BALADES.
The existence of the Cinkante Balades was first made known to the public by Warton in his History of English Poetry, Sect. xix, his attention having been drawn to the MS. which contains them by its possessor, Lord Gower. After describing the other contents of this MS., he says: ‘But the Cinkante Balades or fifty French Sonnets above mentioned are the curious and valuable part of Lord Gower’s manuscript. They are not mentioned by those who have written the Life of this poet or have catalogued his works. Nor do they appear in any other manuscript of Gower which I have examined. But if they should be discovered in any other, I will venture to pronounce that a more authentic, unembarrassed, and practicable copy than this before us will not be produced.... To say no more, however, of the value which these little pieces may derive from being so scarce and so little known, they have much real and intrinsic merit. They are tender, pathetic and poetical, and place our old poet Gower in a more advantageous point of view than that in which he has hitherto been usually seen. I know not if any even among the French poets themselves of this period have left a set of more finished sonnets; for they were probably written when Gower was a young man, about the year 1350. Nor had yet any English poet treated the passion of love with equal delicacy of sentiment and elegance of composition. I will transcribe four of these balades as correctly and intelligibly as I am able; although, I must confess, there are some lines which I do not exactly comprehend.’ He then quotes as specimens Bal. xxxvi, xxxiv, xliii, and xxx, but his transcription is far from being correct and is often quite unintelligible.
Date.—The date at which the Cinkante Balades were composed cannot be determined with certainty. Warton, judging apparently by the style and subject only, decided, as we have seen, that they belonged to the period of youth, and we know from a passage in the Mirour (27340) that the author composed love poems of some kind in his early life. Apart from this, however, the evidence is all in favour of assigning the Balades to the later years of the poet’s life. It is true, of course, that the Dedication to King Henry IV which precedes them, and the Envoy which closes them, may have been written later than the rest; but at the same time it must be noted that the second balade of the Dedication speaks distinctly of a purpose of making poems for the entertainment of the royal court, and the mutilated title which follows the Dedication confirms this, so far as it can be read. Again, the prose remarks which accompany Bal. v and vi make it clear that the circumstances of the poems are not personal to the author, seeing that he there divides them into two classes, those that are appropriate for persons about to be married, and those that are ‘universal’ and have application to all sorts and conditions of lovers. Moreover, several of these last, viz, xli-xliv and also xlvi, are supposed to be addressed by ladies to their lovers. It is evident that the balades are only to a very limited extent, if at all, expressive of the actual feelings of the author towards a particular person. As an artist he has set himself to supply suitable forms of expression for the feelings of others, and in doing so he imagines their variety of circumstances and adapts his composition accordingly. For this kind of work it is not necessary, or perhaps even desirable, to be a lover oneself; it is enough to have been a lover once: and that Gower could in his later life express the feelings of a lover with grace and truth we have ample evidence in the Confessio Amantis. No doubt it is possible that these balades were written at various times in the poet’s life, and perhaps some persons, recognizing the greater spontaneity and the more gracefully poetical character (as it seems to me) of the first thirty or so, as compared with the more evident tendency to moralize in the rest, may be inclined to see in this an indication of earlier date for the former poems. In fact however the moralizing tendency, though always present, grew less evident in Gower’s work with advancing years. There is less of it in the Confessio Amantis than in his former works, and this not by accident but on principle, the author avowing plainly that unmixed morality had not proved effective, and accepting love as the one universally interesting subject. When Henry of Lancaster, the man after his own heart, was fairly seated on the throne, he probably felt himself yet more free to lay aside the self-imposed task of setting right the world, and to occupy himself with a purely literary task in the language and style which he felt to be most suitable for a court. In any case it seems certain that some at least of the balades were composed with a view to the court of Henry IV, and the collection assumed its present shape probably in the year of his accession, 1399, for we know that either in the first or the second year of Henry IV the poet became blind and ceased to write.
