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 theMirour de l’Ommeprinted in this volume with our author’s earliest principal work, commonly known asSpeculum Meditantis, but named originallySpeculum 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 hardlybe 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 theMirour de l’Ommewith such works as theSpeculum Vitaeor theManuel 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 submittedTroilusto his judgement, andthough he may have been indulging his sense of humour in making Gower one of the correctors of his version of that—

‘gesteDe Troÿlus et de la belleCreseide,’

‘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 theSpeculum Meditantisto be small, the case is quite different with regard to theBalades, 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 theSpeculum Meditantisbelongs, 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, ‘indesperaunce, that is in unhope and in unbileave,’ ‘twomanere 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 theApocalypseand theDescente de Saint Paulmake 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 theManuel des Pechiezwith those of thePrick of Consciencewe 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 suntTrestuz li biens ki al mund sunt,Deu le pere et deu le fizEt deu le seint esperiz,Persones treis en trinitéE un sul deu en unité,Sanz fin et sanz comencement,’ &c.

‘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 ofThe Owl and the Nightingalein 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 writesverse 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 theBalades[B]we have ‘chosehumein’ xxiv. 3, but ‘toute autre chose estveine’ xxxiii. 2, ‘ma fortuneestassis’ ix. 5, ‘la fortune estfaili’ xx. 3, ‘corpshumeine’ xiv. 1, ‘l’estée vientflori’ ii. 1, ‘l’estée bealflori’ xx. 2, but ‘La cliere estée’ xxxii. 2, and the author says ‘ce(ceo) lettre’ (ii. 4, iii. 4), or ‘cestelettre’ (xv. 4), according as it suits his metre. Similarly in theMirourl. 92 ff.,

‘Siq’en apres de celle issue,Que de leur corps serroitestrait,Soit restoré q’estoitperdue’ &c.,

‘Siq’en apres de celle issue,

Que de leur corps serroitestrait,

Soit restoré q’estoitperdue’ &c.,

forestraite,perdu, l. 587honyforhonie, 719 ‘la Charhumein,’ 911replenisforreplenies, 1096 ‘deinz son cuermaliciouse.’ From the use ofdu,auby 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 prepositionsde,à; and such forms ascelestial, inBal. 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 terminationsé,éewill 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 ofs.’ 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 thesof 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. InBal. Ded.i. 3 he describes himself as

‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestoutvos soubgitz,’

