profit. The end of every pleasure is pain. Love is blind, and makes all
his servants blind: thou mayest yet withdraw and set thyself under the
law of reason.
It is easy to say so, father. My woe is but a game to you, feeling
nothing of that which I feel. The hart that goes free knows not the
sorrows of the ox under the yoke. But I entreat you to present for me
a Supplication to Venus and Cupid, and bring me a good answer back.
(2009-2188.)
Then arose a great debate between my Priest and me: my reason
understood him well, but my will was against him. At length he agreed
to deliver my Supplication, and with tears instead of ink I wrote the
letter thus: ‘The wofull peine of loves maladie,’ &c. (2189-2300.)
The Priest went forth to present my petition, and I abode. Suddenly
Venus stood by me, and I fell upon my knee and prayed her to do me
grace. ‘What is thy name?’ she said, as if in game. ‘John Gower,’
I replied. ‘I have read thy bill,’ she said, ‘in which thou hast
complained to Nature and to me. Nature is mistress where she will, and
I excuse thee for following her law: but as for what thou sayest, that
I am bound to relieve thee, because thou hast served in my Court, I
will give thee medicine that will heal thy heart, but perchance it will
not be such as thou desirest.’ (2301-2376.)
Half in scorn she spoke to me of my age and hoary locks, and counselled
me to make a ‘beau retret,’ while there was yet time; for even though I
should attain to my desire, I could not hold covenant duly with love.
I grew cold suddenly for sorrow of my heart, and lay swooning on the
ground. Then methought I saw Cupid with his bow bent, and with him
a great company, those gentle folk who once were lovers, arrayed in
sundry bands. (2377-2459.)
Youth was the leader of one company, and these had garlands, some of
the leaf and some of the flower. They went with piping and with song
which resounded all about: they laughed and danced and played, and
talked of knighthood and of ladies’ love. There was Tristram with
Ysolde, Lancelot with Gunnore, Jason with Creusa, Hercules with Eole,
Troilus with Criseide, but in his mirth he was yet heavy of cheer
because of Diomede. Those also I saw who died for love, as Narcissus,
Piramus, Achilles; and the women who were forsaken, Dido, Phillis,
Adriagne, Deianire and Medea. Many others too I saw, but four women
especially who were most commended as examples in marriage, Penolope,
Lucrece, Alceste and Alcione. Youth, which led this company, took no
heed of me. (2460-2665.)
Then came Eld, leading a company not so great. Their music was low and
their dancing soft: they smiled, but they did not laugh aloud. There
was David with Bersabee, and Salomon with his wives and concubines,
Sampson with Dalida, and Aristotle with the queen of Greece; Virgil
also and Plato and Ovid the poet. (2665-2725.)
When this company was come to the place where I lay, they entreated
Venus for me, and even some of the younger band said that it was great
pity. Cupid came with Venus to me as I lay, and the lovers all pressed
round to see. Some said that love was folly in the old, and others that
no age could be free, and that while there was yet oil in the lamp, it
might always be set alight. Cupid groped after me till he found me, and
then he drew forth that fiery lance which before he had cast through
my heart, and Venus anointed my wound with a cooling ointment and gave
me a mirror in which I might behold myself. I saw my face wrinkled and
my eyes dim, and I likened myself to that time of year when winter has
despoiled the earth. Then Reason returned to me and I was made sober
and sound. (2726-2869.)
Venus beheld me, and laughing asked me what Love was. I answered with
confusion that I knew him not, and prayed that I might be excused from
my attendance on her Court. As touching my Confession too, I asked an
absolution, and the Priest gave it readily. Then the queen delivered
to me a pair of beads to hang about my neck, and on them was written
_Por reposer_ in gold. ‘Thus,’ said she, ‘have I provided for thine
ease, and my will is that thou pray for peace. Stay no more in my
Court, but go where moral virtue dwells, where are those books which
men say that thou hast written: thou and I must commune together never
again. [O]Adieu, for I must go from thee.’ And so enveloped in a starry
cloud, Venus was taken to her place above, and her Priest departed
also at the same time. I stood for a while amazed; and then I smiled,
thinking of the beads that she had given me and of the prayers that I
should say. And thus I took my way softly homeward. (2870-2970.)
