Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors in punctuation have been silently
corrected.

These typos were corrected:

page 321 - corrected “plu8” to “plus”
page 379 - corrected placement of hyphen and “r” from
“ex sue crear
cionis priuilegio supe-”
to
“ex sue crea-
cionis priuilegio super”
page 414 - corrected “Twelth” to “Twelfth”
line 11556 - corrected "d ela" to "de la"
Index - corrected "tresepoentablement" to "tresespoentablement"

All other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

Italics are represented thus _italic_, superscripts thus y^n, bold thus
=bold=.

THE COMPLETE WORKS

OF

JOHN GOWER

_G. C. MACAULAY_

*
THE FRENCH WORKS

HENRY FROWDE, M.A.

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK

THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER

_EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND GLOSSARIES_

BY

G. C. MACAULAY, M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
*
THE FRENCH WORKS

Oxford

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1899
Oxford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

PREFACE

The publication of this book may most conveniently be explained by a short account of the circumstances which brought it about.

While engaged some years ago in studying the Chaucer manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, I incidentally turned my attention also to those of the _Confessio Amantis_. The unsatisfactory character of the existing editions of that poem was sufficiently well known, and it was generally recognized that the printed text could not safely be referred to by philologists, except so far as those small portions were concerned which happened to have been published from a good manuscript by Mr. A. J. Ellis in his _Early English Pronunciation_; so that, in spite of the acknowledged importance of the book in the history of the development of standard literary English, it was practically useless for linguistic studies. I was struck by the excellence of the authorities for its text which existed at Oxford, and on further investigation I convinced myself that it was here that the much needed new edition could best be produced. Accordingly I submitted to the Delegates of the University Press a proposal to edit the _Confessio Amantis_, and this proposal they accepted on the condition that I would undertake to edit also the other works, chiefly in French and Latin, of the same author, expressly desiring that the _Speculum Meditantis_, which I had lately identified while searching the Cambridge libraries for copies of the _Confessio Amantis_, should be included in the publication. To this condition I assented with some hesitation, which was due partly to my feeling that the English text was the only one really needed, and partly to doubts about my own competence to edit the French.

Considering, however, the extent to which the writings of this author in various languages illustrate one another, the help which is to be derived from the French works in dealing with the Romance element in the English not only of Gower, but also of Chaucer and other writers of the time, and the clearer view of the literary position of the _Confessio Amantis_ which is gained by approaching it from the French side, I am now disposed to think that the Delegates were right in desiring a complete edition; and as for my own competence as an editor, I can only say that I have learnt much since I first undertook the work, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have avoided many errors into which I should once have fallen. For the faults that remain (I speak now of the contents of the present volume) I ask the indulgence of those who are more competent Romance scholars than myself, on the ground that it was clearly desirable under the circumstances that the French and the English should have the same editor. Moreover, I may fairly claim to have given faithful and intelligible texts, and if I have gone wrong in other respects, it has been chiefly because I have wished to carry out the principle of dealing with all difficulties fairly, rather than passing them over without notice.

The English works will occupy the second and third volumes of this edition. From what has been said it will be understood that to publish a correct text of the _Confessio Amantis_ has been throughout the main object. For this the materials are so excellent, though hitherto almost completely neglected, that we may with some confidence claim that the work is now presented almost exactly as it left the hand of the author, and that a higher degree of security has been attained about the details of form and orthography than is possible (for example) in regard to any part of the writings of Chaucer. It is evident, if this be so, that the text must have a considerable value for students of Middle English, and none the less because it is here accompanied by a complete glossary. Besides this, the meaning of the text has been made clear, where necessary, by explanation and illustration, and above all by improved punctuation, and the sources of the stories and the literary connexions of the work generally have been traced as far as possible.

In the edition of the _Vox Clamantis_, which with the other Latin Works will form the fourth volume of this edition, the most important new contribution, besides the account of the various manuscripts, is perhaps the view presented of the author’s political development, as shown in the successive variations of the text. The historical references generally, both in this work and in the _Cronica Tripertita_, have been compared with the accounts given of the same events by other contemporary writers. This volume will also contain a statement of such facts as it is possible to gather with regard to the life of the author.

To a great extent this edition breaks fresh ground, and there are unfortunately but few direct obligations to be acknowledged to former workers in precisely the same field. At the same time the very greatest help is afforded to the editor of Gower by the work that has been done upon Chaucer and other fourteenth-century writers both by societies and individuals, work for which in this country Dr. Furnivall and Professor Skeat, and on the Continent Professor ten Brink, are perhaps most largely responsible.

Much of my work has been done in the Bodleian Library and with Bodleian manuscripts, and I should like to acknowledge the courtesy which I have always received there from the Librarian. My thanks are also due to the Librarians of those Colleges, both at Oxford and Cambridge, which possess Gower manuscripts, and to Dr. Young of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, for the trouble which they have taken in giving me facilities for the use of their books, and especially to the Cambridge University Librarian, Mr. Jenkinson, for assistance of various kinds in connexion with the manuscript of the _Mirour de l’Omme_. I am obliged to the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, for the loan of their manuscript of the _Vox Clamantis_, and to several private owners, the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Marquess of Bute, the Earl of Ellesmere, Lord Middleton, and J. H. Gurney, Esq., for having allowed me to make use of their manuscripts.

Finally, my thanks are due to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press for having undertaken the publication of a book which can hardly be very profitable, and for the consideration which they have shown for me in the course of my work.

OXFORD, 1899.

CONTENTS

PAGE
INTRODUCTION xi

MIROUR DE L’OMME 1

CINKANTE BALADES 335

TRAITIÉ POUR ESSAMPLER LES AMANTZ MARIETZ 379

NOTES 393

GLOSSARY AND INDEX OF PROPER NAMES 475

INDEX TO THE NOTES 563

INTRODUCTION

From a statement in Latin which is found in many of the Gower manuscripts, and undoubtedly proceeds from the author himself, we learn that the poet desired to rest his fame upon three principal works, the first in French, the second in Latin, and the third in English. These are the three volumes which, lying one upon another, form a pillow for the poet’s effigy in the church of Saint Saviour, Southwark, where he was buried. They are known by the Latin names, _Speculum Meditantis_, _Vox Clamantis_, _Confessio Amantis_, but the first of the three has until recently been looked upon as lost. In addition there are minor poems in each of the three languages, among which are two series of French balades. It will be my duty afterwards to prove the identity of the _Mirour de l’Omme_ printed in this volume with our author’s earliest principal work, commonly known as _Speculum Meditantis_, but named originally _Speculum Hominis_; in the mean time I shall ask leave to assume this as proved, in order that a general view may be taken of Gower’s French writings before we proceed to the examination of each particular work.

