INTRODUCTION
From a statement in Latin which is found in many of the Gower manuscripts, and undoubtedly proceeds from the author himself, we learn that the poet desired to rest his fame upon three principal works, the first in French, the second in Latin, and the third in English. These are the three volumes which, lying one upon another, form a pillow for the poet’s effigy in the church of Saint Saviour, Southwark, where he was buried. They are known by the Latin names, Speculum Meditantis, Vox Clamantis, Confessio Amantis, but the first of the three has until recently been looked upon as lost. In addition there are minor poems in each of the three languages, among which are two series of French balades. It will be my duty afterwards to prove the identity of the Mirour de l’Omme printed in this volume with our author’s earliest principal work, commonly known as Speculum Meditantis, but named originally Speculum Hominis; in the mean time I shall ask leave to assume this as proved, in order that a general view may be taken of Gower’s French writings before we proceed to the examination of each particular work.
The Anglo-Norman[A] literature, properly so called, can hardly be said to extend beyond the limits of the fourteenth century, and these therefore are among its latest productions. The interest of this literature in itself and its importance with a view to the Romance element in the English language have been adequately recognized within recent years, though the number of literary texts printed is still too small. It is unnecessary therefore to do more here than to call attention to the special position occupied by the works published in this volume, and the interest attaching to them, first on their own merits, then on account of the period to which they belong and the author from whom they proceed, and lastly from the authenticity and correctness of the manuscripts which supply us with their text.
As regards the work which occupies the greater part of the present volume, it would be absurd to claim for it a high degree of literary merit, but it is nevertheless a somewhat noticeable and interesting performance. The all-embracing extent of its design, involving a complete account not only of the moral nature of Man, but of the principles of God’s dealings with the world and with the human race, is hardly less remarkable than the thoroughness with which the scheme is worked out in detail and the familiarity with the Scriptures which the writer constantly displays. He has a far larger conception of his subject as a whole than other authors of ‘Specula’ or classifiers of Vices and Virtues which the age produced. Compare the Mirour de l’Omme with such works as the Speculum Vitae or the Manuel des Pechiez, and we shall be struck not only with the greater unity of its plan, but also with its greater comprehensiveness, while at the same time, notwithstanding its oppressive lengthiness, it has in general a flavour of literary style to which most other works of the same class can lay no claim. Though intended, like the rest, for edification, it does not aim at edification alone: by the side of the moralist there is occasionally visible also a poet. This was the work upon which Gower’s reputation rested when Chaucer submitted Troilus to his judgement, and though he may have been indulging his sense of humour in making Gower one of the correctors of his version of that—
‘geste
De Troÿlus et de la belle
Creseide,’
which the moralist had thought only good enough for the indolent worshipper to dream of in church (Mir. 5253), yet the dedication must have been in part at least due to respect for the literary taste of the persons addressed.
If however we must on the whole pronounce the literary value of the Speculum Meditantis to be small, the case is quite different with regard to the Balades, that is to say, the collection of about fifty love-poems which is found in the Trentham manuscript. These will be discussed in detail later, and reasons will be given for assigning them to the later rather than to the earlier years of the poet’s life. Here it is enough to say that they are for the most part remarkably good, better indeed than anything of their kind which was produced in England at that period, and superior in my opinion to the balades of Granson, ‘flour of hem that make in France,’ some of which Chaucer translated. But for the accident that they were written in French, this series of balades would have taken a very distinct place in the history of English literature.
The period to which the Speculum Meditantis belongs, about the beginning of the last quarter of the fourteenth century, is that in which the fusion of French and English elements from which the later language grew may be said to have been finally accomplished. Thanks to the careful work of English and German philologists in recent years, the process by which French words passed into the English language in the period from the beginning of the thirteenth to the end of the fourteenth century has been sufficiently traced, so far as regards the actual facts of their occurrence in English texts. Perhaps however the real nature of the process has not been set forth with sufficient clearness. It is true that before the end of the reign of Edward III the French element may be said to have been almost fully introduced into the vocabulary; the materials lay ready for those writers, the Wycliffite translators of the Bible, Chaucer, and Gower himself, who were to give the stamp of their authority to the language which was to be the literary language of England. Nevertheless, French words were still French for these writers, and not yet English; the fact that the two languages were still used side by side, and that to every Englishman of literary culture the form of French which existed in England was as a second mother tongue, long preserved a French citizenship for the borrowed words. In the earlier part of this period they came in simply as aliens, and their meaning was explained when they were used, ‘in desperaunce, that is in unhope and in unbileave,’ ‘two manere temptaciuns, two kunne vondunges’; and afterwards for long, even though they had been repeatedly employed by English writers, they were not necessarily regarded as English words, but when wanted they were usually borrowed again from the original source, and so had their phonetic development in French rather than in English. When therefore Anglo-Norman forms are to be cited for English etymology, it is evidently more reasonable that the philologist should look to the latter half of the fourteenth century and give the form in which the word finally passed into the literary language, than to the time of the first appearance of the word in English, under a form corresponding perhaps to the Anglo-Norman of the thirteenth century, but different from that which it assumed in the later Anglo-Norman, and thence in English. More precision in these citations is certainly to be desired, even though the time be past when etymologists were content to refer us vaguely to ‘Old French,’ meaning usually the sixteenth-century French of Cotgrave, when the form really required was of the fourteenth century and Anglo-Norman. It is not unreasonable to lay down the rule that for words of Anglo-Norman origin which occur in the English literary language of the Chaucer period, illustration of forms and meanings must first be looked for in the Anglo-Norman texts of that period, since the standard writers, as we may call them, that is those who contributed most to fix the standard of the language, in using them had the Anglo-Norman of their own day before their minds and eyes rather than any of the obscure English books in various dialects, where the words in question may have been already used to supply the defects of a speech which had lost its literary elements. Moreover, theories as to the pronunciation of the English of Chaucer’s day have been largely supported by reference to the supposed pronunciation of the French words imported into English and the manner in which they are used in rhyme. Evidently in this case the reference ought to be to the Anglo-Norman speech of this particular period, in the form in which it was used by those writers of English to whose texts we refer.
