Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T04:38:07.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chaucer's Final -E

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

E. Talbot Donaldson
E. Talbot Donaldson*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an article published in this periodical Professor James G. Southworth has reopened the question of the pronunciation or non-pronunciation of Chaucer's unstressed -e in rhyme, and has come to the conclusion that this -e was not sounded in Chaucer's time, and should not now be sounded by readers of his poetry. With Professor Southworth's conclusion many students of Chaucer will undoubtedly sympathize. The modern ear is trained to hear poetry read for the sense as dictated by the syntax, and without regard for any claims that the individual line may have to being treated as a vocal unit distinct from its neighbors. Such a reading is often made difficult by the sounding of the final -e, which tends to prolong the pause. Yet despite the attractiveness of Professor Southworth's argument there are several aspects of it that should, in view of the importance of the subject, be examined in detail before we altogether abandon the -e in rhyme. To make such an examination is the purpose of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , December 1948 , pp. 1101 - 1124
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Chaucer's Final -e in Rhyme”, PMLA, lxii (1947), 910–935.

2 Concordance to the Complete Works of Chaucer, ed. J. S. P. Tatlock and A. G. Kennedy (Washington, 1927).

3 In addition to the studies mentioned in fns. 4–5, see G. L. Kittredge, Observations on the Language of Chaucer's Troilus (London: Chaucer Society, 1894), 133–135; R. D. French, A Chaucer Handbook (New York, 1939), p. 367. Skeat's discussion in the Oxford Chaucer (vi, 114) is perhaps inadequate.

4 See F. N. Robinson, The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Boston, 1933), p. xxxi; Bernhard Ten Brink, Chaucers Sprache uni Verskunst, 3d ed., ed. Eduard Eckhardt (Leipzig, 1920), 216, 220, 237, 253–258, 261. It is difficult to accept Professor Southworth's remark (p. 912) that the “recognized standard works for the study of Chaucer's language are Child's and Kittredge's Observations.” Ten Brink's, which followed Child's and which has been successively reedited by Kluge and Eckhardt, seems preferable, Kittredge himself made considerable use of the original edition in his own work.

5 See, for instance, Lorenz Morsbach, Mittelenglische Grammatik (Halle, 1896), 79 and 82 n.; Richard Jordan, Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik, 2d ed. (Heidelberg, 1934), 138, 141; Karl Luick, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1921 ff.), 473.

6 The problem of the date of the disappearance of final -e in the London area and the possible archaism of Chaucer's language is discussed below.

7 Thus Professor Southworth's rule for adjectives (p. 931) allows such inorganic -e's as that in the ungrammatical phrase a gode man.

8 Morsbach, 84; Luick, 452. For elision in Chaucer, see Ten Brink, 266.

9 See Beowulf, ed. Fr. Klaeber, 3d ed. (New York, 1936), p. 280, for references.

10 See Orm's dedication to the Ormulum, line 19, and Luick, 452.

11 See Mrs. R. B. McJimsey's clear statement on this subject in Chaucer's Irregular -E (New York, 1942), pp. 7–8.

12 Elision also affected -o, as in the second to in TC 2.700: “As to myn auctour listeth for t'endite.” Elision of -o is, as here, usually graphically indicated. See Luick, 451, for discussion.

13 See J. E. Wells's ed. (Boston, 1907), p. lxvii, and notes referred to there. The only answer I can give to Professor Southworth's question (pp. 932–933) as to why elision does not operate between the last word of one Une and the first of the next is that it simply does not in any of the languages in whose poetry I know elision to occur. The explanation is probably one that would be least attractive to Professor Southworth—that there is a strong tendency to consider each line as a separate vocal unit.

14 Professor Southworth's statistics are based mainly on CT, and it would have been desirable, I realize, for me to have chosen the same area of investigation. I started to do so, but certain extraordinary discrepancies between his and my totals soon became apparent. Therefore I decided it would be wise to expand the scope to include all of Chaucer's poetry except RR, and to compare totals only after reducing them to proportions, rather than to waste space in petty arguments over numbers: the fine print of the Concordance makes complete accuracy difficult to achieve. As illustrative of the discrepancies that troubled me I list the following: for CT Professor Southworth lists under housbonde 86 instances, my count 67; hope (n.) 50, my count 17; name (n.) 21, my count 59;tyme 108, my count 161;for

TC, make (inf.) nine, my count 38. Except in his main table (pp. 924–925) he does not always give his scope, and I have been unable to work it out. In distinguishing between silent and sounded -e I have followed a strict metrical system explained below.

15 This percentage and that given for the elision of verbs is based on analysis of the instances in CT and TC.

16 The verbs and the number of times -e is sounded and silent are: felle (11:3); broughte (7:3); herde (22:12); liste (pret, 16:6); thoughle (50:15); answerde (39:10); seyde (49:11); wepte (2:6); caughte (5:1); cryede (8:4); preyede (9:2); slepe (8:2); make (30:19); stele (1:0). For seyde the Concordance gives only specimens.