The Anglo-Norman[A] literature, properly so called, can hardly be said to extend beyond the limits of the fourteenth century, and these therefore are among its latest productions. The interest of this literature in itself and its importance with a view to the Romance element in the English language have been adequately recognized within recent years, though the number of literary texts printed is still too small. It is unnecessary therefore to do more here than to call attention to the special position occupied by the works published in this volume, and the interest attaching to them, first on their own merits, then on account of the period to which they belong and the author from whom they proceed, and lastly from the authenticity and correctness of the manuscripts which supply us with their text.

As regards the work which occupies the greater part of the present volume, it would be absurd to claim for it a high degree of literary merit, but it is nevertheless a somewhat noticeable and interesting performance. The all-embracing extent of its design, involving a complete account not only of the moral nature of Man, but of the principles of God’s dealings with the world and with the human race, is hardly less remarkable than the thoroughness with which the scheme is worked out in detail and the familiarity with the Scriptures which the writer constantly displays. He has a far larger conception of his subject as a whole than other authors of ‘Specula’ or classifiers of Vices and Virtues which the age produced. Compare the _Mirour de l’Omme_ with such works as the _Speculum Vitae_ or the _Manuel des Pechiez_, and we shall be struck not only with the greater unity of its plan, but also with its greater comprehensiveness, while at the same time, notwithstanding its oppressive lengthiness, it has in general a flavour of literary style to which most other works of the same class can lay no claim. Though intended, like the rest, for edification, it does not aim at edification alone: by the side of the moralist there is occasionally visible also a poet. This was the work upon which Gower’s reputation rested when Chaucer submitted _Troilus_ to his judgement, and though he may have been indulging his sense of humour in making Gower one of the correctors of his version of that--

‘geste
De Troÿlus et de la belle
Creseide,’

which the moralist had thought only good enough for the indolent worshipper to dream of in church (_Mir._ 5253), yet the dedication must have been in part at least due to respect for the literary taste of the persons addressed.

If however we must on the whole pronounce the literary value of the _Speculum Meditantis_ to be small, the case is quite different with regard to the _Balades_, that is to say, the collection of about fifty love-poems which is found in the Trentham manuscript. These will be discussed in detail later, and reasons will be given for assigning them to the later rather than to the earlier years of the poet’s life. Here it is enough to say that they are for the most part remarkably good, better indeed than anything of their kind which was produced in England at that period, and superior in my opinion to the balades of Granson, ‘flour of hem that make in France,’ some of which Chaucer translated. But for the accident that they were written in French, this series of balades would have taken a very distinct place in the history of English literature.

The period to which the _Speculum Meditantis_ belongs, about the beginning of the last quarter of the fourteenth century, is that in which the fusion of French and English elements from which the later language grew may be said to have been finally accomplished. Thanks to the careful work of English and German philologists in recent years, the process by which French words passed into the English language in the period from the beginning of the thirteenth to the end of the fourteenth century has been sufficiently traced, so far as regards the actual facts of their occurrence in English texts. Perhaps however the real nature of the process has not been set forth with sufficient clearness. It is true that before the end of the reign of Edward III the French element may be said to have been almost fully introduced into the vocabulary; the materials lay ready for those writers, the Wycliffite translators of the Bible, Chaucer, and Gower himself, who were to give the stamp of their authority to the language which was to be the literary language of England. Nevertheless, French words were still French for these writers, and not yet English; the fact that the two languages were still used side by side, and that to every Englishman of literary culture the form of French which existed in England was as a second mother tongue, long preserved a French citizenship for the borrowed words. In the earlier part of this period they came in simply as aliens, and their meaning was explained when they were used, ‘in _desperaunce_, that is in unhope and in unbileave,’ ‘two _manere temptaciuns_, two kunne vondunges’; and afterwards for long, even though they had been repeatedly employed by English writers, they were not necessarily regarded as English words, but when wanted they were usually borrowed again from the original source, and so had their phonetic development in French rather than in English. When therefore Anglo-Norman forms are to be cited for English etymology, it is evidently more reasonable that the philologist should look to the latter half of the fourteenth century and give the form in which the word finally passed into the literary language, than to the time of the first appearance of the word in English, under a form corresponding perhaps to the Anglo-Norman of the thirteenth century, but different from that which it assumed in the later Anglo-Norman, and thence in English. More precision in these citations is certainly to be desired, even though the time be past when etymologists were content to refer us vaguely to ‘Old French,’ meaning usually the sixteenth-century French of Cotgrave, when the form really required was of the fourteenth century and Anglo-Norman. It is not unreasonable to lay down the rule that for words of Anglo-Norman origin which occur in the English literary language of the Chaucer period, illustration of forms and meanings must first be looked for in the Anglo-Norman texts of that period, since the standard writers, as we may call them, that is those who contributed most to fix the standard of the language, in using them had the Anglo-Norman of their own day before their minds and eyes rather than any of the obscure English books in various dialects, where the words in question may have been already used to supply the defects of a speech which had lost its literary elements. Moreover, theories as to the pronunciation of the English of Chaucer’s day have been largely supported by reference to the supposed pronunciation of the French words imported into English and the manner in which they are used in rhyme. Evidently in this case the reference ought to be to the Anglo-Norman speech of this particular period, in the form in which it was used by those writers of English to whose texts we refer.

But this is not all: beside the question of language there is one of literary history. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Anglo-Norman literature had sunk into a very degraded condition. Pierre de Peccham, William of Waddington, Pierre de Langtoft, and the authors of the _Apocalypse_ and the _Descente de Saint Paul_ make the very worst impression as versifiers upon their modern French critics, and it must be allowed that the condemnation is just. They have in fact lost their hold on all the principles of French verse, and their metres are merely English in a French dress. Moreover, the English metres which they resemble are those of the North rather than of the South. If we compare the octosyllables of the _Manuel des Pechiez_ with those of the _Prick of Conscience_ we shall see that their principle is essentially the same, that of half-lines with two accents each, irrespective of the number of unaccented syllables, though naturally in English the irregularity is more marked. The same may be said of Robert Grosseteste’s verse a little earlier than this, e.g.

‘Deu nus doint de li penser,
De ky, par ki, en ki sunt
Trestuz li biens ki al mund sunt,
Deu le pere et deu le fiz
Et deu le seint esperiz,
Persones treis en trinité
E un sul deu en unité,
Sanz fin et sanz comencement,’ &c.

It cannot be proved that all the writers of French whom I have named were of the North, but it is certain that several of them were so, and it may well be that the French used in England was not really so uniform, ‘univoca,’ as it seemed to Higden, or at least that as the South of England had more metrical regularity in its English verse, witness the octosyllables of _The Owl and the Nightingale_ in the thirteenth century, so also it retained more formal correctness in its French. However that may be, and whether it were by reason of direct continental influence or of the literary traditions of the South of England, it is certain that Gower represents a different school of versification from that of the writers whom we have mentioned, though he uses the same (or nearly the same) Anglo-Norman dialect, and writes verse which, as we shall see, is quite distinguishable in rhythm from that of the Continent. Thus we perceive that by the side of that reformation of English verse which was effected chiefly by Chaucer, there is observable a return of Anglo-Norman verse to something of its former regularity, and this in the hands of the very man who has commonly been placed by the side of Chaucer as a leader of the new school of English poetry.

