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.