To God, the Creator of all things, I pray for the welfare of this
land, and that it may have peace and unity, which every estate should
desire. I pray that the clergy may work after the rule of charity, that
the order of knighthood may cause extortion to cease and defend the
right of the Church, that merchants may follow honesty, and above all
that the king may keep himself and all the other estates of the kingdom
in the right way. The king who humbly follows the law of God shall be
blessed, and his name shall be remembered for ever. (2971-3105.)
I promised to make in English a book between play and earnest, and now
I ask that I may be excused for lack of curious skill. I have written
in rude plain words, as sickness and age would suffer me; and I pray my
lords that I may stand in their grace, for I desire to do pleasure to
those under whose rule I am. (3106-3137.)
And now my Muse bids me rest and write no more of love, which turns the
heart away from reason. Of this love then I take my final leave. But
that love which stands confirmed by charity, which may save the body
and amend the soul, such love may God send us, that in heaven our joy
may be without end. (3138-3172.)
iv. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONOLOGY.--In the remarks upon Gower’s language
which here follow there is no systematic completeness. Attention is
called to such points as seem to be important or interesting, reference
being made especially to the language of Chaucer, as dealt with in
B. ten Brink’s _Chaucers Sprache und Verskunst_ (second edition,
1899). It is necessary perhaps to remark here upon a difference of
procedure which distinguishes this investigation from those which
have for their object the text of Chaucer or of other writers whose
work is handed down to us in manuscripts which do not proceed from
the author himself. In such cases we have first to ascertain what the
author actually wrote, before we can draw any valid conclusions about
the laws of his language. It may even be necessary to restrict the
discussion to such forms as are authenticated by rhyme; but when we are
compelled to do this, we must remember that we are accepting a rather
dangerous limitation. The conclusions drawn from the rhyme-words of a
Middle English author will probably not be precisely applicable to his
language in general. The sphere of our investigations will be that in
which the licentious and exceptional is most likely to be found. If he
has any tendency to borrow from other dialects than his own or to use
irregular forms, this tendency will be most seen in his rhymes, for it
will probably be the exigencies of rhyme which suggest the variation.
Chaucer repeatedly uses ‘here,’ in the sense of the modern ‘her,’ to
rhyme with such words as ‘bere,’ ‘spere,’ but we should certainly not
be justified in concluding that this and not ‘hire’ was the normal
form of his language. Similarly in the case of Gower by examination of
his rhymes alone we might be led to many very doubtful results. For
example, we should gather that he almost always used the form _sinne_
rather than _senne_, _wile_ (verb) and not _wole_ or _wol_, _axe_ and
not _aske_, _sek_ (adj.) and never _sik_, _hond_ and never _hand_,
_couthe_ and never _coude_, _sente_ (pret.) rather than _sende_, the
adverb ending _-ly_ in preference to _-liche_ or _-lich_. In these
cases and in many others we might easily be misled, the forms of these
words as used in rhyme being determined chiefly by the comparative
frequency of the various rhyme-syllables. Most of the conclusions
above mentioned, and others like them, have in fact been arrived at
in a paper by K. Fahrenberg, published in the _Archiv für die neueren
Sprachen_, vol. 89. The author of this paper, having only Pauli’s text
before him, very properly confines himself to an examination of the
rhymes, and within these limits most of his results are sound enough;
but it would be very unsafe to treat them as generally applicable to
the language of Gower. In our case it must be understood that the
Fairfax manuscript is regarded (for reasons which will afterwards be
stated) as a practically accurate reproduction of the author’s original
text, and consequently the occurrence of a particular form in rhyme is
not held necessarily to be of any special significance.
ORTHOGRAPHY.--This being premised, we shall proceed to note first some
points which call for attention in the orthography of the text.
