Part 22

It is easy to say so, father. My woe is but a game to you, feeling nothing of that which I feel. The hart that goes free knows not the sorrows of the ox under the yoke. But I entreat you to present for me a Supplication to Venus and Cupid, and bring me a good answer back. (2009-2188.)

Then arose a great debate between my Priest and me: my reason understood him well, but my will was against him. At length he agreed to deliver my Supplication, and with tears instead of ink I wrote the letter thus: ‘The wofull peine of loves maladie,’ &c. (2189-2300.)

The Priest went forth to present my petition, and I abode. Suddenly Venus stood by me, and I fell upon my knee and prayed her to do me grace. ‘What is thy name?’ she said, as if in game. ‘John Gower,’ I replied. ‘I have read thy bill,’ she said, ‘in which thou hast complained to Nature and to me. Nature is mistress where she will, and I excuse thee for following her law: but as for what thou sayest, that I am bound to relieve thee, because thou hast served in my Court, I will give thee medicine that will heal thy heart, but perchance it will not be such as thou desirest.’ (2301-2376.)

Half in scorn she spoke to me of my age and hoary locks, and counselled me to make a ‘beau retret,’ while there was yet time; for even though I should attain to my desire, I could not hold covenant duly with love.

I grew cold suddenly for sorrow of my heart, and lay swooning on the ground. Then methought I saw Cupid with his bow bent, and with him a great company, those gentle folk who once were lovers, arrayed in sundry bands. (2377-2459.)

Youth was the leader of one company, and these had garlands, some of the leaf and some of the flower. They went with piping and with song which resounded all about: they laughed and danced and played, and talked of knighthood and of ladies’ love. There was Tristram with Ysolde, Lancelot with Gunnore, Jason with Creusa, Hercules with Eole, Troilus with Criseide, but in his mirth he was yet heavy of cheer because of Diomede. Those also I saw who died for love, as Narcissus, Piramus, Achilles; and the women who were forsaken, Dido, Phillis, Adriagne, Deianire and Medea. Many others too I saw, but four women especially who were most commended as examples in marriage, Penolope, Lucrece, Alceste and Alcione. Youth, which led this company, took no heed of me. (2460-2665.)

Then came Eld, leading a company not so great. Their music was low and their dancing soft: they smiled, but they did not laugh aloud. There was David with Bersabee, and Salomon with his wives and concubines, Sampson with Dalida, and Aristotle with the queen of Greece; Virgil also and Plato and Ovid the poet. (2665-2725.)

When this company was come to the place where I lay, they entreated Venus for me, and even some of the younger band said that it was great pity. Cupid came with Venus to me as I lay, and the lovers all pressed round to see. Some said that love was folly in the old, and others that no age could be free, and that while there was yet oil in the lamp, it might always be set alight. Cupid groped after me till he found me, and then he drew forth that fiery lance which before he had cast through my heart, and Venus anointed my wound with a cooling ointment and gave me a mirror in which I might behold myself. I saw my face wrinkled and my eyes dim, and I likened myself to that time of year when winter has despoiled the earth. Then Reason returned to me and I was made sober and sound. (2726-2869.)

Venus beheld me, and laughing asked me what Love was. I answered with confusion that I knew him not, and prayed that I might be excused from my attendance on her Court. As touching my Confession too, I asked an absolution, and the Priest gave it readily. Then the queen delivered to me a pair of beads to hang about my neck, and on them was written Por reposer in gold. ‘Thus,’ said she, ‘have I provided for thine ease, and my will is that thou pray for peace. Stay no more in my Court, but go where moral virtue dwells, where are those books which men say that thou hast written: thou and I must commune together never again. Adieu, for I must go from thee.’ And so enveloped in a starry cloud, Venus was taken to her place above, and her Priest departed also at the same time. I stood for a while amazed; and then I smiled, thinking of the beads that she had given me and of the prayers that I should say. And thus I took my way softly homeward. (2870-2970.)

To God, the Creator of all things, I pray for the welfare of this land, and that it may have peace and unity, which every estate should desire. I pray that the clergy may work after the rule of charity, that the order of knighthood may cause extortion to cease and defend the right of the Church, that merchants may follow honesty, and above all that the king may keep himself and all the other estates of the kingdom in the right way. The king who humbly follows the law of God shall be blessed, and his name shall be remembered for ever. (2971-3105.)

I promised to make in English a book between play and earnest, and now I ask that I may be excused for lack of curious skill. I have written in rude plain words, as sickness and age would suffer me; and I pray my lords that I may stand in their grace, for I desire to do pleasure to those under whose rule I am. (3106-3137.)

