No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Gower's Narrative Art
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
Recent Books and articles on John Gower have laid stress on his role as a moralist and as keeper of the king's conscience during a particularly brilliant and bloody era. He has been presented to us as a fearless critic of the corruption of his time and as the exponent of a moral philosophy which remains consistent throughout his three major works, the Mirour de l'Omme, the Vox Clamantis, and the Confessio Amantis. Gower himself would not have quarrelled with this image; indeed it is one that he tried to cultivate, as we see from some Latin verses which prefix the Vox Clamantis in certain manuscripts:
- Ad mundum mitto mea iacula, dumque sagitto;
- At ubi iustus erit, nulla sagitta ferit.
- Sed male viventes hos vulnero transgredientes;
- Conscius ergo sibi se speculetur ibi.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1966
References
1 In particular John H. Fisher, John Gower: Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer (New York, 1964), which is likely to remain the standard work on Gower for many years; also The Major Latin Works of John Gower, translated (with introduction and notes) by E. W. Stockton (Seattle, Wash., 1962). Both writers owe a debt to earlier articles by George R. Coffman: “John Gower in his Most Significant Role,” Elizabethan Studies and Other Essays in Honor of George F. Reynolds (Univ. of Colorado Studies in the Humanities, Vol. ii, No. 4, 1945), pp. 52-61, and “John Gower, Mentor for Royalty: Richard II,” PMLA, lxix (1954), 953-964; also to Maria Wickert, Studien zu John Gower (Köln, 1953).
2 The Complete Works of John Gower, ed. G. C. Macaulay in 4 vols.: Vol. i, French works; Vols, ii and iii, English works; Vol. iv, Latin works (Oxford, 1899–1902), iv, 19. This edition is used throughout. The picture accompanying the verses is reproduced (from Cotton Tiberius A.iv) as the frontispiece to Vol. iv. See Stockton, Latin Works, p. 342.
3 The evidence for this prescience is in the revised Prologue to the Confessio, dated “the yer sextenthe of kyng Richard” (viz. 1392–93), where the story of Richard's commissioning “som newe thing” is suppressed, and the name of Henry of Lancaster introduced as dedicatee (Prologue, 1.87). See Fisher, John Gower, pp. 121-124.
4 The Balades are due for appraisal. A start is made in M. Dominica Legge, Anglo-Norman Literature and its Background (Oxford, 1963), pp. 357-361.
5 The Allegory of Love (Oxford, 1936), pp. 201-208.
6 Prologue 782, 799, 830, 851, 889, 893, 896, 966, 971, etc.
7 As has Chaucer in the Parlement. The conclusion of the Confessio is well analysed by C. S. Lewis (Allegory of Love, pp. 219-222); cf. Fisher, John Gower, p. 191.
8 v.747-1959; Book vii. Admittedly; both are prompted by (somewhat foolhardy) questions from the lover and both questioris spring naturally from the dramatic context. But, however skilfully done, it is a patent device. This, though, is not to deny that the passages have external validity, that is, in relation to the moral frame of Prologue and Epilogue and in relation to the world of action.
9 He provides 38 of the 133 stories in the poem, or 4,419 lines out of 17,213 (the total length of the Confessio is 33,444 lines). There is study of Gower's narrative technique in relation to Ovid (stories of Actaeon and Pygmalion), and also in the tale of Florent, in Ch. vi of Maria Wickert, Studien. Quotation of Ovid is from the texts in the Loeb Classical Library.
10 Christian reinterpretation of classical fable is of course customary in the Middle Ages, though it is usually figural and allegoric, as in the Ovide Moralisé. The importance of understanding this kind of medieval reading of the classics is made clear in an interesting essay by R. H. Green, “Classical Fable and English Poetry,” Critical Approaches to Medieval Literature (Selected Papers from the English Institute, 1958-59), ed. Dorothy Bethururn (Columbia Univ. Press, 1960), pp. 110-133. Gower's rehandling of classical material, however, seems quite distinct from traditional allegoric techniques, except in the treatment of the metamorphoses, and more akin to the vivid, human use of exempla in homiletic writing: see G. R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England, 2nd ed. revised (Oxford, 1961), p. 121.
