Rendle states that ‘His apartment seems to have been in what was afterwards known as Montague Close, between the church of St. Mary Overey and the river,’ _Old Southwark_, p. 182.

[65] At the same time I am disposed to attach some weight to the expression in _Mir._ 21774, where the author says that some may blame him for handling sacred subjects, because he is no ‘clerk,’

‘Ainz ai vestu la raye manche.’

This may possibly mean only to indicate the dress of a layman, but on the other hand it seems clear that some lawyers, perhaps especially the ‘apprenticii ad legem,’ were distinguished by stripes upon their sleeves; see for example the painting reproduced in Pulling’s _Order of the Coif_ (ed. 1897); and serjeants-at-law are referred to in _Piers Plowman_, A text, Pass. iii. 277, as wearing a ‘ray robe with rich pelure.’ We must admit, therefore, the possibility that Gower was bred to the law, though he may not have practised it for a living.

[66] The Lincoln MS. has the same feature, but it is evidently copied from Laud 719.

[67] There seems also to have been an alternative numbering, which proceeded on the principle of making five books, beginning with the third, the second being treated as a general prologue to the whole poem. In connexion with this we may take the special invocation of divine assistance in the prologue of the third book, which ends with the couplet,

‘His tibi libatis nouus intro nauta profundum,
Sacrum pneuma rogans vt mea vela regas.’

[68] Fuller’s spirited translation of these lines is well known, but may here be quoted again:

‘Tom comes thereat, when called by Wat, and Simm as forward we find,
Bet calls as quick to Gibb and to Hykk, that neither would tarry
behind.
Gibb, a good whelp of that litter, doth help mad Coll more mischief
to do,
And Will he does vow, the time is come now, he’ll join in their
company too.
Davie complains, whiles Grigg gets the gains, and Hobb with them
does partake,
Lorkin aloud in the midst of the crowd conceiveth as deep is his
stake.
Hudde doth spoil whom Judde doth foil, and Tebb lends his helping
hand,
But Jack the mad patch men and houses does snatch, and kills all
at his command.’

_Church History_, Book iv. (p. 139).

[69] In the first version, ‘Complaints are heard now of the injustice of the high court: flatterers have power over it, and those who speak the truth are not permitted to come near to the king’s side. The boy himself is blameless, but his councillors are in fault. If the king were of mature age, he would redress the balance of justice, but he is too young as yet to be held responsible for choice of advisers: it is not from the boy but from his elders that the evil springs which overruns the world.’

[70] In the first version as follows, ‘O king of heaven, who didst create all things, I pray thee preserve my young king, and let him live long and see good days. O king, mayest thou ever hold thy sceptre with honour and triumph, as Augustus did at Rome. May he who gave thee the power confirm it to thee in the future.

For the glory of thy rule I have written these lines with humble heart. O flower of boyhood, according to thy worthiness I wish thee prosperity.’

[71] In the first version, ‘I am myself the worst of sinners, but may God grant me relief by his Spirit.’

[72] Communicated to me by Miss Bateson.

[73] It is even the case in one instance (i. 846) that a blank is left in the line for a word omitted in D which might have been supplied by reference to any other MS. which contained the passage. So difficult was communication between Oxford and London in those days.

[74] e.g. i. 209 Regem 219 Qui est ii. 9 sociatus 114 de pondere 266 Pontifice.

[75] A few errors may be noted in the poem _De Lucis Scrutinio_, viz. l. 15 manifestus 36 oculis 66 similatam 89 Ominis (_for_ O nimis): also in ‘O deus immense,’ l. 28 se (_for_ te) 104 sub (_for_ sue).

[76] Trifling differences of spelling are as a rule not recorded. Examples of such variations are the following in C: i. 1 ut 11 uidet 23 choruschat 120 talamum 137 sydera 139 themone 141 &c. sed (_for_ set) 196 &c. amodo 234 prohdolor 311 Immundos 586 Egiptus 1056 Symonis 1219 Ocupat 1295 suppremis 1505 loquturus 1514 Obstetit 1755 opprobrium 1832 littora 1947 litora 2094 patiens ii. _Prol._ 11 etiam ii. 57 fatie 261 Moise 494 synagoga iii. 291 redditus, &c. Variation in the use of capital letters or in regard to the separation of ‘que,’ ‘ve,’ &c. from the words which they follow is usually not recorded. The spelling of H and G is almost identical with that of S.