but in rhyme with this the same form of inflexion stands for the plural subject, ‘u sont lesditz floriz,’ and in xxvi. 1 he gives us nearly the same expression, ‘q’est tout vostresoubgit,’ withoutthe inflexion. So in iv. 3 we have ‘cometes loials amis’ (sing. nom.), but in the very same balade ‘ton amiserrai,’ while inTrait.iii. 3 we have the further development ofsin the oblique case of the singular, ‘Loiale amie avoecloials amis.’ InBal.xviii. 1menuis apparently fem. pl. formenues, whileavenu, rhyming with it, is nom. sing. masc.; but so also areconuz,retenuz,venuz, in xxxix, whileveeuzis sing. object., and in the phrase ‘tout bien sontcontenuz’ there is a combination of the uninflected with the inflected form in the plural of the subject. Similarly in theMirourwe haveprincipals,desloyals, ll. 63, 70, as nom. sing., and sogovernals,desloyals627, 630, butespirital709,principal,Emperial, 961 ff., are forms used elsewhere for the same. Again as nom. sing. we haverejoïz462,ruez,honourez,malurez544 ff., &c., and as nom. plur.enamouré17,retorné792,marié(f) 1010,née1017,maluré1128,il25064; but alsoenamouré220,privé496,mené785, &c., as nom. singular, andperturbez,tuez, 3639 ff.,travaillez,abandonnez, 5130 ff., as nom. plural: ‘ce distly sage’ 1586, but ‘il estnounsages’ 1754, and ‘Ly sagesdist’ 3925,ly soverein76, butly capiteins4556, and so on. We also note occasionally forms like that cited above from theTraitié, where thes(orz) of the termination has no grammatical justification at all; e.g.enginez552,confondus1904, ‘fort ethalteins’ (obj.) 13024, cp.offenduz,Bal.xxxix. 2, and cases where the rules which properly apply to masculine nouns only are extended to feminines, as inperdice(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 findlison(lisoun) repeatedly in rhyme, and occasionally other similar forms, assoion18480. The 1st pers. sing. of the present tense of several strong verbs is inflected with or withoutsat pleasure: thus fromdirewe havedi,dy, as well asdis;fairegivesfaiorfais; by the side ofsuis(sum),suiorsuyis frequently found; and similarly we havecroy,say,voi. In the same part of first-conjugation verbs the atonic finaleis often dropped, aspri,appell,mir,m’esmai,suppli. In the third person singular ofthe preterite ofiverbs there is a variation in the ending between-it(-ist) and-i(-y). Thus in one series of rhymes we havenasquit,s’esjoït(in rhyme withdit, &c.), 268 ff., in anothers’esjoÿ,chery,servi(in rhyme withy), 427 ff.; in one stanzafuÿt,partist, 11416 ff., and in the nextrespondi, 11429; sochaït(chaïst) andchaÿ,obeïtandobeï, &c. It may be doubted also whether such words astesmoignal,surquidance,presumement,bestial(as subst.),relinquir, &c., owe their existence to any better cause than the requirements of rhyme or metre. In introducingent, 11471, for the usualenthe poet has antiquity on his side: on the other hand when he writesarepeatedly in rhyme for the Anglo-Normanad(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 eitherhoureorheure,flourorfleur,crestreorcroistre,crereorcroire; 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-éand-éein 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-éewas 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-éand-éewere 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 inMir.865 ff. we have rhyming togetherdegré,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 substantiveassemblée; and in other stanzas the endings are mixed up anyhow, so that we haveaisnée,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’sFrench verse I can recall only three or four instances where an atonic finaleof this kind is counted in the metre: these area lée chiere,ove lée(liée)chiere,du lée port[C],Mir.5179, 15518, 17122, 28337, andEt ta pensée celestine29390. In the last the author perhaps wrotepenseie, as in 14404, since the condition under which the sound of this-esurvived in Anglo-Norman was usually through the introduction of a parasitici-sound, which acted as a barrier to prevent the absorption of the final vowel[D]. SoMir.10117 we have a wordpareies, in rhyme with the substantivespareies(walls),veies, &c., which I take to be forparées, fem. plur. of the participle, and in the same stanzajourneies, a modification ofjournées: cp.valeie,journeie, in Middle English.

I proceed to note such further points of the Phonology as seem to be of interest.

i. Frenche,ie, from Lat.a,ĕ, in tonic syllables.

