[42] The remark of Nicolas about the omission of Kentwell from the will is hardly appropriate. Even if Gower the poet were identical with the John Gower who possessed Kentwell, this manor could not have been mentioned in his will, because it was disposed of absolutely to Sir J. Cobham in the year 1373. Hence there is no reason to conclude from this that there was other landed property besides that which is dealt with by the will. [43] I am indebted for some of the facts to Canon Thompson of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, who has been kind enough to answer several questions which I addressed to him. [44] The features are quite different, it seems to me, from those represented in the Cotton and Glasgow MSS., and I think it more likely that the latter give us a true contemporary portrait. Gower certainly died in advanced age, yet the effigy on his tomb shows us a man in the flower of life. This then is either an ideal representation or must have been executed from rather distant memory, whereas the miniatures in the MSS., which closely resemble each other, were probably from life, and also preserve their original colouring. The miniatures in MSS. of the _Confessio Amantis_, which represent the Confession, show the penitent usually as a conventional young lover. The picture in the Fairfax MS. is too much damaged to give us much guidance, but it does not seem to be a portrait, in spite of the collar of SS added later. The miniature in MS. Bodley 902, however, represents an aged man, while that of the Cambridge MS. Mm. 2. 21 rather recalls the effigy on the tomb and may have been suggested by it. [45] We may note that the effigy of Sir Robert Gower in brass above his tomb in Brabourne church is represented as having a similar chaplet round his helmet. See the drawing in MS. Harl. 3917, f. 77. [46] So I read them. They are given by Gough and others as ‘merci ihi.’ [47] Perhaps rather 1207 or 1208. [48] _Script. Brit._ i. 415: so also _Ant. Coll._ iv. 79, where the three books are mentioned. The statement that the chaplet was partly of ivy must be a mistake, as is pointed out by Stow and others. [49] Read rather ‘En toy qu’es fitz de dieu le pere.’ [50] Read ‘O bon Jesu, fai ta mercy’ and in the second line ‘dont le corps gist cy.’ [51] _Survey of London_, p. 450 (ed. 1633). In the margin there is the note, ‘John Gower no knight, neither had he any garland of ivy and roses, but a chaplet of four roses only,’ referring to Bale, who repeats Leland’s description. [52] p. 326 (ed. 1615). Stow does not say that the inscription ‘Armigeri scutum,’ &c.; was defaced in his time. [53] vol. ii. p. 542. [54] vol. v. pp. 202-4. The description is no doubt from Aubrey. [55] On this subject the reader may be referred to Selden, _Titles of Honour_, p. 835 f. (ed. 1631). [56] _Antiquities of St. Saviour’s, Southwark_, 1765. [57] vol. ii. p. 24. [58] _Priory Church of St. Mary Overie_, 1881.