Form and Versification.—The collection consists of a Dedication addressed to Henry IV, fifty-one (not fifty) balades of love (one number being doubled by mistake), then one, unnumbered, addressed to the Virgin, and a general Envoy. The balades are written in stanzas of seven or eight lines, exactly half of the whole fifty-four (including the Dedication) belonging to each arrangement. The seven-line stanza rhymes ab ab bcc with Envoy bc bc, or in three instances ab ab baa, Envoy ba ba; the eight-line stanza ordinarily ab ab bc bc with Envoy bc bc, but also in seven instances ab ab ba ba with Envoy ba ba. The form is the normal one of the balade, three stanzas with rhymes alike and an Envoy; but in one case, Bal. ix, there are five stanzas with Envoy, and in another, xxxii, the Envoy is wanting. Also the balade addressed to the Virgin, which is added at the end, is without Envoy, and there follows a general Envoy of seven lines, rhyming independently and referring to the whole collection.
The balade form is of course taken from Continental models, and the metre of the verse is syllabically correct like that of the Mirour. As was observed however about the octosyllabic line of the Mirour, so it may be said of the ten-syllable verse here, that the rhythm is not exactly like that of the French verse of the Continent. The effect is due, as before remarked, to the attempt to combine the English accentual with the French syllabic measure. This is especially visible in the treatment of the caesura. In the compositions of the French writers of the new poetry—Froissart, for example—the ten- (or eleven-) syllable line has regularly a break after the fourth syllable. This fourth syllable however may be either accented or not, that is, either as in the line,
‘Se vous voulez aucune plainte faire,’
or as in the following,
‘Prenez juge qui soit de noble afaire.’
The weaker form of caesura shown in this latter line occurs in at least ten per cent. of the verses in this measure which Froissart gives in the Trésor Amoureux, and the case is much the same with the Balades of Charles d’Orléans, a generation later. Gower, on the other hand, does not admit the unaccented syllable (mute e termination) in the fourth place at all; no such line as this,
‘De ma dame que j’aime et ameray,’
is to be found in his balades. Indeed, we may go further than this, and say that the weak syllable is seldom tolerated in the other even places of the verse, where the English ear demanded a strongly marked accentual beat. Such a line as
‘Vous me poetz sicom vostre demeine’ (Bal. xxxix. 2)
is quite exceptional.
At the same time he does not insist on ending a word on the fourth syllable, but in seven or eight per cent. of his lines the word is run on into the next foot, as
‘Et vous, ma dame, croietz bien cela.’
This is usually the form that the verse takes in such cases, the syllable carried on being a mute e termination, and the caesura coming after this syllable; but lines like the following also occur, in which the caesura is transfered to the end of the third foot:
‘Si fuisse en paradis, ceo beal manoir,’ v. 3.
‘En toute humilité sans mesprisure,’ xii. 4.
So xvi. l. 2, xx. l. 20, &c., and others again in which the syllable carried on is an accented one, as
‘Si femme porroit estre celestine,’ xxi. 2.
‘Jeo ne sai nomer autre, si le noun;’ xxiv. 1.
It must be noticed also that the poet occasionally uses the so-called epic caesura, admitting a superfluous unaccented syllable after the second foot, as
‘Et pensetz, dame, de ceo q’ai dit pieça,’ ii. 3.
‘Qe mieulx voldroie morir en son servage,’ xxiii. 2.
So with dame, dames, xix. l. 20, xx. l. 13, xxxvii. l. 18, xlvi. l. 15[K]; and with other words, xxv. l. 8, &c., aime, xxxiii. l. 10, nouche, xxxviii. l. 23, grace, xliv. l. 8, fame. In xx. 1 the same thing occurs exceptionally in another part of the line, the word roe counting as one syllable only, though it is a dissyllable in Mir. 10942. Naturally the termination -ée, as in iii. 2,
‘La renomée, dont j’ai l’oreile pleine,’
does not constitute an epic caesura, because, as observed elsewhere, the final e in this case did not count as a syllable in Anglo-Norman verse.