11 Confessio v.5551-6047; Metamorphoses vi.424-674.
12 He omits, for instance, all mention of how Procne uses the Bacchic rites as cover when delivering Philomela from captivity (Met. vi.587).
13 Comparison of Chaucer, Gower, and Ovid, here and elsewhere below, is not affected by Chaucer's presumed use of the Chide Moralisé in certain legends, for which see J. L. Lowes, “Chaucer and the Ovide Moralisé,” PMLA, xxxiii (1918), 303-319; Sanford B. Meech, “Chaucer and the Ovide Moralisé—A Further Study,” PMLA, xlvi (1931), 182-204. Edgar F. Shannon, Chaucer and the Roman Poets (Harvard Studies in Comp. Lit., vii, 1929) makes laborious comparison of Chaucer and Ovid. For comparison of the frames of the Legend and the Confessio, with discussion of biographical links, see L. Bech, “Quellen und Plan der Legende of Goode Women und ihr Verhältniss zur Confessio Amantis,” Anglia, v (1882), 313-382; Fisher, John Gower, pp. 235-250. Attempts have been made to interpret the Legend, as comic in conception, e.g., R. M. Garrett, “‘Cleopatra the Martyr’ and her Sisters,” JEGP, xxii (1923), 64-74. The interpretation is not borne out by the quality of the legends: the imaginative temperature is low, and no amount of dramatic-ironic “interpretation” will make it higher.
14 iv.2927-3123; cf. Met. xi.410-748.
15 See Macaulay, Works, ii, 512.
16 iii.1331-1494; cf. Met. iv.55-166
17 iv.3515-36,84; cf. Met. xiv.698-764.
18 iii. 143-336; cf. Ovid, Heroides xi.
19 vii.4754-5123; cf. Ovid, Fasti ii.721-852.
20 vii.4926-27. This is added, and the whole passage is much expanded from Ovid, Fasti ii.787-791.
21 Fasti ii.823; Confessio vii.5043
22 Ed. L. Constans, Société des Anciens Textes Français, 6 vols. (1904-12). Gower (Confessio v.3247-4222) sometimes uses Guido for the Troy story, but not in a way significant for the following comparisons.
23 Such as the arming-scene, Benoit, ll. 1815-42 (cf. Confessio v.3686-87).
24 Benoit, ll. 1551-71. The lovemaking, which follows, is treated very briefly by both Benoit and Gower, but with doctrinaire relish by Guido, Historia, ed. N. E. Griffin (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), p. 25.
25 Confessio v.3633-69; cf. Benoit, ll. 1764-66.
26 Confessio i.2288-2313; cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses iii.413.
27 Metamorphoses ix.207-210. Perhaps Gower's reference to “Clerk Ovide” here (ii.2297) is a sign that he recognised the inadequacy of his own treatment.
28 Confessio vii.5131-5306, iii.782-817, ii.587-1598, i. 1407-1861.
29 See R. Hazelton, “The Manciple's Tale: Parody and Critique,” JEGP, lxii (1963), 1-31.
30 For general comparison of the two versions, and with Trivet, see Margaret Schlauch, Chaucer's Constance and Accused Queens (New York, 1927), pp. 132-134; Edward A. Block, PMLA, lxviii (1953), 572-616; Fisher, John Gower, pp. 286-292.
31 The situation is not as simple as this, but it does not affect the argument. For comparison, see B. J. Whiting in Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster (Chicago, 1941); Sigmund Eisner, A Tale of Wonder (Wexford, 1957); Fisher, John Gower, pp. 295-301.
32 As Gower emphasizes, i. 1511, 1518, 1667, 1715, 1719-21, 1798.
- 6
- Cited by