* * * * *

In what follows I shall endeavour to indicate those points connected with versification and language which are suggested by a general view of Gower’s French works. Details as to his management of particular metres are reserved for consideration in connexion with the works in which they occur.

Gower’s metre, as has already been observed, is extremely regular. He does not allow himself any of those grosser licences of suppression or addition of syllables which have been noticed in Anglo-Norman verse of the later period. Like William of Waddington, he apologizes for his style on the ground that he is an Englishman, but in his case the plea is very much less needed. His rhyming also, after allowance has been made for a few well-established Anglo-Norman peculiarities, may be said to be remarkably pure, more so in some respects than that of Frère Angier, for example, who wrote at least a century and a half earlier and was a decidedly good versifier. It is true that, like other Anglo-Norman writers, he takes liberties with the forms of words in flexion in order to meet the requirements of his rhyme, but these must be regarded as sins against grammar rather than against rhyme, and the French language in England had long been suffering decadence in this respect. Moreover, when we come to examine these vagaries, we shall find that they are by no means so wild in his case as they had been in that of some other writers, and that there is a good deal of method in the madness. The desired effect is attained principally by two very simple expedients. The first of these is a tolerably extensive disregard of gender, adjectives being often used indifferently in the masculine or the feminine form, according to convenience. Thus in the _Balades_[B] we have ‘chose _humein_’ xxiv. 3, but ‘toute autre chose est _veine_’ xxxiii. 2, ‘ma fortune est _assis_’ ix. 5, ‘la fortune est _faili_’ xx. 3, ‘corps _humeine_’ xiv. 1, ‘l’estée vient _flori_’ ii. 1, ‘l’estée beal _flori_’ xx. 2, but ‘La cliere estée’ xxxii. 2, and the author says ‘_ce_ (_ceo_) lettre’ (ii. 4, iii. 4), or ‘_ceste_ lettre’ (xv. 4), according as it suits his metre. Similarly in the _Mirour_ l. 92 ff.,

‘Siq’en apres de celle issue,
Que de leur corps serroit _estrait_,
Soit restoré q’estoit _perdue_’ &c.,

for _estraite_, _perdu_, l. 587 _hony_ for _honie_, 719 ‘la Char _humein_,’ 911 _replenis_ for _replenies_, 1096 ‘deinz son cuer _maliciouse_.’ From the use of _du_, _au_ by our author nothing must be inferred about gender, since they are employed indifferently for the masculine or feminine combination, as well as for the simple prepositions _de_, _à_; and such forms as _celestial_, in _Bal. Ded._ i. 1, _cordial_, _enfernals_, _mortals_, _Mir._ 717, 1011, 1014, are perhaps reminiscences of the older usage, though the inflected feminine is also found. The question of the terminations _é_, _ée_ will be dealt with separately.

No doubt the feeling for gender had been to some extent worn away in England; nevertheless the measure in which this affects our author’s language is after all rather limited. A much more wide-reaching principle is that which has to do with the ‘rule of _s_.’ The old System of French noun inflexion had already been considerably broken up on the Continent, and it would not have been surprising if in England it had altogether disappeared. In some respects however Anglo-Norman was rather conservative of old forms, and our author is not only acquainted with the rule, but often shows a preference for observing it, where it is a matter of indifference in other respects. Rhyme however must be the first consideration, and a great advantage is obtained by the systematic combination of the older and the newer rule. Thus the poet has it in his power either to use or to omit the _s_ of inflexion in the nominatives singular and plural of masculine nouns, according as his rhymes may require, and a few examples will show what use he makes of this licence. In _Bal. Ded._ i. 3 he describes himself as

‘Vostre Gower, q’est trestout _vos soubgitz_,’

but in rhyme with this the same form of inflexion stands for the plural subject, ‘u sont les _ditz floriz_,’ and in xxvi. 1 he gives us nearly the same expression, ‘q’est tout vostre _soubgit_,’ without the inflexion. So in iv. 3 we have ‘come _tes loials amis_’ (sing. nom.), but in the very same balade ‘_ton ami_ serrai,’ while in _Trait._ iii. 3 we have the further development of _s_ in the oblique case of the singular, ‘Loiale amie avoec _loials amis_.’ In _Bal._ xviii. 1 _menu_ is apparently fem. pl. for _menues_, while _avenu_, rhyming with it, is nom. sing. masc.; but so also are _conuz_, _retenuz_, _venuz_, in xxxix, while _veeuz_ is sing. object., and in the phrase ‘tout bien sont _contenuz_’ there is a combination of the uninflected with the inflected form in the plural of the subject. Similarly in the _Mirour_ we have _principals_, _desloyals_, ll. 63, 70, as nom. sing., and so _governals_, _desloyals_ 627, 630, but _espirital_ 709, _principal_, _Emperial_, 961 ff., are forms used elsewhere for the same. Again as nom. sing. we have _rejoïz_ 462, _ruez_, _honourez_, _malurez_ 544 ff., &c., and as nom. plur. _enamouré_ 17, _retorné_ 792, _marié_ (f) 1010, _née_ 1017, _maluré_ 1128, _il_ 25064; but also _enamouré_ 220, _privé_ 496, _mené_ 785, &c., as nom. singular, and _perturbez_, _tuez_, 3639 ff., _travaillez_, _abandonnez_, 5130 ff., as nom. plural: ‘ce dist _ly sage_’ 1586, but ‘il est _nounsages_’ 1754, and ‘_Ly sages_ dist’ 3925, _ly soverein_ 76, but _ly capiteins_ 4556, and so on. We also note occasionally forms like that cited above from the _Traitié_, where the _s_ (or _z_) of the termination has no grammatical justification at all; e.g. _enginez_ 552, _confondus_ 1904, ‘fort et _halteins_’ (obj.) 13024, cp. _offenduz_, _Bal._ xxxix. 2, and cases where the rules which properly apply to masculine nouns only are extended to feminines, as in _perdice_ (pl.) 7831, _humilités_, _pités_ (sing.), 12499, 13902.

