INTRODUCTION (continued 4)

But in Prol. 719 we have only before a vowel,

though onliche occurs in a similar position, i. 1948, and onlich, iii. 42. Again, 911,

but Prol. 503,

cp. iv. 921, compared with i. 1336.

The treatment of the O. E. spirant h (= χ) deserves some attention. This occurring before t is recognized as having in M. E. a palatal or a guttural sound, according to the nature of the preceding vowel, but the texts of our period usually give it as gh in both cases. Gower, however, makes a distinction, writing almost regularly alihte, briht, dihte, fihte, flihte, kniht, liht, miht, mihte, niht, riht, sihte, wiht, heihte, sleihte, &c., but aghte, caghte, straghte, boghte, broghte, noght, oght, oghte, soghte. Occasionally however in the first class we find g, as rarely bryghte, lighte, more frequently heighte, sleighte, and pretty regularly eighte; and there are several words in the second which have variants with h, but in these cases w(u) is inserted, as cawhte, strawhte, dowhter (douhter), owhte: otherwise u is generally absent, as we have already seen. The form referred to is commoner with the vowel a than with o.

It is hardly necessary to repeat here that plit is a word of Romance origin, and rhymes properly with delit, appetit, not with liht, niht, &c., being separate in etymology from O. E. pliht.

From the fact that there is no rhyming of -iht with -it either in Gower or Chaucer, we may certainly gather that the sounds were somewhat different; but the fact that Gower does not usually write gh after i indicates, no doubt, that in this case the sound of the spirant was less marked than when preceded by broader vowels.

Where O. E. h is a final aspirate, g is not usually written, as sih, hih, nih, bowh, lowh, plowh, slowh, ynowh, except in the case of thogh, but very occasionally we find such forms as drogh, plogh. In the words which have w(u) h is often dropped, as in bowes, low, slow (preterites), ynow.

v. Inflexion.—(1) Substantives. In a certain number of words there is variation in the matter of final e: thus we have drink drinke, felawe felawh (fela), flyht flyhte, half halve, help helpe, kep kepe, lack lacke, lyf lyve, myn myne, queene queen, sor sore, wel wele, will wille, wyndou wyndowe, to which must be added many words with the suffixes -hede, -hode, -schipe, and the termination -inge, e.g. falshed(e), knyhthod(e), manhed(e), felaschip(e), hunting(e), knowleching(e), teching(e), wenyng(e). In these latter cases the presence of the e ending is not wholly dependent on the accent, for we have huntíng, i. 350, but húntynge, iv. 2429, techyng and techinge both equally in rhyme, i. 1592, v. 611, gládschipe, i. 3128, knithód, v. 2057, felaschíp, ii. 1217. Accent however has some influence, and it is hardly conceivable that the final e should count in the metre except where the accent falls on the preceding syllable, so that where the accent is thrown back, we find that the word is regularly followed by a vowel. In the case of the (English) termination -ere the final e is usually written: such words are beggere, forthdrawere, hindrere, ledere, lovere, makere, repere, spekere, writere. This -e, however, is either elided or passed over in the metre (as with janglere, v. 526), unless an accent falls on the termination, in which case it may be sounded, as vii. 2348, ‘The Sothseiere tho was lief.’

The forms game, gamen appear side by side both in singular and plural, as i. 347, vi. 1849, viii. 680.

As regards the oblique cases we note the following genitive forms: cherche, herte (also hertes), hevene, ladi, soule, sterre (pl.), wode (also wodes), to which add dowhter (also dowhtres), fader (also fadres), moder. In the expressions horse side, horse heved, &c., horse is genitive singular.

The -e termination of the dative appears in a good many prepositional phrases: to (in) bedde, in boke, to borwe, be (to) bote, with (of) childe, unto the chinne (but unto the chin, i. 1682), be daie, to (fro) dethe (also fro deth), of dome, on (under) fote (but upon the fot, at his fot), on fyre, to (upon) grounde, fro (unto) the grounde (also fro the ground), on hede, at (fro) home (also at hom), in (on, upon) honde, to (into) honde, (but ‘bar on hond,’ be the hond), on horse, to horse, to (in, of) house (but in myn hous), to (into) londe, be (in, over) londe, of (out of) londe, fro the londe, (but of his lond, &c.), be lyhte, to lyve, to manne, to mowthe, be mowthe, be nyhte (also be nyht, and regularly at nyht, on nyht, a nyht, to nyht), to rede, be (to, into, out of) schipe (also to schip), to scorne, to slepe (also to slep), to toune, to wedde, to wyve, to ȝere, be ȝere.

In the plural we have hors, schep unchanged, and also with numerals, mile, monthe, pound, ȝer (beside ȝeres), wynter. The plural of thing is thinges, sometimes thinge, not thing. Mutation plurals, feet, men, teeth, wommen. Plurals in -en, brethren, children, oxen (also oxes), ton, yhen.

The forms in -ere have plurals -ers, as janglers, kepers, lovers. From maiden we have beside maidens also maidenes (three syllables), iv. 255, which is perhaps the true reading in Chaucer, Leg. of G. Women, 722. From angel we have plural anglis, iii. 2256, as well as angles, and Nimphis, v. 6932, but there are few examples of plural in -is.