The French diphthongie, from Lat.aunder the influence of preceding sound and fromĕ, was gradually reduced in Anglo-Norman toẹ(i.e. closee). Thus, while in the earliest writersieis usually distinguished in rhyme frome, those of the thirteenth century no longer keep them apart. In theVie de S. Aubanand the writings of Frère Angier the distinction between verbs in-erand those in-ierhas been, at least to a great extent, lost: infinitives and participles, &c., such asenseign(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 ascong(i)é,pecch(i)é, rhyme with those which have the (French) termination,-er,-é,-ez. At the same time the noun termination-iercomes to be frequently written-er, as inaumosner,chevaler,dener,seculer, &c. (besideaumosnier,chevalier,denier,seculier), and words which hadiein the stem were often written withe, asbref,chef,cher,pere(petram),sé, though the other formsbrief,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 betweenthe 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: thuspecché,enamouré,commencé,bestialité,Mir.16 ff.,resemblé,chargé,sainteté, 1349,coroucié,piée,degré, 5341, are good sets of rhymes, and so also aredeliter,seculer,plenier, 27 ff.,coroucer,parler,mestier,seculier,considerer, 649 ff., andleger,archer,amender,comparer, 2833 ff. The case is the same with words which have the original (French)iein the stem, but notwithstanding the fact that the diphthong sound must have disappeared, the traditional spellingieheld 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 asclier,clief,mier(mare),miere(matrem),piere(patrem),pier(parem),prophiete,tiel, &c., beside the normal formscler,clef,mer,mere, &c. This phenomenon, which has caused some difficulty, is to be accounted for by the supposition thatie, having lost its value as a diphthong, came to be regarded as a traditional symbol in many cases for long closede, and such words as rhymed on this sound were apt to become assimilated in spelling with those that originally hadieand partly preserved it; thustelin rhyme withciel,fiel, might easily come to be writtentiel, asMir.6685;clere,pere, rhyming withmaniere,adversiere, &c., might be writtencliere,piere, as inMir.193 ff., merely for the sake of uniformity, and similarlynefwhen in rhyme withch(i)ef,relief, &c., sometimes might take the formnief; and finally these spellings might become established independently, at least as alternatives, so that it was indifferent whetherlabourer,seculer,bier, orlabourier,seculier,ber, stood as a rhyme sequence, whetherclere,apperewas written orcliere,appiere. It may be noted thatpere,mere,frere, belonged to this class and were rhymed withẹ. They are absolutely separated in rhyme fromterre,guerre,enquere,affere,contrere, &c. The adjective ending-elrhymes with-ieland often appears as-iel: so in 3733 ff. we have the rhymesmortiel,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 theein this terminationgenerally[F], but the evidence here is decidedly in favour ofẹ, and the rhymesbel,apell,flaiell, are kept apart from this class. It must be observed however thatfel(adj.), spelt alsofeel, 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 likevient,tient,ieis regularly retained in writing, and these words and their compounds rhyme among one another and withcrient,ghient,nient,fient, &c. Naturally they are separated from theęofaprent,commencement,sagement, &c. The formsben,men,ren, which occur for example in theVie de S. Grégoireforbien,mien,rien, are not found in Gower. Finally it may be noticed that besidefiere,appiere,compiere, fromferir,apparer, &c., we havefere,appere,compere, which in rhyme are as absolutely separated fromfere(=faire),terre,requere(inf.), asfiert,piert,quiert, &c., are fromapert,overt,pert. More will have to be said on the subject of thisiewhen we are confronted with Gower’s use of it in English.

ii. Frenchaiin tonic syllables.

(a)aibefore a nasal was in Anglo-Norman writing very commonly represented byei. 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 firstsolein,plein,soverein,certein,mein,Evein, inMir.73 ff., thenvain,grain,main,gain,pain,vilain, 2199 ff.; or againhaltaines,paines,acompaines,compaines,restraines,certaines, 603 ff., butpeine,constreine,vileine,peine(verb),aleine,procheine, 2029 ff. Sometimes however the two forms of spelling are intermixed, asvein,pain,main, &c., 16467 ff., ormeine,humeine,capitaine, 759 ff. Some of the words in theaiseries, aspain,gain,compaine, are spelt withaionly, but there are rhyme-sequences in-ainwithout any of these words included, as 6591 ff.,main,prochain,vilain,certain,vain,sain; also words with original Frenchei, such aspeine,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 asenseigne,plaigne, had been completely lost, but the lettergwith which it was associated in French continued to be very generally written, and by the influence of these wordsgwas often introduced without justification into others. Thus we have the rhymesordeigne,meine,semeigne(=semaine),desdeigne,peine, 2318 ff.;peigne(=peine),compleigne,pleine,meine,halteigne,atteigne, inBal.iii; while ingaign,bargaign, rhyming withgrain,prochain, &c.,gis omitted at pleasure. Evidently in the Anglo-Norman of this period it had no phonetic value.

