Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Faculteit Letteren
Subfaculteit Linguïstiek
The history of ANGER
The lexical field of ANGER from Old
to Early Modern English
Proefschrift ingediend tot het behalen van de graad van
Doctor in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Germaanse Talen
door
Caroline Gevaert
promotoren :
prof.dr. Dirk Geeraerts
prof.dr.em. Xavier Dekeyser
Leuven 2007
“Maybe it’s always pepper that makes people
hot-tempered,” she went on, very much
pleased at having found out a new kind of
rule, “and vinegar that makes them sour —
and camomile that makes them bitter — and
— and barleysugar and such things that make
children sweet-tempered.”
(L. Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)
Acknowledgements
This dissertation presents the results of a research project which prof.dr. Dirk
Geeraerts agreed to supervise years ago. I want to thank him for his continuous
support on the road to this dissertation, which proved much longer and bumpier
than expected. As my supervisor, he has played a crucial role in this research
project and the dissertation resulting from it, for which I owe him my gratitude.
It was a great comfort to be able to draw on his great analytical capacities.
I also like to thank my co-supervisor, prof.dr.em. Xavier Dekeyser. My
gratitude is due not only for his continuous support and his many
encouragements, but also for his extremely careful reading of earlier versions of
this text and his many valuable comments.
I would like to thank the members of the jury for investing part of their
valuable time in reading my dissertation.
My thanks are due to many staff members of the K.U.Leuven who helped me
with all sorts of things. In particular, I want to thank the library staff of the
K.U.Leuven Campus Kortrijk, who always dealt with my requests for books and
articles from other libraries in a very efficient way, and were prepared to grant
me special facilities for books on loan from the campus library whenever I
needed them. I am also much obliged to colleagues who took books on loan
back to the library in Leuven.
Many thanks are also due to a great number of people unknown to me who
created an enormous library of dictionaries, reference works and text editions on
the internet. The results of their time and effort have been a great help.
I would like to thank the professors and heads of the department or
subfaculty for whom I worked as a teaching assistant and an administrative staff
member. Their appreciation for my work reassured me that the time I could not
spend on my research was time well-spent as well.
I want to thank my parents for having given me, as well as my brother and
sister, the opportunity to study and to obtain a university degree. I would also
like to thank my mother for comparing my Middle and Early Modern English
attestations with the texts from which I copied them and for helping me turn the
attestations in my database into standard text formats. Of course, I take full
responsibility for any remaining errors.
During the past few years, a number of people have inquired about the
progress of my research whenever we met and have encouraged me to pursue my
research project. When circumstances made this difficult for me and when I
came to the point of having to choose between my jobs and my research, it was
their interest that made me choose in favour of my research project. I thank them
for their encouragement, without which I would never have written this
dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband for his continuous support and
many encouragements, and above all, for helping me keep everything in
perspective.
List of abbreviations used
ASD
DOE
MED
OED
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary
Dictionary of Old English (A-F)
Middle English Dictionary
Oxford English Dictionary
Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
LIST OF TABLES
4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 ANGER IN PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH
1.1.1. ANGER in American English (Lakoff 1987)
1.1.2. Reactions
1.2 THE HUMORAL DOCTRINE
1.3 ANGER IS HEAT IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS
1.3 QUESTIONS AND AIMS
CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 SETTING THE BOUNDARIES
2.1.1 Conceptual field vs. lexical field
2.1.2 Boundaries
2.2 CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
2.2.1 Nature of conceptualizations
2.2.2 Metaphor level
2.2.3 Transparency
2.3 A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH
2.3.1 The need for exhaustive corpora
2.3.2 Corpus description and data retrieval
2.3.3 Principles of quantification
2.3.4 Problems of representativeness
CHAPTER 3 ANGER A850-1500
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 A850
3.2.1 Overview
3.2.2 Summary
3.3 850-950
3.3.1 Overview
3.3.2 Summary
3.4 950-1050
3.4.1 Overview
3.4.2 Summary
1
1
4
6
9
16
25
25
25
25
29
29
30
31
32
32
34
38
43
49
49
50
50
59
60
60
74
75
75
90
3.5 C1200
3.5.1 Overview
3.5.2 Summary
3.6 C1300
3.6.1 Overview
3.6.2 Summary
3.7 C1400
3.7.1 Overview
3.7.2 Summary
3.8 C1500
3.8.1 Overview
3.8.2 Summary
3.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 LITERAL VS. CONCEPTUALIZATION
4.2.1 Introduction
4.2.2 Literal expressions
4.2.3 Conceptualizations
4.3 THE INTRODUCTION OF ANGER
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 Style and genre
4.3.3 Semantic factors
4.3.4 Conclusion
4.4 LATIN INFLUENCE
4.4.1 Introduction
4.4.2 Overall comparison
4.4.3 Lexical comparison 850-950
4.4.4 Conclusion
4.5 ROMANCE ORIGIN
4.5.1 Previous studies
4.5.2 Quantifications in the present study
4.5.3 Conceptual influence
4.5.4 Conclusion
4.6 ANGER AS HEAT
4.6.1 Introduction
4.6.2 Quantitative analysis
4.6.3 Qualitative analysis
4.6.4 Conclusion
4.7 CONCLUSION
91
91
107
109
109
123
124
124
151
153
153
173
175
179
179
180
180
181
184
190
190
191
196
209
210
210
210
213
217
218
218
220
223
225
226
226
226
232
249
250
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
259
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
265
INDEX
GENERAL
DICTIONARIES
TRANSLATIONS OF CORPUS TEXTS
265
265
280
281
CORPUS TEXTS C1200
CORPUS TEXTS C1300
CORPUS TEXTS C1400
CORPUS TEXTS C1500
SAMENVATTING
282
283
284
287
291
List of tables
table (1) : metonymical expressions for ANGER (adapted from Lakoff 1987:382383)
1
table (2) : metaphorical expressions for ANGER (adapted from Lakoff 1987:387396)
2
table (3) : schematic overview of the humoral system
7
table (4) : cosmological extensions of the humoral system
7
table (5) : overview of Middle and Early Modern English texts and number of
attestations per text
36
table (6) : morphological variants represented by tags
43
table (7) : ANGER-expressions a850
59
table (8) : ANGER-expressions between 850 and 950
75
table (9) : ANGER-expressions between 950 and 1050
90
table (10) : ANGER-expressions c1200
108
table (11) : ANGER-expressions c1300
124
table (12) : ANGER-expressions c1400
153
table (13) : ANGER-expressions c1500
175
table (14) : overview conceptualizations a850-1500
176
table (15) : overview of conceptualizations a850-1500 (most frequent=literal)
182
table (16) : overview of conceptualizations a850-1500 (literal >24%)
184
table (17) : conceptualization type of non-literal ANGER-expressions
189
table (18) : metaphorical vs. non-metaphorical conceptualizations of ANGER 189
table (19) : transitory state, sin and other references in ME texts
191
table (20) : alliteration and rhyme in new expressions (types)
192
table (21) : alliteration and rhyme in new expressions (tokens)
193
table (22) : alliteration in ME texts
194
table (23) : rhyme in ME texts
194
table (24) : literal expressions in Romance vs. non-Romance ME texts
195
table (25) : literal expressions in religious vs. non-religious ME texts
196
table (26) : private offended value in ME texts (semasiological view)