But this is not all: beside the question of language there is one of literary history. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Anglo-Norman literature had sunk into a very degraded condition. Pierre de Peccham, William of Waddington, Pierre de Langtoft, and the authors of the Apocalypse and the Descente de Saint Paul make the very worst impression as versifiers upon their modern French critics, and it must be allowed that the condemnation is just. They have in fact lost their hold on all the principles of French verse, and their metres are merely English in a French dress. Moreover, the English metres which they resemble are those of the North rather than of the South. If we compare the octosyllables of the Manuel des Pechiez with those of the Prick of Conscience we shall see that their principle is essentially the same, that of half-lines with two accents each, irrespective of the number of unaccented syllables, though naturally in English the irregularity is more marked. The same may be said of Robert Grosseteste’s verse a little earlier than this, e.g.
‘Deu nus doint de li penser,
De ky, par ki, en ki sunt
Trestuz li biens ki al mund sunt,
Deu le pere et deu le fiz
Et deu le seint esperiz,
Persones treis en trinité
E un sul deu en unité,
Sanz fin et sanz comencement,’ &c.
It cannot be proved that all the writers of French whom I have named were of the North, but it is certain that several of them were so, and it may well be that the French used in England was not really so uniform, ‘univoca,’ as it seemed to Higden, or at least that as the South of England had more metrical regularity in its English verse, witness the octosyllables of The Owl and the Nightingale in the thirteenth century, so also it retained more formal correctness in its French. However that may be, and whether it were by reason of direct continental influence or of the literary traditions of the South of England, it is certain that Gower represents a different school of versification from that of the writers whom we have mentioned, though he uses the same (or nearly the same) Anglo-Norman dialect, and writes verse which, as we shall see, is quite distinguishable in rhythm from that of the Continent. Thus we perceive that by the side of that reformation of English verse which was effected chiefly by Chaucer, there is observable a return of Anglo-Norman verse to something of its former regularity, and this in the hands of the very man who has commonly been placed by the side of Chaucer as a leader of the new school of English poetry.
In what follows I shall endeavour to indicate those points connected with versification and language which are suggested by a general view of Gower’s French works. Details as to his management of particular metres are reserved for consideration in connexion with the works in which they occur.
Gower’s metre, as has already been observed, is extremely regular. He does not allow himself any of those grosser licences of suppression or addition of syllables which have been noticed in Anglo-Norman verse of the later period. Like William of Waddington, he apologizes for his style on the ground that he is an Englishman, but in his case the plea is very much less needed. His rhyming also, after allowance has been made for a few well-established Anglo-Norman peculiarities, may be said to be remarkably pure, more so in some respects than that of Frère Angier, for example, who wrote at least a century and a half earlier and was a decidedly good versifier. It is true that, like other Anglo-Norman writers, he takes liberties with the forms of words in flexion in order to meet the requirements of his rhyme, but these must be regarded as sins against grammar rather than against rhyme, and the French language in England had long been suffering decadence in this respect. Moreover, when we come to examine these vagaries, we shall find that they are by no means so wild in his case as they had been in that of some other writers, and that there is a good deal of method in the madness. The desired effect is attained principally by two very simple expedients. The first of these is a tolerably extensive disregard of gender, adjectives being often used indifferently in the masculine or the feminine form, according to convenience. Thus in the Balades[B] we have ‘chose humein’ xxiv. 3, but ‘toute autre chose est veine’ xxxiii. 2, ‘ma fortune est assis’ ix. 5, ‘la fortune est faili’ xx. 3, ‘corps humeine’ xiv. 1, ‘l’estée vient flori’ ii. 1, ‘l’estée beal flori’ xx. 2, but ‘La cliere estée’ xxxii. 2, and the author says ‘ce (ceo) lettre’ (ii. 4, iii. 4), or ‘ceste lettre’ (xv. 4), according as it suits his metre. Similarly in the Mirour l. 92 ff.,
‘Siq’en apres de celle issue,
Que de leur corps serroit estrait,
Soit restoré q’estoit perdue’ &c.,
for estraite, perdu, l. 587 hony for honie, 719 ‘la Char humein,’ 911 replenis for replenies, 1096 ‘deinz son cuer maliciouse.’ From the use of du, au by our author nothing must be inferred about gender, since they are employed indifferently for the masculine or feminine combination, as well as for the simple prepositions de, à; and such forms as celestial, in Bal. Ded. i. 1, cordial, enfernals, mortals, Mir. 717, 1011, 1014, are perhaps reminiscences of the older usage, though the inflected feminine is also found. The question of the terminations é, ée will be dealt with separately.
No doubt the feeling for gender had been to some extent worn away in England; nevertheless the measure in which this affects our author’s language is after all rather limited. A much more wide-reaching principle is that which has to do with the ‘rule of s.’ The old System of French noun inflexion had already been considerably broken up on the Continent, and it would not have been surprising if in England it had altogether disappeared. In some respects however Anglo-Norman was rather conservative of old forms, and our author is not only acquainted with the rule, but often shows a preference for observing it, where it is a matter of indifference in other respects. Rhyme however must be the first consideration, and a great advantage is obtained by the systematic combination of the older and the newer rule. Thus the poet has it in his power either to use or to omit the s of inflexion in the nominatives singular and plural of masculine nouns, according as his rhymes may require, and a few examples will show what use he makes of this licence. In Bal. Ded. i. 3 he describes himself as
‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestout vos soubgitz,’
but in rhyme with this the same form of inflexion stands for the plural subject, ‘u sont les ditz floriz,’ and in xxvi. 1 he gives us nearly the same expression, ‘q’est tout vostre soubgit,’ without the inflexion. So in iv. 3 we have ‘come tes loials amis’ (sing. nom.), but in the very same balade ‘ton ami serrai,’ while in Trait. iii. 3 we have the further development of s in the oblique case of the singular, ‘Loiale amie avoec loials amis.’ In Bal. xviii. 1 menu is apparently fem. pl. for menues, while avenu, rhyming with it, is nom. sing. masc.; but so also are conuz, retenuz, venuz, in xxxix, while veeuz is sing. object., and in the phrase ‘tout bien sont contenuz’ there is a combination of the uninflected with the inflected form in the plural of the subject. Similarly in the Mirour we have principals, desloyals, ll. 63, 70, as nom. sing., and so governals, desloyals 627, 630, but espirital 709, principal, Emperial, 961 ff., are forms used elsewhere for the same. Again as nom. sing. we have rejoïz 462, ruez, honourez, malurez 544 ff., &c., and as nom. plur. enamouré 17, retorné 792, marié (f) 1010, née 1017, maluré 1128, il 25064; but also enamouré 220, privé 496, mené 785, &c., as nom. singular, and perturbez, tuez, 3639 ff., travaillez, abandonnez, 5130 ff., as nom. plural: ‘ce dist ly sage’ 1586, but ‘il est nounsages’ 1754, and ‘Ly sages dist’ 3925, ly soverein 76, but ly capiteins 4556, and so on. We also note occasionally forms like that cited above from the Traitié, where the s (or z) of the termination has no grammatical justification at all; e.g. enginez 552, confondus 1904, ‘fort et halteins’ (obj.) 13024, cp. offenduz, Bal. xxxix. 2, and cases where the rules which properly apply to masculine nouns only are extended to feminines, as in perdice (pl.) 7831, humilités, pités (sing.), 12499, 13902.