(b) When not before a nasal,aiandeido not interchange freely in this manner. Beforel,ll, it is true,eihas a tendency to becomeai, as inconseil consail(alsoconsal),consei(l)ler consail(l)er,merveille mervaille; also we havecontrefeite,souffreite, 6305 ff.,eieforaie(avoir),eirforair13867,gleyve14072,meistre24714,eide(eyde) foraidein the rubric headings,paleis(palois) forpalais, andvois(representingveis) sometimes forvais(vado); also in ante-tonic syllables,cheitif,eiant,eysil,leiter,meisoun,meistrie,oreisoun,peisible,pleisir,seisine,veneisoun, besidechaitif,allaiter,maisoun,maistrie,paisible,plaisir,saisine. This change is much less frequent, especially in tonic syllables, than in some earlier texts, e.g. theVie de S. Grégoire.

The Anglo-Norman reduction of the diphthongaiand sometimeseitoe, especially beforerands, still subsists in certain words, though the Continental French spelling is found by its side. Thus we havefere,affere,forsfere,mesfere,plere,trere,attrere,retrere,tere,debonere,contrere, rhyming withterre,guerre,quer(r)e, &c.; alsomestre,nestre,pestre, rhyming withestre,prestre; andpes,fes(fascem),fetz,mes,jammes,reles(s), in rhyme withades,pres,apres,deces(s),Moÿses,dess,mess,confess. (This series of rhymes, which hasę, is of course kept distinct from that which includes the terminations-és(-ez) in participles, &c., and such words asées,dées,lées,prées,asses,malfés, &c., which all haveẹ.) We find alsoese(with the alternative formsaese,ease, as well asaise),frel,ele,megre,plee(plai,plait),trete,vinegre, and in ante-tonic syllablesappeser,enchesoun,esance,feture,lesser,mesoun,mestrie,phesant,pleder,plesance,plesir,sesoun,tresoun,treter. In the case of many of these words the form withaiis also used by our author, but the two modes of spelling are kept apart in rhymes (except l. 18349 ff., where we havetere,terre,aquerre,faire,mesfaire), so thataffere,attrere, rhyme withterre, butaffaire,attraire, withhaire,esclaire,adversaire, and, whilejammesis linked withapres,ades,pes, we findjammaiswritten when the rhyme is withessais,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 ofesome words with originaleimeet those of which we have been speaking, in whichaiwas reduced toein rather early Anglo-Norman times. Thus we havecrererhyming withterre,affere, &c.;crestre,acrestre,descrestre, withestre,nestre; andencres,descres,malves, withapres,pes. These forms, which have descended to our author from his predecessors, are used by him side by side with the (later) French formscroire,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 theaiwords, 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-aireand-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 theConfessio Amantisin the same form:adversaire,contraire(contrere),doaire,essamplaire,lettuaire,necessaire,saintuaire;consistoire,Gregoire,histoire,memoire,purgatoire,victoire. We have however exceptionallyrectorie16136, accented to rhyme withsimonye, and also (from Lat.-erium)misterie(by the side ofmisteire) accented on the ante-penultimate.

iii. Frencheinot before a nasal.

This diphthong, which appears usually aseiin the Anglo-Norman texts of the thirteenth century, is here regularly represented byoiand levelled, as in the French of the Continent, with original Frenchoi. In its relations toeandaiit 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 aredeis(debes) fordois,heirby the side ofhoir,lampreie,malveis(alsomalvois,malves),teille, andvei(vide) fromveoir; also in verbs of the-ceivreclass and in derivatives from them it is often retained, asresceivre(butreçoit,resçoivre),receipte,conceipt(alsoconçoit),conceive,deceite, &c. Under the influence of rhyme we have in 6301 ff.espleite,estreite,coveite, rhyming withdeceite,contrefeite,souffreite, and 10117 ff.pareies(parietes),veies,preies,moneiesrhyming withpareiesandjourneies(forparées,journées); but elsewhere the forms areexploite,estroite,covoite,voie,proie,monoie, and, in general, Anglo-Norman forms such asmei,rei,fei,treis,Engleis, have disappeared before the Frenchmoi,roi,foy,trois, &c.