In describing the British Museum MS. Harl. 3869, Pauli takes
occasion to observe: ‘This copy is very remarkable on account of its
orthography, which has been carried through almost rigorously according
to simple and reasonable principles.’ This system he appears to
attribute to the copyist of the manuscript in question, but it is in
fact that of the author, the text being copied very faithfully from the
Fairfax manuscript itself. Pauli appears to have been repelled by the
outward appearance of this ‘small stout folio’ with its rather untidy
writing. He did not take the trouble to examine the Oxford copies; but
he seems to have perceived that its orthography was the same as that of
the Stafford manuscript, and this should have enlightened him. In fact,
if instead of taking Berthelette as his basis, he had simply printed
the text of the Harleian volume, there would hardly have been need of
another edition.
The orthography of the Fairfax text, first hand, confirmed as it is
in almost every particular by that of the Stafford manuscript, and
supported also by the testimony of others, more especially of MS.
Bodley 902, may be assumed to be that of the author; and it is well
worthy of our attention, for he evidently regarded exactness and
consistency in spelling as a matter of some importance.
We may observe in the first place that it was not Gower’s practice
to mark vowel-length by doubling the vowel. Naturally there are some
MSS. in which this is occasionally found, and in particular the third
hand of A gives _caas_, _paas_, _glaade_, _maade_, _saake_, _waas_,
_bee_, _breeþ_, _soo_, _aroos_, _moore_, _schoon_, _ooþer_, _toold_,
&c. with considerable frequency, while very many MSS. have _book_,
_look_, _took_, _oon_, _heere_, _mateere_, and some other forms of the
same kind; but this is not in accordance with the author’s rule. In
the Fairfax MS. the cases of doubled vowel are only occasional, except
in the instance of _good_, which is thus regularly distinguished from
_god_.
Of _oo_ there are very few cases except _good_. We have _oon_
about three times for _on_, and _blood_, _brood_, _cooste_,
_do_ (= doe), _foode_, _hool_, _schoo_, _too_ (= toe), _woot_,
in isolated instances. The doubling of _e_ is more frequent,
as _beere_, _cheeke_, _cleene_, _dee_ (pl. _dees_), _degree_,
_eem_, _eer_, _fee_, _feede_, _feer_, _feere_, _feet_,
_greene_, _meene_, _meete_, _pees_, _queene_, _scheete_, _see_
(subst.), _seene_, _slee_, _spreede_, _thee_, _tree_, _weer_,
_weere_, _wreeche_, _ȝee_, _ȝeer_, and a few more. Most of the
above words, however, and in general all others, are written
usually with a single vowel, and we have quite regularly (for
example) _ded_, _dede_, _drem_, _ek_, _fend_, _fre_, _gret_,
_hed_, _her_ (= hair), _lef_, _red_, _slep_, _bok_, _bon_,
_brod_, _fol_, _gon_, _hot_, _lok_, _non_, _schon_, _sone_
(soon), _tok_, _wok_, and so on. Where there is variation of
spelling in this respect, it is not felt to be a matter which
concerns the rhyme; for we have _weer_ : _pouer_, _pees_:
_reles_, _sene_ : _meene_, _there_ : _feere_, _good_ : _stod_,
_fode_ : _goode_, _do_ : _schoo_, &c., though sometimes the
spelling of the rhyme-words is evidently brought into harmony,
as _meene_ : _Almeene_, ii. 2465 f., _beere_ : _weere_, iv. 1323
f., _brood_ : _good_, v. 4375 f., _goode_ : _foode_, vii. 519
f. In a few cases however a phonetic distinction seems to be
intended, as when we find _eet_ as preterite of _ete_, and
_beere_ (also _bere_) pret. plur. of _beren_.
_Maii_ (the month) is regularly written with _ii_, but rhymes
with _mai_, _gay_, &c.
The doubling of final consonants, apparently to indicate vowel
shortness, is more common, as in _all_, _bladd_, _charr_, _hadd_,
_happ_, _madd_, _bedd_, _fedd_, _fett_, _spedd_, _bitt_, _bridd_,
_chidd_, _godd_, _rodd_, beside _al_, _char_, _had_, _hap_, _mad_,
_bed_, _fet_, &c.
The doubling of _s_ in a final tone syllable seems to have no
such significance, as in _Achilles_ : _press_, iv. 2161 f., but
_Ulixes_ : _pres_, iv. 147 f., so _natheles_ : _encress_, _pes_:
_encress_, in all of which the vowel must be long.