Besides these two principal helps to rhyme the later Anglo-Norman versifier might occasionally fall back upon others. In so artificial a language as that in which he wrote, evidently the older forms of inflexion might easily be kept up for literary purposes in verbs also, and used side by side with the later. Thus in the 1st pers. pl. of the present tense we find lison (lisoun) repeatedly in rhyme, and occasionally other similar forms, as soion 18480. The 1st pers. sing. of the present tense of several strong verbs is inflected with or without s at pleasure: thus from dire we have di, dy, as well as dis; faire gives fai or fais; by the side of suis (sum), sui or suy is frequently found; and similarly we have croy, say, voi. In the same part of first-conjugation verbs the atonic final e is often dropped, as pri, appell, mir, m’esmai, suppli. In the third person singular of the preterite of i verbs there is a variation in the ending between -it (-ist) and -i (-y). Thus in one series of rhymes we have nasquit, s’esjoït (in rhyme with dit, &c.), 268 ff., in another s’esjoÿ, chery, servi (in rhyme with y), 427 ff.; in one stanza fuÿt, partist, 11416 ff., and in the next respondi, 11429; so chaït (chaïst) and chaÿ, obeït and obeï, &c. It may be doubted also whether such words as tesmoignal, surquidance, presumement, bestial (as subst.), relinquir, &c., owe their existence to any better cause than the requirements of rhyme or metre. In introducing ent, 11471, for the usual en the poet has antiquity on his side: on the other hand when he writes a repeatedly in rhyme for the Anglo-Norman ad (which, except in these cases, is regularly used) he is no doubt looking towards the ‘French of Paris,’ which naturally tended to impose itself on the English writers of French in the fourteenth century. By the same rule he can say either houre or heure, flour or fleur, crestre or croistre, crere or croire; but on the whole it is rather surprising how little his language seems to have been affected by this influence.
The later Anglo-Norman treatment of the terminations -é and -ée in past participles and in verbal substantives would seem to demand notice chiefly in connexion with rhyme and metre, but it is really a question of phonology. The two terminations, as is well known, became identified before the beginning of the fourteenth century, and it is needless to quote examples to show that in Gower’s metre and rhymes -ée was equivalent to -é. The result of this phonetic change, consisting in the absorption of the atonic vowel by the similar tonic which immediately preceded it, was that -é and -ée were written indiscriminately in almost all words with this ending, and that the distinction between the masculine and feminine forms was lost completely in pronunciation and to a very great extent also in writing. For example in Mir. 865 ff. we have rhyming together degré, monté (fem.), mué, descolouré (fem.), enbroudé, poudré (fem. plur.); in 1705 ff. there is a series of rhymes in -ée, bealpinée, engalopée, assemblée, ascoultée (pl.), malsenée, doublée, all masculine except the substantive assemblée; and in other stanzas the endings are mixed up anyhow, so that we have aisnée, maluré, 244 f., both feminine, mené, héritée, 922 f., the first feminine and the second masculine, ymaginée, adrescée, Bal. vi, both masculine. In all Gower’s French verse I can recall only three or four instances where an atonic final e of this kind is counted in the metre: these are a lée chiere, ove lée (liée) chiere, du lée port[C], Mir. 5179, 15518, 17122, 28337, and Et ta pensée celestine 29390. In the last the author perhaps wrote penseie, as in 14404, since the condition under which the sound of this -e survived in Anglo-Norman was usually through the introduction of a parasitic i-sound, which acted as a barrier to prevent the absorption of the final vowel[D]. So Mir. 10117 we have a word pareies, in rhyme with the substantives pareies (walls), veies, &c., which I take to be for parées, fem. plur. of the participle, and in the same stanza journeies, a modification of journées: cp. valeie, journeie, in Middle English.
I proceed to note such further points of the Phonology as seem to be of interest.
i. French e, ie, from Lat. a, ĕ, in tonic syllables.