199
table (27) : rank of experiencer in ME texts (semasiological view)
199
table (28) : rank of experiencer (high vs. non-high) in ME texts (semasiological
view)
200
table (29) : intensity of reaction in ME texts (semasiological view)
201
table (30) : share of Chaucer’s texts in total corpus for anger c1400
202
table (31) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and offended value for anger c1400
203
table (32) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and reaction for anger c1400 203
table (33) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and reaction (violence + affliction
vs. other) for anger c1400
204
table (34) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and reaction (violence vs. affliction
+ other) for anger c1400
204
table (35) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and rank of experiencer for anger
c1400
205
table (36) : co-occurrence of offended value and intensity of reaction for anger
c1400
206
table (37) : co-occurrence of offended value and rank of experiencer for anger
c1400
206
table (38) : co-occurrence of intensity of reaction and rank of experiencer for
anger c1400
206
table (39) : private offended value in ME texts (onomasiological view)
207
table (40) : rank of experiencer in ME texts (onomasiological view)
208
table (41) : intensity of reaction in ME texts (onomasiological view)
209
table (42) : ANGER-expressions in Old English texts of different origins
212
table (43) : conceptualizations in Old English texts of different origins
212
table (44) : correlation between translations and their Latin original 850-950 216
table (45) : Romance loans type frequencies
221
table (46) : Romance loans token frequencies
222
table (47) : Romance share in ANGER-expressions c1300-c1500
224
table (48) : quantitative data for ANGER AS HEAT (% of whole corpus)
227
table (49) : ANGER AS HEAT in Romance and religious registers
228
table (50) : ANGER AS FIRE in Romance and religious registers
229
table (51) : compounds adjective + heort in Old English
233
table (52) : compounds adjective + mod in Old English
237
table (53) : evolution of conceptualizations a850-c1500
260
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ANGER IN PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH
1.1.1. ANGER in American English (Lakoff 1987)
In their famous 1980 book, Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson show
that “abstract categories are structured metaphorically on the basis of structures
from the realm of physical experience” (Lakoff 1987:48). This idea of
experiential realism is elaborated in Lakoff (1987), in which he does not only
present a theoretical discussion of this idea, but also 3 case studies. One of them
is an elaborate discussion of the way in which ANGER is conceptualized in
present-day American English.1
At the basis of a large collection of expressions used to refer to ANGER in
American English, there proves to be a “common folk theory of the
physiological effects of anger : The physiological effects of anger are increased
body heat, increased internal pressure (blood pressure, muscular pressure),
agitation, and interference with perception” (Lakoff 1987:381). This folk theory
gives rise to a number of metonymical expressions : to denote the concept of
ANGER, people often refer to the physiological effects instead of the emotion
itself.
Don’t get hot under the collar.
Billy’s a hothead.
→
body heat
When I found out, I almost burst a blood vessel.
Don’t get a hernia !
→
internal pressure
She was scarlet with rage.
He was flushed with anger.
→
redness in face and
neck area
There’s no need to get so excited about it !
You look upset.
→
agitation
She was blind with rage.
I was beginning to see red.
→
interference with
accurate perception
table (1) : metonymical expressions for ANGER (adapted from Lakoff 1987:382383)
1
The set of expressions also contains metaphorical ones. In such expressions,
a concept is not expressed in terms of another one that co-occurs in reality (like
the physiological effects of an emotion and the emotion itself), but a more
abstract concept (target domain) is described in terms of a more concrete one
(source domain) that shows similarities. ANGER is often referred to in terms of
boiling, steaming, exploding, etc., revealing the metaphor ANGER IS THE HEAT OF
A FLUID IN A CONTAINER. This conceptual metaphor helps people to understand
how this emotion works : if a fluid in a container is heated, it starts to steam and
boil, producing pressure in the container, which will explode if the heated fluid is
not kept under control; similarly, people who become angry are hot and agitated,
and if they cannot keep their emotions under control, they “explode”. There are
clear correspondences between the target domain, ANGER, and the source
domain, a hot fluid in a container : the body is the container, the anger is the
fluid, the pressure in the container is the internal body pressure, the agitation of
the fluid is physical agitation, the limit of the container capacity is the limit of
one’s capacity to control anger, the explosion of the container is the loss of
control, etc.
Besides ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER, Lakoff (1987)
presents several other major metaphorical conceptualizations of ANGER :
You make my blood boil.
She got all steamed up.
When I told him, he just exploded.
→
That kindled my ire.
She was doing a slow burn
→
ANGER IS FIRE
I’m mad.
One more complaint and I’ll go berserk.
→
ANGER IS INSANITY
He surrendered to his anger.
She fought back her anger.
→
ANGER IS AN OPPONENT
He unleashed his anger.
He has a ferocious temper.
He was bristling with anger.
→
ANGER IS A DANGEROUS
He’s a pain in the neck.
Get off my back !
→
You’re beginning to get to me.
This is where I draw the line.
→
You’ll feel better if you get it off your
chest.
He carries his anger around with him.
→
ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A
FLUID IN A CONTAINER
ANIMAL
THE CAUSE OF ANGER IS
A PHYSICAL ANNOYANCE
CAUSING ANGER IS
TRESPASSING
ANGER IS A BURDEN
table (2) : metaphorical expressions for ANGER (adapted from Lakoff 1987:387396)
2
According to Lakoff (1987), the conceptual metaphors ANGER IS FIRE and
ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER are embodied : they find their
origins in our bodily experiences of the physiological effects of anger. They
make sense because people do feel hot, agitated and under pressure when angry,
as was shown in the physiological experiments of the Ekman group. In these
tests, the participants were asked to produce an emotional facial expression. The
instructions for the facial expression of anger are : “pull your eyebrows down
and together, raise your upper eyelids, and push your lower lip up and press your
lips together” (Levenson, Ekman & Friesen & 1990:365). These facial
expressions were held for 10 seconds. For anger, the heart rate was found to
increase with an average of 8 beats per minute and the finger temperature was
found to rise with an average of 0.10°C (Ekman, Levenson & Friesen
1983:1209). Because the Ekman group found that people’s skin temperatures
and pulse rates rise when angry, the physiological folk model is said to have
“stood the test of time. It has made sense to hundreds of millions of English
speakers over a period of roughly a thousand years. The Ekman group’s results
suggest that ordinary speakers of English by the millions have had a very subtle
insight into their own physiology” (Lakoff 1987:407).
Because the
conceptualization of ANGER is based on human physiology, it is not only
considered to have made sense throughout the history of English, but it is also
supposed to be geographically universal : “if we look at metaphors and
metonymies for anger in the languages of the world, we will not find any that
contradict the physiological results” (Lakoff 1987:407).