One of the most noteworthy points of the orthography is the frequent
use of _ie_ in tonic syllables for close _ē_. This appears in French
words such as _achieve_, _appiere_, _chief_, _chiere_, _clier_,
_grieve_, _matiere_, _messagier_, _pier_, &c. (also in many of these
cases _e_, as _chere_, _cler_, _matere_), but it is very commonly used
also in words of English origin and seems invariably to be associated
with the close sound of the vowel. Thus we have _hiede_, _spriede_,
_lief_ (but _levere_), _sieke_, _diel_, _stiel_, _whiel_, _dieme_,
_sieme_, _diere_, _fiere_ (= company), _hiere_ (adv.), _hiere_ (verb),
_liere_, _stiere_, and others, which have in most cases the alternative
spelling with _e_, as _hede_, _sprede_, _seke_, _del_, _stel_, _whel_,
_deme_, _seme_, &c., but in all of which the vowel has the close sound.
It is impossible here to discuss the question how far this habit of
spelling may have been introduced by analogy from French words with
a similar sound of the vowel, and how far it may have grown out the
Kentish use of _ie_, _ye_ for O. E. _ēo_, _ē_, _īe_. Reference may
be made to the remarks in the Introduction to the volume of Gower’s
French Works, p. xxi, where it is suggested that _ie_, having lost its
value as a diphthong in later Anglo-Norman, came to be regarded as a
traditional symbol in many cases for close _ē_, and hence such forms as
_clier_, _clief_, _pier_, _prophiete_, &c., and as regards _ie_ in the
Kentish dialect there is a useful statement in the paper by W. Heuser,
_Zum Kentischen Dialekt im Mittelenglischen_, published in _Anglia_,
xvii, 78 ff.
In any case the fact is pretty clear that this variation was confined
by Gower to words in which he gave to the vowel a close sound, and it
is therefore useful as a distinguishing note, though there are few
words in which this is the only form of spelling.
Both in stems of words and in their terminations _i_ is on the whole
preferred to _y_, so that we have _crie_, _hide_, _lif_, _like_,
_mile_, _ride_, &c. more usually than _crye_, _hyde_, &c. (but perhaps
_y_ more often after _m_, _n_, as _knyht_, _myhte_, _nyht_), and also
_arrai_, _mai_, _dai_, _hardi_, _ladi_, _worþi_, _mi_, _thi_, more
often on the whole than _array_, _may_, &c., but _-ly_ in adverbs more
often than _-li_.
In some few cases it seems that a distinction is pretty consistently
made, as between _wryte_ (inf.) and _write_ (past participle), and
perhaps between _wite_ (know) and _wyte_ (blame).
Before _gh_ followed by _t_ we find _a_, _o_ almost regularly in place
of _au_, _ou_. Thus we have _aghte_, _straghte_, _taghte_, _boghte_,
_broghte_, _doghter_, _noght_, _oghte_, _oght_, _soghte_, _wroghte_,
&c., but occasionally _broughte_, _doughter_, _ought_, &c. Beside
some of these there are forms in which _au_ (_aw_), _ou_ (_ow_) are
written, but followed by simple _h_, as _strawhte_, _tawhte_, _douhter_
(_dowhter_).
There is no difference between _-oun_ and _-on_ as terminations
of such French words as _divisioun_, _complexioun_, &c.,
but _-oun_ is much the more usual form[P]. Where they occur
in rhyme, the rhyme-words are usually assimilated to one
another in form of spelling, but sometimes _-oun_, _-on_
rhyme together, as _division_ : _doun_, ii. 1743 f., _toun_:
_condicion_, v. 2551, _constellacioun_ : _relacion_, vi. 2253 f.
In the case of _an_ followed by a consonant in a tone-syllable
the variation to _aun_ seems to be merely a question of
spelling, and we have such rhymes as _chaunce_ : _remembrance_,
ii. 893 f., _demande_ : _comaunde_, iv. 2794, _supplanted_:
_enchaunted_, ii. 2491, _covenant_ : _supplaunt_, ii. 2367. In
the French terminations _-ance_, _-ant_, the simple form is
decidedly preferred (but _governaunce_ : _porveaunce_, Prol. 187
f., _graunt_ : _amblaunt_, ii. 1505 f.), and so also in many
other words, as _change_, _strange_, _comande_, _demande_,
_supplante_ (also _comaunde_, _supplaunte_). In other cases
_au_ is either the usual or the only form, as _daunce_,
_daunte_, _enchaunte_, _haunte_, _sclaundre_.