The French diphthong ie, from Lat. a under the influence of preceding sound and from ĕ, was gradually reduced in Anglo-Norman to ẹ (i.e. close e). Thus, while in the earliest writers ie is usually distinguished in rhyme from e, those of the thirteenth century no longer keep them apart. In the Vie de S. Auban and the writings of Frère Angier the distinction between verbs in -er and those in -ier has been, at least to a great extent, lost: infinitives and participles, &c., such as enseign(i)er, bris(i)er, eshauc(i)er, mang(i)er, jug(i)é, less(i)é, dresc(i)é, sach(i)ez, and substantives such as cong(i)é, pecch(i)é, rhyme with those which have the (French) termination, -er, -é, -ez. At the same time the noun termination -ier comes to be frequently written -er, as in aumosner, chevaler, dener, seculer, &c. (beside aumosnier, chevalier, denier, seculier), and words which had ie in the stem were often written with e, as bref, chef, cher, pere (petram), sé, though the other forms brief, chief, chier, piere, sié, still continued to be used as alternatives in spelling[E]. It is certain that in the fourteenth century no practical distinction was made between the two classes of verbs that have been indicated: whether written -ier, -ié, -iez, or -er, -é, -ez, the verbal endings of which we have spoken rhymed freely with one another and with the similar parts of all verbs of the first conjugation, and the infinitives and past participles of all first-conjugation verbs rhymed with substantives ending in -(i)er, -(i)é, -é: thus pecché, enamouré, commencé, bestialité, Mir. 16 ff., resemblé, chargé, sainteté, 1349, coroucié, piée, degré, 5341, are good sets of rhymes, and so also are deliter, seculer, plenier, 27 ff., coroucer, parler, mestier, seculier, considerer, 649 ff., and leger, archer, amender, comparer, 2833 ff. The case is the same with words which have the original (French) ie in the stem, but notwithstanding the fact that the diphthong sound must have disappeared, the traditional spelling ie held its ground by the side of the other, and even extended itself to some words which had never had the diphthong sound at all. Thus in the fourteenth century, and noticeably in Gower’s works, we meet with such forms as clier, clief, mier (mare), miere (matrem), piere (patrem), pier (parem), prophiete, tiel, &c., beside the normal forms cler, clef, mer, mere, &c. This phenomenon, which has caused some difficulty, is to be accounted for by the supposition that ie, having lost its value as a diphthong, came to be regarded as a traditional symbol in many cases for long closed e, and such words as rhymed on this sound were apt to become assimilated in spelling with those that originally had ie and partly preserved it; thus tel in rhyme with ciel, fiel, might easily come to be written tiel, as Mir. 6685; clere, pere, rhyming with maniere, adversiere, &c., might be written cliere, piere, as in Mir. 193 ff., merely for the sake of uniformity, and similarly nef when in rhyme with ch(i)ef, relief, &c., sometimes might take the form nief; and finally these spellings might become established independently, at least as alternatives, so that it was indifferent whether labourer, seculer, bier, or labourier, seculier, ber, stood as a rhyme sequence, whether clere, appere was written or cliere, appiere. It may be noted that pere, mere, frere, belonged to this class and were rhymed with ẹ. They are absolutely separated in rhyme from terre, guerre, enquere, affere, contrere, &c. The adjective ending -el rhymes with -iel and often appears as -iel: so in 3733 ff. we have the rhymes mortiel, Michel, fraternel, viel, in 6685 ff., desnaturel, ciel, fiel, espiritiel, and in 14547 ff. celestiel, mortiel, ciel, temporiel, &c. Questions have been raised about the quality of the e in this termination generally[F], but the evidence here is decidedly in favour of ẹ, and the rhymes bel, apell, flaiell, are kept apart from this class. It must be observed however that fel (adj.), spelt also feel, appears in both classes, 4773, 5052. The variation -al, which, as might be expected, is extremely common, is of course from Latin and gives no evidence as to the sound of -el, from which it is quite separate in rhyme. Before a nasal in verbs like vient, tient, ie is regularly retained in writing, and these words and their compounds rhyme among one another and with crient, ghient, nient, fient, &c. Naturally they are separated from the ę of aprent, commencement, sagement, &c. The forms ben, men, ren, which occur for example in the Vie de S. Grégoire for bien, mien, rien, are not found in Gower. Finally it may be noticed that beside fiere, appiere, compiere, from ferir, apparer, &c., we have fere, appere, compere, which in rhyme are as absolutely separated from fere (= faire), terre, requere (inf.), as fiert, piert, quiert, &c., are from apert, overt, pert. More will have to be said on the subject of this ie when we are confronted with Gower’s use of it in English.
ii. French ai in tonic syllables.
(a) ai before a nasal was in Anglo-Norman writing very commonly represented by ei. This is merely a question of spelling apparently, the sound designated being the same in either case. Our author (or his scribe) had a certain preference for uniformity of appearance in each set of rhymes. Thus he gives us first solein, plein, soverein, certein, mein, Evein, in Mir. 73 ff., then vain, grain, main, gain, pain, vilain, 2199 ff.; or again haltaines, paines, acompaines, compaines, restraines, certaines, 603 ff., but peine, constreine, vileine, peine (verb), aleine, procheine, 2029 ff. Sometimes however the two forms of spelling are intermixed, as vein, pain, main, &c., 16467 ff., or meine, humeine, capitaine, 759 ff. Some of the words in the ai series, as pain, gain, compaine, are spelt with ai only, but there are rhyme-sequences in -ain without any of these words included, as 6591 ff., main, prochain, vilain, certain, vain, sain; also words with original French ei, such as peine, constreine, restreines, enseigne, plein (plenus), veine (vena), meinz (minus), atteins, feinte, exteinte, enter into the same class. Thus we must conclude that before a nasal these two diphthongs were completely confused. It must be noted that the liquid sound of the nasal in such words as enseigne, plaigne, had been completely lost, but the letter g with which it was associated in French continued to be very generally written, and by the influence of these words g was often introduced without justification into others. Thus we have the rhymes ordeigne, meine, semeigne (= semaine), desdeigne, peine, 2318 ff.; peigne (= peine), compleigne, pleine, meine, halteigne, atteigne, in Bal. iii; while in gaign, bargaign, rhyming with grain, prochain, &c., g is omitted at pleasure. Evidently in the Anglo-Norman of this period it had no phonetic value.
(b) When not before a nasal, ai and ei do not interchange freely in this manner. Before l, ll, it is true, ei has a tendency to become ai, as in conseil consail (also consal), consei(l)ler consail(l)er, merveille mervaille; also we have contrefeite, souffreite, 6305 ff., eie for aie (avoir), eir for air 13867, gleyve 14072, meistre 24714, eide (eyde) for aide in the rubric headings, paleis (palois) for palais, and vois (representing veis) sometimes for vais (vado); also in ante-tonic syllables, cheitif, eiant, eysil, leiter, meisoun, meistrie, oreisoun, peisible, pleisir, seisine, veneisoun, beside chaitif, allaiter, maisoun, maistrie, paisible, plaisir, saisine. This change is much less frequent, especially in tonic syllables, than in some earlier texts, e.g. the Vie de S. Grégoire.