With regard to Romance substantives Gower appears to be stricter than Chaucer in preserving their form. He gives us regularly beste ‘beast,’ feste, requeste, tempeste. We have however baner (also banere), host, maner, matier (beside manere, matiere), press (beside presse), travaile, conseile (substantives) very occasionally for travail, conseil.

Several distinctively feminine forms are used, as capiteine, chamberere, citezeine, cousine, enemie.

In some cases the Latin inflexion is introduced, as Tantaly, Apollinis, Centauri, in Cancro, Achillem, Esionam, Phebum, the two last apparently introduced after the first recension.

(2) Adjectives and Adverbs. A few adjectives vary as regards final e in the uninflected form, for example ech eche, lich liche, low lowe, many manye, moist moiste, old olde, other othre, such suche (?), trewe trew, wommanyssh wommannysshe.

In comparative forms -e is often dropped, as fairer, further, longer, rather, ȝonger, but more often written, as furthere, deppere, ferre, gladdere, grettere, lengere, rathere. This -e, however, is either elided or passed over in the metre (as ii. 503, iv. 1459, vi. 1490, 1525, 2010). Where there is syncope of the penultimate, as after v(u) in levere, the final e counts regularly as a syllable, so that in case of elision the word is reduced to a monosyllable, which never takes place with rathere, furthere, &c.

When adjectives or adverbs ending in weak e are combined with a suffix or another word, -e is often dropped; thus we have everemore evermore, furthermore, joieful joiful, hevenely hevenly, trewely trewly (so also trewman), and so on. In such cases a previously syncopated penultimate ceases to be so on loss of the following e.

A few cases occur of -id for -ed in adjective endings, as nakid (also naked), wickid wikkid (usually wicked), also hundrid (usually hundred).

The definite form is used pretty regularly in the case of English monosyllabic adjectives, and usually also in monosyllables of French origin. This rule applies (1) to adjectives used after the definite article, a demonstrative pronoun or a possessive; (2) to those employed as vocatives in address; (3) to adjectives in combination with proper names or words used as proper namesV. Thus we have regularly (1) ‘the grete hert,’ ‘the stronge coffre,’ ‘The qwike body with the dede,’ ‘this proude vice,’ ‘this ȝonge lord,’ ‘my longe wo,’ ‘his lose tunge,’ ‘thi fulle mynde,’ ‘whos rihte name,’ &c. (2) ‘O derke ypocrisie,’ ‘O goode fader,’ ‘lieve Sone,’ &c. (3) ‘grete Rome,’ ‘Blinde Avarice,’ ‘proude Envie’ (but ‘proud Envie,’ Prol. 712), ‘faire Eole,’ ‘stronge Sampson,’ ‘wise Tolomeüs,’ &c.

We must note also the inflexions in the following expressions, ‘so hihe a love,’ ii. 2425 (but hih, vii. 2413), ‘so grete a wo,’ v. 5737, so grete a lust,’ v. 6452, ‘so schorte a time,’ vii. 5201.

With Romance adjectives we find ‘his false tunge,’ ‘the pleine cas,’ ‘false Nessus,’ &c., and so usually in monosyllables.

In the case of English monosyllables the exceptions are few. ‘His full answere,’ i. 1629, ‘hire good astat,’ i. 2764, ‘here wrong condicion,’ ii. 295, ‘his slyh compas,’ ii. 2341 (but ‘his slyhe cast,’ ii. 2374), ‘the ferst of hem,’ iii. 27, v. 2863, cp. 5944 (usually ‘the ferste,’ as i. 580, &c.), ‘my riht hond,’ iii. 300, ‘the trew man,’ iii. 2346, ‘his hih lignage,’ iv. 2064 (due perhaps to the usual phrase ‘of hih lignage’), ‘the hih prouesse,’ v. 6428*, ‘hire hih astat,’ v. 6597, ‘the gret oultrage,’ vii. 3413, ‘hire freissh aray,’ vii. 5000, ‘hire hol entente,’ viii. 1222, cp. viii. 1710, 2968 (but ‘ȝoure hole conseil’).

Among Romance adjectives the want of inflexion is more frequent in proportion to the whole number of instances, e.g. ‘the vein honour,’ Prol. 221, ‘the fals emperour,’ Prol. 739, ‘Hire clos Envie,’ ii. 684, &c.

In the case of adjectives of more than one syllable, whether English or French, the definite form is exceptional. The commonest case is that of superlatives, in which the definite form -este is regularly used when the accent falls on the termination, whether in rhyme or otherwise, as faireste, i. 767, v. 7427, slyheste, i. 1442, wiseste: myhtieste, i. 1097 f., wofulleste, vii. 5017. Even when the accent is thrown back, the definite inflexion is more usually given than not, as faireste, i. 1804, hoteste, i. 2492, treweste, ii. 1282, povereste, iv. 2238, heyeste, vii. 935, but sometimes dropped, as ‘the purest Eir,’ Prol. 921, ‘the ȝongest of hem,’ i. 3133, ‘the lowest of hem alle,’ vii. 224: in all cases, however, where the accent is thrown back, the adjective is followed by a word beginning with a vowel, so that the metre is not affected.