And now my Muse bids me rest and write no more of love, which turns the heart away from reason. Of this love then I take my final leave. But that love which stands confirmed by charity, which may save the body and amend the soul, such love may God send us, that in heaven our joy may be without end. (3138-3172.)

iv. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONOLOGY.--In the remarks upon Gower’s language which here follow there is no systematic completeness. Attention is called to such points as seem to be important or interesting, reference being made especially to the language of Chaucer, as dealt with in B. ten Brink’s Chaucers Sprache und Verskunst (second edition, 1899). It is necessary perhaps to remark here upon a difference of procedure which distinguishes this investigation from those which have for their object the text of Chaucer or of other writers whose work is handed down to us in manuscripts which do not proceed from the author himself. In such cases we have first to ascertain what the author actually wrote, before we can draw any valid conclusions about the laws of his language. It may even be necessary to restrict the discussion to such forms as are authenticated by rhyme; but when we are compelled to do this, we must remember that we are accepting a rather dangerous limitation. The conclusions drawn from the rhyme-words of a Middle English author will probably not be precisely applicable to his language in general. The sphere of our investigations will be that in which the licentious and exceptional is most likely to be found. If he has any tendency to borrow from other dialects than his own or to use irregular forms, this tendency will be most seen in his rhymes, for it will probably be the exigencies of rhyme which suggest the variation. Chaucer repeatedly uses ‘here,’ in the sense of the modern ‘her,’ to rhyme with such words as ‘bere,’ ‘spere,’ but we should certainly not be justified in concluding that this and not ‘hire’ was the normal form of his language. Similarly in the case of Gower by examination of his rhymes alone we might be led to many very doubtful results. For example, we should gather that he almost always used the form sinne rather than senne, wile (verb) and not wole or wol, axe and not aske, sek (adj.) and never sik, hond and never hand, couthe and never coude, sente (pret.) rather than sende, the adverb ending -ly in preference to -liche or -lich. In these cases and in many others we might easily be misled, the forms of these words as used in rhyme being determined chiefly by the comparative frequency of the various rhyme-syllables. Most of the conclusions above mentioned, and others like them, have in fact been arrived at in a paper by K. Fahrenberg, published in the Archiv für die neueren Sprachen, vol. 89. The author of this paper, having only Pauli’s text before him, very properly confines himself to an examination of the rhymes, and within these limits most of his results are sound enough; but it would be very unsafe to treat them as generally applicable to the language of Gower. In our case it must be understood that the Fairfax manuscript is regarded (for reasons which will afterwards be stated) as a practically accurate reproduction of the author’s original text, and consequently the occurrence of a particular form in rhyme is not held necessarily to be of any special significance.

ORTHOGRAPHY.--This being premised, we shall proceed to note first some points which call for attention in the orthography of the text.

In describing the British Museum MS. Harl. 3869, Pauli takes occasion to observe: ‘This copy is very remarkable on account of its orthography, which has been carried through almost rigorously according to simple and reasonable principles.’ This system he appears to attribute to the copyist of the manuscript in question, but it is in fact that of the author, the text being copied very faithfully from the Fairfax manuscript itself. Pauli appears to have been repelled by the outward appearance of this ‘small stout folio’ with its rather untidy writing. He did not take the trouble to examine the Oxford copies; but he seems to have perceived that its orthography was the same as that of the Stafford manuscript, and this should have enlightened him. In fact, if instead of taking Berthelette as his basis, he had simply printed the text of the Harleian volume, there would hardly have been need of another edition.

The orthography of the Fairfax text, first hand, confirmed as it is in almost every particular by that of the Stafford manuscript, and supported also by the testimony of others, more especially of MS. Bodley 902, may be assumed to be that of the author; and it is well worthy of our attention, for he evidently regarded exactness and consistency in spelling as a matter of some importance.

We may observe in the first place that it was not Gower’s practice to mark vowel-length by doubling the vowel. Naturally there are some MSS. in which this is occasionally found, and in particular the third hand of A gives caas, paas, glaade, maade, saake, waas, bee, breeþ, soo, aroos, moore, schoon, ooþer, toold, &c. with considerable frequency, while very many MSS. have book, look, took, oon, heere, mateere, and some other forms of the same kind; but this is not in accordance with the author’s rule. In the Fairfax MS. the cases of doubled vowel are only occasional, except in the instance of good, which is thus regularly distinguished from god.