The terminations of infinitives in-eirhave 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 regularlyoiinstead ofei. There is no intermixture ofeiandoiinflexions, such as we find in Angier, in theVie de S. Auban, and in Bozon. In a few isolated instances we haveaifor thisoiof inflexion, aspoaitinMir.795,solait10605 &c. (which last seems to be sometimes present rather than imperf.), andvolait13763. Also occasionally in other cases, ascurtais, 5568, in rhyme withmais,mesfais, &c., elsewherecurtois,array, 18964, rhyming withnay,essay, usuallyarroy, anddesplaie,manaie,Bal.xxvii. 2, elsewheredesploie,manoie. There is however nothing like that wholesale use ofaiforei(oi) which is especially characteristic of Langtoft, who besides the inflexion in-aithas (for example)may,cray,ray, formoi,croy,roi.

In ante-tonic syllables we may note theeiofbeneiçoun,freidure,leisir(usuallyloisir),Malveisie,peitrine(alsopoitrine),veisin(besidevoisin),veisdye, &c., andaiinarraier,braier.

iv. The diphthongoe(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(frommovoir),moers moert moerge(frommorir),noeces,noef,noet,oef,oel,oeps,oevre,poeple,poes poet,proesme,soe,soeffre,soen,troeffe,troeve,voegle,voes(alsovoels),voet(alsovoelt). In the case of many of these there are variations of form too,u,ue, orui; thus we havecuer(the usual form in theMirour),controve,jofne,noces,owes(dissyll. as plur. ofoef, alsooefs,oes),ovre,pueple,pus(alsopuiss),puet(alsopoot),prosme,sue,truffe,trove,volt, and (before an original guttural)nuit,oill(oculum). Two of these words,cuerandoel, occur in rhyme, and they both rhyme withẹ:mortiel,oel,fraternel,viel, 3733 ff., andcuer,curer,primer, 13129 ff., by which it would appear that in them at least the diphthong sound had been lost: cp.suefin rhyme withchief,relief,Bal.L.2. The same rhyming ofcuer(quer) occurs in theVie de S. Auban, in Langtoft and in Bozon (see M. Meyer’s introduction to Bozon’sContes Moralizés). Withavoecwe also findaveocandavec,veotoccurs once forvoet, andilleoc,illeoque(s), are the forms used from Lat.illuc.

v. Frenchọ(eu,ou) from Latinō(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 regularlyou; there is hardly a trace of the older forms in-or,-ur, and-os,-us, and surprisingly few accommodated to the Continental-eurand-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(usuallyflour,greignour,honour,meillour,seignour);boscheus,honteus(usuallyhontous),joyeuse(fem.) butjoyous(masc.),oiceus(oiseus),perceus,piteus(more oftenpitous). We have alsoblasphemus, 2450, which may be meant forblasphemous, andprodegus, 8425 ff., which is perhaps merely the Latin word ‘prodigus.’ Otherwise the terminations are regularly-our,-ous, except where words in-ourvary to-ure, aschalure, for the sake of rhyme. The following are some of them, and it will be seen that those which passed intothe 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-ousclass, have continued unchanged down to the present day.

In-our:ardour,blanchour,brocour,chalour(alsochalure),colour,combatour,confessour,conquerour,correctour,currour,desirour,despisour,devorour,dolour,emperour(alsoempereour,emperere),executour,favour,gouvernour,guerreiour,hisdour,honour,irrour,labour,langour,lecchour(alsolecchier),liquour,mockeour,palour,pastour,persecutour,portour,possessour,pourchaçour(alsopourchacier),priour,procurour(alsoprocurier),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. Frenchọbefore nasal, Latinō,ŏ,u.

