Poetarum Angliae, vixit
temporibus Edwardi tertii
et Richardi secundi.’
Later, in 1765, Tyler describes the gown as purple and the arms as pendent by the dexter corner. The figures of women have ducal coronets and scrolls of gold, and below them is the epitaph ‘Armigeri scutum.’ Under the statue the inscription ‘Hic iacet,’ &c.[56] The monument, as here described, is engraved in Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments (date 1796), where there is a full description of it[57]. Blore, under whose direction the position of the monument was changed, says in 1826 that the inscription on the ledge of the tomb ‘Hic iacet,’ &c., was then entirely gone.
Dollman says that there was a fire which injured the nave of the church in the reign of Richard II, and that the windows of the nave and aisles, which were finally removed in 1833, were of the time of Richard II and Henry IV[58]. It is certain, however, that the church remained long in an unfinished state during the period between 1207 (or 1212), the date of the early fire, and the latter part of the fourteenth century. Dollman observes that the remains which may have been contained in the tomb ‘disappeared when the tomb was removed from the north aisle in 1832.’[59] From what has been said it will be perceived that the tomb has undergone a series of alterations and renovations which have to some extent at least destroyed its original character.
A word must be said finally about Prof. Morley’s theory that Gower was in holy orders and held the living of Great Braxted in Essex from 1390-7. This is founded on the fact that the parson of Great Braxted for the period named was one John Gower, as Professor Morley learns from Newcourt’s Repertorium Parochiale[60]. The original record referred to by Newcourt is to be found in the Registry of the diocese of London[61], and is to the effect that on February 23, 1390-1, the bishop of London admitted and instituted John Gower, clerk, to the parochial church of Great Braksted, vacant by the resignation of John Broun, the late rector, the said John Gower having been duly presented by the king, who at this time was patron of the living, the heir of the late earl of Pembroke being under his wardship. Then later, under date March 31, 1397, there is record of a new institution to the benefice, which is vacant by the resignation of John Gower, late rector[62].
Professor Morley thought that the expression ‘John Gower, clerk’ might indicate that the person referred to was in minor orders only, some of the rectors inducted being called ‘priest’ (while others have no title at all). He conceived that this John Gower held the rectory for six or seven years without being admitted to priest’s orders at all, and that he then resigned on his marriage[63], and he found confirmation of the theory that this was Gower the poet from the fact that Great Braxted is near to Wigborough, where, as we have seen, a person of this name, supposed by Professor Morley to be the poet, had some claim to rent. We have already seen reason to think that the John Gower who had a rent of £10 from Wigborough was not the poet, and in any case it is evident that the fact could have nothing to do with a presentation by the king five and twenty years afterwards to the rectory of Great Braxted. As to resignation with a view to marriage, it is very unlikely, if not altogether out of the question, that a clergyman who had held an important rectory for six or seven years should not only have been permitted to marry, but should have had his marriage celebrated in the Priory of St. Mary Overy and with the particular sanction of the bishop of Winchester. Add to this the fact that John Gower the poet was undoubtedly ‘Esquire,’ being called so not only on his tomb but also in the documents of 1382 and 1393, the latter belonging to the period when, according to this theory, he was holding the living of Great Braxted. On the whole, the ‘minor orders’ theory must be dismissed as entirely baseless, and the John Gower who was rector of Great Braxted must be set down as another of the rather numerous persons of this name who were to be found in Kent and Essex at this time. There is nothing in Gower’s writings to suggest the idea that he was an ecclesiastic. He distinctly calls himself a layman in the Mirour de l’Omme, and the expression ‘borel clerk’ in the Prologue of the Confessio Amantis must be taken to mean the same thing. The language which in the Vox Clamantis he uses about rectors who fail to perform the duties of their office, makes it almost inconceivable that he should himself have held a rectory without qualifying himself for the performance of the service of the Church even by taking priest’s orders. Evidently Professor Morley’s idea of the poet as an Essex rector must go the way of his previous attempt to establish him as a country gentleman at Otford. It is probable that he passed a considerable part of his literary life in those lodgings within the Priory of St. Mary Overey which are mentioned in his marriage licence and in his will[64].
To the information which we derive from records must be added that which is to be drawn from the poet’s own writings. From the Speculum Meditantis we learn that in early life he composed love poems, which he calls ‘fols ditz d’ amour’ (27340), and from two other passages (ll. 8794 and 17649) we may perhaps assume that he was already married at the time when this work was composed. In the former, speaking of those who tell tales to husbands about their wives’ misconduct, he says in effect, ‘I for my part declare (‘Je di pour moi’) that I wish to hear no such tales of my wife:’ in the second he speaks of those wives who dislike servants and other persons simply because their husbands like them, and he adds, ‘I do not say that mine does so’ (‘Ne di pas q’ensi fait la moie’). If the inference be correct, his union with Agnes Groundolf in his old age was a second marriage. We cannot come to any definite conclusion from this poem about any profession or occupation which he may have had besides literature. The statement of Leland that he practised as a lawyer seems rather improbable, in view of the way in which he here speaks of lawyers and their profession. Of all the secular estates that of the law seems to him to be the worst (24085 ff.), and he condemns both advocates and judges in a more unqualified manner than the members of any other calling. Especially the suggestion of a special tax to be levied on lawyers’ gains (24337 ff.) is one that could hardly have come from one who was himself a lawyer[65].
Again the way in which he speaks of physicians (24301, 25621 ff.) seems almost equally to exclude him from the profession of medicine.
Of all the various ranks of society which he reviews, that of which he speaks with most respect is the estate of Merchants. He takes pains to point out, both in this poem and in the Vox Clamantis, the utility of their occupation, and the justice of their claim to reasonably large profits on successful ventures in consideration of the risks they run (Mirour, 25177 ff.; Vox Clam. Lib. v. Cap. xi, Heading). He makes a special apology to the honest members of the class for exposing the abuses to which the occupation is liable, pleading that to blame the bad is in effect to praise the good (25213 ff., 25975 ff.), and he is more careful here than elsewhere to point out the fact that honest members of the class exist. He speaks of ‘our City,’ and has strong feelings about the interests of the city of London, and about the proceedings of a certain bad citizen who stirs up strife and aims at giving privileges in trade to strangers (Mirour, 26380 ff.; cp. Vox Clamantis, v. 835 ff.): moreover, the jealousy of Lombards which he expresses has every appearance of being a prejudice connected with rivalry in commerce (25429 ff.). He has a special enthusiasm about the wool-trade, as a national concern of the first importance, and he has very definite opinions about the abuses of the staple (25360 ff.). At the same time there is no definite evidence that Gower was a merchant, and his interest in trade and in the affairs of the city of London may well have arisen from his residence in or near the city and his personal acquaintance with merchants (cp. Mir. 25915 ff.). His references to the dearness of labour and the unreasonable demands of the labourer (24625 ff.) are what we might expect from a man who had property in land; but again we have no sufficient evidence that Gower was a land-owner in the ordinary sense of the word, for, though he acquired the manors of Feltwell and Multon, he did not reside upon either of them, but gave a lease of them at once.