The Anglo-Norman reduction of the diphthong ai and sometimes ei to e, especially before r and s, still subsists in certain words, though the Continental French spelling is found by its side. Thus we have fere, affere, forsfere, mesfere, plere, trere, attrere, retrere, tere, debonere, contrere, rhyming with terre, guerre, quer(r)e, &c.; also mestre, nestre, pestre, rhyming with estre, prestre; and pes, fes (fascem), fetz, mes, jammes, reles(s), in rhyme with ades, pres, apres, deces(s), Moÿses, dess, mess, confess. (This series of rhymes, which has ę, is of course kept distinct from that which includes the terminations -és (-ez) in participles, &c., and such words as ées, dées, lées, prées, asses, malfés, &c., which all have ẹ.) We find also ese (with the alternative forms aese, ease, as well as aise), frel, ele, megre, plee (plai, plait), trete, vinegre, and in ante-tonic syllables appeser, enchesoun, esance, feture, lesser, mesoun, mestrie, phesant, pleder, plesance, plesir, sesoun, tresoun, treter. In the case of many of these words the form with ai is also used by our author, but the two modes of spelling are kept apart in rhymes (except l. 18349 ff., where we have tere, terre, aquerre, faire, mesfaire), so that affere, attrere, rhyme with terre, but affaire, attraire, with haire, esclaire, adversaire, and, while jammes is linked with apres, ades, pes, we find jammais written when the rhyme is with essais, lais, paix. This may be only due to the desire for uniformity in spelling, but there is some reason to think that it indicates in these words an alternative pronunciation.
It is to be observed that on the neutral ground of e some words with original ei meet those of which we have been speaking, in which ai was reduced to e in rather early Anglo-Norman times. Thus we have crere rhyming with terre, affere, &c.; crestre, acrestre, descrestre, with estre, nestre; and encres, descres, malves, with apres, pes. These forms, which have descended to our author from his predecessors, are used by him side by side with the (later) French forms croire, croistre, acroistre, descroistre, encrois, descrois, and these alternative forms must undoubtedly be separated from the others in sound as well as in spelling. This being so, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the case was the same with the ai words, and that in adopting the Continental French forms side by side with the others the writer was bringing in also the French diphthong sound, retaining however the traditional Anglo-Norman pronunciation in both these classes of words where it happened to be more convenient or to suit his taste better.
(c) The French terminations -aire and -oire, from Lat. -arius, -oria, -orius, are employed by Gower both in his French and English works in their Continental forms, the older Anglo-Norman -arie, -orie, which passed into English, being hardly found in his writings. The following are some of the words in question, most of which occur in the Confessio Amantis in the same form: adversaire, contraire (contrere), doaire, essamplaire, lettuaire, necessaire, saintuaire; consistoire, Gregoire, histoire, memoire, purgatoire, victoire. We have however exceptionally rectorie 16136, accented to rhyme with simonye, and also (from Lat. -erium) misterie (by the side of misteire) accented on the ante-penultimate.
iii. French ei not before a nasal.
This diphthong, which appears usually as ei in the Anglo-Norman texts of the thirteenth century, is here regularly represented by oi and levelled, as in the French of the Continent, with original French oi. In its relations to e and ai it has already been spoken of; at present we merely note that the later French form is adopted by our author with some few exceptions both in stems and flexion. Isolated exceptions are deis (debes) for dois, heir by the side of hoir, lampreie, malveis (also malvois, malves), teille, and vei (vide) from veoir; also in verbs of the -ceivre class and in derivatives from them it is often retained, as resceivre (but reçoit, resçoivre), receipte, conceipt (also conçoit), conceive, deceite, &c. Under the influence of rhyme we have in 6301 ff. espleite, estreite, coveite, rhyming with deceite, contrefeite, souffreite, and 10117 ff. pareies (parietes), veies, preies, moneies rhyming with pareies and journeies (for parées, journées); but elsewhere the forms are exploite, estroite, covoite, voie, proie, monoie, and, in general, Anglo-Norman forms such as mei, rei, fei, treis, Engleis, have disappeared before the French moi, roi, foy, trois, &c.
The terminations of infinitives in -eir have become -oir, except where the form has been reduced to that of the first conjugation; and those of imperfects and conditionals (imperfects reduced all to one form) have regularly oi instead of ei. There is no intermixture of ei and oi inflexions, such as we find in Angier, in the Vie de S. Auban, and in Bozon. In a few isolated instances we have ai for this oi of inflexion, as poait in Mir. 795, solait 10605 &c. (which last seems to be sometimes present rather than imperf.), and volait 13763. Also occasionally in other cases, as curtais, 5568, in rhyme with mais, mesfais, &c., elsewhere curtois, array, 18964, rhyming with nay, essay, usually arroy, and desplaie, manaie, Bal. xxvii. 2, elsewhere desploie, manoie. There is however nothing like that wholesale use of ai for ei (oi) which is especially characteristic of Langtoft, who besides the inflexion in -ait has (for example) may, cray, ray, for moi, croy, roi.
In ante-tonic syllables we may note the ei of beneiçoun, freidure, leisir (usually loisir), Malveisie, peitrine (also poitrine), veisin (beside voisin), veisdye, &c., and ai in arraier, braier.
iv. The diphthong oe (ue) is written in a good many words, but it may be doubted whether it had really the pronunciation of a diphthong. The following list contains most of the words in which it is found in the tonic syllable: avoec, boef, coecs (coquus), coer, controeve, demoert, doel, joefne, moeble, moel, moet moeve (from movoir), moers moert moerge (from morir), noeces, noef, noet, oef, oel, oeps, oevre, poeple, poes poet, proesme, soe, soeffre, soen, troeffe, troeve, voegle, voes (also voels), voet (also voelt). In the case of many of these there are variations of form to o, u, ue, or ui; thus we have cuer (the usual form in the Mirour), controve, jofne, noces, owes (dissyll. as plur. of oef, also oefs, oes), ovre, pueple, pus (also puiss), puet (also poot), prosme, sue, truffe, trove, volt, and (before an original guttural) nuit, oill (oculum). Two of these words, cuer and oel, occur in rhyme, and they both rhyme with ẹ: mortiel, oel, fraternel, viel, 3733 ff., and cuer, curer, primer, 13129 ff., by which it would appear that in them at least the diphthong sound had been lost: cp. suef in rhyme with chief, relief, Bal. L. 2. The same rhyming of cuer (quer) occurs in the Vie de S. Auban, in Langtoft and in Bozon (see M. Meyer’s introduction to Bozon’s Contes Moralizés). With avoec we also find aveoc and avec, veot occurs once for voet, and illeoc, illeoque(s), are the forms used from Lat. illuc.
v. French ọ (eu, ou) from Latin ō (not before nasal).
