Chapter VIII: Introduction (7)

The following are examples of _-ede_ preterites (in one
instance _-ide_): ‘I _wisshide_ after deth,’ i. 120, ‘he
_passede_ ate laste,’ 142, ‘he hem _stoppede_ alle faste,’ 522,
‘And _warnede_ alle his officiers,’ 2506, ‘Mi ladi _lovede_,
and I it wiste,’ ii. 502, ‘he _axede_ hem anon,’ 1248, ‘he
_rounede_ in thin Ere,’ 1944, ‘Bot he hire _lovede_, er he
wente,’ 2027, ‘Thogh that he _lovede_ ten or tuelve,’ 2063,
‘_Supplantede_ the worthi knyht,’ 2453, ‘Sche _pourede_ oute,’
iii. 679, so also iii. 1631, 2556, iv. 468, 825, 842, 934,
1340, 1345, 1444, ‘Lo, thus sche _deiede_ a wofull Maide,’
iv. 1593, ‘it _likede_ ek to wende,’ 2150, ‘_Controeveden_ be
sondri wise,’ 2454, ‘_Translateden._ And otherwise,’ 2660,
‘And _foundeden_ the grete Rome,’ v. 904, ‘He _feignede_ him,’
928, ‘And _clepede_ him,’ 951, ‘He _percede_ the harde roche,’
1678, ‘Thei _faileden_, whan Crist was bore,’ 1697, ‘Thei
_passeden_ the toun,’ 2182, ‘Alle othre _passede_ of his hond,’
3258, ‘_Welcomede_ him,’ 3373, ‘_walkede_ up and doun’ (pl.),
3833, ‘_axede_ him,’ 5129, so also 5774, 6132, 6791, 6887,
‘_oppressede_ al the nacion’ (pl.), vi. 568, ‘That _loveden_
longe er I was bore,’ 882, ‘he _usede_ ay,’ 1207, ‘_exilede_
out of londe,’ 2348, ‘_Enformeden_,’ vii. 1495, ‘_Devoureden_,’
3346, ‘_Ensamplede_ hem’ (pl.), 4441, ‘_Restorede_ hem,’ 4445,
so also 4632, 4986, 4992, 4998, &c., ‘_Eschuieden_ to make
assay,’ viii. 373, ‘With love _wrastlede_ and was overcome,’
2240.

This list of examples, which is fairly complete up to v. 1970, will sufficiently show the manner in which _-ede_ preterites are used. In more than three-fourths of the instances quoted the _-e_ is subject to elision, and of those that remain nine are examples of the plural with _-eden_ termination, and three only of the ending _-ede_, viz. ii. 2063, ‘Thogh that he lovede ten or tuelve,’ ii. 2453, ‘Supplantede the worthi knyht,’ and v. 1678, ‘He percede the harde roche,’ of which the first is really a case of syncope, ‘lov’de,’ as also ii. 502 (cp. vi. 882) and iv. 1593, whereas in ii. 2027 ‘lovede’ occurs unsyncopated but with _-e_ elided. It will be noted that in the plural the form _-eden_ is used regularly when the syllables are to be fully pronounced, though _-ede_ can be used for the sake of elision.

The _-ed_ form of preterite is less frequent than the other, and I am not aware of any clear example of its employment before a consonant or in rhyme. We have, for example, ‘And _used_ it,’ i. 342, ‘Sche _cleped_ him,’ i. 1535 (‘_humbled_ him,’ i. 2065, is probably a participle, ‘to have humbled himself’), ‘_pryded_ I me,’ i. 2372, ‘ne _feigned_ I,’ ii. 2061, ‘the goddes ... Comanded him,’ iii. 2140 f., ‘Thei _cleped_ him,’ v. 876, cp. 1057, &c. In iii. 1759, ‘The Gregois _torned_ fro the siege,’ we have most probably a participle, ‘were torned.’ We may observe that the _-ed_ form stands also in the plural.

Among weak preterites from originally strong verbs we may notice _abreide_, _crepte_ (but past participle _crope_), _foghte_, _fledde_, _schotte_, _slepte_ (also _slep_, with past participle _slepe_), _smette_ (beside _smot_), _wepte_. The pret. _satte_ in vii. 2282, ‘He satte him thanne doun,’ seems to arise from confusion of _sat_ and _sette_.

=Imperative.= The _Confessio Amantis_ is peculiarly rich in imperatives. Beside the regular imperative singular forms, e.g. _ared_, _besech_, _behold_, _ches_, _com_, _do_, _forsak_, _griet_, _help_, _hier_, _hyd_, _kep_, _lef_, _ly_, _lei_, _lest_, _lep_, _prei_, _put_, _say_, _schrif_, _spek_, _tak_, _tell_, _thenk_, _understond_, _ȝif_, &c., the MSS. give us also _hyde_, iii. 1502, _seie_, vii. 4084, _speke_, vii. 5422, _take_, iv. 2674, v. 6429, _thenke_, iii. 1083, but not in such positions as to affect the metre. The forms _axe_, _herkne_, _loke_, _wite_ are regular, but _lok_ also occurs (i. 1703, v. 1220).

In some instances the short form of imperative seems to be used as 3rd pers., e.g. ‘hold clos the ston,’ v. 3573, for ‘let him hold,’ ‘tak in his minde,’ viii. 1128, for ‘let him take,’ cp. viii. 1420. The singular and plural forms are often used without distinction, as v. 2333 ff., ‘_Ches_ ... and _witeth_ ... _ches_ and _tak_ ... _goth_ ... _taketh_,’ v. 3986, ‘So _help_ me nou, I you beseche,’ with ‘_Helpeth_,’ just above, several persons being addressed, and so ‘_taketh_ hiede And _kep_ conseil,’ viii. 1509 f., to one person. In the interchange of speech between the Confessor and the Lover, while sometimes the distinction is preserved, the Confessor saying _tak_, _tell_, _understond_, and the Lover _telleth_, _axeth_ (e.g. i. 1395, 1875), at other times the Lover says _lest_, _say_, _tell_, _lef_, &c. (i. 1942, 1972, ii. 2074, iii. 841, &c.)[AA].

