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]