The only cases that I propose to speak of here are the terminations of substantives and adjectives corresponding to the Latin -orem, -osus, or in imitation of these forms. Our author has here regularly ou; there is hardly a trace of the older forms in -or, -ur, and -os, -us, and surprisingly few accommodated to the Continental -eur and -eus. The following are most of the words of this class which occur with the -eur, -eus, endings: pescheur (piscatorem), fleur, greigneur, honeur, meilleur, seigneur (usually flour, greignour, honour, meillour, seignour); boscheus, honteus (usually hontous), joyeuse (fem.) but joyous (masc.), oiceus (oiseus), perceus, piteus (more often pitous). We have also blasphemus, 2450, which may be meant for blasphemous, and prodegus, 8425 ff., which is perhaps merely the Latin word ‘prodigus.’ Otherwise the terminations are regularly -our, -ous, except where words in -our vary to -ure, as chalure, for the sake of rhyme. The following are some of them, and it will be seen that those which passed into the literary English of the fourteenth century for the most part appeared there with the same forms of spelling as they have here. Indeed not a few, especially of the -ous class, have continued unchanged down to the present day.
In -our: ardour, blanchour, brocour, chalour (also chalure), colour, combatour, confessour, conquerour, correctour, currour, desirour, despisour, devorour, dolour, emperour (also empereour, emperere), executour, favour, gouvernour, guerreiour, hisdour, honour, irrour, labour, langour, lecchour (also lecchier), liquour, mockeour, palour, pastour, persecutour, portour, possessour, pourchaçour (also pourchacier), priour, procurour (also procurier), professour, proverbiour (-ier, -er), questour (-ier), rancour, robbeour, seignour, senatour, supplantour, terrour, tricheour, valour, ven(e)our, venqueour, vigour, visitour.
In -ous: amorous, averous, bataillous, bountevous, busoignous, chivalerous, contagious, coragous, corouçous, covoitous, dangerous, despitous, dolourous, enginous, envious, famous, fructuous, glorious, gracious, grevous, irrous, joyous, laborious, leccherous, litigious, malencolious, merdous, merveillous, orguillous, perilous, pitous, precious, presumptuous, ruinous, solicitous, tricherous, venimous, vergondous, vertuous, vicious, victorious, viscous.
vi. French ọ before nasal, Latin ō, ŏ, u.
(a) Except where it is final, on usually remains, whether followed by a dental or not. The tendency towards ou, which produced the modern English amount, account, abound, profound, announce, &c., is here very slightly visible. Once blounde occurs, in rhyme with monde, confonde, &c., and we have also rounge 2886 (runge 3450) and sounge 5604 (also ronge, songe), and in ante-tonic syllables bounté, bountevous, nouncier (also noncier), plunger (also plonger), sounger, and words compounded with noun, as nounsage, nouncertein, &c. On the other hand seconde, faconde, monde, abonde, rebonde, responde, 1201 ff., monde (adj.), bonde, redonde, 4048 ff., suronde, confonde, 8199 ff., monde, onde, confonde, 10838 ff., amonte, honte, accompte, conte, surmonte, demonte, 1501 ff. The -ount termination in verbal inflexion, which is common in Bozon, ount, sount, fount, dirrount, &c., is not found here except in the Table of Contents.
(b) When a word ends with the nasal, -on is usually developed into -oun. In Gower’s French a large proportion of the words with this ending have both forms (assuming always that the abbreviation -o̅n̅ is to be read -oun, a point which will be discussed hereafter), but -oun is the more usual, especially perhaps in rhyme. The older Anglo-Norman -un has completely disappeared. Words in -oun and -on rhyme freely with one another, but the tendency is towards uniformity, and at the same time there is apparently no rhyme sequence on the ending -on alone. The words with which we have to deal are, first, that large class of common substantives with terminations from Lat. -onem; secondly, a few outlandish proper names, e.g. Salomon, Simon, Pharaon, Pigmalion, with which we may class occasional verbal inflexions as lison, soion; and, thirdly, a certain number of other words, chiefly monosyllables, as bo(u)n, doun, mo(u)n, no(u)n (= non), noun (= nom), reboun, renoun, so(u)n (pron.), soun (subst.), to(u)n, also respoun (imperative). In the first and third class -oun is decidedly preferred, but in the second we regularly find -on, and it is chiefly when words of this class occur in the rhyme that variations in the others are found in this position. Thus l. 409 ff. we have the rhymes noun, temptacioun, soun, resoun, baroun, garisoun; 689 ff. contemplacioun, tribulacioun, temptacioun, collacioun, delectacioun, elacioun; so also in 1525 ff., and even when Salomon comes in at ll. 1597 and 1669, all the other rhymes of these stanzas are -oun: presumpcioun, respoun, resoun, noun, doun, &c. At 2401 however we have maison, noun, contradiccioun, lison; 2787 Salomon, leçon, enchesoun, resoun; 4069 noun, tençon, compaignoun, feloun, Catoun, confessioun; and similarly façon 6108, religion (with lison) 7922, lison, lion, giroun, enviroun, leçon, noun, 16801 ff. (yet lisoun is also found, 24526). On the whole, so far as the rhymes of the Mirour are concerned, the conclusion must be that the uniformity is broken chiefly by the influence of those words which have been noted as written always, or almost always, with -on. In the Balades and Traitié, however, the two terminations are more equally balanced; for example in Bal. xxxv we find convocacion, compaignon, comparison, regioun, noun, supplicacion, eleccion, condicioun, &c., without any word of the class referred to, and Traitié xii has four rhymes in -on against two in -oun. On the whole I am disposed to think that it is merely a question of spelling, and it must be remembered that in the MSS. -oun is very rarely written out in full, so that the difference between the two forms is very slight even in appearance.