=Present Participle.= The form of the present participle is the most characteristic part of Gower’s verb inflexion as compared (for example) with Chaucer’s. Chaucer seems regularly to have used the form in _-inge_ (often with apocope _-ing_): Gower uses ordinarily the form _-ende_, and normally with the accent thrown on the termination, as i. 204, ‘To me _spekende_ thus began,’ 236, ‘Whos Prest I am _touchende_ of love,’ 428, ‘_Stondende_ as Stones hiere and there,’ 633, ‘So that _semende_ of liht thei werke,’ 1379 f., ‘That for I se no sped _comende_,... _compleignende_,’ 1682, ‘_Hangende_ doun unto the chin.’

Sometimes the same form is used with accent on the preceding syllable, and in this case the _-e_ is systematically elided, e.g. Prol. 11, ‘In tyme _comende_ after this,’ 259, ‘_Belongende_ unto the presthode,’ i. 296, ‘As _touchende_ of my wittes fyve’ (cp. 334, 742), 3025, ‘And _wailende_ in his bestly stevene.’

In a relatively small number of instances the form _-inge_ occurs either in rhyme, as i. 524, ‘So whan thei comen forth seilinge,’ in rhyme with ‘singe,’ i. 1710, ‘And liveth, as who seith, _deyinge_,’ in rhyme with ‘likynge’ (subst.), or with the accent thrown back, as i. 115, ‘_Wisshinge_ and _wepinge_ al myn one,’ v. 518, ‘_Abidinge_ in hir compaignie,’ vi. 717, ‘I mai go _fastinge_ everemo’; rarely out of rhyme and with accent, as i. 2721, ‘Mi fader, as _touchinge_ of al.’

The final _e_ is never lost in writing, but when the accent is thrown back it is always elided.

=Past Participle.= The _-id_ termination of weak past participles is very rarely found in the Fairfax MS., except in the concluding passage, which is copied in a different hand from the rest. It occurs commonly in the _Praise of Peace_. Examples found elsewhere in F are _weddid_, iv. 650, _medlid_, iv. 1475.

From _setten_ besides the regular past participle _set_ there appears the form _sete_ twice in rhyme, vii. 2864, _forȝete_ : _sete_, and viii. 244, _misgete_ (past partic.): _upsete_. This seems to be formed after the analogy of _gete_. On the other hand we have _ferd_, i. 445, &c., but also _fare(n)_, iii. 2692, v. 3797, &c. The past participle of _se_ is _sen_, _sein_, _seie_, but most commonly _sene_. In a few instances a final _e_ is given by the MSS. in weak past participles, e.g. _herde_ for _herd_, v. 4231, _schope_ for _schop_, v. 4278, _sette_ for _set_, vi. 10, _wiste_ for _wist_, viii. 37.

The cases of weak past participles with plural inflexion (e.g. Prol. 300, i. 3246, iv. 2343, v. 6789) have already been mentioned in dealing with adjectives.

There is hardly any use of the prefix _y-_ (_i-_), but we have _ybore_, ii. 499.

vi. DIALECT. Gower’s language is undoubtedly in the main the English of the Court, and not a provincial dialect. Making allowance for the influences of literary culture and for a rather marked conservatism in orthography and grammatical inflexions, we can see that it agrees on the whole with the London speech of the time, as evidenced by the contemporary documents referred to by Prof. Morsbach. At the same time its tendencies are Southern rather than Midland, and he seems to have used Kentish forms rather more freely than Chaucer. This is shown especially (1) in the more extensive use of the forms in which _e_ stands for O. E. _y̆_, as _senne_, _kesse_, _pet_, _hell_, &c.; (2) in the frequent employment of _ie_, both in French and English words, to represent _ẹ̄_, a practice which can hardly be without connexion with the Kentish _cliene_, _diepe_, _diere_, _hier_, _hield_, _niede_, &c.; (3) in the use of _-ende_ as the normal termination of the present participle. (The _Ayenbite_ regularly has _-inde_.) Probably also the preference shown by Gower for the close sound of _ē_, from O. E. _ǣ_, may be to some extent due to Kentish influence. Other points of resemblance between the language of Gower and that of the _Ayenbite_ (for example) are the free use of syncopated forms in the 3rd pers. sing. of verbs and the regular employment of _ous_ for _us_.

vii. METRE, &c. The smoothness and regularity of Gower’s metre has been to some extent recognized. Dr. Schipper in _Englische Metrik_, vol. i. p. 279, remarks upon the skill with which the writer, while preserving the syllabic rule, makes his verse flow always so smoothly without doing violence to the natural accentuation of the words, and giving throughout the effect of an accent verse, not one which is formed by counting syllables. Judging by the extracts printed in Morris and Skeat’s _Specimens_ (which are taken from MS. Harl. 3869, and therefore give practically the text of Fairfax 3), he observes that the five principal licences which he has noted generally in the English verse of the period are almost entirely absent from Gower’s octosyllabics, and in particular that he neither omits the first unaccented syllable, as Chaucer so often does (e.g. ‘Be it rouned, red or songe,’ _Hous of Fame_, ii. 214, ‘Any lettres for to rede,’ iii. 51, ‘Of this hill that northward lay,’ iii. 62), nor displaces the natural accent (as ‘Of Decembre the tenthe day,’ _Hous of Fame_, i. 111, ‘Jupiter considereth wel this,’ ii. 134, ‘Rounede everych in otheres ere,’ iii. 954), nor slurs over syllables.

To say that Gower never indulges in any of these licences would be an exaggeration. Some displacement of the natural accent may be found occasionally, even apart from the case of those French words whose accent was unsettled, but it is present in a very slight degree, and the rhythm produced does not at all resemble that of the lines cited above from Chaucer: e.g. i. 2296, ‘Wher that he wolde make his chace,’ 2348, ‘Under the grene thei begrave,’ 2551, ‘“Drink with thi fader, Dame,” he seide.’ Such as it is, this licence is nearly confined to the first foot of the verse, and is not so much a displacement of the natural accent of the words as a trochaic commencement, after the fashion which has established itself as an admitted variety in the English iambic. We may, however, read long passages of the _Confessio Amantis_ without finding any line in which the accent is displaced even to this extent.

Again, as to slurring of syllables, this no doubt takes place, but on regular principles and with certain words or combinations only. There are hardly more than three or four lines in the whole of the _Confessio Amantis_ where a superfluous syllable stands unaccounted for in the body of the verse, as for example,

iv. 1131, ‘Som time in chambre, som time in halle,’
v. 447, ‘Of Jelousie, bot what it is,’
v. 2914, ‘And thus ful ofte aboute the hals,’
v. 5011, ‘It was fantosme, bot yit he herde.’