On the whole we may say that Gower treats the caesura with much the same freedom as is used in the English verse of the period, and at the same time he marks the beat of his iambic verse more strongly than was done by the contemporary French poets.
Matter and Style.—As regards the literary character of these compositions it must be allowed that they have, as Warton says, ‘much real and intrinsic merit.’ There is indeed a grace and poetical feeling in some of them which makes them probably the best things of the kind that have been produced by English writers of French, and as good as anything of the kind which had up to that time been written in English. The author himself has marked them off into two unequal divisions. The poems of the first class (i-v) express for us the security of the accepted lover, whose suit is to end in lawful marriage:
‘Jeo sui tout soen et elle est toute moie,
Jeo l’ai et elle auci me voet avoir;
Pour tout le mond jeo ne la changeroie.’ (Bal. v.)
From these he passes to those expressions of feeling which apply to lovers generally, ‘qui sont diversement travailez en la fortune d’amour.’ Nothing can be more graceful in its way than the idea and expression of Bal. viii, ‘D’estable coer, qui nullement se mue,’ where the poet’s thought is represented as a falcon, flying on the wings of longing and desire in a moment across the sea to his absent mistress, and taking his place with her till he shall see her again. Once more, in Bal. xv, the image of the falcon appears, but this time it is a bird which is allowed to fly only with a leash, for so bound is the lover to his lady that he cannot but return to her from every flight. At another time (Bal. xviii) the lover is in despair at the hardness of his lady’s heart: drops of water falling will in time wear through the hardest stone; but this example will not serve him, for he cannot pierce the tender ears of his mistress with prayers, how urgent and repeated soever; God and the saints will hear his prayers, but she is harder than the marble of the quarry—the more he entreats, the less she listens, ‘Com plus la prie, et meinz m’ad entendu.’ Again (xiii) his state is like the month of March, now shine, now shower. When he looks on the sweet face of his lady and sees her ‘gentilesse,’ wisdom, and bearing, he has only pure delight; but when he perceives how far above him is her worth, fear and despair cloud over his joy, as the moon is darkened by eclipse. But in any case he must think of her (xxiv); she has so written her name on his heart that when he hears the chaplain read his litany he can think of nothing but of her. God grant that his prayer may not be in vain! Did not Pygmalion in time past by prayer obtain that his lady should be changed from stone to flesh and blood, and ought not other lovers to hope for the same fortune from prayer? He seems to himself to be in a dream, and he questions with himself and knows not whether he is a human creature or no, so absorbed is his being by his love. God grant that his prayer may not be in vain! He removes himself from her for a time (xxv) because of evil speakers, who with their slanders might injure her good name; but she must know that his heart is ever with her and that all his grief and joy hangs upon her, ‘Car qui bien aime ses amours tard oblie.’ But (xxix) she has misunderstood his absence; report tells him that she is angry with him. If she knew his thoughts, she would not be so disposed towards him; this balade he sends to make his peace, for he cannot bear to be out of her love. In another (xxxii) he expresses the deepest dejection: the New Year has come and is proceeding from winter towards spring, but for him there is winter only, which shrouds him in the thickest gloom. His lady’s beauty ever increases, but there is no sign of that kindness which should go with it; love only tortures him and gives him no friendly greeting. To this balade there is no Envoy, whether it be by negligence of the copyist, or because the lover could not even summon up spirit to direct it to his mistress. Again (xxxiii), he has given her his all, body and soul, both without recall, as a gift for this New Year of which he has just now spoken: his sole delight is to serve her. Will she not reward him even by a look? He asks for no present from her, let him only have some sign which may bid him hope, ‘Si plus n’y soit, donetz le regarder.’ The coming of Saint Valentine encourages him somewhat (xxxiv) with the reflection that all nature yields to love, but (xxxv) he remembers with new depression that though birds may choose their mates, yet he remains alone. May comes on (xxxvii), and his lady should turn her thoughts to love, but she sports with flowers and pays no heed to the prayer of her prisoner. She is free, but he is strongly bound; her close is full of flowers, but he cannot enter it; in the sweet season his fortune is bitter, May is for him turned into winter: ‘Vous estes franche et jeo sui fort lié.’