Other adjectives of which the termination is capable of accent may take the definite inflexion, when the accent is thrown on the termination, as ‘the covoitouse flaterie,’ ‘this lecherouse pride,’ this tyrannysshe knyht,’ but on the other hand ‘his fals pitous lokynge,’ ‘the pietous Justinian,’ ‘the proude tyrannyssh Romein,’ and cases where the adjective is used as a substantive, ‘the coveitous’, ‘This Envious,’ ‘thaverous,’ &c. We have ‘the parfite medicine,’ iv. 2624 (but ‘the parfit Elixir,’ iv. 2522, with accent thrown back), and ‘O thou gentile Venus,’ viii. 2294; but perhaps parfite, gentile are to be regarded as feminine forms, as almost certainly devolte, i. 636.

Where the final syllable of the adjective is incapable of accent, there is ordinarily no question of a definite inflexion, except where there is syncope after v (u), as in evele. Such words are croked, wicked, cruel, litel, middel, biter, dedly, lusti, sinful(l), wilful, woful(l), wrongful, and we may note that comparatives in -ere and adjectives in -liche (with accent thrown back) sometimes appear in the truncated form of spelling even where a definite termination is suggested by their position, e.g. ‘hire ȝonger Soster,’ v. 5395, ‘hir goodlych yhe,’ ii. 2026, ‘Ha, thou ungoodlich ypocrite,’ v. 6293, ‘hire dedlich yhe,’ vii. 5089 (-lich in these latter cases to avoid the hiatus of ‘ungoodly ypocrite,’ &c.). As an exceptional instance the form nakede should be observed, ‘his nakede arm,’ iv. 421, given so both by F and S.

The formation of plurals in adjectives and participles used attributively is governed by the same principles. We have ‘preciouse Stones,’ iv. 1354, but ‘the most principal’(pl.), v. 1115. In the expression ‘the chief flodes,’ v. 1112, chief must be considered perhaps as a substantive, like hed in ‘the hed planete.’ Naturally words like wicked, woful, lusti, &c., take no plural inflexion, but we have manye (manie) beside many apparently as a plural form, though manye also occurs in the singular, and enye once as plural of eny. In the expression ‘som men’ som is without inflexion in the plural, e.g. Prol. 529, iii. 2113, but ‘somme clerkes,’ Prol. 355, ‘some thinges,’ i. 1265.

Adjectives used as predicates or in apposition are to some extent treated according to convenience of metre or rhyme, but in the case of monosyllables there is a decided preference for inflexion. The following are some of the instances: ‘Whan we ben dede,’ Prol. 2, ‘hem that weren goode,’ 42, ‘my wittes ben to smale,’ 81, ‘Ther ben of suche manie glade,’ 299, ‘become grete,’ 303, ‘ben with mannes senne wrothe,’ 920, so blinde, i. 774, smale, 1145, glade, 1151, hyhe, smale, i. 1678 f., hore and whyte, i. 2045, stronge, iii. 1112, dulle, iv. 947, whyte, fatte, grete, iv. 1310, &c. We have also ‘hise thoghtes feinte,’ iv. 118, ‘thinges ... veine,’ i. 2689, ‘hise bedes most devoute,’ i. 669, ‘in wordes so coverte,’ iv. 1606, wher the men ben coveitouse, v. 4800.

On the other hand, ‘Of hem that ben so derk withinne,’ i. 1077, ‘Hire chekes ben with teres wet,’ i. 1680, ‘Thei wexen doumb,’ iv. 345, ‘Here bodies weren long and smal,’ iv. 1320, ‘Thei weren gracious and wys,’ vii. 1447, ‘thei weren glad,’ viii. 881, and so frequently.

The participle used as predicate is ordinarily uninflected, but there are a few examples of a plural form adopted for the rhyme, as made, Prol. 300, ansuerde, i. 3246, iv. 2343, hidde, v. 6789.

The usage of al, alle as an adjective is in some ways peculiar, but tolerably consistent. In the singular before an article, a demonstrative pronoun or a possessive, the uninflected form al (occasionally all) is used, as ‘al the baronie,’ ‘al the world,’ ‘al his welthe,’ ‘all his proude fare,’ ‘al a mannes strengthe’ (also ‘the Cite all,’ ii. 3473), but before a substantive the form alle (dissyllable)W, as ‘alle grace,’ ‘alle thing,’ ‘alle untrouthe,’ ‘alle vertu,’ ‘in alle wise,’ ‘in alle haste,’ ‘alle wel,’ ‘alle charite,’ but sometimes before vowels al, as ‘al honour,’ i. 879, ‘al Erthe,’ i. 2825, ‘al Envie,’ ii. 168, ‘al untrowthe,’ ii. 1684. In the plural, ‘al the,’ ‘all these,’ ‘alle the,’ &c. (‘alle’ being counted as a monosyllable), and without the article, ‘alle’ (but ‘al othre,’ iv. 1532).

Note also the adverbial expression ‘in none wise,’ cp. ‘othre wise.’ In cases of the combination of a French adjective with a feminine substantive of the same origin the adjective occasionally takes the French feminine form. Instances are as follows: ‘devolte apparantie,’ i. 636, ‘veine gloire,’ i. 2677 ff., ‘vertu sovereine,’ ii. 3507, ‘seinte charite,’ iv. 964, ‘herbe sovereine,’ vii. 1392, ‘joie sovereine,’ viii. 2530, and even as predicate, ‘Dame Avarice is noght soleine,’ v. 1971. Possibly also, ‘O thou divine pourveance,’ ii. 3243, ‘the parfite medicine,’ iv. 2624, ‘a gentile ... on,’ v. 2713, and ‘O thou gentile Venus,’ viii. 2294, may be examples of the same usage.