Later research by the Ekman group suggests that their approach has its
methodological problems. Levenson, Ekman, Heider & Friesen (1992:985)
report that the use of the facial expression method as a “cross-cultural method is
not without problems, especially in terms of possible heterogeneity within
cultures and related sampling difficulties. For example, in the present study, we
posited a cultural difference in the expression of anger, with Minangkabau less
likely to use the anger facial expression and more likely to mask it than
Americans”. This shows that there may not be a direct relation between the
facial expression and the experience of the emotion itself. These results also cast
doubt on Lakoff’s claim that the conceptual metaphors ANGER IS FIRE and ANGER
IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER reflect objective physiological changes
in angry persons.
Apart from the methodological problems in the Ekman group’s research,
other elements called the direct link between the conceptualizations of emotions
and the underlying physiological changes into question. Ungerer & Schmid
(1996:132-133) remark that many physiological changes
“apply not just to one or a few closely related emotions but to a
range of quite different emotions. ANGER, JOY and LOVE can cause
an increase in body temperature (…); all three emotions may flush
one’s face. ANGER and JOY, but also SADNESS and FEAR can result
3
in tears, an accelerated heartbeat and palpitations can be due to
ANGER, FEAR, DISGUST and again LOVE, and general physical
agitation seems to underly [sic] all the major emotions”.
Others pointed out that there are HEAT-conceptualizations for other emotions
than ANGER that do not match the physiological changes, at least as far as they
are perceived in present-day Western society. Tayler (1995:140) cites research
into the Sotho languages carried out by W.D. Hammond-Tooke, which shows
that in those languages “any abnormal or unpleasant condition of the body or
psyche is understood in term of being hot: bereavement, physical pain, illness
(not only fever), extreme tiredness, insanity, menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth,
as well as (…) agitation, impatience, and anger”. Most people familiar with only
Western culture will find it hard to interpret those conceptualizations as directly
reflecting physiological experiences accompanying those emotions and states. A
similar element is found when going back in the history of English (and
German). Aitchison (1992:35) reports on the existence of the concept of HOT
GRIEF in Old English, a notion which “nowadays seems fairly alien” (Aitchison
1992:35).2
1.1.2. Reactions
Lakoff’s case study triggered a wave of research into the conceptualization of
emotions, especially ANGER, and embodied conceptualizations in a wide range of
languages, amongst others Hungarian (Kövecses 1995c), Polish (Mikołajczuk
1998), Japanese (Matsuki 1995), Chinese (Yu 1995), Zulu (Taylor & Mbense
1998), Tunisian Arabic (Maalej 2004), White Hmong (Jaisser 1990), Southeast
Asian languages (Matisoff 1986) and Malay (Oey 1990).3 Only a few research
projects took a diachronic approach, investigating conceptualizations in Old
English (Fabiszak 1999, Fabiszak 2002, Romano 1999) and early Modern
English (Tissari 2003).
Many of these research projects adopted the
methodology used by Lakoff and Kövecses and put the main focus on crosscultural similarities.
The case study also triggered the opposite reaction : several researchers of
different disciplines thought that Lakoff and Kövecses had put too much
emphasis on the universal human physiology as the basis for the embodiment of
emotions and in their turn emphasized that conceptualizations are not merely a
matter of embodiment but of cultural influences as well.4 Not surprisingly, the
role of culture was highlighted by anthropologists, like Quinn (1991:57), who
claimed that “the case of metaphor illustrates a uniform tendency for linguists
and other cognitive scientists outside of anthropology to neglect altogether the
organizing role of culture in human thought, or to grant culture, at best, a
residual or epiphenomenal place in their accounts. That, on the contrary, culture
plays a central, profound role in human understanding is a conclusion of much
recent research in cognitive anthropology”.5 She also draws the attention to the
4
methodological flaws in Lakoff’s approach, a methodological point which will
be taken up by several linguists, namely that “the failure to grant culture its own
place in the linguistic analysis of metaphor may be an artifact of method. Lakoff
and Johnson pursue a methodology, time-honored in the discipline of linguistics,
that relies on idealized cases, disconnected from the context of actual use in
natural discourse. Applied to metaphor, this method precludes verification of an
account based on analysis of a corpus of such idealized, decontextualized
metaphors against other kinds of evidence speakers provide in the discourse in
which metaphors are ordinarily embedded” (Quinn 1991:91).
A similar view was taken by Gibbs (1999:153), who claimed that “what is
missing from the psycholinguistic work, and from aspects of the work on
metaphor in cognitive linguistics, is an explicit acknowledgment of culture and
its important, perhaps defining, role in shaping embodiment and, consequently,
metaphorical thought”. Based on the results of psychological research, he argues
that the physical world is “not separate from the cultural one in the important
sense that what we see as meaningful in the physical world is highly constrained
by our cultural beliefs and values” (Gibbs 1999:153).6 Concerning the
conceptualization of ANGER IS THE HEAT OF FLUID IN A CONTAINER, he states that
this is not entirely motivated by the folk theory of the physiological effects of
ANGER, but is culturally motivated as well :
“the metaphor ANGER IS HEATED FLUID IN A CONTAINER is
culturally instantiated as part of our interactions with all sorts of
containers in which fluid is heated or put under pressure. Various
cultural representations of this in art (e.g., paintings, cartoon
characters with steam blowing out of their ears and the top of their
heads), in the behavior of real-life pots and kettles all correlate
with aspects of embodied experience to make the metaphorical
concept ANGER IS HEATED FLUID IN A CONTAINER an appropriate
way of thinking and behaving when angry.” (Gibbs 1999:158)
Also from a completely different background, that of quantitative corpus
linguistics, came studies that revealed that conceptualizations are influenced by
culture. In their comparative quantitative corpus study of economic discourse,
Boers & Demecheleer (1997) found that certain metaphors were shared by
different languages, but that some were far more frequent than others and that
this was due to cultural influence. They found that gardening and food
metaphors were used to conceptualize economics in their French and English
corpora, but that the food metaphors were much more frequent in French and the
gardening metaphors in English (in both cases about three times as frequent).
Deignan (2003) presents interesting insights in the way horses are
conceptualized in English :
“The current literal citations suggest that British speakers talk of
horses in connection with their leisure, whereas most of the
5
metaphorical uses of horse suggest their use in nonleisure
transport, in work or war. It seems reasonable to assume that over
the last century there has been a shift in the role of horses, from
beasts of work to creatures who we share our leisure time with,
and it therefore seems that our literal use of the word reflects
contemporary perceptions, whereas the metaphorical uses are
largely fossilized.” (Deignan 2003:268-269)
These results show that, when doing purely synchronic analyses, linguists
should be aware that language is basically historical, and hence culturally
conditioned, and so are the conceptualizations that they reveal. Deignan
(2003:270) states that the historical dimension should not only be taken into
account for opaque expressions, but “that many, more transparent, metaphorical
expressions are also historical in that they allude to knowledge that is still shared
as part of our cultural repository, but no longer directly experienced.”