Besides these two principal helps to rhyme the later Anglo-Norman versifier might occasionally fall back upon others. In so artificial a language as that in which he wrote, evidently the older forms of inflexion might easily be kept up for literary purposes in verbs also, and used side by side with the later. Thus in the 1st pers. pl. of the present tense we find _lison_ (_lisoun_) repeatedly in rhyme, and occasionally other similar forms, as _soion_ 18480. The 1st pers. sing. of the present tense of several strong verbs is inflected with or without _s_ at pleasure: thus from _dire_ we have _di_, _dy_, as well as _dis_; _faire_ gives _fai_ or _fais_; by the side of _suis_ (sum), _sui_ or _suy_ is frequently found; and similarly we have _croy_, _say_, _voi_. In the same part of first-conjugation verbs the atonic final _e_ is often dropped, as _pri_, _appell_, _mir_, _m’esmai_, _suppli_. In the third person singular of the preterite of _i_ verbs there is a variation in the ending between _-it_ (_-ist_) and _-i_ (_-y_). Thus in one series of rhymes we have _nasquit_, _s’esjoït_ (in rhyme with _dit_, &c.), 268 ff., in another _s’esjoÿ_, _chery_, _servi_ (in rhyme with _y_), 427 ff.; in one stanza _fuÿt_, _partist_, 11416 ff., and in the next _respondi_, 11429; so _chaït_ (_chaïst_) and _chaÿ_, _obeït_ and _obeï_, &c. It may be doubted also whether such words as _tesmoignal_, _surquidance_, _presumement_, _bestial_ (as subst.), _relinquir_, &c., owe their existence to any better cause than the requirements of rhyme or metre. In introducing _ent_, 11471, for the usual _en_ the poet has antiquity on his side: on the other hand when he writes _a_ repeatedly in rhyme for the Anglo-Norman _ad_ (which, except in these cases, is regularly used) he is no doubt looking towards the ‘French of Paris,’ which naturally tended to impose itself on the English writers of French in the fourteenth century. By the same rule he can say either _houre_ or _heure_, _flour_ or _fleur_, _crestre_ or _croistre_, _crere_ or _croire_; but on the whole it is rather surprising how little his language seems to have been affected by this influence.

The later Anglo-Norman treatment of the terminations _-é_ and _-ée_ in past participles and in verbal substantives would seem to demand notice chiefly in connexion with rhyme and metre, but it is really a question of phonology. The two terminations, as is well known, became identified before the beginning of the fourteenth century, and it is needless to quote examples to show that in Gower’s metre and rhymes _-ée_ was equivalent to _-é_. The result of this phonetic change, consisting in the absorption of the atonic vowel by the similar tonic which immediately preceded it, was that _-é_ and _-ée_ were written indiscriminately in almost all words with this ending, and that the distinction between the masculine and feminine forms was lost completely in pronunciation and to a very great extent also in writing. For example in _Mir._ 865 ff. we have rhyming together _degré_, _monté_ (fem.), _mué_, _descolouré_ (fem.), _enbroudé_, _poudré_ (fem. plur.); in 1705 ff. there is a series of rhymes in _-ée_, _bealpinée_, _engalopée_, _assemblée_, _ascoultée_ (pl.), _malsenée_, _doublée_, all masculine except the substantive _assemblée_; and in other stanzas the endings are mixed up anyhow, so that we have _aisnée_, _maluré_, 244 f., both feminine, _mené_, _héritée_, 922 f., the first feminine and the second masculine, _ymaginée_, _adrescée_, _Bal._ vi, both masculine. In all Gower’s French verse I can recall only three or four instances where an atonic final _e_ of this kind is counted in the metre: these are _a lée chiere_, _ove lée_ (_liée_) _chiere_, _du lée port_[C], _Mir._ 5179, 15518, 17122, 28337, and _Et ta pensée celestine_ 29390. In the last the author perhaps wrote _penseie_, as in 14404, since the condition under which the sound of this _-e_ survived in Anglo-Norman was usually through the introduction of a parasitic _i_-sound, which acted as a barrier to prevent the absorption of the final vowel[D]. So _Mir._ 10117 we have a word _pareies_, in rhyme with the substantives _pareies_ (walls), _veies_, &c., which I take to be for _parées_, fem. plur. of the participle, and in the same stanza _journeies_, a modification of _journées_: cp. _valeie_, _journeie_, in Middle English.

I proceed to note such further points of the Phonology as seem to be of interest.

i. French _e_, _ie_, from Lat. _a_, _ĕ_, in tonic syllables.

The French diphthong _ie_, from Lat. _a_ under the influence of preceding sound and from _ĕ_, was gradually reduced in Anglo-Norman to _ẹ_ (i.e. close _e_). Thus, while in the earliest writers _ie_ is usually distinguished in rhyme from _e_, those of the thirteenth century no longer keep them apart. In the _Vie de S. Auban_ and the writings of Frère Angier the distinction between verbs in _-er_ and those in _-ier_ has been, at least to a great extent, lost: infinitives and participles, &c., such as _enseign(i)er_, _bris(i)er_, _eshauc(i)er_, _mang(i)er_, _jug(i)é_, _less(i)é_, _dresc(i)é_, _sach(i)ez_, and substantives such as _cong(i)é_, _pecch(i)é_, rhyme with those which have the (French) termination, _-er_, _-é_, _-ez_. At the same time the noun termination _-ier_ comes to be frequently written _-er_, as in _aumosner_, _chevaler_, _dener_, _seculer_, &c. (beside _aumosnier_, _chevalier_, _denier_, _seculier_), and words which had _ie_ in the stem were often written with _e_, as _bref_, _chef_, _cher_, _pere_ (petram), _sé_, though the other forms _brief_, _chief_, _chier_, _piere_, _sié_, still continued to be used as alternatives in spelling[E]. It is certain that in the fourteenth century no practical distinction was made between the two classes of verbs that have been indicated: whether written _-ier_, _-ié_, _-iez_, or _-er_, _-é_, _-ez_, the verbal endings of which we have spoken rhymed freely with one another and with the similar parts of all verbs of the first conjugation, and the infinitives and past participles of all first-conjugation verbs rhymed with substantives ending in _-(i)er_, _-(i)é_, _-é_: thus _pecché_, _enamouré_, _commencé_, _bestialité_, _Mir._ 16 ff., _resemblé_, _chargé_, _sainteté_, 1349, _coroucié_, _piée_, _degré_, 5341, are good sets of rhymes, and so also are _deliter_, _seculer_, _plenier_, 27 ff., _coroucer_, _parler_, _mestier_, _seculier_, _considerer_, 649 ff., and _leger_, _archer_, _amender_, _comparer_, 2833 ff. The case is the same with words which have the original (French) _ie_ in the stem, but notwithstanding the fact that the diphthong sound must have disappeared, the traditional spelling _ie_ held its ground by the side of the other, and even extended itself to some words which had never had the diphthong sound at all. Thus in the fourteenth century, and noticeably in Gower’s works, we meet with such forms as _clier_, _clief_, _mier_ (mare), _miere_ (matrem), _piere_ (patrem), _pier_ (parem), _prophiete_, _tiel_, &c., beside the normal forms _cler_, _clef_, _mer_, _mere_, &c. This phenomenon, which has caused some difficulty, is to be accounted for by the supposition that _ie_, having lost its value as a diphthong, came to be regarded as a traditional symbol in many cases for long closed _e_, and such words as rhymed on this sound were apt to become assimilated in spelling with those that originally had _ie_ and partly preserved it; thus _tel_ in rhyme with _ciel_, _fiel_, might easily come to be written _tiel_, as _Mir._ 6685; _clere_, _pere_, rhyming with _maniere_, _adversiere_, &c., might be written _cliere_, _piere_, as in _Mir._ 193 ff., merely for the sake of uniformity, and similarly _nef_ when in rhyme with _ch(i)ef_, _relief_, &c., sometimes might take the form _nief_; and finally these spellings might become established independently, at least as alternatives, so that it was indifferent whether _labourer_, _seculer_, _bier_, or _labourier_, _seculier_, _ber_, stood as a rhyme sequence, whether _clere_, _appere_ was written or _cliere_, _appiere_. It may be noted that _pere_, _mere_, _frere_, belonged to this class and were rhymed with _ẹ_. They are absolutely separated in rhyme from _terre_, _guerre_, _enquere_, _affere_, _contrere_, &c. The adjective ending _-el_ rhymes with _-iel_ and often appears as _-iel_: so in 3733 ff. we have the rhymes _mortiel_, _Michel_, _fraternel_, _viel_, in 6685 ff., _desnaturel_, _ciel_, _fiel_, _espiritiel_, and in 14547 ff. _celestiel_, _mortiel_, _ciel_, _temporiel_, &c. Questions have been raised about the quality of the _e_ in this termination generally[F], but the evidence here is decidedly in favour of _ẹ_, and the rhymes _bel_, _apell_, _flaiell_, are kept apart from this class. It must be observed however that _fel_ (adj.), spelt also _feel_, appears in both classes, 4773, 5052. The variation _-al_, which, as might be expected, is extremely common, is of course from Latin and gives no evidence as to the sound of _-el_, from which it is quite separate in rhyme. Before a nasal in verbs like _vient_, _tient_, _ie_ is regularly retained in writing, and these words and their compounds rhyme among one another and with _crient_, _ghient_, _nient_, _fient_, &c. Naturally they are separated from the _ę_ of _aprent_, _commencement_, _sagement_, &c. The forms _ben_, _men_, _ren_, which occur for example in the _Vie de S. Grégoire_ for _bien_, _mien_, _rien_, are not found in Gower. Finally it may be noticed that beside _fiere_, _appiere_, _compiere_, from _ferir_, _apparer_, &c., we have _fere_, _appere_, _compere_, which in rhyme are as absolutely separated from _fere_ (= _faire_), _terre_, _requere_ (inf.), as _fiert_, _piert_, _quiert_, &c., are from _apert_, _overt_, _pert_. More will have to be said on the subject of this _ie_ when we are confronted with Gower’s use of it in English.