EPISTOLA[77]

=Hanc Epistolam subscriptam corde deuoto misit senex et cecus Iohannes Gower Reuerendissimo in Cristo Patri ac domino suo precipuo, domino Thome de Arundell, Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, tocius Anglie Primati et apostolice sedis legato. Cuius statum ad ecclesie sue regimen dirigat et feliciter conseruet filius virginis gloriose, dominus noster Ihesus Cristus, qui cum deo patre et spiritu sancto viuit et regnat deus per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.=

Successor Thome, Thomas, humilem tibi do me,
Hunc et presentem librum tibi scribo sequentem:
Q~uod~ tibi presento ~scriptum~[78] retinere memento,
Vt contempletur super hoc quo ~mens stimuletur~.
Curia diuisa que Rome stat modo visa,
Dum se peruertit, in luctum gaudia vertit:
Et quia lex Cristi dolet isto tempore tristi,
Hoc ad ~plangendum~ librum tibi mitto legendum.
~Set tu, diuine qui lumen habes medicine,~
~Gaudeat vt tristis, confer medicamen in istis:~ 10
~Dummodo lux cessit, alibique fides tenebrescit~,
Tu noster Phebus nostris da lumina rebus,
Et quod splendescas, virtute tuaque calescas,
Hoc magis ad lumen tibi scriptum dono volumen.
~In speculo~ tali de pectore iudiciali
Si videas plane, puto non erit illud inane.
Cecus ego ~mere~, nequio licet acta videre,
~Te tamen~ in mente ~memorabor~ corde vidente.
Corpore defectus, quamuis michi curua ~sen~ectus
~Torquet, adhuc mentem studio sinit esse manentem~, 20
Et sic cum Cristo persto studiosus in isto,
Quo mundi gesta tibi scribam iam manifesta.
Hinc, pater, exoro, scripturis dumque laboro,
Ad requiem ~mentis animam disp~one studentis;
Semper speraui, que patrem te semper amaui,
~Quo michi finalis tua gracia sit specialis.~
~Nunc quia diuisus meus est a corpore visus,~
~Lux tua que lucet anime vestigia ducet,~
~Corpus et egrotum, vetus et miserabile totum,~
~Ne conturbetur, te defensore iuuetur;~ 30
~Et sic viuentem custos simul et morientem~
~Suscipe me cecum tua per suffragia tecum.~
~Lux tua morosa de stirpe micans generosa~
~Condita sub cinere non debet in orbe latere.~
Claret Arundella quasi Sol de luce nouella,
Que te produxit, que te prius vbere succit.
Es quia totus Mas vocitaris origine Thomas,
Vnde deo totus sis ab omni labe remotus;
Et sic prelatus nunc Cristi lege sacratus
Legem conseruas, qua te sine labe reseruas. 40
Stat modo secura tua ~lux~, sine crimine pura,
~Claraque lucescit, quod eam nil turpe repressit:~
Anglia letetur, ~lumen quia tale meretur~,
Quo bene viuentes tua sint exempla sequentes.
Per te succedet amor omnis, et ira recedet,
Subque tua cura sunt prospera cuncta futura:
Et quia sic creuit tua lux, terramque repleuit,
Det deus vt talis tibi lux sit perpetualis.
Hec Gower querit, qui tuus est et erit.

FOOTNOTES:

[77] _This Epistle is found in the All Souls_ MS. _only._

[78] _Words written over erasure in the_ MS. _are printed in spaced type._

VOX CLAMANTIS[79]

In huius opusculi principio intendit compositor describere qualiter seruiles rustici impetuose contra ingenuos et nobiles regni insurrexerunt. Et quia res huiusmodi velut[80] monstrum detestabilis fuit et horribilis, fingit[81] se per sompnium vidisse diuersas vulgi turmas in diuersas ~species bestiarum~ domesticarum transmutatas: dicit tamen quod ille bestie domestice, a sua deuiantes natura, crudelitates ferarum sibi presumpserunt. De causis vero, ex quibus inter homines talia contingunt enormia, tractat vlterius secundum distincciones libelli istius, qui in septem diuiditur partes, prout inferius locis suis euidencius apparebit.

=Sequitur prologus.=

=Capitula libri Primi.=

Cap^m. i. Hic declarat in primis sub cuius Regis imperio, in
quibus eciam[82] mense et anno, ista sibi accidencia, cuius
tenor subsequitur, contingebat. Commendat insuper, secundum
illud quod esse solebat, fertilitatem terre illius vbi ipse tunc
fuerat, in qua, vt dicit, omnium quasi rerum delicie pariter
conveniunt, et loquitur vlterius de amenitate temporis, necnon et
de diei serenitate, que tunc tamen[83] sompnium nimis horribile
precedebant.

Cap^m. ii. Hic incipit sompnium, vbi quodam die Martis dicit
se varias vulgi turmas vidisse, quarum primam in similitudinem
asinorum mutari subito speculabatur.

Cap^m. iii. Hic dicit se per sompnium quandam vulgi turmam in
boues vidisse mutatam.

Cap^m. iiii. Hic dicit se per sompnium quandam vulgi turmam in
porcos vidisse mutatam.

Cap^m. v. Hic dicit se per sompnium quandam vulgi turmam in canes
vidisse mutatam.

Cap^m. vi. Hic dicit se per sompnium quandam vulgi turmam in
murelegos et vulpes vidisse mutatam: dicit murelegos vt seruos
domesticos; dicit vulpes, quia fures ruptis vbique Gaiolis liberi
tunc eos comitabantur.[84]

Cap^m. vii. Hic dicit se per sompnium quandam vulgi turmam in
aues domesticas vidisse mutatam, quibus dicit ~quod~ bubones quasi
predones commixti associebantur.[85]

Cap^m. viii. Hic dicit se per sompnium quandam vulgi turmam in
muscas et ranas vidisse mutatam.