Then the lady has her say, and in accordance with the prerogative of her sex her moods vary with startling abruptness. She has doubts (xli) about her lover’s promises. He who swears most loudly is the most likely to deceive, and some there are who will make love to a hundred and swear to each that she is the only one he loves. ‘To thee, who art one thing in the morning and at evening another, I send this balade for thy reproof, to let thee know that I leave thee and care not for thee.’ In xliii she is fully convinced of his treachery, he is falser than Jason to Medea or Eneas to Dido. How different from Lancelot and Tristram and the other good knights! ‘C’est ma dolour que fuist ainçois ma joie.’ With this is contrasted the sentiment of xliv, in which the lady addresses one whom she regards as the flower of chivalry and the ideal of a lover, and to whom she surrenders unconditionally. The lady speaks again in xlvi, and then the series is carried to its conclusion with rather a markedly moral tone. At the end comes an address to the Virgin, in which the author declares himself bound to serve all ladies, but her above them all. No lover can really be without a loving mistress, for in her is love eternal and invariable. He loves and serves her with all his heart, and he trusts to have his reward. The whole concludes with an Envoy addressed to ‘gentle England,’ describing the book generally as a memorial of the joy which has come to the poet’s country from its noble king Henry, sent by heaven to redress its ills.
Printed Editions.—The Balades have been twice printed. They were published by the Roxburghe Club in 1818, together with the other contents of the Trentham MS. except the English poem, with the title ‘Balades and other Poems by John Gower. Printed from the original MS. in the library of the Marquis of Stafford at Trentham,’ Roxburghe Club, 1818, 4to. The editor was Earl Gower. This edition has a considerable number of small errors, several of which obscure the sense; only a small number of copies was printed, and the book can hardly be obtained.
In 1886 an edition of the Balades and of the Traitié was published in Germany under the name of Dr. Edmund Stengel in the series of ‘Ausgaben und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der romanischen Philologie.’ The title of this book is ‘John Gower’s Minnesang und Ehezuchtbüchlein: LXXII anglonormannische Balladen ... neu herausgegeben von Edmund Stengel.’ Marburg, 1886. The preface is signed with the initials D. H. The editor of this convenient little book was unable to obtain access to the original MS., apparently because he had been wrongly informed as to the place where it was to be found, and accordingly printed the Balades from the Roxburghe edition with such emendations as his scholarship suggested. He removed a good many obvious errors of a trifling kind, and in a few cases he was successful in emending the text by conjecture. Some important corrections, however, still remained to be made, and in several instances he introduced error into the text either by incorrectly transcribing the Roxburghe edition or by unsuccessful attempts at emendation. I do not wish to speak with disrespect of this edition. The editor laboured under serious disadvantages in not being able to refer to the original MS. and in not having always available even a copy of the Roxburghe edition, so that we cannot be surprised that he should have made mistakes. I have found his text useful to work upon in collation, and some of his critical remarks are helpful.
The present Text.—The text of this edition is based directly on the MS., which remains still in the library at Trentham Hall and to which access was kindly allowed me by the Duke of Sutherland. I propose to describe the MS. fully, since it is of considerable interest, and being in a private library it is not generally accessible.
The Trentham MS., referred to as T., is a thin volume, containing 41 leaves of parchment, measuring about 6¼ in. x 9¼ in., and made up apparently as follows: a4, b1, c6, d—f8 (one leaf cut out), g1, h4, i2 (no catchwords).