ii. French _ai_ in tonic syllables.

(_a_) _ai_ before a nasal was in Anglo-Norman writing very commonly represented by _ei_. This is merely a question of spelling apparently, the sound designated being the same in either case. Our author (or his scribe) had a certain preference for uniformity of appearance in each set of rhymes. Thus he gives us first _solein_, _plein_, _soverein_, _certein_, _mein_, _Evein_, in _Mir._ 73 ff., then _vain_, _grain_, _main_, _gain_, _pain_, _vilain_, 2199 ff.; or again _haltaines_, _paines_, _acompaines_, _compaines_, _restraines_, _certaines_, 603 ff., but _peine_, _constreine_, _vileine_, _peine_ (verb), _aleine_, _procheine_, 2029 ff. Sometimes however the two forms of spelling are intermixed, as _vein_, _pain_, _main_, &c., 16467 ff., or _meine_, _humeine_, _capitaine_, 759 ff. Some of the words in the _ai_ series, as _pain_, _gain_, _compaine_, are spelt with _ai_ only, but there are rhyme-sequences in _-ain_ without any of these words included, as 6591 ff., _main_, _prochain_, _vilain_, _certain_, _vain_, _sain_; also words with original French _ei_, such as _peine_, _constreine_, _restreines_, _enseigne_, _plein_ (plenus), _veine_ (vena), _meinz_ (minus), _atteins_, _feinte_, _exteinte_, enter into the same class. Thus we must conclude that before a nasal these two diphthongs were completely confused. It must be noted that the liquid sound of the nasal in such words as _enseigne_, _plaigne_, had been completely lost, but the letter _g_ with which it was associated in French continued to be very generally written, and by the influence of these words _g_ was often introduced without justification into others. Thus we have the rhymes _ordeigne_, _meine_, _semeigne_ (= _semaine_), _desdeigne_, _peine_, 2318 ff.; _peigne_ (= _peine_), _compleigne_, _pleine_, _meine_, _halteigne_, _atteigne_, in _Bal._ iii; while in _gaign_, _bargaign_, rhyming with _grain_, _prochain_, &c., _g_ is omitted at pleasure. Evidently in the Anglo-Norman of this period it had no phonetic value.

(_b_) When not before a nasal, _ai_ and _ei_ do not interchange freely in this manner. Before _l_, _ll_, it is true, _ei_ has a tendency to become _ai_, as in _conseil consail_ (also _consal_), _consei(l)ler consail(l)er_, _merveille mervaille_; also we have _contrefeite_, _souffreite_, 6305 ff., _eie_ for _aie_ (_avoir_), _eir_ for _air_ 13867, _gleyve_ 14072, _meistre_ 24714, _eide_ (_eyde_) for _aide_ in the rubric headings, _paleis_ (_palois_) for _palais_, and _vois_ (representing _veis_) sometimes for _vais_ (vado); also in ante-tonic syllables, _cheitif_, _eiant_, _eysil_, _leiter_, _meisoun_, _meistrie_, _oreisoun_, _peisible_, _pleisir_, _seisine_, _veneisoun_, beside _chaitif_, _allaiter_, _maisoun_, _maistrie_, _paisible_, _plaisir_, _saisine_. This change is much less frequent, especially in tonic syllables, than in some earlier texts, e.g. the _Vie de S. Grégoire_.