There is one instance of the French plural adjective in -s, Prol. 738, evidently introduced for the sake of the rhyme.

(3) Pronouns. The personal pronoun of the first person is regularly I, not ich. It is usually written y by the copyist of the last 235 lines of the Fairfax MS. and in the Praise of Peace.

The third person sing. fem. is sche (never written she), once scheo: the oblique case is hire, hir (never here), and hire, though usually equivalent to a monosyllable, sometimes has -e fully sounded, as i. 367, iv. 766, v. 1178.

The third person neuter is it, seldom hit.

In the first person plural the oblique case is ous, not shortened to us in spelling.

The possessives of the first and second persons sing., min, thin, have no plural inflexion, but the disjunctive form thyne pl. occurs, i. 168. On the other hand his, originally an uninflected form, has usually the plural hise, but sometimes his. The form hise is never a dissyllable.

The feminine possessive, 3rd pers., is hire or hir, freely interchanged and metrically equivalent. There is no question of a plural inflexion here, and we find ‘Hire Nase,’ ‘hire browes,’ ‘hir lockes,’ ‘Hire Necke,’ quite indifferently used, i. 1678 ff. The disjunctive is hire, v. 6581, and hires, v. 6857. The forms oure, ȝoure are usual for the possessives of the 1st and 2nd pers. plur., and these are commonly used as monosyllables, e.g. i. 2062, 2768, and interchanged with our, ȝour; but they are also capable of being reckoned as dissyllables, e.g. Prol. 5, iii. 1087. Here again there is no plural inflexion (‘ȝour wordes,’ iii. 627). The disjunctive ȝoures occurs in i. 1852.

The possessive of the 3rd pers. plur. is here, her, which is practically never confused in good MSS. with hire, hir of the fem. sing.X We are fully justified in assuming that for Gower the distinction was absolute.

The ordinary relatives are which and that: who is little used as a relative except in the genitive case, whos. The plural whiche is usually pronounced as a monosyllable, as ii. 604, iv. 1496, v. 1320, and often loses -e in writing, as Prol. 1016, iv. 1367, 1872, v. 4041, but also sometimes counts as a dissyllable, e.g. i. 404, vii. 1256.

In combination with the definite article the singular form is ‘the which,’ not ‘the whiche,’ as Prol. 71, 975.

(4) Verbs. In the Infinitive and Gerund, apart from the cases of do, go, se, sle, &c., few instances occur of the loss of final e. The verb sein (sain) has seie and also say, and beside the regular infinitive pute we have also put in several instances, the next word beginning with a vowel or mute h. The cases are as follows: ‘And thoghte put hire in an Ile,’ i. 1578, ‘To put his lif,’ &c., i. 3213, ‘put eny lette,’ ii. 93, and so also ii. 1021, iii. 1166, iv. 756, 2615, v. 273, viii. 892: but also, ‘It oghte pute a man in fere,’ i. 462, ‘To puten Rome in full espeir,’ ii. 1551, ‘Theucer pute out of his regne,’ iii. 2648, &c. In addition to the above there are a few instances of the same in other verbs, as ‘get hire a thank,’ ii. 60, ‘It schal noght wel mow be forsake,’ ii. 1670, ‘flitt his herte aside,’ iv. 214, ‘let it passe,’ viii. 2056. (In vi. 202, ‘If that sche wolde ȝif me leve,’ we ought perhaps to read ȝive with S: cp. i. 1648.)

The gerund ‘to done’ is common, but we do not find either ‘to sene’ or ‘to seine.’

Present Tense. In the 1st pers. sing, of the present, apart from such forms as do, go, &c., and prai beside preie praie, there are a few cases of apocope, as in the infinitive: ‘Than cast I,’ iv. 560, ‘let it passe,’ iv. 363, ‘I put me therof in your grace,’ i. 732, ‘I put it al,’ v. 2951, ‘I red thee leve,’ vi. 1359, ‘Nou thenk I,’ vii. 4212. In two of these instances it will be noticed that the following word begins with a consonant.

In the 3rd pers. sing. the syncopated and contracted forms are very much used by Gower. He says regularly bit, ett, get, put, schet, set, sit (2nd pers. sist), smit, writ; arist, bint, fint, holt (halt), lest, went, wext; berth, brekth, bringth, crith, drawth, drinkth, falth, farth, forsakth, leith, lyth, preith, spekth, takth (or tath), thenkth, ȝifth, and only occasionally draweth, drinketh, fareth, kepeth, sitteth, waxeth, &c. In vi. 59 the best MSS. agree in giving sterte for stert, and in viii. 2428 most have sitte for sit, but these are probably accidental variations. For the 3rd pers. plural Fahrenberg (p. 404) quotes several supposed instances of th ending. Of these most are expressions like ‘men seith,’ where ‘men’ is used as singular indefinite. One only is valid, viz. vii. 1107, ‘Diverse sterres to him longeth’: cp. vii. 536.