Cap^m. ix. Hic dicit se per sompnium vidisse quod, quando omnes
predicte furie in vnum extiterant congregate, quidam Graculus
auis, Anglice Gay,[86] qui vulgariter vocatur Watte, presumpsit
sibi statum regiminis aliorum, et in rei veritate ille Watte fuit
dux eorum.

Cap^m. x. Hic dicit se per sompnium vidisse progenies Chaym
maledictas vna cum multitudine seruorum nuper Regis Vluxis, quos
Circes in bestias mutauit, furiis supradictis associari.

Cap^m. xi. Hic dicit secundum visionem sompnii qualiter audiuit
nomina et eorum voces diuersas et horribiles. Dicit eciam de
Iohanne Balle presbitero, qui eos ad omne scelus instigabat, et
quasi propheta inter eos reputabatur.

Cap^m. xii. Hic dicit secundum visionem sompnii qualiter furie
supradicte precones sibi et tribunos constituebant, et quomodo
senes et iuuenes eorum fuerunt armati.

Cap^m. xiii. Hic dicit secundum visionem sompnii qualiter
et quando dicte furie, instigante diabolo, Nouam Troiam, id
est ciuitatem Londoniarum, ingresse sunt: nam sicut Troia
nuper desolata extitit, ita ista Ciuitas protunc quasi omni
consolatione destituta pre dolore penitus ignominiosa permansit.

Cap^m. xiiii. Hic tractat secundum visionem sompnii quasi per
figuram de morte Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi.

Cap^m. xv. Hic tractat vlterius secundum visionem sompnii de
diuersa persecucione et occisione, quas in dicta Ciuitate
quodammodo absque vlla pro tunc defensione furie supradicte,
prodolor! faciebant, et qualiter huiusmodi fama vicinas
perterruit ciuitates.

Cap^m. xvi. Hic plangit secundum visionem sompnii quasi in
propria persona dolores eorum, qui in siluis et speluncis pre
timore temporis illius latitando se munierunt.

Cap^m. xvii. Hic eciam secundum visionem sompnii describit quasi
in persona propria angustias varias que contingebant hiis qui
tunc pro securitate optinenda in Turrim Londoniarum se miserunt,
et de ruptura eiusdem turris; figurat enim dictam turrim similem
esse naui prope voraginem Cille periclitanti.

Cap^m. xviii. Hic dicit secundum visionem sompnii qualiter tanta
superhabundauit tempestas quod de certo remedio absque manu
diuina omnes in dicta naui hesitarunt, et deum super hoc precipue
quilibet sexus ingenui deuocius exorabat.

Cap^m. xix. Hic dicit secundum visionem sompnii de quadam voce
diuina in excelsis clamante, et quomodo deus placatus tandem
precibus tempestates sedauit, et quomodo quasi in holocaustum pro
delicto occisus fuit ille Graculus, id est Walterus, furiarum
dictarum Capitaneus.

Cap^m. xx. Hic loquitur adhuc de naui visa in sompnis, id est de
mente sua adhuc turbata, vt si ipse mentaliter sompniando, quasi
per nauem variis ventis sine gubernaculo agitatam, omnes mundi
partes pro pace mentis scrutanda inuestigasset, et tandem in
partes Britannie Maioris, vbi raro pax est, dicit se applicuisse.
Dicit eciam qualiter vox in sompnis sibi iniunxit quod ipse
omnino scriberet ea que de mundo in illo scrutinio vidisset et
audisset; et ita terminatur sompnium.

Cap^m. xxi. Hic reddit vigilans gracias deo, qui eum in sompnis a
pelago liberauit.

=Expliciunt Capitula libri primi.=

=Incipiunt Capitula libri Secundi. =

Prologus. Hic dicit quod ipse iam vigilans, secundum vocem quam
in sompnis acceperat, intendit scribere ea que de mundo vidit et
audiuit, et vocat libellum istum Vox Clamantis, quia de voce et
clamore quasi omnium conceptus est; vnde in huius operis auxilium
spiritum sanctum inuocat.

Cap^m. i. Hic dicit, secundum quod de clamore communi audiuit,
qualiter status et ordo mundi precipue in partibus istis
multipliciter in peius variatur, et quomodo vnusquisque super hoc
fortunam accusat.

Cap^m. ii. Hic corripit fortunam et sui euentus inconstanciam
deplangit.

Cap^m. iii. Hic describit fortunam secundum aliquos, qui sortem
fortune dicunt esse et[87] casum.

Cap^m. iiii.[88] Hic tractat vlterius de mutacione fortune
secundum quod dicunt: concludit tamen in fine, quod neque sorte
aut casu, set ex meritis vel demeritis, sunt ea que hominibus
contingunt.