The writer seems to have no need of any licences. The narrative flows on in natural language, and in sentences and periods which are apparently not much affected by the exigencies of metre or rhyme, and yet the verse is always smooth and the rhyme never fails to be correct. If this is not evidence of the highest style of art, it shows at least very considerable skill.

In Gower’s five-accent line, as exhibited in the Supplication of viii. 2217-2300 and in the poem _In Praise of Peace_, Schipper finds less smoothness of metre, ‘owing perhaps to the greater unfamiliarity and difficulty of the stanza and verse’ (_Englische Metrik_, i. 483 ff.). His examples, however, are not conclusive on this point. Some of the lines cited owe their irregularity to corruptions of text, and others prove to be quite regularly in accordance with Gower’s usual metrical principles.

For instance, in viii. 2220 the true text is

‘That wher so that I reste or I travaile,’

which is a metrically perfect line. Again, in the _Praise of Peace_, l. 79,

‘And to the heven it ledeth ek the weie,’

it is impossible, according to Gower’s usage, that ‘heven’ should stand as a dissyllable. He wrote always ‘hevene,’ and the penultimate was syncopated. So also ‘levere’ in l. 340, ‘evere,’ l. 376. Hence there is no ‘epic caesura’ in any of these cases. Nor again in l. 164, ‘Crist is the heved,’ can ‘heved’ be taken as a dissyllable in the verse: it is always metrically equivalent to ‘hed.’ The only fair instance of a superfluous syllable at the caesura is in l. 66,

‘For of bataile the final ende is pees.’

It seems that the trochee occurs more commonly here than in the short line. Such examples as Schipper quotes, occurring at the beginning of the line,

‘Axe of thi god, so schalt thou noght be werned,’
‘Pes is the chief of al the worldes welthe,’

are of the same character as those which we find in the octosyllabics. Perhaps, however, a difference is afforded by the more frequent occurrence of the same licence in other parts of the verse, as,

‘So that undir his swerd it myht obeie,’ 39.

The rhyming on words like ‘manhode,’ ‘axinge,’ &c., is in accordance with the poet’s general usage.

On the whole, the combination of the syllabic and the accentual system is effected in the five-accent line of these stanzas almost as completely as in the short couplet; and in his command of the measure, in the variety of his caesura, and the ease with which he passes without pause from line to line and rounds off the stanza with the matter, the author shows himself to be as fully master of his craft upon this ground as in the more familiar measure of the _Confessio Amantis_.

As regards the treatment of weak syllables in the metre, Gower’s practice, in accordance with the strict syllabic system which he adopted, is very different from Chaucer’s. The rules laid down by ten Brink, _Chaucers Sprache_, § 260, as to the cases in which weak final _e_ is never counted as a syllable in the verse, except in rhyme, require some qualification even when applied to Chaucer (for example, ‘sone’ is certainly a dissyllable in _Cant. Tales_, A 1963, _Hous of Fame_, i. 218), and they are almost wholly inapplicable to Gower, as we shall see if we examine them. (α) Gower has the forms _hire_, _oure_, _ȝoure_, all occasionally as dissyllables apart from special emphasis or rhyme. (β) _these_, _some_, _whiche_ are all sometimes dissyllables. (γ) The strong participles with short stems as _come_, _drive_, _write_ as a rule have the final _e_ sounded. (δ) The _-e_ of the 2nd pers. sing. of the strong preterite may be sounded, e.g. iii. 2629 (but ‘Were thou,’ iv. 600). (ε) The form _made_, both singular and plural, regularly has _-e_ sounded, _were_ (pret.) usually, and _wite_ sometimes. (ζ) _sone_, _wone_, _schipe_ (dat.), and the French words in _-ie_ (_ye_), &c., have _-e_ regularly counted in the metre: so also _beste_, _entente_, _tempeste_. (η) _before_, _tofore_, _there_ are used in both ways.

Gower’s usage with reference to this matter is as follows:

The personal and possessive pronouns _hire_, _oure_, _ȝoure_,
_here_ and _hise_ (as plural of _his_), written also _hir_,
_our_, &c., are as a rule treated as monosyllables. We have
however ‘Fro _hire_, which was naked al,’ i. 367, ‘And thenke
untoward _hire_ drawe,’ iv. 559, so v. 1178, 2757, vii. 1899,
&c., ‘In _oure_ tyme among ous hiere,’ Prol. 5 (but ‘_Oure_
king hath do this thing amis,’ i. 2062), ‘As ȝe be _ȝoure_
bokes knowe,’ iii. 1087, cp. v. 2951 (but ‘Bot, fader, of
_ȝoure_ lores wise,’ i. 2768). Add to these _alle_ (pl.) before
definite article.