The Anglo-Norman reduction of the diphthong _ai_ and sometimes _ei_ to _e_, especially before _r_ and _s_, still subsists in certain words, though the Continental French spelling is found by its side. Thus we have _fere_, _affere_, _forsfere_, _mesfere_, _plere_, _trere_, _attrere_, _retrere_, _tere_, _debonere_, _contrere_, rhyming with _terre_, _guerre_, _quer(r)e_, &c.; also _mestre_, _nestre_, _pestre_, rhyming with _estre_, _prestre_; and _pes_, _fes_ (fascem), _fetz_, _mes_, _jammes_, _reles(s)_, in rhyme with _ades_, _pres_, _apres_, _deces(s)_, _Moÿses_, _dess_, _mess_, _confess_. (This series of rhymes, which has _ę_, is of course kept distinct from that which includes the terminations _-és_ (_-ez_) in participles, &c., and such words as _ées_, _dées_, _lées_, _prées_, _asses_, _malfés_, &c., which all have _ẹ_.) We find also _ese_ (with the alternative forms _aese_, _ease_, as well as _aise_), _frel_, _ele_, _megre_, _plee_ (_plai_, _plait_), _trete_, _vinegre_, and in ante-tonic syllables _appeser_, _enchesoun_, _esance_, _feture_, _lesser_, _mesoun_, _mestrie_, _phesant_, _pleder_, _plesance_, _plesir_, _sesoun_, _tresoun_, _treter_. In the case of many of these words the form with _ai_ is also used by our author, but the two modes of spelling are kept apart in rhymes (except l. 18349 ff., where we have _tere_, _terre_, _aquerre_, _faire_, _mesfaire_), so that _affere_, _attrere_, rhyme with _terre_, but _affaire_, _attraire_, with _haire_, _esclaire_, _adversaire_, and, while _jammes_ is linked with _apres_, _ades_, _pes_, we find _jammais_ written when the rhyme is with _essais_, _lais_, _paix_. This may be only due to the desire for uniformity in spelling, but there is some reason to think that it indicates in these words an alternative pronunciation.

It is to be observed that on the neutral ground of _e_ some words with original _ei_ meet those of which we have been speaking, in which _ai_ was reduced to _e_ in rather early Anglo-Norman times. Thus we have _crere_ rhyming with _terre_, _affere_, &c.; _crestre_, _acrestre_, _descrestre_, with _estre_, _nestre_; and _encres_, _descres_, _malves_, with _apres_, _pes_. These forms, which have descended to our author from his predecessors, are used by him side by side with the (later) French forms _croire_, _croistre_, _acroistre_, _descroistre_, _encrois_, _descrois_, and these alternative forms must undoubtedly be separated from the others in sound as well as in spelling. This being so, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the case was the same with the _ai_ words, and that in adopting the Continental French forms side by side with the others the writer was bringing in also the French diphthong sound, retaining however the traditional Anglo-Norman pronunciation in both these classes of words where it happened to be more convenient or to suit his taste better.

(_c_) The French terminations _-aire_ and _-oire_, from Lat. _-arius_, _-oria_, _-orius_, are employed by Gower both in his French and English works in their Continental forms, the older Anglo-Norman _-arie_, _-orie_, which passed into English, being hardly found in his writings. The following are some of the words in question, most of which occur in the _Confessio Amantis_ in the same form: _adversaire_, _contraire_ (_contrere_), _doaire_, _essamplaire_, _lettuaire_, _necessaire_, _saintuaire_; _consistoire_, _Gregoire_, _histoire_, _memoire_, _purgatoire_, _victoire_. We have however exceptionally _rectorie_ 16136, accented to rhyme with _simonye_, and also (from Lat. _-erium_) _misterie_ (by the side of _misteire_) accented on the ante-penultimate.

iii. French _ei_ not before a nasal.

This diphthong, which appears usually as _ei_ in the Anglo-Norman texts of the thirteenth century, is here regularly represented by _oi_ and levelled, as in the French of the Continent, with original French _oi_. In its relations to _e_ and _ai_ it has already been spoken of; at present we merely note that the later French form is adopted by our author with some few exceptions both in stems and flexion. Isolated exceptions are _deis_ (debes) for _dois_, _heir_ by the side of _hoir_, _lampreie_, _malveis_ (also _malvois_, _malves_), _teille_, and _vei_ (vide) from _veoir_; also in verbs of the _-ceivre_ class and in derivatives from them it is often retained, as _resceivre_ (but _reçoit_, _resçoivre_), _receipte_, _conceipt_ (also _conçoit_), _conceive_, _deceite_, &c. Under the influence of rhyme we have in 6301 ff. _espleite_, _estreite_, _coveite_, rhyming with _deceite_, _contrefeite_, _souffreite_, and 10117 ff. _pareies_ (parietes), _veies_, _preies_, _moneies_ rhyming with _pareies_ and _journeies_ (for _parées_, _journées_); but elsewhere the forms are _exploite_, _estroite_, _covoite_, _voie_, _proie_, _monoie_, and, in general, Anglo-Norman forms such as _mei_, _rei_, _fei_, _treis_, _Engleis_, have disappeared before the French _moi_, _roi_, _foy_, _trois_, &c.

The terminations of infinitives in _-eir_ have become _-oir_, except where the form has been reduced to that of the first conjugation; and those of imperfects and conditionals (imperfects reduced all to one form) have regularly _oi_ instead of _ei_. There is no intermixture of _ei_ and _oi_ inflexions, such as we find in Angier, in the _Vie de S. Auban_, and in Bozon. In a few isolated instances we have _ai_ for this _oi_ of inflexion, as _poait_ in _Mir._ 795, _solait_ 10605 &c. (which last seems to be sometimes present rather than imperf.), and _volait_ 13763. Also occasionally in other cases, as _curtais_, 5568, in rhyme with _mais_, _mesfais_, &c., elsewhere _curtois_, _array_, 18964, rhyming with _nay_, _essay_, usually _arroy_, and _desplaie_, _manaie_, _Bal._ xxvii. 2, elsewhere _desploie_, _manoie_. There is however nothing like that wholesale use of _ai_ for _ei_ (_oi_) which is especially characteristic of Langtoft, who besides the inflexion in _-ait_ has (for example) _may_, _cray_, _ray_, for _moi_, _croy_, _roi_.

In ante-tonic syllables we may note the _ei_ of _beneiçoun_, _freidure_, _leisir_ (usually _loisir_), _Malveisie_, _peitrine_ (also _poitrine_), _veisin_ (beside _voisin_), _veisdye_, &c., and _ai_ in _arraier_, _braier_.