Preterite. With regard to the tense formation of Strong Verbs reference may be made to the Glossary, where all the characteristic forms are recorded. We confine ourselves here to a few remarks.

The following instances may be noticed of gradation between the singular and the plural of the preterite: began, pl. begunne begonne, gan, pl. gonnen, ran, pl. runne, wan, pl. wonne, bond, pl. bounden, fond, pl. founden, song (sang), pl. songe sunge, sprong, pl. spronge sprungen, drank (dronk), pl. drunke, bar, pl. bere (beere), brak, pl. brieken, spak, pl. spieke, sat, pl. sete(n) siete(n) seete, bad, pl. bede, lay (lih), pl. lihe leie(n), wax, pl. woxen, wrot, pl. write(n), rod, pl. riden, ches, pl. chose, and among preterite-presents can, pl. conne, mai, pl. mowe, schal, pl. schulle schull schol, wot, pl. wite.

There are some few instances in F of strong preterites with irregular -e termination in the 1st or 3rd pers. singular, but in no case is this authenticated by metre or rhyme. The following are examples in which F and S are agreed, ‘schope a wile,’ v. 4278, ‘he bare him,’ v. 5236, ‘which sihe his Soster,’ v. 5810, ‘lete come,’ vi. 1186, ‘he tho toke hire in his arm,’ viii. 1732. These are perhaps mistakes, and they have sometimes been corrected in the text on the authority of other MSS.

The 2nd pers. sing. has the -e termination, as sihe (syhe), iii. 2629, iv. 599, were, iv. 600, knewe, vi. 2313, come, viii. 2076, but tok, i. 2421. The 2nd pers. sing. of the preterite-present mai is regularly miht (myht), never ‘mayest.’ Occasionally the best MSS. give it as mihte, e.g. i. 2457, vii. 2637, 3819, but there is no metrical confirmation of this form. The preterite plural is very rarely found without -e, as v. 3300, 7534, vii. 3574.

Among Weak Verbs those which have the short or syncopated form keep the -e termination almost regularly. Such preterites are, for example, aspide, cride, deide, leide, obeide, payde, preide, seide, teide, hadde, made, brende, sende, answerde, ferde, herde, solde, spilde, tolde, wende, betidde, dradde, fedde, fledde, hedde, gradde, ladde, radde, spedde, spradde, crepte, duelte, felte, hente, kepte, kiste, lefte, lepte, loste, mente, slepte, wente, wepte, alihte, caste, dihte, grette, knette, kutte, laste, liste, mette, plyhte, putte, schette, sette, sterte, triste, arawhte, broghte, cawhte, oghte, roghte, schryhte, soghte, strawhte, tawhte, thoghte, wroghte, cowthe, dorste, mihte, moste, scholde, wiste, wolde.

At the same time it must be noted (as in the case of the infinitive) that with some of these forms there is an occasional tendency to drop the -e before a vowel at the beginning of the next word (that is, where elision would take place), and the agreement of the best MSS., especially F and S, makes it certain this was sometimes done by the author. It is impossible to trace any system, but the number of verbs affected is not large, and in nearly every case the instances of this kind of elision-apocope are largely outnumbered by the examples of normal inflexion in the same verbY.

The following is a tolerably full list of references for these preterite forms, which are given in alphabetical order: ‘Beraft hire,’ v. 5647, ‘it betidd upon the cas,’ vii. 4381, ‘Sche cast on me,’ i. 152, ‘cast up hire lok,’ v. 5436, ‘he cast his lok,’ vi. 1035, ‘dorst he,’ ii. 1633, ‘drad him,’ viii. 1368, ‘And felt it’ (subj.), viii. 2165, ‘so ferd I,’ viii. 2445, ‘had herd hem,’ v. 5865, ‘Hir bodi hent up,’ v. 5702, ‘herd he noght sein,’ iii. 2082, ‘And kept hire,’ ii. 181, ‘Sche kept al doun,’ v. 1495, ‘he kest him,’ vi. 1746, ‘And kist him,’ v. 3777, 5592, ‘and knet it,’ v. 6866, ‘he kut it,’ vii. 4525, ‘what him list he tok,’ iii. 2446, ‘Sche lost al,’ ii. 2290, cp. v. 3465, ‘That mad hem,’ ii. 310, and so also v. 986, 3393, 3822, ‘ne myht I,’ i. 1280, ‘miht eschuie,’ iii. 1356, and so also iii. 1440, vii. 4285, ‘Put under,’ Prol. 683, ‘Wan and put under,’ Prol. 718, ‘He put hem into,’ i. 1013, ‘Sche put hire hand,’ i. 1807, and so also ii. 3267, v. 3045, 4088, 5326, 6409, vi. 2062, vii. 4402, viii. 2702, ‘thei putt hem,’ v. 7417, ‘Of ous, that schold ous,’ Prol. 543 (so SF), ‘schold every wys man,’ ii. 578, ‘And seid hir,’ i. 3188, ‘Seid ek,’ v. 4309, ‘And set hire,’ ii. 2220, ‘He set him,’ v. 3691, ‘he set an essamplaire,’ vii. 4262, ‘And tawht hem so’ (‘tawhte’ S), iii. 176, ‘told him,’ i. 3187, ii. 803, 2865 (‘tolde’ S), vii. 4688, told hem,’ v. 3883, viii. 1555, ‘he told out,’ ii. 884, ‘every man went on his syde,’ v. 7403, ‘And went hem out’ (pl.), v. 7533, ‘sche wist it,’ ii. 2010, ‘thanne wold I,’ i. 183, ‘and wold have,’ v. 4217, ‘I wold stele,’ v. 7137, ‘wold I,’ viii. 2298, to which we may add ‘myht obeie,’ and ‘behight him’ from the Praise of Peace, 39, 41.