In the following words also the final _e_ is sometimes
suppressed for the verse: _these_ (also _thes_), Prol. 900,
1037, i. 435, ii. 237, &c. (but _thesë_, v. 813, 1127, vii.
1005, &c.): _whiche_ plur. (also _which_), ii. 604, iv. 1496,
&c. (but _whichë_, i. 404, v. 1269, vii. 822, 1256, &c.):
_eche_ (also _ech_), v. 6883, according to F, cp. Prol.
516: _there_ (usually _ther_), viii. 2311, 2689 (but _therë_,
iii. 1233, &c., and often in rhyme): _were_ pret. ind. or
subj. (also _wer_), iii. 1600, iv. 600, 1657, 1689 (but more
usually _werë_, as Prol. 1072, iii. 762, v. 2569, vii. 4458):
_where_ (usually _wher_), v. 4355 (but _wherë_, v. 2720):
_more_ (also _mor_), ii. 26, v. 2239, 6207, vii. 3237 (but
_morë_, Prol. 55*, 640, iv. 2446, vii. 3287, &c.): _before_,
_tofore_ (also _befor_, _tofor_), i. 2054, 2864, iii. 2052
(but _beforë_, Prol. 848, and often in rhyme): _foure_, vii.
2371 (but _fourë_, ii. 1037, iv. 2464): _fare_ (wel), iii.
305, iv. 1378 (but _farëwel_, v. 4218): _sire_, i. 2878, ii.
2995 (but _sirë_, v. 3547, 5593): _wite_, ii. 455 (but _witë_,
v. 3150, 3445): _wole_ (also _wol_), v. 2891, 2911, &c.:
_bothe_, ii. 1966, 2154, iv. 2138, &c. (but _bothë_, Prol.
1068, i. 851, &c.): _wolde_ (also _wold_), v. 4413 (usually
_woldë_): _come_, ii. 789, iv. 2826 (but _comë_, pp. iv. 1283,
vi. 1493, vii. 4840, inf. viii. 1362): _some_, pl. subst.,
iii. 2112, v. 2252 (but _somë_, i. 2034 ff.): _have_, Prol.
708, i. 169, 2724, ii. 550, iv. 1600 (but _havë_, ii. 332, iv.
1598): _love_, subst. iv. 930, vi. 1261 (but _lovë_ much more
often, e.g. i. 103, 251, 760, &c.): _tuelve_ (also _tuelf_),
iv. 1983 (but _tuelvë_, vii. 1005): _trewe_ (also _trew_), v.
2877 (but _trewë_, pl., Prol. 184, def., iii. 2228): _mowe_,
inf. (also _mow_), iv. 38: _seie_, inf. and 1st s. pres. iii.
1737, iv. 672, v. 2616, 6428, &c. (but _seië_ often): _preie_,
1st s. pres. (also _prai_), v. 4531 (but _preië_, v. 3230):
_furthere_, _forthere_ (also _further_, _forther_), iii. 81,
885: _lengere_ (also _lenger_), i. 1516, ii. 2602: _rathere_
(also _rather_), ii. 503, vii. 4161, viii. 2141: _janglere_, v.
526: also some isolated cases, as _aboute_, v. 2914, _Take_,
v. 7169, _Minotaure_, v. 5327 (but _Minotaurë_, 5291, &c.),
_Theophile_, viii. 1500.

In iv. 1131, v. 447, 5011, which we have quoted above, the
superfluous syllable in each case may be connected with the
pause in the sentence, as in _Mirour de l’omme_, 10623, ‘L’un
ad franchise, l’autre ad servage.’

Syncope (so far as regards the metre) regularly takes place in the following: _covere_ (_discovere_, &c.), _delivere_ (but not _deliverance_, i. 1584, v. 1657), _evene_, _evere_, _fievere_, _havene_, _hevene_, _levere_, _nevere_, _povere_, _sevene_ (also _sefne_), _swevene_ (also _swefne_), and some other words of a similar kind, to which add _heved_, _evel_, _devel_. In these cases a final _e_ is always pronounced unless elided, and in case of elision a word like _hevene_, _nevere_ is reduced to a monosyllable, as

‘This world which evere is in balance.’

The following also are sometimes syncopated: _lovede_, _loveden_, ii. 502, vi. 882, but without syncope ii. 2027, _beloved_, i. 1928, _belovëd_, i. 1920 f., _behovely_, _behovelich_, iii. 1330, v. 4012, vii. 1949 (but _unbehovëly_, viii. 2884), _leveful_, v. 7053, _Averil_, vii. 1029, _soverein_, vii. 1776 (but usually three syllables, as Prol. 186, i. 1609, and _sovereinete_, five syllables, i. 1847), _amorous_, iii. 745 (but usually three syllables, as i. 1414), _fader_, ii. 2387, cp. _fadre_, ii. 2519 (but ordinarily a dissyllable), _unkendeli_, ii. 3124 (but _unkindëly_, iii. 2065), _comelieste_, _comelihiede_, v. 3048, 6734 (but _comëly_, ii. 441), _namely_, viii. 3041, also _namly_, ii. 47 (but usually three syllables, as Prol. 144, iii. 63), _Termegis_, iv. 2408. We may note, however, that this kind of syncope is less used by Gower than by Chaucer, and that _chivalerie_, _chivalerous_, _foreward_, _foretokne_, _loveday_, _pilegrin_, _surquiderie_, &c., are fully pronounced.

Unaccented _i_ before weak _e_ either final or in inflexions
has the force of a semi-vowel, and forms no syllable of itself:
so _studie_, _carie_, _tarie_, _chirie_, _merie_, _manye_, &c.
are equivalent to dissyllables, and are reduced by elision to
the value of monosyllables, as Prol. 323, ‘To _studie_ upon
the worldes lore,’ i. 452, ‘To _tarie_ with a mannes thoght,’
i. 3238, ‘And _manye_ it hielden for folie,’ ii. 2648, ‘Thei
_carie_ til thei come at Kaire’; and so also in the other parts
of the same words, e.g. i. 1645, ‘And thus he _tarieth_ long
and late,’ and in plurals like _bodies_, iv. 2463. Similarly
_Mercurie_ is made into a dissyllable by elision, ‘And ek the
god Mercurie also,’ i. 422. Akin to this in treatment is the
frequent combination _many a_, _many an_, counting as two
syllables (so ‘ful many untrewe,’ v. 2886), but _many on_,
_manion_ as three. We may note also the case of _statue_, Prol.
891, ‘As I tolde of the Statue above,’ which is reduced by
elision to a monosyllable.

Elision of weak final _e_ takes place regularly before a vowel or an unaspirated _h_. We must observe that several classical proper names ending originally in _ē_, as _Alceone_, _Daphne_, _Progne_, _Phebe_, have weak _e_ and are subject to elision, and under this head it may be noted that _Canace_ rhymes to _place_, whereas Chaucer (referring to Gower’s story) gives the name as _Canacee_, in rhyme with _he_. Also the combinations _byme_, _tome_, _tothe_, &c., have weak _-e_ and are elided before a vowel.

An aspirated _h_ prevents elision as effectively as any other consonant. We have ‘min holë herte,’ ‘gretë hornes,’ ‘Cadmë hyhte,’ ‘Mi Sonë, herkne,’ ‘proprë hous,’ ‘fastë holde’ (and even ‘othrë herbes,’ iv. 3008); but there are some words in which _h_ is aspirated only when they are emphatic in sense or position, as _have_, _hath_, _he_, _him_, _hire_, _how_, &c. For example, elision takes place usually before _have_, _he_, _how_, but not so as a rule in cases where they are used in rhyme or with special emphasis, e.g. i. 2542, ‘Of such werk as it scholde have,’ ii. 2479, cp. v. 7766, ‘Wenende that it were he,’ iv. 3604, ‘And al the cause hou it wente.’ On the other hand, the preterite _hadde_ seems to have an aspirated _h_ even in unemphatic position, as ii. 589, ‘The Sceptre hadde forto rihte’: compare vii. 2364, ‘Victoire hadde upon his fo,’ with vii. 2392, ‘Thogh thou victoire have nou on honde.’ Elision also takes place before _hierafter_, though not before _hiere_.