17 The OE strong verb wēpan developed a weak preterite wepte, but in ME and in Chaucer also retained the alternate strong preterite weep. It is possible that in some cases Chaucer wrote the monosyllabic form, but his scribes substituted the more common dissyllable.

18 In analyzing verb forms the complicating factors are many. Because of the strong possibility of scribal inaccuracy in transmitting forms of the infinitive and of the preterite plural, which vary in the MSS between -e and -en (the latter not necessarily in elision), one hardly knows what policy to pursue in counting -e. The same is true of forms like preyed and preyde, metrically equivalent, yet one showing apocope, the other syncope: in the Concordance, in fact, preyde appears a number of times with pronounced -e in hiatus, pointing possibly to an original preyed. It is also disturbing that while in the dissyllabic nouns the -e may be properly regarded as an isolated problem, the verbal -e is inflectional and theoretically common to all verbs of the same shape, so that the sampling process instead of settling one word decisively merely gives us a hazy notion of what a full survey might show. Finally, the admixture, also noticed in connection with nouns, of longer with dissyllabic forms also detracts from one's confidence in the results.

19 If one takes elision into account many of Professor Southworth's incidental statistics are drastically altered. On p. 919 he gives figures to disprove Tyrwhitt's assertion that face, host(e) “inn-keeper”, graunte, preche, large, and straunge had pronounced -e's, and finds a total of 115 silent to 57 sounded. On the basis of CT-TC one finds, in allowing for elision, that the total is 109 sounded to 21 silent for these words, a ratio of 5:1 for pronundation instead of 2:1 against it. In trying to show that final -e was normally silent at the caesura (p. 927, n. 18) he lists 40 instances of herte in that position with silent -e, as against seven with sounded -e in other positions. But 35 of the examples are in elision, leaving only three pieces of valid evidence, since twice (C126, F1450) the -e is pronounced. Similarly only two of his 14 instances of leve are valid. Elision does not account for the extraordinary statement (p. 927) that the evidence of the Concordance is against Child's belief that the -e of deere (OE dēore) was sounded. Professor Southworth's statistics (p. 925) show for TC 38 sounded instances to five silent.

20 See his questions on pp. 911, 932.

21 See J. M. Manly's edition of the Canterbury Tales (New York, 1928), pp. 128–129. Mrs. Mcjimsey, pp. 6–7, gives an excellent statement of the metrical problem in regard to-e

22 On p. 932 he proposes to read lines A38, 44, 65, and 78 as nine-syllable lines by omitting -e's, and on p. 928 he suggests omitting a pronounced -e at the metrical pause in TC 2.1199 and 1310. The idea that -e is silent at the caesura seems a curious (and altogether unproved) substitute for the older theory that -e may be pronounced at the caesura even though the result is hypermetrical. In my own counting I have not admitted the possibility of the hypermetrical caesural -e.

23 There are actually three in CT: B720,3474, and E611.

24 Op. cit., p. 69; also Robinson, p. xxviii.

25 McJimsey, p. 72. See F1177 and HF 3.255.

26 Professor Southworth does not include yeer in his table, but mentions it in connection with Child on p. 927.

27 Mrs. Mcjimsey, p. 90, suggests that the expected -e on pley disappeared because of the “Middle English tendency toward assimilation in final juxtaposed vowels.” The exact origin of the noun trust is unknown. Professor Southworth lists (p. 919) 72 instances of host(e) (“inn-keeper”) and (p. 924) 12 of mele (“grain”), while the Concordance gives a total of 60 and nine respectively: this suggests that phantoms from the homonyms oost and meel—both historically without -e—have been introduced.

28 The verb is a singularly difficult one to analyze, inasmuch as (A) the present and preterite subjunctives, which have the same form as the preterite indicative, are very common, and sometimes the present subjunctive seems to replace the indicative; (B) while the verb was originally impersonal, it was beginning to be used with personal subjects, and in the plural of the present indicative falls together with the preterite singular; (C) because of its meaning, it is frequently used in the historical present where we should expect the preterite. The forms in TC I take to be possible preterites (some may be subjunctive) with pronounced -e are 1.984; 3.1066, 1313; 5.1688. In 3.1143 the -e is apocopated. In several apparent preterite forms in elision there are MSS-writings without -e: 2.1581, 3.21, 4.1123; for the last two Robinson reads an -e. Lesl(e), the Kentish form, Chaucer ordinarily uses only in rhyme; he also occasionally uses unsyncopated listelh.