This echoes the earlier urgent call of Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) to
complement the purely synchronic approach of Lakoff and his followers with a
diachronic one. They point out that the ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER metaphor may well be a remnant of the medieval humoral doctrine
that has undergone reinterpretation.7 As culture and language are by definition
historical, purely synchronic research into conceptualizations is
methodologically flawed :
“Cultural models, i.e., the more or less coherent sets of concepts
that cultures use to structure experience and make sense of the
world are not reinvented afresh with every new period in the
culture’s development. Rather, it is by definition part of their
cultural nature that they have a historical dimension. They can
only fulfill their role of shaping a community’s life if they have a
historical permanence, that is, if they can be transmitted from
generation to generation, assuring continuity over and above an
individual’s and an individual generation’s activities (though not,
to be sure, unaffected by them). If cognitive models are cultural
models, they are also cultural institutions, and as such, they carry
their history along with them: their institutional nature implies
their historical continuity. It is only by investigating their
historical origins and their gradual transformation that their
contemporary form can be properly understood.” (Geeraerts &
Grondelaers 1995:176-177)8
1.2 THE HUMORAL DOCTRINE
The humoral doctrine, referred to by Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995), finds its
origin in ancient Greece, in the theories of Hippocrates of Kos (5th-4th century
6
BC) but was especially known in the Galenic version in the Middle Ages.9
Galen was a philosopher and physician who lived during the second century AD.
He was so well-known in his time as to be appointed physician of emperor
Marcus Aurelius and his works were copied and translated for centuries after his
death, throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance. One of his major
discoveries was that the arteries were filled with blood, not air, as was previously
thought, but he is best-known for his theory of the four humours, the humoral
doctrine. According to this theory, the human body contains four liquids, called
humours, which have their own characteristics as represented in table (3). Each
of these humours is produced in a particular organ and circulated in the body
through the blood.
blood
phlegm
black bile
yellow bile
warm
cold
cold
warm
moist
moist
dry
dry
element
air
water
earth
fire
taste
sweet
salty
sour
bitter
colour
red
white
black
yellow/red
origin
heart
brain/bladder spleen
liver/stomach
temperament
sanguine phlegmatic
melancholic choleric
table (3) : schematic overview of the humoral system10
characteristics
In a healthy body, the four humours are in perfect balance. Overproduction
of one of the humours causes illnesses and changes in mood. For example,
overproduction of yellow bile, choler, which is a warm and dry humour, heats
the blood and makes people angry. To restore the humoral balance, the
physicians could use many different methods, the best-known being medicines,
special diets and blood-letting.11
Although the humoral doctrine may have been a physiological folk theory
based on what people knew about the human body through experience, the
version that was commonly known and used in the middle ages was one that had
been translated, adapted, shaped and reshaped by scientists who were above all
philosophers and were undoubtedly more interested in making it a coherent,
symmetrical theory rather than one true to human physiology.12 The humoral
doctrine also went far beyond the physiology of living beings. It structured and
linked the whole universe : the humours were linked to and influenced by the
seasons, winds and the planets (see table (4)). Consequently, the humoral
doctrine did not only involve knowledge of human physiology, but also – and
even more so – of astronomy.
blood
phlegm
black bile
yellow bile
season
spring
winter
autumn
summer
wind
East
North
West
South
planet
Jupiter
moon
Saturn
Mars
table (4) : cosmological extensions of the humoral system
7
The practical use of the humoral doctrine is a far cry from present-day
medicine. Human physiology was not of much concern to the practising
physicians. They may often have inspected the patients’ urine to gain
information about their illnesses, but uroscopy cannot be compared with presentday analyses. Talbot (1967:132-133) cites a description of uroscopic analysis
from a vademecum:
“In urine different points are to be considered, namely colour,
place, and content. The reasons for its texture, its colour, and its
sediment are different. For since there are four qualities in the
human body, namely, heat, cold, dryness and moistness, these are
the causes of texture and colour. Heat is the cause of a red colour,
cold of white; dryness is the reason for a thin texture, moistness for
a thick texture.
Urine is divided into parts: the top part is called the circle (or
surface), the second part is the body of air, the third is perforation,
the fourth is the bottom.
From the circle we can diagnose ailments of the head and brain,
from the second part ailments of the spiritual members and the
stomach.
There are three positions of the urine, bottom middle and top.
The bottom begins at the lowest part of the urinal flask and
extends to the breadth of two fingers: the middle position begins
when the lowest part stops and extends to the circle which lies at
the top: and when there is froth at the top, it indicates wind or
inflation or some other ailment of the lungs.
If the circle is thick, it indicates excessive pain in the head. (…)”
Moreover, the physicians’ prognoses and cures were to a large extent based
on the physicians’ calendar. Such calendars inform the physician of the
positions of the planets which influence people’s humoral make-up. On the basis
of this cosmological information, the physician can determine which humour
causes the disease and how and when to cure it. Curry (1960) describes how a
medieval physician arrives at his prognoses and cures :
“First, according to Galen, by observing the position of Luna he
may determine precisely from what humour or combinations of
humours the malady proceeds. For example, if Luna is in Cancer
when the sickness begins and in conjunction with Saturn and Mars,
the infirmity comes from a superabundance of black cholera; if
Luna in quartile or sextile aspect with Saturn is discovered in Leo,
the malady is caused by too much phlegm, but if in the same
aspect with Mars, by too much blood; (…) and so on. (…) Your
mediaeval physician must understand that the four humours of the
body fluctuate in volume and power according to the waxing and
8
waning of the moon; when Luna is full, they are most strong and
abundant; when she declines, they decrease. (…) Generally
speaking, consequently, the wise physician may upon occasion
employ exterior evacuants such as phlebotomy in the first and
third quarters of the moon, but in the second and fourth quarters he
will use interior purgatives and laxatives. He must observe,
moreover, that humours have dominion variously in respective
hours of the day: the first six hours (…) after midnight, are hot and
moist, and during that time blood is said to have dominion; the
second six hours are hot and dry, and cholera is in power; the next
six are cold and dry, and melancholia rules; the last six are cold
and moist, and phlegm is supreme. (…) Understanding these
mysteries, however, and recognising how and why each planet is
responsible for a varied assortment of particular diseases, the
practitioner may proceed to elect propitious hours for the
administering of medicines and the surgeon for his operations.”
(Curry 1960:11–14)
The humoral doctrine was known in Anglo-Saxon England : Bede (c.672735) wrote a book on bloodletting, De minutione sanguinis, and drew on the
Galenic theory in De temporum ratione. But the humoral doctrine “does not
seem (…) to have influenced the development of western European medicine
decisively before 1050-1150” (Klibansky, Panofsky & Saxl 1964:104).13
Initially a medical theory for specialized, professional physicians, the humoral
doctrine became extremely popular in the later middle ages, as scientific and
medicinal books started being translated in the middle of the 14th century and
such translations were abundant in the 15th century (Voigts 1995:185-186). The
central ideas had become common knowledge by 1400. In literary works of that
time, the humoral doctrine was often explicitly referred to and whole chapters
were devoted to it.14
1.3 ANGER IS HEAT IN SHAKESPEARE’S
PLAYS
That it is worthwhile investigating the claim made by Geeraerts & Grondelaers
(1995) that the present-day conceptualizations of ANGER in English may well
prove to be linked to the humoral doctrine becomes clear if we take a look at
lexical and conceptual choices that Shakespeare made in his plays. His lexical
choices are quite similar to those used now : besides anger, angry and wrath, he
uses expressions like choler, hot and its synonym chafed, kindle, burn, inflame,
boil, etc. On the conceptual level, however, they prove to be different from the
present-day expressions as they are all presented as part of the humoral doctrine.