There is one instance of hiatus, viii. 110, ‘That he his Sone Isaäc,’ and it may be noted that the same thing occurs with the same name in the _Mirour_, 12241, ‘De Isaak auci je lis.’

The article _the_ regularly coalesces with a succeeding
word beginning with a vowel or mute _h_, as _thaffeccioun_,
_thalemans_, _thamende_, _thapostel_, _thastat_, _theffect_,
_themperour_, _thenvious_, _therbage_, _therthe_,
_thexperience_, _thonour_, _thother_, _thunsemlieste_, _thyle_,
&c. The exceptions, which are very few, are cases of special
emphasis, as i. 3251, ‘The Erthe it is.’ Similarly the negative
particle _ne_ with a succeeding verb beginning with a vowel, as
_nam_, _naproche_, _nis_ (but _ne have_), and also occasionally
with some words beginning with _w_, forming _nere_, _nost_,
_not_, _nyle_, _nyste_, &c. In some few instances _to_
coalesces with the gerund, as _tacompte_, _teschuie_.

There is diaeresis regularly in such proper names as _Theseüs_, _Peleüs_, _Tereüs_, and also in _Saül_, _Isaäc_. We have _Moïses_ usually, but _Moises_ (dissyllable), iv. 648, _Thaise_ usually, but _Thaïsis_ in the epitaph, viii. 1536. One example occurs affecting the _-ee_ termination, viz. _Caldeë_, v. 781 (usually a dissyllable), so _Judeë_, _Galileë_ in _Mirour_, 20067, 29239. This is an essentially different case from that of _degreës_, which is found in Chaucer. The termination _-ius_ is usually dissyllabic, but vii. 2967, ‘The god Mercurius and no man.’ The endings _-ioun_, _-ious_, _-ien_, &c., are always fully pronounced.

As regards accent, it has been already observed that the natural accent of words is preserved far better in Gower’s verse than in Chaucer’s. There are, however, a number of words of French origin, of which the accent was unsettled, and also some instances of English words in which a secondary syllable was capable of receiving the principal accent, either in case of composition, as in _kingdom_, _knihthode_, _treweliche_, or with a formative termination, as that of the superlative, _fairéste_, &c., or the present participle, as _wepénde_. In such cases the accent was often determined by the metre. Many Romance words are quite freely treated in the matter of accent, as for example _folie_, _fortune_, _mercy_, _mirour_, _nature_, _parfit_, _preiere_, _resoun_, _science_, _sentence_, _tempeste_. The terminations _-hode_, _-hede_, _-inge_, _-liche_, _-ly_, _-nesse_, _-schipe_ are all capable of accent, and also the penultimate syllables of _answere_ and _felawe_.

Nearly all that is important about rhyme has already been said under the head of Phonology. We may here remark on some of the instances in which the form of words is accommodated to the rhyme, these being sometimes cases where variants are supplied by neighbouring dialects. Thus we have _aise_ for _ese_, _ar_ for _er_, _hair_ for _heir_, _naght_ once for _noght_, _fer_ once for _fyr_, _hade_, with the original long vowel, for _hadde_, _geth_ (the originally correct form) for _goth_, _fore_ for _for_; and alternatives such as _moneie monoie_, _aweie awey away_, _seide saide_, _soverein soverain_, are used in accordance with the rhyme, though it is difficult to say for certain in all cases whether there was difference of sound. Thus, while we have _away_ as rhyme to _day_, _awey_ is found rhyming to _ey_, i. 2545, _said_, _saide_ rhyming with _paid_, _Maide_, while _seide_ rhymes with _alleide_, _obeide_; we find _soverein_ : _aȝein_, but _brayn_ : _soverain_. The form _yhe_ often varies to _ÿe_ when in rhyme with _-ie_ termination, as _clergie_ : _ÿe_, Prol. 329 f., _ÿe_ : _agonie_, i. 967 f. (but also _yhe_ : _pourpartie_, i. 405 f., _yhe_ : _specefie_, i. 571 f.). Sometimes however the other rhyme-word is modified to correspond to it, as _pryhe_ : _yhe_, v. 469 f., and there was probably no perceptible difference of pronunciation in this case. So also the preterite _lowh_ is written _low_ when in rhyme with _now_, Prol. 1071, and similarly _thou_ : _ynou_, vii. 2099 f. (but _bowe_ : _ynowhe_, ii. 3225 f.). We have already seen that the use of such alternative forms as _sinne senne_, _wile wole_, _lasse lesse_, _hedde hidde_, _-ende -inge_ is sometimes determined by the rhyme.

Alliteration is used by Gower in a manner which is especially characteristic of the new artistic style of poetry. It is sufficiently frequent, both in formal combinations, such as ‘cares colde,’ ‘lusty lif,’ ‘park and plowh,’ ‘swerd or spere,’ ‘lief and loth,’ ‘wel or wo,’ ‘dike and delve,’ ‘slepe softe,’ ‘spille ... spede,’ and as an element of the versification:

i. 886 f. ‘For so, thei seide, al stille and softe
God Anubus hire wolde awake.’
iv. 2590 ‘The lost is had, the lucre is lore.’
iv. 3384 f. ‘Which many a man hath mad to falle,
Wher that he mihte nevere arise.’
v. 3670 f. ‘And thanne he gan to sighe sore,
And sodeinliche abreide of slep.’
vii. 3468 f. ‘Sche hath hir oghne bodi feigned,
For feere as thogh sche wolde flee.’

