Leland’s turn to Latin set a precedent for later scholarly discussions of Chaucer’s English eloquence, which—in English or in Latin—were undertaken separately from attempts on the part of the commentator to express eloquence in English himself. In the long run, this split creates a place for vernacular work on Chaucer written in forms of English very different from Chaucer’s own. In De Viris Illustribus, Leland carries on a long tradition of English writers praising Chaucer, but—writing in Latin—he does not imitate him. His Latin verses and the accompanying prose present themselves as a sufficient memorial to the author, but there is not one line of English in the entirety of De Viris Illustribus. Freed from the near obligation to imitate the master, Leland’s account must tell, rather than show, what it is that makes Chaucer special. When this new kind of description, coupled with an interest in Chaucer’s biography, filters back into the vernacular later in the century, it begins to look something very like literary criticism.
John Gower, “studiosius quam felicius”
As the earliest attempt to provide a comprehensive biography for both Chaucer and Gower, Leland’s accounts lay the groundwork upon which subsequent commentators would build throughout the early modern period. Given Chaucer’s close association with the English language, it is unsurprising to find him singled out for special attention in De Viris Illustribus. Gower, however, may strike some modern readers as a less obvious subject, especially given the absence of other vernacular writers in Leland’s project. Leland does not mention John Lydgate, for example, whose plentiful works he would have almost certainly encountered in the course of his research, nor does he mention William Langland, whose Piers Plowman may in fact be the Petri Aratoris fabula that Leland lists among Chaucer’s writings.
Leland wrote shortly after publication of Thomas Berthelette’s first edition of Gower’s Confessio Amantis, which appeared in 1532, the same year as the first edition of Thynne’s Works. Like the Works, the Confessio is a handsome folio volume (albeit not quite as large).32 Like the Works, Berthelette’s Confessio is dedicated to Henry VIII and furnished with a laudatory preface. The preface is in some ways similar to that found in the 1532 Works, which suggests that the figures of Gower and Chaucer could perform similar authorizing cultural work in the 1530s (hence their appearance in Leland), and that, in both cases, their reputations hinged upon their achievements as vernacular authors. Like the preface to the Works, Berthelette begins with a classical anecdote (this time drawn from Plutarch) and flattering praise of the sovereign before offering an account of the difficulties and labor involved in bringing the work to press. This work, however, is worth the trouble since readers of the Confessio will find it “plentifully stuffed and fournysshed with manyfolde eloquent reasons / sharpe and quicke argumentes / and examples of great auctorite / perswadynge unto vertue / not onely taken out of the poetes / oratours / history wryters / and philosophers / but also out of the holy scripture.”33 Berthelette does not credit Gower with the kind of untimely linguistic excellence that Thynne attributes to Chaucer, but he does emphasize that the Confessio contains “olde englysshe wordes and vulgars no wyse man / bycause of theyr antiquite / wyll throwe asyde,” words that offer an alternative to those writers who feel themselves “constrayned to brynge in / in their writynges / newe termes (as some calle them) whiche they borowed out of latyne / frenche / and other langages”34 Berthelette concludes with a ringing endorsement of Gower’s language, especially its utility in the present: “if any man wante / let hym resorte to this worthy olde wryter John Gower / that shall as a lanterne gyve hym lyghte to wryte counnyngly / and to garnysshe his sentencis in our vulgar tonge.” The Latin verses included in the Confessio, and Gower’s other major works in Latin (Vox Clamantis) and French (Mirour de l’Omme) are not discussed.
Given this framework, and the fact that Berthelette, like Leland, was closely associated with the Henrician court, it is less surprising to find Leland acknowledging the work of the poet in De Viris Illustribus and emphasizing his contributions to the English vernacular. Although he acknowledges that Gower wrote in Latin as well as in English, Leland makes a strong claim for Gower’s contributions to the vernacular, asserting that he was “the first to polish our native language” (primum patriae linguae expolitorem) and that, “before his time the English tongue was cultivated and almost completely unformed. Nor was there anybody who could write any work in the vernacular [vernaculo idiomate] fit for a cultured reader…. He wrote a great deal in his mother tongue, both in verse and prose, which is carefully read by scholars even in this our blossoming age.”35
Apart from this singular fact, Leland’s knowledge of Gower’s work appears to be limited. His comments on the poet’s three major works later in the entry have the vague air of a learned person discussing books he has not read, even though he asserts that Gower’s works are “carefully read by scholars even in this our blossoming age.” He writes that, “among his longer works the most important is his Speculum Meditantis, the second his Vox Clamantis, and the third his Confessio Amantis. A fastidious reader may not perhaps consider that it is elegance that determines these titles. Yet there is something mysterious in them and a certain concord, as if one depended on the other.”36 If Leland ever read the French Mirour de l’Omme (Speculum Meditantis) or Latin Vox Clamantis, it is not at all apparent here. In addition to these major works, Leland also mentions Gower’s English poem “In Praise of Peace,” but he misidentifies its dedicatee as Richard II, when in fact the first lines of the poem reveal the addressee to be Richard’s successor Henry IV (this despite the fact that Leland also quotes verbatim a Latin couplet from the end of the poem, another indication of his linguistic preferences).
In general, Leland has little to say about French in England (although he mentions French translations of the Latin works of English writers on several occasions and asserts that Chaucer wrote excellently in French), and he is consistently dismissive of the literary qualities of medieval Latin throughout De Viris Illustribus. Leland’s attitude toward most medieval writing—a mark of his high humanist moment—sets him apart from later antiquaries like William Camden, whose work demonstrates a robust knowledge of Anglo-Latin writing, or even John Foxe, who includes a more detailed account of Gower’s tomb (including its incorporation of three books representing the poet’s major works, in each of the three languages of late medieval England) than that offered by Leland.
In many ways, including his praise of innovation and poetry in the vernacular, Leland’s entry on Gower is a preview of the much longer entry on Chaucer that follows. In the remaining portion of his entry on Gower, he emphasizes the poet’s use of the same classical sources admired by later scholars, his association with the legal profession, and—what is clearly of greatest interest to Leland—his purported mentorship of Chaucer. In De Viris Illustribus, Gower functions as a sort of John the Baptist, crying out in a literary desert to prepare the way for a poetic messiah.
While Berthelette’s preface places Gower on similar footing to his contemporary Chaucer, it is clear from the length, specificity, and enthusiasm of Leland’s entry on Chaucer (the only place in De Viris Illustribus where Leland incorporates his own Latin verses), that Leland feels the eloquent Englishmen of the sixteenth century owe their greater debt to Chaucer. Framed as part of a long tradition of learnedness and scholarship, rather than vernacular poetry, Chaucer’s presence in De Viris Illustribus testifies to the way his particular brand of cultural significance could be transposed from the discourse of vernacular literature to that of English cultural accomplishments writ large.
Leland’s admiration for Chaucer can be thought of as an