The influence of the humoral doctrine in Shakespeare’s plays is first and
foremost to be found in the quite frequent occurrence of the expressions choler
9
and choleric with reference to
anger and angry or wrath.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
10
ANGER.
They are used time and again instead of
Scarce can I speak, my choler is so great:
O, I could hew up rocks and fight with flint,
I am so angry at these abject terms; (King Henry VI, Part 2, Act 5 Scene
1, 23-25)
What, what, my lord! are you so choleric
With Eleanor, for telling but her dream? (King Henry VI, Part 2, Act 1,
Scene 2, 51-52)
Alexander, God knows, and you know, in his rages, and his furies, and his
wraths, and his cholers, and his moods, and his displeasures, and his
indignations, and also being a little intoxicates in his prains, did, in his
ales and his angers, look you, kill his best friend, Cleitus. (King Henry V,
Act 4, Scene 7, 35-41)
Sir, he is rash and very sudden in choler, and haply may strike at you:
(Othello, Act 2, Scene 1, 267-268)
Choler does kill me that thou art alive;
I swound to see thee. (Timon of Athens, Act 4, Scene 3, 369-370)
BOYET
Good sir, be not offended.
She is an heir of Falconbridge.
LONGAVILLE
Nay, my choler is ended.
She is a most sweet lady. (Love’s Labours Lost, Act 2, Scene 1, 204-207)
Go cheerfully together and digest
Your angry choler on your enemies. (King Henry VI, Part 1, Act 4, Scene
1, 167-168)
Let him die: sheathe thy impatience, throw cold water on thy choler.
(The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 2, Scene 3, 79-80)
All this! ay, more: fret till your proud heart break;
Go show your slaves how choleric you are,
And make your bondmen tremble. Must I budge?
Must I observe you? must I stand and crouch
Under your testy humour? By the gods
You shall digest the venom of your spleen,
Though it do split you; for, from this day forth,
I’ll use you for my mirth, yea, for my laughter,
When you are waspish. (Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3, 42-49)
GUILDENSTERN
The king, sir, —
HAMLET
Ay, sir, what of him?
GUILDENSTERN
Is in his retirement marvellous distempered.
HAMLET
With drink, sir?
GUILDENSTERN
No, my lord, rather with choler.
HAMLET
Your wisdom should show itself more richer to signify this to his doctor;
for, for me to put him to his purgation would perhaps plunge him into far
more choler. (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2, 291-299)
Example (10) illustrates how the physiological interpretation of the humoral
doctrine and psychological states both make sense for Shakespeare’s
contemporaries. This scene follows the one in which Hamlet has a theatre
company perform a play in which a king is murdered by his brother, in this way
accusing his uncle, who is presently king, of having done the same to his father.
His uncle has abruptly left the play together with the queen and their attendants.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, sent to Hamlet by the queen, report that the king
is upset and displeased with the play and Hamlets conduct. Guildenstern uses
the word distempered (literally ‘not balanced’) to describe the king’s state of
mind, but Hamlet, who (intentionally ?) misinterprets people’s words throughout
the play, reacts to this as if he referred to the king’s health, and asks if this
disturbance of humours was caused by drinking too much wine. When
Guildenstern explains that the king is upset with choler, meaning ‘anger’,
Hamlet again takes it as a reference to the king’s physiological state rather than
his psychological state and recommends calling in the doctor.
Examples (8) and (9) also show that the use of choler is not merely some
fossilized lexical remnant, but is still interpreted in terms of the humoral
doctrine. In (8), it is presented as a hot substance that needs to be cooled down
with cold water and in (9) it is described as a humour produced by the spleen.15
The physiological interpretation is also present in examples (11) to (13), where
there is explicit reference to the influence of people’s diets on the humoral
balance and thus on their emotions. As choleric people were thought to have too
much choler, a hot and dry humour, they were advised not to eat hot and dry
foodstuffs. If they wanted to restore their humoral balance, they needed
foodstuffs that were considered to have cold and wet properties.16
(11)
(12)
I tell thee, Kate, ’twas burnt and dried away;
And I expressly am forbid to touch it,
For it engenders choler, planteth anger;
And better ’twere that both of us did fast,
Since, of ourselves, ourselves are choleric,
Than feed it with such over-roasted flesh. (The Taming of the Shrew, Act
4, Scene 1,157-162)
or are they spare in diet,
11
(13)
Free from gross passion or of mirth or anger, (King Henry V, Act 2,
Scene 2,131-132)
ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE
In good time, sir; what’s that?
DROMIO OF SYRACUSE
Basting.
ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE
Well, sir, then ’twill be dry.
DROMIO OF SYRACUSE
If it be, sir, I pray you, eat none of it.
ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE
Your reason?
DROMIO OF SYRACUSE
Lest it make you choleric and purchase me another dry basting. (Comedy
of Errors, Act 2, Scene 2, 56-62)
When looking at the conceptualizations ANGER IS HEAT that are revealed in
Shakespeare’s plays, there are metonymical references to the physiological
effects of anger first of all. Like in present-day American English, there are
references to blushing :
(14)
(15)
’Tis not for fear but anger that thy cheeks
Blush for pure shame to counterfeit our roses (King Henry VI, Part 1, Act
2, Scene 4, 65-66)
The angry spot doth glow on Caesar’s brow (Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene
2, 181)
There are, however, also references to paleness (examples (16) and (17)).
These are references to physiological reactions that are not found in present-day
English, and somehow conflict with its idea of redness and high blood pressure.17
(16)
(17)
DON PEDRO
I shall see thee, ere I die, look pale with love.
BENEDICK
With anger, with sickness, or with hunger, my lord, not with love (Much
Ado about Nothing, Act 1, Scene 1, 229-231)
As I am an honest man, he looks pale. Art thou sick or angry ? (Much
Ado about Nothing, Act 1, Scene 1, 130-131)
If not based on a completely different set of physiological reactions, the idea
of paleness may be derived from the humoral doctrine.18 A French 1644
translation of Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia states :
“Il [=le colérique] a le teint jaune, & fait voir par là que la couleur
du visage est bien souuent vne marque qui manifeste l’humeur du
corps. D’où il aduient que par le teint blanc est demonstré le
phlegme, par le pasle ou le jaune la colere, par le rouge meslé de
blanc l’humeur sanguine, & par la couleur sombre & qui tire sur le
12
noir, la melancolie, comme le remarque Galien. [The choleric has
a yellow complexion and thereby shows that the colour of the face
is very often a sign that manifests the humour of the body. That is
why by the white complexion phlegm is shown, by the pale or
yellow, choler, by the red mixed with white the sanguine humour
and by the dark colour verging on black, melancholy, as Galen
notes.]” (Ripa 1976:53)
Besides the metonymical references to body heat, there is the use of the
words hot and heat, which are quite vague expressions. Without further
contextual clues, it is not clear whether these should be considered metonymical
or metaphorical expressions. As such clues are absent, the issue of their exact
conceptual nature is undecided, as is the question whether they can be considered
indications or remnants of the influence of the humoral doctrine.