iv. The diphthong _oe_ (_ue_) is written in a good many words, but it may be doubted whether it had really the pronunciation of a diphthong. The following list contains most of the words in which it is found in the tonic syllable: _avoec_, _boef_, _coecs_ (coquus), _coer_, _controeve_, _demoert_, _doel_, _joefne_, _moeble_, _moel_, _moet moeve_ (from _movoir_), _moers moert moerge_ (from _morir_), _noeces_, _noef_, _noet_, _oef_, _oel_, _oeps_, _oevre_, _poeple_, _poes poet_, _proesme_, _soe_, _soeffre_, _soen_, _troeffe_, _troeve_, _voegle_, _voes_ (also _voels_), _voet_ (also _voelt_). In the case of many of these there are variations of form to _o_, _u_, _ue_, or _ui_; thus we have _cuer_ (the usual form in the _Mirour_), _controve_, _jofne_, _noces_, _owes_ (dissyll. as plur. of _oef_, also _oefs_, _oes_), _ovre_, _pueple_, _pus_ (also _puiss_), _puet_ (also _poot_), _prosme_, _sue_, _truffe_, _trove_, _volt_, and (before an original guttural) _nuit_, _oill_ (oculum). Two of these words, _cuer_ and _oel_, occur in rhyme, and they both rhyme with _ẹ_: _mortiel_, _oel_, _fraternel_, _viel_, 3733 ff., and _cuer_, _curer_, _primer_, 13129 ff., by which it would appear that in them at least the diphthong sound had been lost: cp. _suef_ in rhyme with _chief_, _relief_, _Bal._ L. 2. The same rhyming of _cuer_ (_quer_) occurs in the _Vie de S. Auban_, in Langtoft and in Bozon (see M. Meyer’s introduction to Bozon’s _Contes Moralizés_). With _avoec_ we also find _aveoc_ and _avec_, _veot_ occurs once for _voet_, and _illeoc_, _illeoque(s)_, are the forms used from Lat. _illuc_.

v. French _ọ_ (_eu_, _ou_) from Latin _ō_ (not before nasal).

The only cases that I propose to speak of here are the terminations of substantives and adjectives corresponding to the Latin _-orem_, _-osus_, or in imitation of these forms. Our author has here regularly _ou_; there is hardly a trace of the older forms in _-or_, _-ur_, and _-os_, _-us_, and surprisingly few accommodated to the Continental _-eur_ and _-eus_. The following are most of the words of this class which occur with the _-eur_, _-eus_, endings: _pescheur_ (piscatorem), _fleur_, _greigneur_, _honeur_, _meilleur_, _seigneur_ (usually _flour_, _greignour_, _honour_, _meillour_, _seignour_); _boscheus_, _honteus_ (usually _hontous_), _joyeuse_ (fem.) but _joyous_ (masc.), _oiceus_ (_oiseus_), _perceus_, _piteus_ (more often _pitous_). We have also _blasphemus_, 2450, which may be meant for _blasphemous_, and _prodegus_, 8425 ff., which is perhaps merely the Latin word ‘prodigus.’ Otherwise the terminations are regularly _-our_, _-ous_, except where words in _-our_ vary to _-ure_, as _chalure_, for the sake of rhyme. The following are some of them, and it will be seen that those which passed into the literary English of the fourteenth century for the most part appeared there with the same forms of spelling as they have here. Indeed not a few, especially of the _-ous_ class, have continued unchanged down to the present day.

In _-our_: _ardour_, _blanchour_, _brocour_, _chalour_ (also _chalure_), _colour_, _combatour_, _confessour_, _conquerour_, _correctour_, _currour_, _desirour_, _despisour_, _devorour_, _dolour_, _emperour_ (also _empereour_, _emperere_), _executour_, _favour_, _gouvernour_, _guerreiour_, _hisdour_, _honour_, _irrour_, _labour_, _langour_, _lecchour_ (also _lecchier_), _liquour_, _mockeour_, _palour_, _pastour_, _persecutour_, _portour_, _possessour_, _pourchaçour_ (also _pourchacier_), _priour_, _procurour_ (also _procurier_), _professour_, _proverbiour_ (_-ier_, _-er_), _questour_ (_-ier_), _rancour_, _robbeour_, _seignour_, _senatour_, _supplantour_, _terrour_, _tricheour_, _valour_, _ven(e)our_, _venqueour_, _vigour_, _visitour_.

In _-ous_: _amorous_, _averous_, _bataillous_, _bountevous_, _busoignous_, _chivalerous_, _contagious_, _coragous_, _corouçous_, _covoitous_, _dangerous_, _despitous_, _dolourous_, _enginous_, _envious_, _famous_, _fructuous_, _glorious_, _gracious_, _grevous_, _irrous_, _joyous_, _laborious_, _leccherous_, _litigious_, _malencolious_, _merdous_, _merveillous_, _orguillous_, _perilous_, _pitous_, _precious_, _presumptuous_, _ruinous_, _solicitous_, _tricherous_, _venimous_, _vergondous_, _vertuous_, _vicious_, _victorious_, _viscous_.

vi. French _ọ_ before nasal, Latin _ō_, _ŏ_, _u_.

(_a_) Except where it is final, _on_ usually remains, whether followed by a dental or not. The tendency towards _ou_, which produced the modern English _amount_, _account_, _abound_, _profound_, _announce_, &c., is here very slightly visible. Once _blounde_ occurs, in rhyme with _monde_, _confonde_, &c., and we have also _rounge_ 2886 (_runge_ 3450) and _sounge_ 5604 (also _ronge_, _songe_), and in ante-tonic syllables _bounté_, _bountevous_, _nouncier_ (also _noncier_), _plunger_ (also _plonger_), _sounger_, and words compounded with _noun_, as _nounsage_, _nouncertein_, &c. On the other hand _seconde_, _faconde_, _monde_, _abonde_, _rebonde_, _responde_, 1201 ff., _monde_ (adj.), _bonde_, _redonde_, 4048 ff., _suronde_, _confonde_, 8199 ff., _monde_, _onde_, _confonde_, 10838 ff., _amonte_, _honte_, _accompte_, _conte_, _surmonte_, _demonte_, 1501 ff. The _-ount_ termination in verbal inflexion, which is common in Bozon, _ount_, _sount_, _fount_, _dirrount_, &c., is not found here except in the Table of Contents.