vii. The Central-French u was apparently identified in sound with eu, and in some cases not distinguished from ui. The evidence of rhymes seems quite clear and consistent on this point. Such sequences as the following occur repeatedly: abatu, pourveu, deçu, lieu, perdu, salu, 315 ff.; truis, perduz, Hebrus, us, jus, conclus, 1657 ff.; hebreu, feru, eeu, tenu, neveu, rendu, 4933 ff.; plus, lieus, perdus, conçuz, huiss, truis, 6723 ff.; fu, lu (for lieu), offendu, dieu, in Bal. xviii; and with the ending -ure, -eure: demeure, l’eure, nature, verdure, desseure, mesure, 937 ff.; painture, demesure, aventure, jure, hure, controveure, 1947 ff., &c. This being so, we cannot be surprised at such forms as hebru for hebreu, lu for lieu, fu for feu, hure, demure, plure, for the Continental French heure, demeure, pleure, or at the substitutions of u for ui, or ui for u (eu), in aparçut aparçuit, huiss huss, plus pluis, pertuis pertus, puiss pus, construire construre, destruire destrure, estruis estrus, truis trieus. As regards the latter changes we may compare the various spellings of fruit, bruit, suit, eschuie, suie[G], in Middle English. It should be mentioned however that luy rhymes regularly with -i (-y), as chery, servi, dy. In some cases also ui interchanges with oi, as in buiste beside boiste, enpuisonner beside poisoun. This is often found in early Anglo-Norman and is exemplified in M.E. buyle boyle, fuysoun foysoun, destroye destruien. On this change and on that between ui and u in Anglo-Norman see Koschwitz on the Voyage de Charlemagne, pp. 39, 40.
viii. aun occurs occasionally for an final or before a consonant e.g. in aun (annum) Mir. 6621, Bal. xxiii. 2, saunté(e) Mir. 2522, Ded. ii. 5, &c., dauncer 17610, paunce 8542, fiaunce, sufficaunce, Bal. iv, governaunce, fraunchise, fraunchement, in the Table of Contents; but much more usually not, as Alisandre, an (1932), avant, dance (1697), danger, danter, France, change, fiance (Bal. xiii. &c.), lance, lande, pance (5522 &c.), sergant, sufficance (1738 &c.), vante, and in general the words in -ance.
ix. Contraction or suppression of atonic vowels takes place in certain cases besides that of the termination -ée, which has already been discussed.
(a) When atonic e and another vowel or diphthong come together in a word they are usually contracted, as in asseurer, commeu, eust, receu, veu (2387), vir (for veïr), Beemoth, beneuré, benoit, deesce, emperour, mirour, obeissance, rançon, seur, &c., but in many instances contraction does not take place, as cheeu, eeu, veeu, veïr, veoir, empereour (23624), leësce, mireour (23551), tricheour, venqueour, meëment, &c.
(b) In some words with -ie termination the accent falls on the antepenultimate, and the i which follows the tonic syllable is regularly slurred in the metre and sometimes not written. Such words are accidie, contumelie, familie, misterie, perjurie, pluvie, remedie, vituperie, and occasionally a verb, as encordie.
The following are examples of their metrical treatment:—
‘Des queux l’un Vituperie ad noun,’ 2967;
‘Et sa familie et sa maisoun,’ 3916;
‘Car pluvie doit le vent suïr,’ 4182;
‘Maint contumelie irrous atteint,’ 4312;
‘Perjurie, q’ad sa foy perdu,’ 6409;
‘Qui pour mes biens m’encordie et lie,’ 6958, &c.
Several of these words are also written with the ending -e for -ie, as accide, famile, encorde.
Such words are similarly treated in Gower’s English lines, e.g.
‘And ek the god Mercurie also’ (Conf. Am. i. 422);
cp. Chaucer’s usual treatment of words like victorie, glorie, which are not used in that form by Gower.
(c) In come (comme), sicome, and ove the final e never counts as a syllable in the metre. They are sometimes written com and ou. In another word, ore, the syllable is often slurred, as in Mir. 37, 1775, 3897, &c., but sometimes sounded, as 4737, 11377, Bal. xxviii. 1. So perhaps also dame in Mir. 6733, 13514, 16579, and Bal. ii. 3, xix. 3, xx. 2, &c.
x. The insertion of a parasitic e in connexion with r, and especially between v and r, is a recognized feature of the Anglo-Norman dialect. Examples of this in our texts are avera, devera, saveroit, coverir, deliverer, overir, vivere, livere, oevere, overage, povere, yvere, &c. As a rule this e is not sounded as a syllable in the metre, and in most of these words there is an alternative spelling, e.g. avra, savra, covrir, delivrer, ovrir, vivre, oevre, &c., but it is not necessary to reduce them to this wherever the e is mute. Less usually the syllable counts in the verse, e.g. overaigne in Mir. 3371, overage 8914, enyverer 16448, avera 18532, deveroit, beveroit in 20702 ff. viverai, vivera in Bal. iv.* 1, Mir. 3879, descoverir in Bal. ix. 1.
xi. About the consonants not much need be said.
(a) Initial c before a varies in some words with ch, as caccher, caitif, camele, camp, carboun, castell, catell, by the side of chacer, chaitif, chameal, champ, charboun, chastel, chateaux; cp. acater, achater. Before e, i, we find sometimes an interchange of c and s, as in ce for se in Mir. 1147, Bal. xviii. 3; c’il for s’il in Mir. 799 &c.; and, on the other hand, sent for cent in Bal. xli. 2, si for ci in the title of the Cinkante Balades, sil for cil in Bal. xlii. 3, sercher for cercher in Mir. 712 &c., also s for sc in septre, sintille, and sc for s in scilence.
(b) We find often qant, qe, qelle, qanqe, &c., for quant, que, &c., and, on the other hand, the spelling quar for the more usual car. In words like guaign, guaire, guaite, guarant, guarde, guarir, guaster, u is very frequently omitted before a, also occasionally before other vowels, as gile, 21394, for guile: w is used in warder, rewarder, way.
(c) The doubling of single consonants, especially l, m, n, p, s, is frequent and seems to have no phonetic significance. Especially it is to be observed that ss for s at the end of a word makes no difference to the quantity or quality of the syllable, thus, whether the word be deces or decess, reles or reless, engres or engress, bas or bass, las or lass, huiss or huis, the pronunciation and the rhyme are the same. The final s was sounded in both cases, and not more when double than when single. The doubling of r in futures and conditionals, as serray, dirray, &c., belongs to the Norman dialect.