Of these examples it is to be remembered, first that in only one case, ‘I wold stele,’ v. 7137, does this apocope take place before a consonant, though in one other instance, v. 5865, the following word begins with an aspirated h; and secondly, that with all these, except perhaps put, the full form of the preterite is that which usually occurs before a vowel as well as elsewhere. Even in the case of put we have the form putte frequently when it is subject to elision, as Prol. 1069, ‘And putte awey malencolie,’ and so ii. 713, 2684, iv. 399, 1368, &c., as well as regularly before a consonant, as ‘With strengthe he putte kinges under,’ i. 2797. The form putt occurs in v. 7417, and in this case the verb is plural. The only other instances of plurals in the list are Prol. 543 and v. 7533.

With regard to the weak verbs which form preterites with ending -ede, the loss of the final e is somewhat more common, but it is usually retained, and sometimes it counts as a syllable in the verse. Where this is not the case, it is either elided in the usual way, or if it be dropped in writing, this is only under the conditions which apply to the verbs mentioned above, namely, before a vowel at the beginning of the succeeding word.

It is, however, noteworthy that the use of these forms, whether in -ede or -ed, is decidedly rare, and was avoided by our author even in cases where the -e would have been subject to elision. It is evident that he was always conscious of this ending, even if he did not always write it, and yet he felt that the two weak syllables ought not to have full value in the metre. The result was that he avoided the use of the form generally, so far as it was reasonably possible to do so. The whole number of these preterites in -ede, -ed to be found in the Confessio Amantis is surprisingly small, both actually and relatively, that is, taking account of the extent to which the verbs in question are employed in their other tenses. The method pursued is chiefly to substitute in narrative the present tense, or the perfect formed with ‘hath,’ for the 3rd person singular of the preterite, ‘Conforteth’ for ‘Confortede,’ ‘Hath axed’ for ‘axede,’ ‘feigneth’ for ‘feignede,’ and this apparently as a matter of habit and even in cases where a vowel follows. No doubt the use of the present tense in narrative is quite usual apart from this, but the extremely frequent combination of strong or syncopated preterites with the present tenses of verbs of this class seems to me to indicate clearly how the matter stood.

The following are a few of the examples of this: ‘For sche tok thanne chiere on honde And clepeth him,’ i. 1767 f., ‘The king comandeth ben in pes, And ... caste,’ 3240 f., ‘Comendeth, and seide overmore,’ 3361, ‘he him bethoghte,... And torneth to the banke ayein,’ ii. 167 ff., ‘for hem sente And axeth hem,’ 613 f., ‘lay ... clepeth oute ... sterte,’ 848 ff., ‘Sche loketh and hire yhen caste,’ 1066, ‘This child he loveth kindely ... Bot wel he sih ... axeth ... seide,’ 1381 ff., ‘Sche preide him and conseileth bothe,’ 1457, ‘Which semeth outward profitable And was,’ 2201 f., ‘And he himself that ilke throwe Abod, and hoveth there stille,’ iii. 1232 f., and so on.

These examples will serve to illustrate a tendency which every reader will observe, when once his attention has been called to it. There are indeed many narrative passages in which nearly all the strong or syncopated verbs are used in the preterite, and all the others in the present, and it is evident that this cannot be accidentalZ.

There are, however, a certain number of instances of the use of weak preterites, indicative or subjunctive, and a few in which the final e (or -en) is sounded in the metre.

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,

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

which is a metrically perfect line. Again, in the Praise of Peace, l. 79,

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,

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,

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,

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

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:

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 acceptanceAB. 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 beginningAC. 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 recensionAD 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 othersAE, 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 exampleAF:

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 SΔAG, 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 wasAI. 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 existenceAJ. 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.

Manuscripts. The following account of the MSS. is given on my own authority in every detail. I have been able to see them all, and I wish here to express my thanks to the possessors of them, and to the librarians who have them in their charge, for the readiness with which they have given me the use of them. I am indebted especially to the Councils of Trinity College and St. John’s College, Cambridge, and to Corpus Christi, Wadham, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford, for allowing their MSS. to be sent to the Bodleian Library for my use, and to remain there for considerable periods. Except in the case of one or two, to which my access was limited, I have examined every one carefully, so that I am able to say (for example) to what extent, if at all, they are imperfect. They are arranged as far as possible in accordance with the classes and groups to which they belong, as follows:

1st Recension (a) AJMP₁ChN₂E₂ (b) H₁YXGOAd₂CathQ (c) ECRLB₂SnDArHdAsh 2nd Recension (a) SΔ (b) AdTBΛP₂ 3rd Recension FH₂NKH₃MagdWP₃ Hn

First Recension.

(a) Revised.