Of oo there are very few cases except good. We have oon about three times for on, and blood, brood, cooste, do (= doe), foode, hool, schoo, too (= toe), woot, in isolated instances. The doubling of e is more frequent, as beere, cheeke, cleene, dee (pl. dees), degree, eem, eer, fee, feede, feer, feere, feet, greene, meene, meete, pees, queene, scheete, see (subst.), seene, slee, spreede, thee, tree, weer, weere, wreeche, ȝee, ȝeer, and a few more. Most of the above words, however, and in general all others, are written usually with a single vowel, and we have quite regularly (for example) ded, dede, drem, ek, fend, fre, gret, hed, her (= hair), lef, red, slep, bok, bon, brod, fol, gon, hot, lok, non, schon, sone (soon), tok, wok, and so on. Where there is variation of spelling in this respect, it is not felt to be a matter which concerns the rhyme; for we have weer : pouer, pees: reles, sene : meene, there : feere, good : stod, fode : goode, do : schoo, &c., though sometimes the spelling of the rhyme-words is evidently brought into harmony, as meene : Almeene, ii. 2465 f., beere : weere, iv. 1323 f., brood : good, v. 4375 f., goode : foode, vii. 519 f. In a few cases however a phonetic distinction seems to be intended, as when we find eet as preterite of ete, and beere (also bere) pret. plur. of beren.

Maii (the month) is regularly written with ii, but rhymes with mai, gay, &c.

The doubling of final consonants, apparently to indicate vowel shortness, is more common, as in all, bladd, charr, hadd, happ, madd, bedd, fedd, fett, spedd, bitt, bridd, chidd, godd, rodd, beside al, char, had, hap, mad, bed, fet, &c.

The doubling of s in a final tone syllable seems to have no such significance, as in Achilles : press, iv. 2161 f., but Ulixes : pres, iv. 147 f., so natheles : encress, pes: encress, in all of which the vowel must be long.

One of the most noteworthy points of the orthography is the frequent use of ie in tonic syllables for close ē. This appears in French words such as achieve, appiere, chief, chiere, clier, grieve, matiere, messagier, pier, &c. (also in many of these cases e, as chere, cler, matere), but it is very commonly used also in words of English origin and seems invariably to be associated with the close sound of the vowel. Thus we have hiede, spriede, lief (but levere), sieke, diel, stiel, whiel, dieme, sieme, diere, fiere (= company), hiere (adv.), hiere (verb), liere, stiere, and others, which have in most cases the alternative spelling with e, as hede, sprede, seke, del, stel, whel, deme, seme, &c., but in all of which the vowel has the close sound.

It is impossible here to discuss the question how far this habit of spelling may have been introduced by analogy from French words with a similar sound of the vowel, and how far it may have grown out the Kentish use of ie, ye for O. E. ēo, ē, īe. Reference may be made to the remarks in the Introduction to the volume of Gower’s French Works, p. xxi, where it is suggested that ie, having lost its value as a diphthong in later Anglo-Norman, came to be regarded as a traditional symbol in many cases for close ē, and hence such forms as clier, clief, pier, prophiete, &c., and as regards ie in the Kentish dialect there is a useful statement in the paper by W. Heuser, Zum Kentischen Dialekt im Mittelenglischen, published in Anglia, xvii, 78 ff.

In any case the fact is pretty clear that this variation was confined by Gower to words in which he gave to the vowel a close sound, and it is therefore useful as a distinguishing note, though there are few words in which this is the only form of spelling.

Both in stems of words and in their terminations i is on the whole preferred to y, so that we have crie, hide, lif, like, mile, ride, &c. more usually than crye, hyde, &c. (but perhaps y more often after m, n, as knyht, myhte, nyht), and also arrai, mai, dai, hardi, ladi, worþi, mi, thi, more often on the whole than array, may, &c., but -ly in adverbs more often than -li.

In some few cases it seems that a distinction is pretty consistently made, as between wryte (inf.) and write (past participle), and perhaps between wite (know) and wyte (blame).

Before gh followed by t we find a, o almost regularly in place of au, ou. Thus we have aghte, straghte, taghte, boghte, broghte, doghter, noght, oghte, oght, soghte, wroghte, &c., but occasionally broughte, doughter, ought, &c. Beside some of these there are forms in which au (aw), ou (ow) are written, but followed by simple h, as strawhte, tawhte, douhter (dowhter).

There is no difference between -oun and -on as terminations of such French words as divisioun, complexioun, &c., but -oun is much the more usual form. Where they occur in rhyme, the rhyme-words are usually assimilated to one another in form of spelling, but sometimes -oun, -on rhyme together, as division : doun, ii. 1743 f., toun: condicion, v. 2551, constellacioun : relacion, vi. 2253 f.