Part 4 (1/2)
Here the syllables _-nes and_ in l. 3, _of a_ in l. 4, and _it wile_ in l. 5, are so rapidly p.r.o.nounced as to occupy only the room of one unaccented syllable in lines of the strict type. However awkward this appears to be in theory, it is very easy in practice, as the reciter readily manages his voice so as to produce the right rhythmical effect; and, indeed, this variation of arrangement is a real improvement, preventing the recitation from becoming monotonous. Those who have a good ear for rhythm will readily understand this, and it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it more at length. But it may be remarked, that the three lines above quoted are rather _more irregular than usual_, and that the metre is such as to enable us to fix the instances in which the final _-e_ is p.r.o.nounced with great accuracy, on which account I shall say more about this presently. I would, however, first enumerate the rimes which seem to be more or less inexact or peculiar, or otherwise instructive.
I. _Repet.i.tions._ Such are _men, men_; _holden, holde_, 29;[39] _ere, ere_, 739; _heren, heren_, 1640; _nithes, knithes_, 2048; _youres, youres_, 2800. To this cla.s.s belong also _longe, londe_, 172, _heye, heie_, 1151, 2544; where _longe, londe_ is, however, only an a.s.sonance.
II. _a.s.sonant rimes._ Here the rime is in the vowel-sound; the consonantal endings differ. Such are _rym, fyn_, 21; _yeme, quene_, 182; _shop, hok_, 1101 (where _shop_ is probably corrupt); _odrat, bad_, 1153; _fet, ek_, 1303; _yer, del_, 1333; _maked, shaped_, 1646; _bee, rede_, 1680; _riche, chinche_, 1763, 2940; _feld, swerd_, 1824, 2634; _seruede, werewed_, 1914; _wend, gent_, 2138; _ank, rang_, 2560; _boen, ut-drowen_, 2658. To the same cla.s.s belong _name_, _rauen_, 1397, _grauen, name_, 2528; _slawen, rauen_, 2676. _Henged, slenget_, 1922, should rather be called an imperfect rime.[40] There is also found the exact opposite to this, viz., an agreement or _consonance_ at the end, preceded by an apparent diversity in the vowel; as _longe, gange_, 795 (but see _longe, gonge_, 843), _bidde, stede_, 2548, _open, drepen_, 1782, _gres, is_, 2698, _boe, rathe_, 2936 (but see _rathe, bathe_, 1335, 2542), _fet_ (long _e_), _gret_, 2158; and not unlike these are some instances of loose rimes, as _bee, rede_, 360, _knaue, plawe_, 949, _sawe, hawe_ (where _hawe_ is written for _haue_), 1187, _sawe, wowe_, 1962 (but see _wowe, lowe_, 2078, _lowe, sawe_, 2142, _wawe, lowe_, 2470). Observe also _bouth, oft_ (read _vt_ or _ut_ = _out_?), 883, _tun, barun_, 1001 (cf. _toun, brun_, 1750, _champiouns, barouns_, 1032); _plattinde, gangande_, 2282, &c. _Eir, toer_, 410, _harde, crakede_, 567, are probably due to mistakes.[41]
III. Rimes which shew that the final _-en_ was p.r.o.nounced so slightly as to be nearly equivalent to _-e_. Examples: _holden, holde_, 29; _gongen, fonge_, 855; _bringe, ringen_, 1105; _mouthen, douthe_, 1183; _riden, side_, 1758; _wesseylen, to-deyle_, 2098; _slawen, drawe_, 2476. In the same way _hon_ rimes to _lond_, 1341, owing to the slight p.r.o.nunciation of the final _d_.[42]
IV. Rimes which appear imperfect, but may be perfect. _Riche_ answers to _like_, 132, but the true spelling is _rike_, answering to _sike_, 290.
_Mithe_, 196, should probably be _moucte_, as in l. 257, and it would thus rime with _oucte_. _Blinne_, 2670, should certainly be _blunne_; cf. A.S. _blinnan_, pt. t. s. _ic blan_, pt. t. pl. _we blunnon_; and thus it rimes to _sunne_. _Misdede_, 993, is clearly an error for _misseyde_, as appears from the parallel pa.s.sage in ll. 49, 50; and it then rimes with _leyde_. So in l. 1736, for _deled_ read _deyled_, as in l. 2098. _Boe_, 430, has no line answering to it, and a line may have been lost. _Nicth, lict_, 575, is a perfect rime. _Halde, bolde_, 2308, may also be perfect. _For-sworen_ answers to _for-lorn_ (p.r.o.nounced _for-loren_), 1423; _bitawte_ to _authe_ (p.r.o.nounced _aute_), 1409; _yemede_ (p.r.o.nounced _yem-de_) is not an improper rime to _fremde_, 2276; _anon_ rimes with _iohan_ (if p.r.o.nounced _ion_ or _John_, as indicated by the spelling _ion_ in l. 177), 2562, 2956. Yet in another instance it seems to be two syllables, _Jo-han_; see _wimman, iohan_, 1720.[43] Speche should be _speke_, and thus rimes to _meke_, 1065.