A. Bodley 902, Bodleian Library (formerly Arch. D. 33, not in Bernard’s Catalogue, 1697). Contains Confessio Amantis followed by ‘Explicit iste liber’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere freta,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 184, measuring 13⅜ × 9⅛ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords. Well written in double column of 46 lines in three different hands of early fifteenth cent., of which the first extends to the end of the second quire (ff. 2-16), the second from thence to the end of the tenth quire (ff. 17-80), and the third from f. 81 to the end. The columns nearly correspond with those of the Fairfax MS. up to f. 81, after which point some attempt is made to save space by writing the Latin verses in the margin. Latin summaries in the margin, except very occasionally, as on ff. 10 and 11 v^o. Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book except the fifth, and one miniature on f. 8, of the Confession, remarkable for the fact that the figure of the Lover is evidently intended as a portrait of the author, being that of an old man and with some resemblance in features to the effigy on Gower’s tomb. The Confessor has a red stole, which with his right hand he is laying on the penitent’s head, much as in the miniatures which we have in C and L. The note for the miniaturist still stands in the margin, ‘Hic fiat confessor sedens et confessus coram se genuflectendo.’

The first leaf of the book is lost, and has been supplied in the sixteenth cent. from Berthelette’s second edition. It should be noted that this is not the form of commencement which belongs properly to the MS., being that of the third recension, taken by Berthelette from Caxton. The first line of f. 2 is Prol. 144.

As to former possessors, we find written on the last leaf ‘Anniballis Admiralis dominicalis,’ on f. 80 ‘Be me Anne Russell’ (?), and on f. 115 ‘Elyzebeth Gardnar my troust ys in god,’ all apparently sixteenth cent. The first name is evidently that of Claude d’Annebaut (also called d’Hannybal), who was Admiral of France, and died in 1552. He was in England about the year 1547. The book came to the Bodleian from Gilbert Dolben, Esq., of Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in the year 1697, and not being in the Catalogue of 1697, it has to some extent escaped notice.

The text is a very good one of the revised type. It should be noted, however, that while in the earlier books AJM &c. stand very frequently together on the side of F as against the rest of the first recension, in the later, and especially in the seventh and eighth, AM &c. have an increasing tendency to stand with the first recension generally, leaving J alone in support of the corrected text. In the earlier books A sometimes stands alone in this manner, as i. 1960, ii. 961, 1356.

The orthography (especially that of the second hand) is nearly that of F. As regards final e, the tendency is rather to insert wrongly than to omit. Punctuation agrees generally with that of F.

J. St. John’s Coll., Camb. B 12. Contains the same as A. Parchment, ff. 214, 12 × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of 39 lines, written in a very neat hand of the first quarter of fifteenth century. Latin summaries usually omitted, but most of them inserted up to f. 5 (Prol. 606), and a few here and there in the fifth and seventh books.

The first page has a complete border, but there are no other decorations except red and blue capitals. Old wooden binding.

The seventh leaf of quire 12 (v. 57-213) and the first of quire 14 (v. 1615-1770) are cut out, and a passage of 184 lines is omitted in the first book (i. 631-814) without loss of leaf, which shows that the manuscript from which it was copied, and which here must have lost a leaf, had the normal number of 46 lines to the column.

Various names, as Thomas Browne, Nicolas Helifax, J. Baynorde, are written in the book, and also ‘John Nicholas oweth this book,’ with the date 1576. At the beginning we find ‘Tho. C. S.’, which stands for ‘Thomas Comes Southampton.’ The book was in fact bought with others by Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, from William Crashaw, Fellow of St. John’s College, and presented by him to the College Library in the year 1635.

This MS. gives a text which is nearer to the type of F than that of any other first recension copy. In the later books especially it seems often to stand alone of its class in agreement with F, as v. 649, 1112, 1339, 1578, 3340, 4351, 4643, 5242, 6059, 6461, 6771, vi. 162, 442, 784, 973, 2089, vii. 445, 1027, 1666, 2424, 3235, 4336, 5348, viii. 13, 239, 747, 845, 1076, 1415, 1456 ff., 2195, 2220, 2228, 2442, 2670 ff., and it is noteworthy that this is the only first recension copy which supplies the accidental omission of ‘eorum disciplina—materia’ in the author’s Latin account of the Conf. Amantis at the end. As regards individual correctness it is rather unequal. In some places it has many mistakes, as vi. 1509 ff., while in others it is very correct. The spelling is in most points like that of F, and it is usually good as regards terminations; but the scribe has some peculiarities of his own, which he introduces more or less freely, as ‘ho’ for ‘who,’ ‘heo’ for ‘sche’ (pretty regularly), ‘heor’ for ‘her,’ ‘whech’ for ‘which.’ It must also be an individual fancy which leads him regularly to substitute ‘som tyme’ for ‘whilom’ wherever it occurs. Punctuation usually agrees with that of F.