With regard to the consonants, it should be observed that Gower
consistently wrote _sch_ for _sh_ initially, so that we have regularly
_schal_, _schape_, _sche_, _schewe_, _schip_, _schrifte_, and also
_lordschipe_, _worschipe_, &c.[Q], in other places usually _ssh_,
as _bisshop_ (also _bisschop_), _buissh_, _fissh_, _fleissh_ (also
_fleisch_), _freissh_, _reisshe_, _wisshe_.
The almost regular use of _h_ for _gh_ in such words as _hih_, _nyh_,
_sih_, _kniht_, _liht_, _miht_, _niht_, _heihte_, _sleihte_, &c. will
be spoken of later.
Gower did not use _ȝ_ for _h_ or _gh_. Such forms as _miȝte_, _riȝt_,
_uȝte_, _wrouȝt_, are practically unknown in the best MSS. (F has
_nouȝt_ once.) On the other hand initially in such words as _ȝe_,
_ȝer_, _ȝive_ (_forȝive_), _ȝong_, &c., _ȝ_ is regularly used. Only
late and inferior MSS. have _y_. In regard to this letter Gower’s
usage is exactly the reverse of that which we find in the _Ayenbite of
Inwyt_. We have _þ_ for _th_ regularly except in the case of a capital
letter being required, as at the beginning of a line, or in connexion
with some foreign words and names as _thalemans_, _thevangile_,
_rethorique_, _Athemas_, _Anthenor_, _Thebith_. Cases of _th_ for _þ_
in ordinary English words are very rare in F (but i. 2890, v. 2319,
vii. 4203).
In some words there is an interchange of _c_ and _s_, as
_decerte_, _pourchace pourchase_, _service servise_, _rancoun_,
_suffice suffise_, _sufficant_, &c., and the French termination
_-esse_ is also spelt _-esce_, as _largesse largesce_,
_simplesce simplesse_; so also _encresce_, _redresce_, &c.
In such points the orthography of Romance words is usually
in accordance with that which we find in the author’s French
writings, in which also are found such etymological forms as
_deceipte_, _doubte_.
Before quitting the general subject, we ought to note certain words
of common occurrence which are spelt not quite in the usual way. The
author regularly writes _bot_ for _but_, _be_ for _by_, when used as
a preposition and unemphatic, _ous_ for _us_ (pers. pron.), _noght_
for _not_ (_not_ being used for _ne wot_). Some forms of proper names,
as _Habraham_, _Irahel_, are characteristic. In these points, as in
many others, the writer evidently followed a definite system, and in
spite of the variations recorded, the orthography of the Fairfax and
Stafford MSS. certainly conveys to the reader the general impression of
regularity and consistency.
PHONOLOGY. (1) O. E. SHORT VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS.
O. E. =a=, =æ=, =ea=. In the case of _a_ (_o_) before a lengthening nasal
combination, _ld_, _nd_, _mb_, _ng_, &c., we may note that though
_hond_, _honde_, _hondes_ are preferred, as by Chaucer, yet _hand_,
_handes_ pretty frequently occur, as i. 2, 1807, 2994, ii. 574, iii.
116, v. 1505, &c. (also _handle_, iii. 1956, v. 1949), and that without
any necessity of rhyme. In fact _hand_ seems to be rather preferred
except in rhyme. Contrary to what is apparently Chaucer’s usage we find
_thonk_, _thonke_ as the regular forms in Gower, and only occasionally
_thank_, as ii. 60, 2012. This may be due to the Kentish tendency to
lengthen before _nk_, which perhaps was pronounced nearly as _ng_ (see
Morsbach, _Mittelengl. Gramm._, p. 128), and in this connexion we may
note the fact that the Fairfax MS. twice has _þong_ for _þonk_. On
the other hand there is no definite trace of the principle which has
been discovered in some of the Kentish texts of lengthening before
these combinations when a vowel follows, while preserving _a_ when the
consonant group ends the word, _honde_, _stonde_, _þonke_, &c., but
_hand_, _stand_, _þank_[R]. Gower uses _handes_ as well as _hand_,
and interchanges _hange_ and _honge_, _sang_ and _song_, according to
convenience.