But it is not introduced in accordance with any fixed rules, and it often assists the flow of the verse without in the least attracting the attention of the reader. We do not find any examples of the rather exaggerated popular style which Chaucer sometimes adopts in passages of violent action, e.g. _Cant. Tales_, A 2604 ff. The whole subject of alliteration in Gower has been carefully dealt with by P. Höfer in his dissertation, _Alliteration bei Gower_, 1890, where a very large number of examples are cited and classified; and to this the reader may be referred.

viii. TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS. About forty manuscript copies of the _Confessio Amantis_ are known to exist in public or private libraries or in the hands of booksellers, and probably there may be a few more in private possession, the existence of which has not yet been recorded. As the broad lines for their classification are necessarily laid down by the fact that the book was put forth by the author in several different forms, it is necessary, before proceeding further, to say something about this matter.

That the poem exists in at least two distinct forms, characterized by obvious differences near the beginning and at the end, has been matter of common knowledge. Even in Berthelette’s edition of 1532 the difference at the beginning was noted, and though the printer did not venture to deviate from the form of text which had been made current by Caxton, yet he gave in his preface the beginning of the poem as he found it in his manuscript. Dr. Pauli accordingly proceeded on the assumption that there were two normal forms, one having a dedication to Richard II at the beginning and a form of conclusion in which mention is made of Chaucer, and the other with a dedication to Henry of Lancaster and a conclusion in which Chaucer is not mentioned. Copies which do not conform to these standards are for him simply irregular. He is aware of the additional passages in Berthelette’s edition and in the Stafford MS., and in one place he speaks of three classes of MSS., but he does not know that there are any written copies except the Stafford MS. which contain the additional passages. If he had had personal knowledge of the manuscripts at Oxford and at Cambridge, instead of being satisfied to gather scraps of information about the former from Bodley’s Librarian and about the latter from Todd, he would have found the passages in question also in MS. Bodley 294 at Oxford and in the Trinity and Sidney MSS. at Cambridge.

There are then at least these three classes of manuscripts to be recognized even by a superficial observer, and we shall find that the more obvious differences which have been mentioned are accompanied by a number of others of less importance. The first recension according to our classification is that in which the conclusion of the poem contains praises of Richard II as a just and beneficent ruler and a presentation of the book for his acceptance[AB]. The second has the additional passages of the fifth and seventh books, with a rearrangement of the sixth book which has not hitherto been noticed, while the conclusion of the poem has been rewritten so as to exclude the praises of the king, and in some copies there is also a new preface with dedication to Henry of Lancaster. The third exhibits a return to the form of the first as regards the additional passages, but has the rewritten preface and epilogue. Against this merely threefold division some objections might fairly be made. It might be pointed out that the so-called second recension includes at least two distinct forms, and moreover that upon further examination we see reason to divide the manuscripts of our first recension into two main groups, one exhibiting an earlier and the other a later text, this last being more in accordance generally with that of what we call the second and third recensions than with the earlier form of the first. For practical purposes, however, the division which has been laid down above may fairly be adopted. As regards the order of time, from the political tendency of the differences between them it is clear that what we call the first recension logically precedes the third. The intermediate position of the second is given chiefly by the fact that one of the seven existing manuscripts gives the earlier form of preface, and this may also have been the case with two others, which are defective at the beginning[AC]. However, as has been said, the name is used for convenience to cover a class of copies which, as regards the character of their text, do not all belong to the same period, and they must be looked upon as representing rather a concurrent variety of the first or the third recension[AD] than as a type which is distinctly intermediate in order of time. At the same time the smaller variations of text exhibited by these seven MSS. in combination, as against all others[AE], mark them as really a family apart, more closely related to one another than to those that lie outside the group.

For the sake of clearness the manuscripts are in this edition regularly grouped according to this classification, and in the critical notes each class is cited by itself. At the same time it must not be assumed that the manuscripts of each recension stand necessarily by themselves, and that no connexion is traceable between one class and another. On the contrary, we shall find that many errors in the text of the first recension appear also in some copies of the second, and even of the third. The process by which this was brought about is made clearer to us by the fact that we have an example of a manuscript which has passed from one group into another partly by erasure and partly by substitution of leaves, apparently made under the direction of the author. This is MS. Fairfax 3, which forms the basis of our text, and the handwriting of some of the substituted pages is one which may be recognized as belonging to the ‘scriptorium’ of the poet.

The example is a suggestive one and serves to explain several things. It makes it easy to understand, for example, how the additional matter introduced into the second recension came to be omitted in the third. The author in this instance had before him a very fully revised and corrected copy of his first edition, and this by a certain amount of rewriting over erasure and by a substitution of leaves at the beginning and end of the poem was converted into a copy of what we call the third recension, which his scribes could use at once as an authoritative exemplar. The introduction of the additional passages in the fifth and seventh books could not have been effected without a process of recopying the whole book, which would have called for much additional labour of the nature of proof-reading on the part of the author, in order to secure its correctness. This argument would apply to a book which was intended to remain in the hands of the author, or rather of the scribes whom he employed, and to be used as an archetype from which copies were to be made. If a new book had to be specially prepared for presentation, the case would be different, and it might then be worth while to incorporate the additional passages with the fully revised and re-dedicated text, as we find was done in the case of the so-called Stafford MS.

Another matter which can evidently be explained in the same way is the reappearance in some copies of the second recension of errors which belong to the first. In producing the originals of such manuscripts as these, partially revised copies of the first recension must have been used as the basis, and such errors as had not yet received correction appear in the new edition.

The assumption that a certain number of errors are original, that is to say, go back either to the author’s own autograph or to the transcript first made from it, is in itself probable: we know in fact that some which appear in every copy, without exception, of the first and second recensions at length receive correction by erasure in Fairfax 3. So far as we can judge, the text of the _Confessio Amantis_ during its first years exhibited a steady tendency to rid itself of error, and the process of corruption in the ordinary sense can hardly be said to have set in until after the death of the author. There are a large number of various readings in the case of which we find on the one side the great majority of first recension MSS., and on the other a small number of this same type together with practically the whole of the second and third recensions, as, for example[AF]:

i. 2836 to H₁XERCLB₂ do AJMG, SAdBΔΛ, FWH₃

2847 be _om._ H₁XGERCLB₂ _ins._ AJM, SAdBΔ, FWH₃

2953 wele H ... B₂ weie AJM, SAd BΔ, FWH₃

3027 preieth H₁ ... B₂, W braieth, AJM, S ... ΔΛ, FH₃

3374 an Erl hier H₁ ... B₂, Λ mad a Pier AJM, SAdBΔ, FW (H₃
def.)