(d) The final s of inflexion is regularly replaced by z after a dental, as courtz, desfaitz, ditz, excellentz, fitz, fortz, regentz, seintz, and frequently in past participles of verbs (where there is an original dental), as perturbez, enfanteez, rejoïz, perduz; but also elsewhere, especially with the termination -able, as refusablez, delitablez, in rhyme with acceptables. Sometimes however a dental drops out before s, as in apers, desfais, dis, dolens, presens. In all these cases however the difference is one of spelling only.
(e) Lastly, notice may be directed to the mute consonants either surviving in phonetic change or introduced into the spelling in imitation of the Latin form. The fourteenth century was a time when French writers and copyists were especially prone to the vice of etymological spelling, and many forms both in French and English which have been supposed to be of later date may be traced to this period. I shall point out some instances, etymological and other, most of which occur in rhyme.
Thus b is mute in doubte (also doute) rhyming with boute, and also in debte beside dette, soubdeinement beside soudeinement, &c.:
p in temps, accompte, corps, hanaps, descript, rhyming with sens, honte, tors, pas, dit, and in deceipte beside deceite;
d before s in ribalds rhyming with vassals;
t before z in such words as fortz, courtz, certz, overtz, fitz, ditz, aletz, decretz, rhyming with tors, destours, vers, envers, sis, dignités, ées;
s in such forms as dist, promist, quidasmes, &c., in rhyme with esjoït, espirit, dames; possibly however the 3 pers. sing. pret. of these verbs had an alternative pronunciation in which s was sounded, for they several times occur in rhyme with Crist, and then are always written -ist, whereas at other times they vary this freely with -it.
g in words like baraign, pleigne, soveraigne, rhyming with gain, peine;
c before s in clercs (also clers) rhyming with vers;
l in almes, ascoulte, moult, which rhyme with fames, route, trestout and in oultrage, estoultie, beside outrage, estoutie.
On the other hand v is sounded in the occasional form escrivre, the word being rhymed with vivre, in Mir. 6480.
As regards the Vocabulary, I propose to note a few points which are of interest with reference chiefly to English Etymology, and for the rest the reader is referred to the Glossary.
A certain number of words will be found, in addition to those already cited in the remarks on Phonology, § v, which appear in the French of our texts precisely as they stand in modern English, e.g. able, annoy, archer, carpenter, claret, courser, dean, draper, ease, fee, haste, host, mace, mess, noise, soldier, suet, treacle, truant, &c., not to mention ‘mots savants’ such as abject, absent, official, parable, and so on.
The doubling of consonants in accordance with Latin spelling in accepter, accord, accuser, commander, commun, &c., is already common in these texts and belongs to an earlier stage of Middle English than is usually supposed.
ambicioun: note the etymological meaning of this word in the Mirour.
appetiter: Chaucer’s verb should be referred directly to this French verb, and not to the English subst. appetit.
assalt: usually assaut in 14th cent. French and English.
audit: the English word is probably from this French form, and not directly from Latin: the same remark applies to several other words, as complet, concluder, curet, destitut, elat, &c.
avouer: in the sense of ‘promise.’
begant, beggerie, beguyner, beguinage: see New Eng. Dict. under ‘beg.’ The use of beguinage here as equivalent to beggerie is confirmatory of the Romance etymology suggested for the word: begant seems to presuppose a verb beg(u)er, a shorter form of beguiner; cp. beguard.
braier, M.E. brayen, ‘to bray in a mortar.’ The continental form was breier, Mod. broyer.
brusch: the occurrence of this word in a sense which seems to identify it with brusque should be noted. The modern brusque is commonly said to have been introduced into French from Italy in the 16th century. Caxton however in 1481 has brussly, apparently equivalent to ‘brusquely’; see New Eng. Dict.
buillon, in the sense of ‘mint,’ or ‘melting-house,’ is evidently the same as ‘bullion’ in the Anglo-Norman statutes of Edward III (see New Eng. Dict.). The form which we have here points very clearly to its derivation from the verb builer, ‘boil,’ as against the supposed connexion with ‘bulla.’
chitoun, ‘kitten.’ This is used also in Bozon’s Contes Moralizés. It seems more likely that the M.E. kitoun comes from this form of chatton with hardening of ch to k by the influence of cat, than that it is an English ‘kit’ with a French suffix.
Civile, i.e. ‘civil law’: cp. the use of the word as a name in Piers Plowman.
eneauer, ‘to wet,’ supplies perhaps an etymology for the word enewing or ennuyng used by Lydgate and others as a term of painting, to indicate the laying on or gradation of tints in water-colour, and illustrates the later Anglo-French words enewer, enewage, used apparently of shrinking cloth by wetting; see Godefroy (who however leaves them unexplained).
flaket, the same as the M.E. flakett, flacket (French flaschet). The form flaquet is assumed as a Northern French word by the New Eng. Dict., but not cited as occurring.
leisour, as a variation of loisir, leisir.
lusard: cp. Piers Plowman, B. xviii. 335.
menal, meynal, adj. in the sense of ‘subject.’
nice: note the development of sense from ‘foolish,’ Mir. 1331, 7673, to ‘foolishly scrupulous,’ 24858, and thence to ‘delicate,’ ‘pleasant,’ 264, 979.
papir, the same form that we find in the English of Chaucer and Gower.
parlesie, M.E. parlesie, palesie.
perjurie, a variation of perjure, which established itself in English.
phesant: early M.E. fesaun, Chaucer fesaunt.
philosophre, as in M.E., beside philosophe.
queinte, a(c)queintance: the forms which correspond to those used in English; less usually quointe, aquointance.
reverie, ‘revelry,’ which suggests the connexion of the English word with rêver, rather than with reveler from ‘rebellare.’ However, revel and reveller occur also in our texts.
reviler. Skeat, Etym. Dict., says ‘there is no word reviler or viler in French.’ Both are used in the Mirour.
rewarder, rewardie, rewardise, in the sense of the English ‘reward.’
sercher, Eng. ‘search,’ the more usual form for cercher.
somonce: this is the form required to account for the M.E. somouns, ‘summons.’
traicier, traiçour, names given (in England) to those who made it their business to pack juries.
trote, used for ‘old woman’ in an uncomplimentary sense.
université, ‘community.’
voiage (not viage): this form is therefore of the 14th century.