The first four leaves and the last two are blank except for notes of ownership, &c., so that the text of the book extends only from f. 5 to f. 39, one leaf being lost between f. 33 and f. 34.
The pages are ruled for 35 lines and are written in single column. The handwriting is of the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century, and resembles what I elsewhere describe as the ‘third hand’ in MS. Fairfax 3, though I should hesitate to affirm that it is certainly the same, not having had the opportunity of setting the texts side by side. There is, however, another hand in the MS., which appears in the Latin lines on ff. 33 vo and 39 vo.
The initial letters of poems and stanzas are coloured, but there is no other ornamentation.
The book contains (1) ff. 5—10 vo, the English poem in seven-line stanzas addressed to Henry IV, beginning ‘O worthi noble kyng.’
(2) f. 10 vo, 11, the Latin piece beginning ‘Rex celi deus.’
(3) f. 11 vo—12 vo, two French balades with a set of Latin verses between them, addressed to Henry IV (f. 12 is seriously damaged). This is what I refer to as the Dedication.
(4) ff. 12 vo—33, Cinkante balades.
(5) f. 33 vo, Latin lines beginning ‘Ecce patet tensus,’ incomplete owing to the loss of the next leaf. Written in a different hand.
(6) ff. 34—39, ‘Traitié pour ensampler les amantz marietz,’ imperfect at the beginning owing to the loss of the preceding leaf.
(7) f. 39 vo, Latin lines beginning ‘Henrici quarti,’ written in the hand which appears on f. 33 vo.
On the first blank leaf is the following in the handwriting of Sir Thomas Fairfax:
‘Sr. John Gower’s learned Poems the same booke by himself presented to kinge Henry ye fourth before his Coronation.’
(Originally this was ‘att his Coronation,’ then ‘att or before his Coronation,’ and finally the words ‘att or’ were struck through with the pen.)
Then lower down in the same hand:
‘For my honorable freind & kinsman sr. Thomas Gower knt. and Baronett from
Ffairfax 1656.’
On the verso of the second leaf near the left-hand top corner is written a name which appears to be ‘Rychemond,’ and there is added in a different hand of the sixteenth century:
‘Liber Hen: Septimi tunc comitis Richmond manu propria script.’
On the fifth leaf, where the text of the book begins, in the right-hand top corner, written in the hand of Fairfax:
‘ffairfax No 265
by the gift of the learned Gentleman Charles Gedde Esq. liuinge in the Citty of St Andrews.’
Then below in another hand:
‘Libenter tunc dabam
Id testor Carolus Gedde
Ipsis bis septenis Kalendis
mensis Octobris 1656.’
On the last leaf of the text, f. 39, there is a note in Latin made in 1651 at St. Andrews (Andreapoli) by C. Gedde at the age of seventy, with reference to the date of Henry IV’s reign. Then in English,
‘This booke pertaineth to aged Charles Gedde,’
and inserted between the lines by Fairfax,
‘but now to ffairfax of his gift, Jun. 28. 1656.’
Below follows a note in English on the date of the death of Chaucer and of Gower, and their places of burial.
The first of the blank leaves at the end is covered with Latin anagrams on the names ‘Carolus Geddeius,’ ‘Carolus Geddie,’ or ‘Carolus Geddee,’ with this heading,
‘In nomen venerandi et annosi Amici sui Caroli Geddei Anagrammata,’
and ends with the couplet:
‘Serpit amor Jonathæ (Prisciano labe) Chirurgo
Mephiboshæ pedibus tam manibus genibus,’
which is not very intelligible, but is perhaps meant to indicate the name of the composer of the anagrams.
In the right-hand top corner of the next leaf there is written in what might be a fifteenth-century hand, ‘Will Sanders vn Just’ (the rest cut away).