29 According to Morsbach, 78–79, -e began to disappear in the Midlands before 1300, and disappeared entirely by 1450; in London the process took place somewhat later. According to Luick, 473, it disappeared in the London area in the course of the fourteenth century, while Jordan, 141, says that it had virtually disappeared by the time of Chaucer. H. C. Wyld, A Short History of English (London, 1914), 213, states that it disappeared during the fifteenth century.

30 See Samuel Moore, Historical Outlines of English Phonology … (Ann Arbor, 1919), 49. That this process is not part of a single great epidemic that overcame -e is suggested by the fact that most feminine monosyllabic nouns, originally without vowel ending in the nominative, took their ME forms from their inflected cases—gained an -e while nouns like child were losing one. See Luick, 473, n. 2.

31 See the Ayenbite of Inwyt, ed. Richard Morris (London, 1866: EETS 23), p. 190.

32 Luick, 454; Morsbach, 82b and n.; Jordan, 152.

33 On the basis of specimens, mighte shows a sounded-to-silent ratio of about 3:2; hadde (auxiliary) 2:5; hadde (independent) 3:4; were 1:5; on the basis of complete count for CT, sholde 7:4; for all poetry except CT and RR, wolde, 7:2.

34 Than(ne) seems to have pronounced -e in B3108, E1486, TC 3.124, 5.991 and 1289 (?); oure in D432, 529 (?), 595, and ABC 176; myn(e) in A2467 and TC 3.1331. I seem to recall instances of dissyllabic hire, though the Concordance lists none.

35 Luick, 456–459; Morsbach, 72; Jordan, 138.

36 See Luick, 456.1 have drastically simplified the discussion by the omission of many finer, but nevertheless important, points.

37 Morsbach, 25; Jordan, 138. Luick, 456, n. 2, and Anglia, xxxviii (1914),275, argue that the accent-shift may have had a basis in common speech.

38 See Ten Brink, 253. According to Luick, 457, tie verbal inflectional endings in OE were heavy.

39 Luick, 466; Jordan, 244.

40 Morsbach, 75–80; Luick, 473; Jordan, 141.

41 I fail to understand why Professor Southworth thinks that his theory, which pictures Chaucer as constantly using a totally dead letter in the final -e, proves that he “was in no way archaic” (p. 935), or even what relevance a poet's being archaic or not archaic has with the value of his poetry.

42 See Wyld, 316.

43 Some of the alternates were probably of considerable antiquity. Thus both blis (nis) and blysse (metrical dissyllable) appear in the Owl and the Nightingale (lines 420, 1280), and may point to alternate forms deriving from the nominative and oblique cases respectively of OE bliss. The same is probably true of quen(e), sight(e), and some others discussed by Mrs.

McJimsey, pp. 101 ff. Several Romance words, including host(e), also had early alternate forms: see Mrs. McJimsey, pp. 106 ff., and Luick, 461. It is doubtful whether any of these may properly be included in tables such as Professor Southworth's major one.

44 I believe that the answers to most of Professor Southworth's questions (pp. 911, 932) about historical grammar's explanation for certain cases of apocope have been suggested in the foregoing discussion. For the word aboute(n) Chaucer has three forms, all common Midland English: aboulen, aboute, and phonetic about, the last probably developing through lack of sentence stress. On evere (nevere) see Luick, 449, 457, and Ten Brink, 60 m: OE œfre developed with an intrusive vowel to evere; in later times, either the medial vowel was syncopated or the terminal apocopated. In Chaucer syncopation seems regular, since the word is reduced to a monosyllable in elision. Fluctuation in the -e of more (na-moore) may reflect alternate forms of the last e-blight. Professor Southworth's question about koude (A95) is not to the point, since the -e is pronounced. His question concerning the pronunciation of an -e preceding happed (F1501) reveals a misapprehension of the conditions under which elision takes place.

45 The exceptions are listed below, n. 51. In counting adjectives I have included only those serving in their normal capacity: I have not counted substantive uses or possibly adverbial uses, both of which present special problems irrelevant to this discussion. The substantive swete (“sweetheart”) is frequently without pronounced -e; and in expressions such as “it would be too long to tell” Chaucer seems to alternate between the adverb longe and the uninflected adjective.

46 See Ten Brink, 231–232; French, p. 349; Robinson, pp. xxviii–xxix.

47 He develops (pp. 931–932) a tentative theory that when an adjective precedes a noun with which it alliterates the adjectival -e is suppressed. The only example cited is E138–139: “And that a straunge successour sholde take Youre heritage.” But here the -e on straunge is probably pronounced, while that on sholde is suppressed in accordance with principles discussed above. Suppression of the adjectival -e requires a modern accenting of successour, which is unlikely, particularly since Chaucer uses it at B421 at the end of a line with stress on the first and third syllables.