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
She is so hot because the meat is cold; (Comedy of Errors, Act 1, Scene
2, 47)
Tantaene animis coelestibus irae?
Churchmen so hot? good uncle, hide such malice with such holiness ?
(Henry VI, Part 2, Act 2, Scene 1, 24-26)
Bethink yourself wherein you may have offended him: and at my entreaty
forbear his presence till some little time hath qualified the heat of his
displeasure; (King Lear, Act 1, Scene 2, 155-158)
CAPULET
Peace, you mumbling fool!
Utter your gravity o’er a gossip’s bowl;
For here we need it not.
LADY CAPULET
You are too hot. (Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 5, 173-175)
GLOUCESTER
A proper jest, and never heard before,
That Suffolk should demand a whole fifteenth
For costs and charges in transporting her!
She should have stayed in France and starved in France, Before —
CARDINAL
My Lord of Gloucester, now ye grow too hot: (King Henry VI, Part 2, Act
1, Scene 1, 131-136)
A synonym of hot is chafed. It is the later form of Middle English chaufed,
the past participle of the verb chaufen. Like the French verb chaufer, from which
it is derived, it means ‘to make hot’ but also ‘to excite’ and ‘to provoke’. The
original meaning ‘to make hot’ has become obsolete by now, but the OED
mentions examples of this use as late as the second half of the 17th century.
Consequently, the expression may still have been associated with the concept of
13
in Shakespeare’s time. In examples (23) and (24), it is associated with the
humoral doctrine through the use of the words temperance, disease and choler.
HEAT
(23)
(24)
What, are you chafed ?
Ask God for temperance, that’s the appliance only
Which your disease requires. (King Henry VIII, Act 1, Scene 1, 123-125)
Put him to choler straight: he hath been used
Ever to conquer, and to have his worth
Of contradiction: being once chafed, he cannot
Be rein’d again to temperance; (Coriolanus, Act 3, Scene 3, 25-28)
Also in the one occurrence of boil, revealing the conceptualization ANGER IS
it is telling that Shakespeare combines the
expression with the word choler. Unlike boiling anger or boiling wrath, this
phrasing presents the conceptualization as a part of the humoral doctrine.
THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER,
(25)
Speak, Winchester, for boiling choler chokes
The hollow passage of my poison’d voice,
By sight of these our baleful enemies. (Henry VI, Part I, Act 5, Scene 4,
120-122)
Finally, the conceptualization ANGER IS FIRE is frequently found in
Shakespeare’s plays. Contrary to what Lakoff and his followers assume, this is a
conceptualization that need not be embodied : it may well have an external
motivation which has nothing to do with human physiology. There is a perfect
correspondence between ANGER and a burning fire. In a fire, there is some
flammable material that due to a deliberate or accidental action is set on fire.
The fire can be stopped or stirred up, but if the fire gets out of control, it will
harm the person stirring it up. Likewise, a person can make someone angry
(kindle) through his actions and can then either try to appease (quench) that
anger or make it more intense (stir up), but if it is too intense, he may expect
serious retribution.
In none of the cases in which Shakespeare uses the word incensed, there is
contextual information which reveals whether the reference is to an internal or an
external fire. But there are explicit references to an external fire as the source of
the conceptualization in other expressions in Shakespeare’s plays. In examples
(26) and (28), he compares someone who is angry quickly but whose anger does
not last long with flint : instead of burning long, flint only produces a spark when
struck. In example (28),the source of the conceptualization is an external fire
because the flames of anger are said to be heigthened by oil and flax.
(26)
(27)
14
O Cassius, you are yoked with a lamb
That carries anger as the flint bears fire;
Who, much enforced, shows a hasty spark,
And straight is cold again. (Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3, 109-112)
Yet notwithstanding, being incensed, he’s flint,
As humorous as winter and as sudden
(28)
As flaws congealed in the spring of day. (Henry IV, Part 2, Act 4, Scene
4, 33-35)
York not our old men spares;
No more will I their babes: tears virginal
Shall be to me even as the dew to fire,
And beauty that the tyrant oft reclaims
Shall to my flaming wrath be oil and flax. (Henry VI, Part 2, Act 5, Scene
2, 51-55)
More often, however, Shakespeare uses the conceptualization ANGER IS FIRE
in contexts that refer to the humoral doctrine.19 In example (29), the burning is
clearly seen as a physiological process, as it is the heart that is burning. In
example (30), the burning is explicitly referred to as an effect of humours, as
well as in (31), where there is reference to the stomach (high-stomached), which
is one of the organs that the humoral doctrine considers to produce choler. In
(32), finally, it is explicitly linked to choler and its remedy : bloodletting.
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
My heart for anger burns; I cannot brook it. (King Henry VI, Part 3, Act
1, Scene 1, 60)
Yet I insisted, yet you answer’d not,
But, with an angry wafture of your hand,
Gave sign for me to leave you: so I did;
Fearing to strengthen that impatience
Which seem’d too much enkindled, and withal
Hoping it was but an effect of humour. (Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1,
245-250)
Then call them to our presence; face to face,
And frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear
The accuser and the accused freely speak:
High-stomach’d are they both, and full of ire,
In rage deaf as the sea, hasty as the fire. (Richard II, Act 1, Scene 1, 1519)
Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be ruled by me;
Let’s purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision;
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed;
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed. (Richard II, Act 1, Scene 1,
152-157)
France, I am burn’d up with inflaming wrath;
A rage whose heat hath this condition,
That nothing can allay, nothing but blood,
The blood, and dearest-valued blood, of France. (King John, Act 3, Scene
1, 266-269)
15
References to the humoral doctrine in Shakespeare are sometimes very
subtle. The idea of bloodletting, for example, is used quite originally in example
(33). The first three lines read like a standard reference to the humoral doctrine :
King John is inflamed with a hot humour that can only be cured through
bloodletting. The next line takes a turn : it is not the blood of the person afflicted
with choler that will be shed, but that of the enemy, France. It is one of the many
examples of Shakespeare’s starting with a reference to an element that was very
familiar to his audience and giving it a surprising twist. It is often hard for
present-day readers of Shakespeare to recognize the cultural references that were
familiar to his original audience and thus to fully appreciate Shakespeare’s
originality. Because most of them are no longer familiar with the humoral
doctrine in general and bloodletting in particular, they do not see the twist and
simply read example (33) as an unoriginal cry for bloody revenge.
In conclusion, the ANGER IS HEAT metonyms and metaphors in Shakespeare’s
plays seem very familiar at first sight. At a closer look, however, this familiarity
is deceiving : expressions and conceptualizations that have become fossilized
elements in present-day English seem to be very much alive in Shakespeare’s
texts. If he uses the word choler, for instance, it is not a standard synonym of
anger or wrath, but it refers to a humour that causes anger. The ANGER IS HEAT
metaphors too are often presented in contexts that show the influence of the
humoral doctrine. Thus, the use of expressions showing these conceptualizations
proves to have been linked with the humoral doctrine at least at one point in
time.