3381 place H₁ ... B₂, BΛ maide AJM, SAdΔ, FW (H₃ defective)

ii. 833 that diere H₁ ... B₂, B that other AJ(M), SAdΔΛ, FWH₃

iii. 12 euermore H₁ ... B₂ enemy AJM, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃

354 I may H₁ ... B₂ he may AJM, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃

iv. 109 day H₁ ... B₂, H₃ lay AJM, SBTΔ, FW (Ad def.)

v. 316 thanne (than) H₁ ... B₂, Δ hom AJM, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃

368 And for no drede now wol I wonde H₁ ... B₂, Λ In helle thou
schalt understonde AJM, S ... Δ, FWH₃ cp. 394, 424, 786, &c.

2694 Whan that sche was bot of ȝong age For good ERCLB₂ That
only for thilke avantage Of good AJMH₁XG, S ... ΔΛ, FWH₃

2771 nyh _om._ ERCLB₂ _ins._ AJMH₁XG, S ... Δ, FWH₃

3110 burned as the silver ERCLB₂ burned was as selver AJMH₁XG,
S ... ΔΛ, FWH₃ cp. 3032, 3246, &c.

We see in these examples, selected as fairly typical, that some of the variants have evidently the character of errors, while in other cases the difference of reading is due to an alternative version. The circumstances, however, of these two cases are not distinguishable, the errors are supported by as much authority as the rest, and it must be supposed that both have the same origin. If then we assume that such variations as we find (for example) in i. 3396, 3416, v. 30, 47, 82, 368, 2694, &c., are due to the author, as is almost certain, there can be no doubt that the form of text which is given by the group AJM in combination with the second and third recensions is the later of the two: and if the group H₁ ... B₂ represents an earlier type as regards this class of variation, it must surely do so also as regards the errors, which, as we have seen, stand upon the same ground in respect of manuscript authority. As we cannot help believing that the author wrote originally ‘To holde hir whil my lif may laste,’ v. 82, and ‘The more he hath the more he greedeth,’ v. 394, so we may reasonably suppose that errors such as ‘it’ for ‘hid,’ i. 1755, ‘that diere’ for ‘that other,’ ii. 833, ‘what’ for ‘war,’ iii. 1065, existed in the copy which first served as an exemplar.

It may be observed here that in cases where revision seems to have taken place, we can frequently see a definite reason for the change; either the metre is made more smooth, as i. 1770, 2622, 3374, ii. 671, 751, 1763, iii. 765, 2042, 2556, iv. 234, v. 368, 1678, &c., or some name is altered into a more correct form, as where ‘Element’ is changed to ‘Clemenee,’ iv. 985, with a corresponding alteration of the rhyme, or the expression and run of the sentence is improved, as i. 368, 3416, v. 30, 1906, 6756, &c. In particular we note the tendency towards increased smoothness of metre which is shown in dealing with weak _e_ terminations.

It is to be assumed on the principles which have been stated that the group ERCLB₂ and the other manuscripts which agree with them represent with more or less accuracy the first form of the author’s text, that H₁YXG and a few more form a class in which correction and revision has taken place to some extent, but partially and unsystematically, and that AJM &c. give us the first recension text in a much more fully revised and corrected form.

It has been already said that F was originally a manuscript of the first recension. We shall find however that it did not exactly correspond to any existing first recension manuscript. Setting aside the small number of individual mistakes to be found in it, there are perhaps about eighty instances (many of a very trifling character) in which its text apparently differed originally from that of any first recension copy which we have, and in about half of these the text of F agrees with that of the second recension. The manuscript which comes nearest to F in most respects is J (St. John’s Coll., Camb.), and there is a considerable number of instances in which this MS. stands alone among first recension copies in agreement with the Fairfax text. In the sixth book, for example, if J be set aside, there are at least twenty-three passages in which F gives an apparently genuine reading unsupported by the first recension; but in sixteen of these cases J is in agreement with F. It must be noted, however, that this state of things is not equally observable in the earlier part of the poem, and indeed does not become at all marked until the fifth book.

Besides variations of reading, there are in the Fairfax MS. a few additions to the text which are not found in any first recension copy. These are Prol. 495-498, 579-584 and i. 1403-1406, two passages of four lines each and one of six, as well as some additions to the Latin notes in the margin (at Prol. 195, i. 2705, and v. 7725), of which the first two were evidently put in later than the accompanying text. Finally, there are three other additions to the text which are found in a single copy of the first recension, MS. Harl. 3490 (H₁). These are i. 2267-2274, where four lines have been expanded into eight, i. 2343-2358, an interesting addition of sixteen lines to the tale of Narcissus, and i. 2369-2372. Thus in the matter of additions to the text H₁ stands nearer to F than AJM &c., and in a few other passages also it is found standing alone of its recension in company with F, e.g. i. 2043, 2398, ii. 2247. This manuscript does not belong to the ‘fully revised’ group, but it gives the revised readings more frequently perhaps than any other outside that group.

Thus notwithstanding the differences between the first recension copies, as we have them, and the Fairfax MS. as it originally stood, we shall have no difficulty in regarding the latter as having been originally a revised and corrected copy of that recension, exhibiting a text to which tolerably near approaches are made by A, J, and H₁, each in its own way, though no copy precisely corresponding to it is known to exist.

Passing to the second recension, we must first repeat what has already been said, that it did not supersede the first, but existed and developed by its side, having its origin probably in the very same year, or at latest in the next. Its characteristic point is the presence of considerable additions in the fifth and seventh books, together with a rearrangement of part of the sixth. There are seven manuscripts known to me, of which three are defective at the beginning. All these (except one, which is also defective at the end) have the rewritten epilogue, one in combination with the Chaucer verses and the others without them. Of the four which are perfect at the beginning, one, namely B, has the earlier form of preface, and the other three, ΛP₂ and S, the later. Of the others it is probable, but by no means certain, that T agreed with B in this respect, and practically certain that Δ agreed with S. A more satisfactory line of distinction, which divides the manuscripts of this class into two groups, is given by the general character of the text which they exhibit, and by the insertion or omission of certain of the additional passages of which we have spoken. While some of the passages, viz. v. 6395*-6438*, 7086*-7210*, vii. 3207*-3360*, are common to all the copies, as are also the transposition of vi. 665-964 and (except in case of Λ) the omission of v. 7701-7746, three of them are found in AdBTΛP₂ only, and are omitted in SΔ[AG], viz. v. 7015*-7036*, vii. 2329*-2340* and 3149*-3180*. Then, as regards the text generally, the five MSS. first mentioned all have connexions of various kinds with the unrevised form of the first recension, while the last two represent a type which, except as regards variants specially characteristic of the second recension, of which there may be about sixty in all, nearly corresponds with that of the Fairfax MS.[AH]