48 Skeat, Oxford Chaucer, vi, 78, cites OK of ealdum tīman. See also O. F. Emerson, A Middle English Reader, rev. ed. (London, 1938), 139, and Romanic Review, viii (1917), 72.

49 Morsbach, Ueber den Ursprung der neuenglischen Schriftsprache (Heilbronn, 1888), p. 116, notes the construction in connection with the Mercers' Petition of 1386.

50 See Robinson, p. xxix; French, p. 349; Ten Brink, 232. Emerson, Romanic Review, viii, 73–74, prefers to regard -e before non-vocative proper names as occurring from analogy with old datives rather than with the vocative usage.

51 The two bad readings (see Concordance, young and white), rejected by all modern editors, are E1418 and TC 1.949. The apocopations are A3485 (?), BS61, D1118, 1613, E2281, F537, 1555, G1481, and H42. B561 is a bad reading, but when corrected an adjectival -e is still apocopated. Most of the others are in rapid dialogue (particularly adjectives preceding sire), or in seemingly proverbial expressions. Carrying the investigation on with the same adjectives throughout the rest of Chaucer's poetry (except RR), one finds that 151 out of 171 forms are regular according to the statements above, plus the additional one—not mentioned before because not applicable, but found in all the studies mentioned in n. 46 above—that Chaucer does not always inflect adjectives modifying plural nouns which they do not precede. Of the twenty irregularities, sixteen show apocope, and four inflectional -e's in seemingly non-petrified constructions. MSS readings of the minor poems are frequently suspect, and four cases of irregularity in LGW are rectifiable by substituting, in the modified noun, croune for corowne, or vice versa: both forms are regular in Chaucer. The greater proportion of adjectival irregularities in BD, PF, LGW, and the lyrics is in accord with observations made by Charlotte F. Babcock, PMLA, xxix (1914), 78–80.

52 In view of the number of apocopated -e's in Chaucer's work, the earlier rather than the later estimates given in n. 29 above seem preferable. But it is, of course, unsafe to generalize from Chaucer's speech to the common speech.

53 “ … The final vowel [in tyme] had begun to disappear in the 12th century, and I doubt if it was any longer pronounced in Chaucer's day” (p. 930). Professor Southworth seems to rely rather heavily on Mrs. McJimsey's vague—and carefully modified—conclusion that Chaucer's speech was “nearer the fifteenth century than previous investigations have indicated” (p. 219)—a conclusion not actually justified by her excellent dissertation, which concerns only Chaucer's and not fifteenth-century speech. See last note. I am altogether unable to agree with Professor Southworth's remark (p. 911) that Mrs. McJimsey shows “that within the verse the final -e of monosyllabic nouns was in general not pronounced.”

54 In discussing the orthoepic addition of -e to indicate vowel length, Professor Southworth says (p. 920): “Another class of long vowels arose in the thirteenth century from the lengthening of Middle English short vowels, of whatever origin, in open syllables in dissyllabic forms. The vowel length was indicated in the same manner as with monosyllabic words—the addition of mute -e.” As I understand it, this statement, coupled with Professor Southworth's belief in the early disappearance of -e, requires that in such a noun as name the a lengthened and the -e dropped off in the thirteenth century. Aside from a complete lack of evidence for the early disappearance of -e in the South Midlands in the thirteenth century, this statement involves crowding two important sound changes rather close together. In the North, where a type of lengthening did go on in the same century with the loss of -e, inflectional alternates were produced such as gîf: gēnes (from gîves). See Jordan, 36. That the South shows no such alternates suggests a well-defined separation of two changes, hardly to be pictured as occurring in the same century. One might observe that Professor Southworth's statement concerning orthoepic -e reverses the usual theory that -e as a sign of vowel length spread from words like name to monosyllables like stoon; certainly there is no evidence that the -e on name ever disappeared graphically, or that it was ever replaced.

55 Professor Southworth's statistics for the pronunciation of -e in these words suffers from his not taking elision into account (see pp. 929–930). My figures for sounded and silent -e are (complete poetry except RR): youthe 9:0; Rome 22:5; joye 18:12; tyme 89:39.

56 Essays on Chaucer, 2d series, 9 (London, n.d.: Chaucer Society), p. 86.

57 See Ten Brink, 220. See B1968 ff.

58 Lines 61 ff., 434 ff.

59 Ten Brink, 220.

60 I cannot conclude without mentioning Professor Southworth's conclusion (p. 918, n. 14) that the commonly made analogy between Chaucer's -e and the -e of French poetry is not valid because the mute -e is not sounded in French poetry. This seems opposed to both theory and fact. See for a thorough discussion Kr. Nyrop, Fransk Verslaere i Omrids (Copenhagen, 1910), 6 ff. Equally dubious is his suggestion that the final -e was not pronounced in OF poetry at Chaucer's time (pp. 918–919), for which he cites no authority but Payne.