Note that _upon_ rhymes freely with _on_ (= one), _anon_,
_gon_, &c., but the supposed rhyme _on_ (_ăn_) : _mone_, i.
2179, noted by Fahrenberg, is really _one_ (_ān_) : _mone_.
In some cases of original _ǣ_ shortened to _æ_ Gower prefers
_e_ to _a_, as _eny_, only occasionally _any_, _eddre_ beside
_addre_, but _lesse_, _ledde_ only for the sake of rhyme.
_ea_ before _h_ becomes _ī_ in _sih_ (from _seah_, _sæh_, pret. of
_sēon_), which in Gower is the usual form of the word, _æg_ forms _ai_
(_ay_), as in _dai_, _lay_, _mai_, _fain_, _slain_, and other _ai_
forms, which are not interchangeable with _ei_ (but _said_ with variant
_seid_ by influence of _seie_).
O. E. =e=. When we are dealing with so careful a rhymer as Gower,
we need hardly remark upon the absolute distinction made between
_ę̄_ derived from O. E. _ĕ_ and _ẹ̄_ of whatever origin. The case
of _skiereþ_ : _hiereþ_, cited by Fahrenberg as an instance of the
opposite, cannot be regarded as a real exception, in view of the
uncertain derivation of _skiere_. His other cases of supposed _ę_ : _ẹ_
are instances of the pret. pl. _spieke_ (_speke_), from _sprǣcon_, as
_spieke_ : _beseke_, ii. 959, _sieke_ : _spieke_, ii. 1455. One is
doubtful, viz. _seke_ : _mispeke_, ii. 2007, where _mispeke_ may be
pret. subjunctive; and besides these, _undergete_ : _flete_, ii. 1133
f. is irregular.
There is, however, also a well-marked distinction between new-lengthened
_ę̄_ in words like _trede_, _stede_, _bere_, _spere_, &c., _forȝete_,
_gete_, _begete_ (inf. and partic.), _mete_ (subst.), &c., and _ę̄_
from _ǣ_ or _ēa_, the distinction being due presumably to imperfect
lengthening. With the first class rank also words in which _e_ is
derived from O. E. _y_ in open syllables, as _lere_ (loss) from O. E.
_lyre_, _stere_ (stir) from _styrian_, _dede_ (pret.) from _dyde_, and
also _e_ in _answere_.
Thus we find the following quite distinct sets of rhymes:
_bede_, _forbede_ (past participles), _bede_ (subst.), _dede_
(pret. = did), _stede_ (stead), _trede_, forming one class
and rhyming together, while they are kept entirely apart from
_threde_, _drede_, _dede_ (= dead), _rede_, pl. adj. (= red),
which have _ę̄_ from _ēa_ or _ǣ_. On the other hand, _bede_
the pret. plur. of _bidde_ (from _bǣdon_) rhymes with _dede_
(dead), e.g. i. 2047.
So also _answere_, _bere_ (subst.), _bere_ (verb inf.),
_forbere_, _dere_ (destroy), _lere_ (loss), _stere_ (stir),
_bestere_, _swere_ (verb), _tere_ (verb), _were_ (wear),
_were_ (defend), form one class of rhyme-words as against
_ere_, _fere_ (fear), _there_, _were_ (from _wǣron_), &c. But
_eere_ (verb) from _erian_ rhymes with _there_, v. 819 f., and
_scheres_ with _teres_, v. 5691. The case of _bere_ rhyming
with _were_ (from _wǣron_), i. 2795 f., vii. 1795 f., is not an
exception to the rule, being the preterite plural, from _bǣron_.
Another group is _chele_, _fele_ (many), _hele_ (cover),
_stele_, _wele_, as against _hele_ (heal), _dele_, &c.: but we
find _hele_ (_hǣlo_) : _hele_ (_helan_), iii. 2755 f.