The relations of the group AdBTΛP₂ with the first recension and with one another are difficult to clear up satisfactorily. Broadly, it may be said that of these B represents an earlier type than the rest in regard to correction and Λ in regard to revision: that is to say, B retains a large number of first recension errors which do not appear in the rest (sharing some, however, with Λ), while at the same time, in cases where a line has been rewritten B almost regularly has the altered form, though with some exceptions in the first two books. On the other hand, though it often happens that Λ is free from original errors which appear in B, yet in many places where B has the revised form of text Λ gives us the original, in agreement with the earlier first recension type, while in others Λ agrees with B in giving the revised reading. Then again, there can be no doubt of the close connexion between B and T, but the agreement between them is not usually on those points in which B follows the first recension in error. It is as if they had been derived from the same archetype, but T (or a manuscript from which T was copied) sprang from it at a later stage than the original of B, when many of the errors noted in the first recension had been corrected, while the text of the book generally was allowed to remain as it was[AI]. Finally, the text of Ad approaches very near to a fully revised and corrected type. It very occasionally reproduces the earlier first recension, as if by accident, but seems never deliberately to give an ‘unrevised’ reading. It should be observed that from a point towards the end of the fifth book (about v. 6280) AdBT is a group which is very frequently found in special agreement, whereas before that point we usually find BT (or BTΛ) with Ad on the other side.

Passing now to the third recension, which has the preface and epilogue as in Λ and S, but excludes the additional passages, we find it represented by eight manuscripts, with Fairfax 3 at their head. We have already seen that this manuscript was originally one of the first recension, and was altered by the author so as to substitute the new epilogue and the new preface. Besides these changes, fresh lines are in several places written over erasures, as i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361 f., &c., the marginal date is erased at Prol. 331, and additions have been made to the marginal notes. All these alterations, as well as the points previously noted, in which F originally differed from the other copies of the first recension, are reproduced in the other MSS. of the third recension.

Of these remaining MSS. one is directly copied from F, and another seems to be certainly derived from the same source, though perhaps not immediately. In the case of H₃ (MS. Harl. 7184) the question of origin is not quite so simple. Its text generally seems to suggest ultimate dependence on F, but it is very unequal as regards accuracy, and in one part it regularly follows the early first recension readings and seems to belong for the time to the ERCLB₂ group. In addition to this it has a Latin marginal note at the beginning of the Prologue, which is wanting in F. The problem is perhaps to be solved by means of the Keswick MS. This is written in several hands, varying greatly in accuracy, and exactly in that place where H₃ seems to follow a first recension copy the Keswick MS. is defective, having lost several leaves. It also contains the marginal note referred to above, and on examination we find that a whole series of corruptions are common to the two MSS. There seems to be very little doubt that K is the source of H₃, the inequality of the latter MS. being to a great extent in accordance with the change of hands in K, and the variation of H₃ in a portion of the third book to a different type of text being exactly coincident with the gap left in K by loss of leaves, a loss which must apparently have taken place in the first forty or fifty years of its existence[AJ]. As to the text of K itself, in the parts which are most carefully written it reproduces that of F with scrupulous exactness, giving every detail of orthography and punctuation, and for the most part following it in such small errors as it has. It is impossible for one who places these MSS. side by side, as I have been able to do, to avoid the conviction that in some parts at least the exemplar for K was the Fairfax MS. itself. On the other hand, the Latin marginal note at the beginning was derived from some other copy, and setting aside the many mistakes, which possibly are due to mere carelessness on the part of some of the scribes, the Keswick MS. does undoubtedly contain some readings which seem to be derived from a different source. In form of text generally it corresponds exactly with F, reproducing all the additions and corrections made by erasure or otherwise, and containing the same Latin and French pieces in the same order at the end, so far at least as it is perfect. The Magdalen College MS. must be derived ultimately from the same source as H₃, and it has the same lapse from the third recension to the first, coinciding with the gap in the Keswick book. On the other hand W, though in form of text it corresponds with these and with F, is quite independent of the group above mentioned, and probably also of the Fairfax MS. It is late and full of corruptions, but in several instances it assists in the correction of errors which appear in F, and it is apparently based on a copy which retained some of the variants of the earlier text still uncorrected.

As for the remaining manuscript, which was formerly in the Phillipps collection, but is now in the hands of a bookseller, I have had so little opportunity for examining it that I ought not to attempt a classification.

Reviewing the whole body of authorities, we can recognize readily that two are pre-eminent as witnesses for the author’s final text, that is to say, S and F, the Stafford and the Fairfax MSS. These are practically identical in orthography, and, except as regards the characteristic differences, which sufficiently guarantee their independence, exhibit essentially the same text, and one which bears the strongest marks of authenticity. Both are contemporary with the author, and it is perhaps difficult to say which best represents his final judgement as to the form of his work.

The Stafford MS. seems to be the earlier in time, that is to say, it probably precedes the final conversion of the Fairfax copy. It was evidently written for presentation to a member of the house of Lancaster, perhaps to Henry himself before his accession to the throne. It was doubtless for some such presentation copy that the preface was rewritten in 1392-3, with the dedication to Henry introduced into the English text, while most of the other copies issued during Richard’s reign probably retained their original form. If we suppose that the new forms of preface and epilogue were at first intended only for private circulation, we can account for the very considerable preponderance of the first recension in regard to the number of copies by which it is represented, and also allow sufficient time for the gradual development of the text, first into the type which we find in A or J, and finally into that of F, as it originally stood, a process which can hardly be satisfactorily understood if we suppose that from 1393 onwards the Lancastrian dedication had its place in all copies put forth by the author. It seems on the whole probable, for reasons to be stated afterwards, that the final conversion of F (that is as regards the preface) did not take place until after the deposition of Richard, and it is reasonable enough to suppose that copies were usually issued in the original form, until after that event occurred.