1.3 QUESTIONS AND AIMS
The analysis of Shakespeare’s expressions shows that, for him at least, the
ANGER IS HEAT-conceptualization was in keeping with a wider physiological
model based on the humoral doctrine. This suggests that Geeraerts &
Grondelaers (1995) may be right in claiming that the present-day
conceptualization may find its origin in the humoral doctrine. This dissertation
will investigate whether it is possible to go further back in time and study the
evolution of the different expressions and conceptualizations used to refer to
ANGER in order to find the origin of the ANGER IS HEAT-conceptualization and
ascertain whether the link with the humoral doctrine has always been present.
This historical reconstruction could be done in a minimalist way : only the
attestations of the ANGER IS HEAT-conceptualization could be studied without
bothering about any alternative conceptualizations. However, this may leave
quite some questions unanswered. If a connection between the conceptualization
and the humoral doctrine could not be established, would that be decisive proof
of the absence of such a connection ? Perhaps the influence of the humoral
doctrine does not feature in the immediate context of the ANGER IS HEATconceptualization, only making itself felt indirectly, like in Shakespeare’s use of
16
choler ? And if the conceptualization proves to have been present throughout the
history of English, how could we possibly tell if it was as dominant and
pervasive as it is claimed to be in present-day English ? In order to avoid these
problems, this study will adopt a maximalist approach, aiming to reconstruct the
whole lexical and conceptual field of ANGER.
The central idea behind the suggestion that the HEAT-conceptualization may
be a remnant of the humoral doctrine (Geeraerts & Grondelaers 1995) is that
conceptualizations may to a large extent be influenced by cultural elements
rather than based on universal human physiology, a concern which was shared
by many other researchers. Therefore, our main interest is whether the
conceptualization of ANGER was influenced by cultural elements, the humoral
doctrine being one of those cultural influences. The reconstruction of the whole
lexical and conceptual field of ANGER will make it possible to study other
cultural elements which may have influenced the conceptualization of ANGER
besides the humoral doctrine.
One possible cultural influence that will automatically spring to mind when
familiar with the history of the English language is that of Romance languages.
Throughout Old and Middle English, many texts were translated from Latin, and
Middle English adopted an enormous amount of French loan-words. In this
study, we will investigate whether Latin and French left their marks on the
expressions and conceptualizations used with reference to ANGER.
Another element that may show cultural influence is the introduction of the
Scandinavian loan-word anger. In many works on the history of the English
lexicon, this introduction has been mentioned. In most cases, however, no
explanation is offered as to why this loan-word was introduced and came to be
the standard expression of ANGER in English. Diller (1994) suggests that this
expression was introduced c1400 because social changes gave rise to new forms
of ANGER : whereas wrath expressed the traditional type of ANGER, in which the
angry person has a high social rank and typically reacts in a violent way, anger
expressed the emotions of lower-ranked persons, who react less violently. We
will consider whether our corpus data confirm such a cultural explanation of the
introduction and use of the loan-word anger.
In answer to these research questions, this dissertation will show that there is
evidence for all the cultural elements mentioned above. The corpus attestations
seem to confirm Diller’s (1994) hypothesis on the introduction of the loan-word
anger : it was used more often than wrath with reference to persons with a lower
social rank, who react in a non-violent way. The evidence is not very strong,
however, because the attestations of anger are rather scarce c1400 and overlap to
a large extent with Diller’s data. Much stronger is the evidence of the influence
of Latin in the Old English lexical and conceptual field and of Romance in the
Middle and Early Modern English one. Although there is relatively little
variation in the conceptualizations that are used throughout the period studied in
this dissertation, the frequency with which they are used varies considerably.
17
Much of this variation is due to Latin or Romance source texts promoting the use
of expressions and conceptualizations that prove typical of those source
languages, one of them being the HEAT-conceptualization. This HEATconceptualization, which on the whole is relatively infrequently used, is typical
of Latinate texts in Old English and shows no signs of being based on
physiological theories. In Middle English, the conceptualization still mainly
turns up in texts of Romance origin, while text origin no longer seems to play a
role in Early Modern English. Throughout the Middle English period and the
Early Modern English one, there are indications that it gradually becomes
associated with the humoral doctrine.
In the discussion of the different issues dealt with in this dissertation, the
context of previous research in the same vein will be sketched. At this point,
however, it may be useful to situate the project as a whole in the context of the
diachronic semantic and lexicological research in English of the past few
decades.
While introspection can be used in synchronic semantics and exhaustive
corpus studies have only recently been introduced in this field, diachronic
semantics and lexicology have through lack of native speakers always relied on
corpus studies, with only the size and form of the corpora differing between
studies. For the major lexicological enterprises in English, the OED and the
MED, it is especially the form of the corpus which has changed : the famous
collection of paper slips, on which readers have written attestations of words,
have been turned into an electronic database. Apparently unlike the OED, the
MED gradually turns to a corpus of complete texts, the Corpus of Middle English
Prose and Verse, which is incorporated into the Middle English Compendium
(http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/mec/). The process of digitisation of the data and
the dictionaries has mainly resulted in increased ease and flexibility in consulting
the material. It has not changed the priorities and methodology of the
lexicological work : the existing material is being revised, a process in which the
main focus is still the search for new words and antedatings of words and
meanings. The corpus-based research behind the dictionary entries is much
more clearly reflected in the Dictionary of Old English. Not only are the entries
completely built up from scratch on the basis of analyses of attestations in the
Toronto Corpus, also quantitative information on these attestations is given as
the total number of attestations of each entry is mentioned.
Outside the dictionary projects, the study of the meaning of words has to a
large extent focused on processes of grammaticalization, a process in which
lexical expressions lose their full lexical meaning and become elements which
express a grammatical function. The main figures in grammaticalization
research in English are Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Paul Hopper (see, among
others, Hopper & Traugott 1993), but many have taken up this line of research
(among others, Rissanen 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, Rissanen & Nevalainen 2002,
18
Rissanen, Kytö & Heikkonen 1997, Mendez-Naya 2003, Nagucka 2000,
Cuyckens 1999, Dekeyser 1994, 1998).
Like most of the grammaticalization studies, the sporadic studies of word
meaning that have nothing to do with grammaticalization (like Kiricsi 2004,
Grzega 2004, Tissari 2003, Roberts 2000, Bately 2000, Molina 2000, 2005,
Koivisto-Alanko 2000, Dekeyser 1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, Diller 1994, Schmidt
1993, Fischer 1989, Aertsen 1988, Philips 1985, Lohmander 1981, Peters 2004,
Mikołajczuk 2004) are basically semasiological, i.e. they study the meaning of
words. they deal with one single expression or a relatively small group of nearsynonyms. Only some try to cover a whole lexical field (Aertsen 1988,
Lohmander 1981, Tissari 2003, Molina 2000, Koivisto-Alanko 2000, Peters
2004, Mikołajczuk 2004). A number of those lexical studies (Grzega 2004,
Tissari 2003, Molina 2000, 2005, Koivisto-Alanko 2000, Dekeyser 1996) serve
to test cognitive theories, expecially prototype theory, and mechanisms of
change. Only Tissari (2003) also includes Lakoff’s theory of conceptual
metaphors in the semantic analysis. Such diachronic studies into conceptual
metaphors in English are extremely scarce : besides Tissari (2003), there is
Kleparski (1990, 1997, 2004), who also highlights the importance of metonymy
beside metaphor (Kleparski 2004), Fabiszak (1999, 2002), Romano (1999) and
Allan (2006).
