"For Engelondes sake": Richard II and Henry of Lancaster as Intended Readers of Gower's "Confessio Amantis."

Author/Editor
Diller, Hans-Jürgen.

Title
"For Engelondes sake": Richard II and Henry of Lancaster as Intended Readers of Gower's "Confessio Amantis."

Published
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. "'For Engelondes sake': Richard II and Henry of Lancaster as Intended Readers of Gower's 'Confessio Amantis.'" In Ulrich Broich, Theo Stemmler, and Gerd Stratmann, eds. Functions of Literature: Essays Presented to Erwin Wolff on His Sixtieth Birthday. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1984. Pp. 39-53.

Review
Diller here discusses the literary "functions" of the Ricardian and Lancastrian recensions of Gower's "Confessio Amantis." His discussion is complicated--framed by a brief, weighty theorization of literary functions, both overt and covert--but after a close reading of the altered lines Diller briskly summarizes what he believes to be the impact of the changes Gower made to the Prologue of his poem: "The revision of only 69 lines (out of a total of 33,444) has brought about an astonishing change in the explicit functions of CA: amusement has been replaced by instruction and exhortation; praise of the monarch, by a criticism of society and the hope for one who may reform it; the desire for personal advancement, by a concern for common good. In short, a 'bok for king Richardes sake' (Pr. 24*) has been really turned into a 'bok for Engelondes sake' (Pr. 24)" (45). Turning to Gower's replacement of Book VIII, 2941*-3114* with 2941-3172, Diller asserts that "Gower felt that he could not alter the frame [of CA] without altering the ending" (46) and, again closely reading changes in details, says that, if we can hazard "[r]educing Gower to a simplifying formula [in the revised version], we may say that the king has to be virtuous, while the nobles have to be virtuous and strong," (48), with Henry as an apt "representative" of the latter. Further, Gower changed the "position of earthly love," Diller tells us: "toleration" of happy love . . ."--a complimentary reference to Richard and his queen" in the first version--has been eliminated and such love "is now only a force that drives men into error" (49), an "inconsistency" with the status of love throughout the poem, Diller suggests, that Gower "accepted . . . [as] necessary on account of the new Epilogue." Somewhat more tentatively, Diller accounts for the elimination of Venus's reference to Chaucer in the revision, not because of any "estrangement" (50) between Gower and Chaucer, but because Gower "may have hoped to earn favours which so far had been reserved for the younger poet" but did not wish to "hint at a possible reward . . . from Henry [though he soon received one] as openly as he had done in his dedication to the king." "Mere lucre," Diller maintains, "had little attraction" for the prosperous Gower, and an "outward sign of recognition" would probably have been sufficient for Gower since his "subsequent attitude to Henry indicates as much" (51). Much of this is inferential, as Diller acknowledges when he observes that it is "safer" for him attend to the "values articulated in [Gower's] poetry" than to his "personal ambition" (52)—two different levels of function in Diller's theoretical scheme. With this shift in focus, and a nod to the Merciless Parliament, Diller rather swiftly concludes his essay by suggesting that Richard may not have approved of Gower's views on constraint of royal power, and that it was a "skilful move" for Gower to turn to Henry as "another high-ranking member of the royal family" who might well be willing to sanction these views as a "legitimation of political practices which have become current without being accepted as legitimate" (53). [MA. Copyright. John Gower Society. eJGN 42.2]

Date
1984

Gower Subjects
Confessio Amantis
Manuscripts and Textual Studies
Biography of Gower