(_b_) When a word ends with the nasal, _-on_ is usually developed into _-oun_. In Gower’s French a large proportion of the words with this ending have both forms (assuming always that the abbreviation _-o̅n̅_ is to be read _-oun_, a point which will be discussed hereafter), but _-oun_ is the more usual, especially perhaps in rhyme. The older Anglo-Norman _-un_ has completely disappeared. Words in _-oun_ and _-on_ rhyme freely with one another, but the tendency is towards uniformity, and at the same time there is apparently no rhyme sequence on the ending _-on_ alone. The words with which we have to deal are, first, that large class of common substantives with terminations from Lat. _-onem_; secondly, a few outlandish proper names, _e.g._ _Salomon_, _Simon_, _Pharaon_, _Pigmalion_, with which we may class occasional verbal inflexions as _lison_, _soion_; and, thirdly, a certain number of other words, chiefly monosyllables, as _bo(u)n_, _doun_, _mo(u)n_, _no(u)n_ (= _non_), _noun_ (= _nom_), _reboun_, _renoun_, _so(u)n_ (pron.), _soun_ (subst.), _to(u)n_, also _respoun_ (imperative). In the first and third class _-oun_ is decidedly preferred, but in the second we regularly find _-on_, and it is chiefly when words of this class occur in the rhyme that variations in the others are found in this position. Thus l. 409 ff. we have the rhymes _noun_, _temptacioun_, _soun_, _resoun_, _baroun_, _garisoun_; 689 ff. _contemplacioun_, _tribulacioun_, _temptacioun_, _collacioun_, _delectacioun_, _elacioun_; so also in 1525 ff., and even when _Salomon_ comes in at ll. 1597 and 1669, all the other rhymes of these stanzas are _-oun_: _presumpcioun_, _respoun_, _resoun_, _noun_, _doun_, &c. At 2401 however we have _maison_, _noun_, _contradiccioun_, _lison_; 2787 _Salomon_, _leçon_, _enchesoun_, _resoun_; 4069 _noun_, _tençon_, _compaignoun_, _feloun_, _Catoun_, _confessioun_; and similarly _façon_ 6108, _religion_ (with _lison_) 7922, _lison_, _lion_, _giroun_, _enviroun_, _leçon_, _noun_, 16801 ff. (yet _lisoun_ is also found, 24526). On the whole, so far as the rhymes of the _Mirour_ are concerned, the conclusion must be that the uniformity is broken chiefly by the influence of those words which have been noted as written always, or almost always, with _-on_. In the _Balades_ and _Traitié_, however, the two terminations are more equally balanced; for example in _Bal._ xxxv we find _convocacion_, _compaignon_, _comparison_, _regioun_, _noun_, _supplicacion_, _eleccion_, _condicioun_, &c., without any word of the class referred to, and _Traitié_ xii has four rhymes in _-on_ against two in _-oun_. On the whole I am disposed to think that it is merely a question of spelling, and it must be remembered that in the MSS. _-oun_ is very rarely written out in full, so that the difference between the two forms is very slight even in appearance.

vii. The Central-French _u_ was apparently identified in sound with _eu_, and in some cases not distinguished from _ui_. The evidence of rhymes seems quite clear and consistent on this point. Such sequences as the following occur repeatedly: _abatu_, _pourveu_, _deçu_, _lieu_, _perdu_, _salu_, 315 ff.; _truis_, _perduz_, _Hebrus_, _us_, _jus_, _conclus_, 1657 ff.; _hebreu_, _feru_, _eeu_, _tenu_, _neveu_, _rendu_, 4933 ff.; _plus_, _lieus_, _perdus_, _conçuz_, _huiss_, _truis_, 6723 ff.; _fu_, _lu_ (for _lieu_), _offendu_, _dieu_, in _Bal._ xviii; and with the ending _-ure_, _-eure_: _demeure_, _l’eure_, _nature_, _verdure_, _desseure_, _mesure_, 937 ff.; _painture_, _demesure_, _aventure_, _jure_, _hure_, _controveure_, 1947 ff., &c. This being so, we cannot be surprised at such forms as _hebru_ for _hebreu_, _lu_ for _lieu_, _fu_ for _feu_, _hure_, _demure_, _plure_, for the Continental French _heure_, _demeure_, _pleure_, or at the substitutions of _u_ for _ui_, or _ui_ for _u_ (_eu_), in _aparçut aparçuit_, _huiss huss_, _plus pluis_, _pertuis pertus_, _puiss pus_, _construire construre_, _destruire destrure_, _estruis estrus_, _truis trieus_. As regards the latter changes we may compare the various spellings of _fruit_, _bruit_, _suit_, _eschuie_, _suie_[G], in Middle English. It should be mentioned however that _luy_ rhymes regularly with _-i_ (_-y_), as _chery_, _servi_, _dy_. In some cases also _ui_ interchanges with _oi_, as in _buiste_ beside _boiste_, _enpuisonner_ beside _poisoun_. This is often found in early Anglo-Norman and is exemplified in M.E. _buyle boyle_, _fuysoun foysoun_, _destroye destruien_. On this change and on that between _ui_ and _u_ in Anglo-Norman see Koschwitz on the _Voyage de Charlemagne_, pp. 39, 40.

viii. _aun_ occurs occasionally for _an_ final or before a consonant e.g. in _aun_ (annum) _Mir._ 6621, _Bal._ xxiii. 2, _saunté(e)_ _Mir._ 2522, _Ded._ ii. 5, &c., _dauncer_ 17610, _paunce_ 8542, _fiaunce_, _sufficaunce_, _Bal._ iv, _governaunce_, _fraunchise_, _fraunchement_, in the Table of Contents; but much more usually not, as _Alisandre_, _an_ (1932), _avant_, _dance_ (1697), _danger_, _danter_, _France_, _change_, _fiance_ (_Bal._ xiii. &c.), _lance_, _lande_, _pance_ (5522 &c.), _sergant_, _sufficance_ (1738 &c.), _vante_, and in general the words in _-ance_.

ix. Contraction or suppression of atonic vowels takes place in certain cases besides that of the termination _-ée_, which has already been discussed.

(_a_) When atonic _e_ and another vowel or diphthong come together in a word they are usually contracted, as in _asseurer_, _commeu_, _eust_, _receu_, _veu_ (2387), _vir_ (for _veïr_), _Beemoth_, _beneuré_, _benoit_, _deesce_, _emperour_, _mirour_, _obeissance_, _rançon_, _seur_, &c., but in many instances contraction does not take place, as _cheeu_, _eeu_, _veeu_, _veïr_, _veoir_, _empereour_ (23624), _leësce_, _mireour_ (23551), _tricheour_, _venqueour_, _meëment_, &c.

(_b_) In some words with _-ie_ termination the accent falls on the antepenultimate, and the _i_ which follows the tonic syllable is regularly slurred in the metre and sometimes not written. Such words are _accidie_, _contumelie_, _familie_, _misterie_, _perjurie_, _pluvie_, _remedie_, _vituperie_, and occasionally a verb, as _encordie_.

The following are examples of their metrical treatment:--

‘Des queux l’un Vituperie ad noun,’ 2967;

‘Et sa familie et sa maisoun,’ 3916;

‘Car pluvie doit le vent suïr,’ 4182;

‘Maint contumelie irrous atteint,’ 4312;

‘Perjurie, q’ad sa foy perdu,’ 6409;

‘Qui pour mes biens m’encordie et lie,’ 6958, &c.

Several of these words are also written with the ending _-e_ for _-ie_, as _accide_, _famile_, _encorde_.

Such words are similarly treated in Gower’s English lines, e.g.

‘And ek the god Mercurie also’ (_Conf. Am._ i. 422);

cp. Chaucer’s usual treatment of words like _victorie_, _glorie_, which are not used in that form by Gower.

(_c_) In _come_ (_comme_), _sicome_, and _ove_ the final _e_ never counts as a syllable in the metre. They are sometimes written _com_ and _ou_. In another word, _ore_, the syllable is often slurred, as in _Mir._ 37, 1775, 3897, &c., but sometimes sounded, as 4737, 11377, _Bal._ xxviii. 1. So perhaps also _dame_ in _Mir._ 6733, 13514, 16579, and _Bal._ ii. 3, xix. 3, xx. 2, &c.