iv. Orthography and Phonology.—In the remarks upon Gower’s language which here follow there is no systematic completeness. Attention is called to such points as seem to be important or interesting, reference being made especially to the language of Chaucer, as dealt with in B. ten Brink’s Chaucers Sprache und Verskunst (second edition, 1899). It is necessary perhaps to remark here upon a difference of procedure which distinguishes this investigation from those which have for their object the text of Chaucer or of other writers whose work is handed down to us in manuscripts which do not proceed from the author himself. In such cases we have first to ascertain what the author actually wrote, before we can draw any valid conclusions about the laws of his language. It may even be necessary to restrict the discussion to such forms as are authenticated by rhyme; but when we are compelled to do this, we must remember that we are accepting a rather dangerous limitation. The conclusions drawn from the rhyme-words of a Middle English author will probably not be precisely applicable to his language in general. The sphere of our investigations will be that in which the licentious and exceptional is most likely to be found. If he has any tendency to borrow from other dialects than his own or to use irregular forms, this tendency will be most seen in his rhymes, for it will probably be the exigencies of rhyme which suggest the variation. Chaucer repeatedly uses ‘here,’ in the sense of the modern ‘her,’ to rhyme with such words as ‘bere,’ ‘spere,’ but we should certainly not be justified in concluding that this and not ‘hire’ was the normal form of his language. Similarly in the case of Gower by examination of his rhymes alone we might be led to many very doubtful results. For example, we should gather that he almost always used the form sinne rather than senne, wile (verb) and not wole or wol, axe and not aske, sek (adj.) and never sik, hond and never hand, couthe and never coude, sente (pret.) rather than sende, the adverb ending -ly in preference to -liche or -lich. In these cases and in many others we might easily be misled, the forms of these words as used in rhyme being determined chiefly by the comparative frequency of the various rhyme-syllables. Most of the conclusions above mentioned, and others like them, have in fact been arrived at in a paper by K. Fahrenberg, published in the Archiv für die neueren Sprachen, vol. 89. The author of this paper, having only Pauli’s text before him, very properly confines himself to an examination of the rhymes, and within these limits most of his results are sound enough; but it would be very unsafe to treat them as generally applicable to the language of Gower. In our case it must be understood that the Fairfax manuscript is regarded (for reasons which will afterwards be stated) as a practically accurate reproduction of the author’s original text, and consequently the occurrence of a particular form in rhyme is not held necessarily to be of any special significance.
Orthography.—This being premised, we shall proceed to note first some points which call for attention in the orthography of the text.
In describing the British Museum MS. Harl. 3869, Pauli takes occasion to observe: ‘This copy is very remarkable on account of its orthography, which has been carried through almost rigorously according to simple and reasonable principles.’ This system he appears to attribute to the copyist of the manuscript in question, but it is in fact that of the author, the text being copied very faithfully from the Fairfax manuscript itself. Pauli appears to have been repelled by the outward appearance of this ‘small stout folio’ with its rather untidy writing. He did not take the trouble to examine the Oxford copies; but he seems to have perceived that its orthography was the same as that of the Stafford manuscript, and this should have enlightened him. In fact, if instead of taking Berthelette as his basis, he had simply printed the text of the Harleian volume, there would hardly have been need of another edition.
The orthography of the Fairfax text, first hand, confirmed as it is in almost every particular by that of the Stafford manuscript, and supported also by the testimony of others, more especially of MS. Bodley 902, may be assumed to be that of the author; and it is well worthy of our attention, for he evidently regarded exactness and consistency in spelling as a matter of some importance.
We may observe in the first place that it was not Gower’s practice to mark vowel-length by doubling the vowel. Naturally there are some MSS. in which this is occasionally found, and in particular the third hand of A gives caas, paas, glaade, maade, saake, waas, bee, breeþ, soo, aroos, moore, schoon, ooþer, toold, &c. with considerable frequency, while very many MSS. have book, look, took, oon, heere, mateere, and some other forms of the same kind; but this is not in accordance with the author’s rule. In the Fairfax MS. the cases of doubled vowel are only occasional, except in the instance of good, which is thus regularly distinguished from god.
Of oo there are very few cases except good. We have oon about three times for on, and blood, brood, cooste, do (=doe), foode, hool, schoo, too (=toe), woot, in isolated instances. The doubling of e is more frequent, as beere, cheeke, cleene, dee (pl. dees), degree, eem, eer, fee, feede, feer, feere, feet, greene, meene, meete, pees, queene, scheete, see (subst.), seene, slee, spreede, thee, tree, weer, weere, wreeche, ȝee, ȝeer, and a few more. Most of the above words, however, and in general all others, are written usually with a single vowel, and we have quite regularly (for example) ded, dede, drem, ek, fend, fre, gret, hed, her (=hair), lef, red, slep, bok, bon, brod, fol, gon, hot, lok, non, schon, sone (soon), tok, wok, and so on. Where there is variation of spelling in this respect, it is not felt to be a matter which concerns the rhyme; for we have weer: pouer, pees: reles, sene: meene, there: feere, good: stod, fode: goode, do: schoo, &c., though sometimes the spelling of the rhyme-words is evidently brought into harmony, as meene: Almeene, ii. 2465 f., beere: weere, iv. 1323 f., brood: good, v. 4375 f., goode: foode, vii. 519 f. In a few cases however a phonetic distinction seems to be intended, as when we find eet as preterite of ete, and beere (also bere) pret. plur. of beren.
Maii (the month) is regularly written with ii, but rhymes with mai, gay, &c.
The doubling of final consonants, apparently to indicate vowel shortness, is more common, as in all, bladd, charr, hadd, happ, madd, bedd, fedd, fett, spedd, bitt, bridd, chidd, godd, rodd, beside al, char, had, hap, mad, bed, fet, &c.
The doubling of s in a final tone syllable seems to have no such significance, as in Achilles: press, iv. 2161 f., but Ulixes: pres, iv. 147 f., so natheles: encress, pes: encress, in all of which the vowel must be long.
One of the most noteworthy points of the orthography is the frequent use of ie in tonic syllables for close ē. This appears in French words such as achieve, appiere, chief, chiere, clier, grieve, matiere, messagier, pier, &c. (also in many of these cases e, as chere, cler, matere), but it is very commonly used also in words of English origin and seems invariably to be associated with the close sound of the vowel. Thus we have hiede, spriede, lief (but levere), sieke, diel, stiel, whiel, dieme, sieme, diere, fiere (= company), hiere (adv.), hiere (verb), liere, stiere, and others, which have in most cases the alternative spelling with e, as hede, sprede, seke, del, stel, whel, deme, seme, &c., but in all of which the vowel has the close sound.