M. Camb. Univ. Mm. 2.21 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9648). Contains Conf. Amantis only, without ‘Explicit,’ &c. (the last leaf being lost). Parchment, ff. 183, 14 × 9½ in. Quires of eight with catchwords and signatures: double columns of 46 lines: Latin summaries usually in margin, but occasionally in the text, as in A. Several hands, as follows, (1) ff. 1-32, 41-64, 73-88, 97-136, 145-152, 161-176; (2) ff. 33-40, 89-96, 137-144; (3) ff. 65-72; (4) ff. 153-160; (5) ff. 177-183. Finally another, different from all the above, adds sometimes a marginal note which has been dropped, as on ff. 4, 32 v^o, 65, 72 v^o. The first hand, in which more than two-thirds of the book is written, is fairly neat: the third much rougher than the rest, and also more inaccurate.

Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book, except the third, fifth, and seventh, and two rather rudely painted miniatures, viz. f. 4 v^o, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (the king in bed, crowned), and f. 8, the Confession, a curious little picture in the margin. The priest is laying his stole on the head of the penitent, whose features are evidently meant for a portrait. It is quite different however from that which we have in A. Below this picture we find the note, ‘Hic fiat Garnimentum.’

The last leaf is lost, containing no doubt the ‘Explicit,’ ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ as in A.

The names Stanhope and Yelverton are written on f. 39 (sixteenth cent.), and ‘Margareta Straunge’ on the first leaf (seventeenth cent.). Later the book belonged to Bishop Moore of Norwich (No. 462 in his library), and it passed with the rest of his books to the University of Cambridge in 1715, as a gift from the king.

M is very closely connected with A, as is shown by very many instances of special agreement, and some considerations suggest that it may be actually derived from it, as for example the writing of the Latin verses in the margin after f. 80, which in A seems to be connected with a change of hand, whereas in M it begins at the same point without any such reason. On the other hand M has a good many readings which are clearly independent, either correcting mistakes and omissions in A, as Prol. 195 marg., 937, i. 673 marg., 924, 1336, 3445, ii. 951, iii. 2529, vi. 620, or giving an early reading where A has a later, e.g. Prol. 869, i. 1118, 1755, ii. 961, 3516, iii. 1939, v. 3914, 5524, &c. In correctness of text and of spelling M is much inferior to A, especially as regards final e: for example, on f. 53 v^o,

P₁, formerly Phillipps 2298, bought in June, 1899, by Mr. B. Quaritch, who kindly allowed me to see it. Parchment, leaf measuring about 9 × 6½ in., double column of 39 lines, in a fairly neat running hand, with many contractions because of the small size of the leaf. Latin summaries omitted. No decoration. Text agrees with AJM group, so far as I have examined it.

Ch. Chetham’s Libr., Manchester, A. 6. 11 (Bern. Cat. ii. 7151). Contains Conf. Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (4 lines) and ‘Quam cinxere.’ Parchment, ff. 126, about 15¼ × 10¾ in., quires usually of 12 or 14 leaves. Rather irregularly written in double column of 47-61 lines, late fifteenth century. No ornament. Marginal Latin almost entirely omitted, but some English notes by way of summary occasionally in margin, perhaps by later hand.

The first leaf is lost, the MS. beginning Prol. 193, and also two leaves in the second quire (i. 1092-1491) and one in the tenth (viii. 2111-2343); but besides these imperfections there are many omissions, apparently because the copyist got tired of his work, e.g. ii. 3155-3184, iii. 41-126, 817-842, 877-930, 1119-1196, iv. 17-72, 261-370, 569-704, 710-722, 915-968, 1117-1236, v. 72-112. There is also a good deal of omission and confusion in v. 6101-7082. At the end in a scroll is written ‘Notehurste,’ which indicates probably that the book was copied for one of the Chethams of Nuthurst, perhaps Thomas Chetham, who died 1504. The word ‘Notehurst’ also occurs at the end of the Glasgow MS. of the ‘Destruction of Troy,’ which has in another place the names of John and Thomas Chetham of ‘Notehurst’ as the owners of it.

In text it belongs to the AJM group, and sometimes, as iv. 208, stands alone with J. There are many corruptions, however, and the spelling is late and bad.

N₂. New College, Oxford, 326. Contains Conf. Amantis only (no ‘Explicit’). Parchment, ff. 207 + 4 blanks, about 13¾ × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords; neatly written in double column of 40 lines (or 39). No Latin summaries or verses. The handwriting changes after f. 62 (at iii. 2164) and becomes rather larger and more ornamental.

Two leaves lost after f. 35, containing ii. 1066-1377, and some of the leaves of the MS. from which it was copied had been displaced, so that iv. 2501-2684 comes after 2864, then follows 3049-3232, then 2865-3048, and after these 3233 ff. (two leaves displaced in the original). Lines omitted sometimes with blanks left, as i. 1044, 2527.

From the coats of arms which it contains the book would seem to have been written for Thomas Mompesson of Bathampton, sheriff of Wilts in 1478 (K. Meyer, John Gower’s Beziehungen, &c.). It was given to John Mompesson by Sir Giles Mompesson in 1650, and to New College by Thomas Mompesson, Fellow, in 1705.

The text is a combination of two types. It has the Lancaster dedication at the beginning, but the conclusion which belongs to the first recension. On examination it proves that the scribe who wrote the first eight quires followed a manuscript not of the F, but of the SΔ class (agreeing for example with S in i. 1881 f., 2017 ff., ii. 2387, iii. 168, 1241, and differing from F in regard to i. 2267 ff., 2343 ff., &c.), while the copyist of the remainder followed one of the revised first recension. The spelling is poor.