As to the statement made by Fairfax that this book, meaning apparently this very copy, was presented by the author to Henry IV, it is hardly likely that he had any trustworthy authority for it. The book must evidently have been arranged for some such purpose; on the whole however it is more likely that this was not the actual presentation copy, but another written about the same time and left in the hands of the author. The copy intended for presentation to the king, if such a copy there were, would probably have been more elaborately ornamented; and moreover the Latin lines on the last leaf, ‘Henrici quarti’ &c., bear the appearance of having been added later. The poet there speaks of himself as having become blind ‘in the first year of king Henry IV,’ and of having entirely ceased to write in consequence; and in another version of the same lines, which is found in the Glasgow MS. of the Vox Clamantis, he dates his blindness from the second year of King Henry’s reign. In any case it seems clear that his blindness did not come on immediately after Henry’s accession; for the Cronica Tripertita, a work of considerable length, must have been written after the death of Richard II, which took place some five months after the accession of Henry IV. It would be quite in accordance with Gower’s usual practice to keep a copy of the book by him and add to it or alter it from time to time; the Fairfax MS. of the Confessio Amantis and the All Souls copy of the Vox Clamantis are examples of this mode of proceeding: and I should be rather disposed to think that this volume remained in the author’s hands than that it was presented to the king. As to its subsequent history, if we are to regard the signature ‘Rychemond’ on the second leaf as a genuine autograph of Henry VII while Earl of Richmond, it would seem that the book passed at some time into royal hands, but it can hardly have come to the Earl of Richmond by any succession from Henry IV. After this we know nothing definite until we find it in the hands of the ‘aged Charles Gedde’ of St. Andrews, by whom it was given, as we have seen, to Fairfax in 1656, and by Fairfax in the same year to his friend and kinsman Sir Thomas Gower, no doubt on the supposition that he belonged to the family of the poet. He must have been one of the Gowers of Stittenham, and from him it has passed by descent to its present possessor.
The text given by the MS. seems to be on the whole a very correct one. For the Cinkante Balades it is the only manuscript authority, but as regards the Traitié it may be compared with several other copies contemporary with the author, and it seems to give as good a text as any. There seems no reason to doubt that it was written in the lifetime of the author, who may however have been unable owing to his failing eyesight to correct it himself. It was nevertheless carefully revised after being written, as is shown by various erasures and corrections both in the French and the English portions. This corrector’s hand is apparently different from both the other hands which appear in the manuscript. The best proof however of the trustworthiness of the text is the fact that hardly any emendations are required either by the metre or the sense. The difficulties presented by the text of the Roxburghe edition vanish for the most part on collation of the MS., and the number of corrections actually made in this edition is very trifling.
In a few points of spelling this MS. differs from that of the Mirour: for example, jeo (ieo) is almost always used in the Balades for je (but ie in Ded. i. 4), and the -ai termination is preferred to -ay, though both occur; similarly sui, joie, li, poi, where the Mirour has more usually suy, joye, ly, poy, &c.
What has been said with reference to the Mirour about the use of u and v, i and j, applies also here (except that the scribe of this MS. prefers i initially to I and sometimes writes u initially), and also in general what is said about division of words, accents and contractions. The latter however in the present text of the Balades and Traitié are not indicated by italics. It should be noted that que in the text stands for a contracted form. The word is qe in the Balades, when it is fully written out, but quil, tanquil, &c., are used in the MS., q̅om must evidently be meant for quom, and we find que frequently in the Mirour. Such forms as auerai, deuera, liuere, &c., usually have er abbreviated, but we also find saueroit (viii. 2), auera (xvi. 3), aueray (xvii. 1), written out fully. Where the termination -ance has a line drawn over it, as in suffica̅n̅ce, fia̅n̅ce (iv. 2), it has been printed -aunce, and so cha̅n̅con (xl. 3); but aun is written out fully. In general it must be assumed that -oun ending a word represents o̅n̅, but in xxi. 4 we have noun written out fully in both cases.
In the matter of capitals the usage of the MS. is followed for the most part. The punctuation is of course that of the editor, and it may be observed that the previous editions have none.