(a) Except where it is final,onusually remains, whether followed by a dental or not. The tendency towardsou, which produced the modern Englishamount,account,abound,profound,announce, &c., is here very slightly visible. Oncebloundeoccurs, in rhyme withmonde,confonde, &c., and we have alsorounge2886 (runge3450) andsounge5604 (alsoronge,songe), and in ante-tonic syllablesbounté,bountevous,nouncier(alsononcier),plunger(alsoplonger),sounger, and words compounded withnoun, asnounsage,nouncertein, &c. On the other handseconde,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-ounttermination 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,-onis 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-o̅n̅is to be read-oun, a point which will be discussed hereafter), but-ounis the more usual, especially perhaps in rhyme. The older Anglo-Norman-unhas completely disappeared. Words in-ounand-onrhyme freely with one another, but the tendency is towards uniformity, and at the same time there is apparently no rhyme sequence on the ending-onalone. 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 aslison,soion; and, thirdly, a certain number of other words, chiefly monosyllables, asbo(u)n,doun,mo(u)n,no(u)n(=non),noun(=nom),reboun,renoun,so(u)n(pron.),soun(subst.),to(u)n, alsorespoun(imperative). In the first and third class-ounis 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 rhymesnoun,temptacioun,soun,resoun,baroun,garisoun; 689 ff.contemplacioun,tribulacioun,temptacioun,collacioun,delectacioun,elacioun; so also in 1525 ff., and even whenSalomoncomes 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 havemaison,noun,contradiccioun,lison; 2787Salomon,leçon,enchesoun,resoun; 4069noun,tençon,compaignoun,feloun,Catoun,confessioun; and similarlyfaçon6108,religion(withlison) 7922,lison,lion,giroun,enviroun,leçon,noun, 16801 ff. (yetlisounis also found, 24526). On the whole, so far as the rhymes of theMirourare 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 theBaladesandTraitié, however, the two terminations are more equally balanced; for example inBal.xxxv we findconvocacion,compaignon,comparison,regioun,noun,supplicacion,eleccion,condicioun, &c., without any word of the class referred to, andTraitiéxii has four rhymes in-onagainst 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.-ounis very rarely written out in full, so that the difference between the two forms is very slight even in appearance.

vii. The Central-Frenchuwas apparently identified in soundwitheu, and in some cases not distinguished fromui. 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(forlieu),offendu,dieu, inBal.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 ashebruforhebreu,luforlieu,fuforfeu,hure,demure,plure, for the Continental Frenchheure,demeure,pleure, or at the substitutions ofuforui, oruiforu(eu), inaparçut 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 offruit,bruit,suit,eschuie,suie[G], in Middle English. It should be mentioned however thatluyrhymes regularly with-i(-y), aschery,servi,dy. In some cases alsouiinterchanges withoi, as inbuistebesideboiste,enpuisonnerbesidepoisoun. 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 betweenuianduin Anglo-Norman see Koschwitz on theVoyage de Charlemagne, pp. 39, 40.

viii.aunoccurs occasionally foranfinal or before a consonant e.g. inaun(annum)Mir.6621,Bal.xxiii. 2,saunté(e)Mir.2522,Ded.ii. 5, &c.,dauncer17610,paunce8542,fiaunce,sufficaunce,Bal.iv,governaunce,fraunchise,fraunchement, in the Table of Contents; but much more usually not, asAlisandre,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 atoniceand another vowel or diphthong come together in a word they are usually contracted, as inasseurer,commeu,eust,receu,veu(2387),vir(forveïr),Beemoth,beneuré,benoit,deesce,emperour,mirour,obeissance,rançon,seur, &c., but in many instances contraction does not take place, ascheeu,eeu,veeu,veïr,veoir,empereour(23624),leësce,mireour(23551),tricheour,venqueour,meëment, &c.

(b) In some words with-ietermination the accent falls on the antepenultimate, and theiwhich follows the tonic syllable is regularly slurred in the metre and sometimes not written. Such words areaccidie,contumelie,familie,misterie,perjurie,pluvie,remedie,vituperie, and occasionally a verb, asencordie.

The following are examples of their metrical treatment:—

Back to Index Next