_Stareden_ should perhaps be _stradden_, or some such form, rightly riming to _ladden_, 1037. Under this head we may notice some rimes which throw, possibly, some light on the p.r.o.nunciation. Thus, for the sound of _ey, ei_, observe _hayse, preyse_, 60; _leyke, bleike_, 469; _laumprei, wei_, 771; _deye_ rimes to _preye_, 168; _day_ to _wey_, 663; _seyd_ to _brayd_, 1281; but we also find _hey, fri_, 1071; _hey, sley_, 1083, _heye, heie_, 1151; _heye, eie_, 2544; _leye, heye_, 2010; _heye, fleye_, 2750. _Fram_ rimes to _sham_, 55; yet the latter word is really _shame_, 83; _gange_ is also spelt _gonge_, _halde_ rimes with _bolde_, 2308. The p.r.o.nunciation of _ware_, _were_, or _wore_, seems ambiguous; we find _sore, wore_, 236; _wore, more_, 258; _ware, sare_, 400; _wore, sore_, 414; _were, ere_, 741; _more, ore_, 921. For the sound of _e_, observe _suere, gere_, 388; _suereth, dereth_, 648; _eten, geten_, 930; _yet, fet_, 1319; _stem, bem_, 592; _glem, bem_, 2122; also _yeue, liue_, 198; _liue, gyue_, 356; _lyue, yeue_, 1217; _her, ther_, 1924; _fishere, swere_, 2230. For that of _i_, observe _cri, merci_, 270; _sire, swire_, 310; _swie, vnblie_, 140; _fir, s.h.i.+r_, 587; _sire, hire_, 909; _rise, bise_, 723; _fyr, s.h.i.+r_, 915; _lye, strie_, 997; _hey, fri_, 1071; _for-i, merci_, 2500. For that of _o_, observe _two, so_, 350; _do, so_, 713; _shon, on_, 969; _hom, grom_, 789; _lode, brode_, 895; _anon, ston_, 927; _ston, won_, 1023; _do, sho_ (shoe), 1137; _do, sho_ (she), 1231; _stod, mod_, 1702; _ilkon, ston_, 1842; _shon_ (shoon), _ston_, 2144; _croud, G.o.d_, 2338; _don, bon_, 2354; _sone_ (soon), _bone_, 2504; _bole, hole_, 2438.[44] Only in a few of these instances would the words rime in modern standard English. For the _ou_ and _u_ sounds, observe _coue, moue_, 112; _yow, now_, 160; _wolde, fulde_, 354; _yw, nou_, 453; _bounden, wnden_, 545; _sowel, couel_, 767; _low, ynow_, 903; _sowen, lowe_, 957; _strout, but_, 1039; _ou, nou_, 1283; _doun, tun_, 1630; _crus, hous_, 1966; _wounde, grunde_, 1978; _bowr, tour_, 2072; _spuse, huse_, 2912. _Lowe_, 1291, 2431, 2471, should rather be _lawe_, as in l. 2767. These hints will probably suffice for the guidance of those who wish to follow up the subject. It is evident that full dependence cannot be placed upon the _exactness_ of the rimes.
[Footnote 37: ”This _four accents_ I consider to be a wrong way of stating the fact. . . The metre consists of four measures, each generally, not always, of _two_ syllables, the first often _one_ syllable, the others often of _three_ syllables, and each measure has generally more stress on the last than on any other, but the accents or princ.i.p.al stresses in the verse are usually 2, sometimes 3, perhaps never 4.” --A. J. Ellis. I need hardly add that such a statement is more exact, and that I here merely use the word _accent_ in the loose sense it often bears, viz. as denoting the ”stress,” more or less heavy, and sometimes imperceptible, which is popularly supposed to belong to the last syllable in a measure. I must request the reader to remember that this present sketch of the metre is very slight and imperfect, and worded in the usual not very correct popular language. For more strict and careful statements the reader is referred to Mr A. J. Ellis's work on Early English p.r.o.nunciation. Until readers have made themselves acquainted with that work, they will readily understand what I _here_ mean by ”accents;” afterwards, they can easily adopt a stricter idea of its meaning.]
[Footnote 38: ”You cannot scan this line in any way. This method of doing it is quite impossible; it is a mere chopping to make a verse like this. The line is corrupt. Omit _at_, and you have
Of
a tal'
ich you
wile telle
or better,
Of
a tal'
ich wil
e telle.” --Ellis.]
[Footnote 39: The number is that of the _first_ line of the pair.]
[Footnote 40: ”You have omitted the curious _harde, krakede_, 567, here; it is only an a.s.sonance, not a mistake, I believe.”
--Ellis. But see note to l. 567.]
[Footnote 41: ”On _i, e_ rhymes, see p. 271, last line and following, of my Chap. IV. The _o, a_ depend on a provincialism, and this applies to _sawe_, _wowe_; _bee_, _rede_; _knaue_, _plawe_; _sawe_, _hawe_; &c. _Bouth, oft_ is a case of a.s.sonance, _bouth_ being _bought_, where properly the _ugh_ is the voiced sound of Scotch _quh_, and easily pa.s.ses into _f_. The a.s.sonance is therefore nearly a rhyme. _Plattinde, gangande_ is probably a scribal error. _Eir, toer_ is certainly a mistake; read
Swanborow, helfled, his sistres fair.” --Ellis.
We may then perhaps alter _gangande_ to _ganginde_. I do not quite like writing the modern form _fair_ instead of the old plural _fayre_ in order to gain a rime to _eir_. Cf. ll. 1095, 2300, 2538, 2768.]
[Footnote 42: ”_Hon, lond_ may arise from a Danism, or from an English custom at that time of not p.r.o.nouncing _d_ after _n_ in _nd_ final; Danish _Mand_ and German _Mann_ are identical.”
--Ellis. I prefer to call it Danish; we English, now at least, often _add_ a _d_, as in _sound_, _gownd_, from _soun_, _gown_.]
[Footnote 43: ”_Johan_ is almost _Jon_ in Chaucer, however written, but l. 177 wants a measure; read--
Bi [Jhesu] crist, and bi seint ion.
In l. 1720 also the verse is defective; omit _al_, and read--
In denemark nis wimman [non]
So fayr so sche, bi _seint_ Johan,