A completely different line of enquiry originated in the development of The
Historical Thesaurus of English. In order to make this thesaurus, the
information of the OED and MED had to be turned inside out : the central
question was no longer what certain expressions mean, but how they could be
categorized, and hence which expressions were used to express which concepts.
This resulted in an onomasiological reference work, which starts from concepts
and explores which lexical items are used to express them, rather than starting
from lexical items and looking for the concepts they express. In order to do this,
the scope of the lexical elements taken into consideration was drastically
widened : it was no longer possible to study only a small group of nearsynonyms, but all possible words belonging to a lexical field (i.e. all items
expressing the same concept) had to be taken into account. A number of Ph.D.
projects covered wide lexical fields : religious lexis (Chase 1983, 1988), good
and evil (Thornton 1988), expectation (Sylvester 1991, 1994) and love, sex and
marriage (Coleman 1992, 1999). This approach allows a number of quantitative
analyses. Sylvester (1994) and Coleman (1999), for example, give tables in
which the numbers of newly introduced expressions are shown throughout the
history of English. Also obsolescence of items can be quantified, as well as the
relative shares of the donor languages of the loan-words. With the studies being
based on the slips used by the OED instead of an exhaustive corpus, these
quantifications can take into account the type level (i.e. the dictionary entries)
but not the actual number of attestations.
19
The present dissertation, basically an onomasiological study of the complete
lexical field of ANGER in Old, Middle and Early Modern English, including the
metaphorical conceptualizations, shows similarities with a number of studies
mentioned, but also shows considerable differences. Being an onomasiological
study of a lexical field throughout quite a long stretch of time, it may at first
sight seem most closely related with the studies originating in the development
of the Historical Thesaurus of English. It is, however, different in that those
studies are still basically doing semasiological research : they study what
expressions mean and then classify those expressions on the basis of their
semantic make-up. The overviews of the field as a whole are restricted to
counting new lexical items and obsolete ones, their etymological origin, etc.
They do not study the evolution of the conceptualizations behind those
expressions. This study, by contrast, does not go into semasiological analyses of
all the expressions : there is a semasiological analysis of anger and its nearsynonyms, but on the whole, this study relies on dictionary information for the
semasiological description, and concentrates on the onomasiological evolutions
within the lexical field. This approach also differs in its use of an exhaustive
corpus and drawing the lexical field on token level (i.e. the level of the
attestations) rather than on type level. In doing so, it wants to give an idea of the
actual language use rather than a repertory of available expressions.
In including the metaphorical conceptualizations in the study, this
dissertation links up with the few other diachronic studies of conceptual
metaphors, namely Tissari (2003), Fabiszak (1999, 2002), Romano (1999) and
Allan (2006). Fabiszak (1999, 2002), Romano (1999), Kleparski (1990, 1997,
2004) and Allan (2006) differ from the present study in that they deal exclusively
with conceptual metaphors and do not take a quantitative approach. Moreover,
Fabiszak (1999, 2002) and Romano (1999) study a much shorter period, namely
Old English. Also Tissari (2003) is limited in time : it studies the period
between 1500 and 1700, and present-day English. Although it adopts a
quantitative approach in its semasiological analyses and deals with occurrence
frequencies of conceptual metaphors, it is still basically a semasiological study,
which never draws the full picture of the whole lexical field.
So, in a nutshell, this study differs from mainstream diachronic semantics in
English in that it attempts to draw an entire lexical field, including the
conceptual metaphors throughout a considerably long period in the history of
English. In doing so, it will not focus on semasiological analyses, but on
onomasiological ones. It will also take a fully corpus-based approach, which
allows a quantitative approach on token level, so that it can give an idea of actual
language use.
20
NOTES
1
2
3
4
The case study on present-day ANGER in American English is the result of research
done jointly with Zoltán Kövecses, who continued to do research on the
conceptualization of anger and emotions in general in English and in other languages,
mainly Hungarian (see Kövecses 1986, 1988, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1998, 2000, 2002,
2005).
Whitbread (1938) discusses how in Old and Middle English GRIEF is conceptualized
as either hot or cold. This two-way metaphor is said to find its origin in the medieval
concept of hell, which “held the condemned souls to endure alternate cold and heat
and not only to be devoured by flame (as the biblical references warranted)”
(Whitbread 1938:368), although “abundant allowance must be made for a
psychological explanation of the metaphor” (Whitbread 1938:370).
A summary of the main cross-linguistic findings concerning metonymic and
metaphorical references to body heat can be found in Kövecses (1995c) and Kövecses
(2002:163-177) and Gevaert (2005:195-208). While Kövecses (1995c, 2002) draws
the attention to the universal elements, Gevaert (2005) highlights the cultural
differences. Unlike his earlier studies, Kövecses (2005) does not emphasize
universality but highlights cultural differences and suggests that both elements can be
reconciled.
The term embodiment may give rise to some confusion : it can be used in its strictest
sense, which could be paraphrased as ‘conceptualizations are reflections of
objectively established universal human physiology’ and a broader sense which leaves
room for personal and cultural interpretations of those physiological processes. The
central notion of the broader interpretation is presented by Evans & Green (2006:44)
as “the importance of human experience, the centrality of the human body, and
human-specific cognitive structure and organisation, all of which affect the nature of
our experience”. The importance attached to the Ekman group’s research in Lakoff
(1987) indicates that he was using the strictest interpretation. Also the way in which
Kövecses (1995a:66) phrases the idea of embodiment clearly shows the strict
interpretation : “In the case of anger, naturalness arises out of embodiment (see
Lakoff, 1987 and Johnson, 1987). Embodiment occurs when it is really the case that
people’s temperature and blood pressure rise in anger. This is what makes studies of
human physiology during emotional states crucially relevant for cognitive approaches
to the study of the language and conceptual system of emotion”. It is this
interpretation that triggered the strong reactions of researchers who pointed out
cultural influences. Edwards (1997:230-262) points out that Lakoff (1987) uses the
term embodiment in the strictest sense and discusses to what extent postulating the
existence of an objective reality is problematical. By now, however, the two opposite
sides in the discussion have more or less accepted and adopted the broader
interpretation. The research for this dissertation was thought out as a test case for the
embodiment thesis in its strictest sense. It should therefore be made clear that if parts
of this research project reject the embodiment claim in favour of a cultural
21
interpretation (e.g. in Gevaert 2005), they reject the strict version, not the broad
interpretation.
5 Also Solomon (1984) argued strongly in favour of considering emotions a matter of
culture rather than universal physiology, which he does not accept as a fact proven.
He claims that “emotions are to be construed as cultural acquisitions, determined by
the circumstances and concepts of a particular culture as well as, or rather much more
than, by the functions of biology and, more specifically, neurology” (Solomon
1984:239-240).
6 This confirms an earlier suggestion by the linguists Aitchison and Emanatian.
Aitchison (1992:37) argues that “conceptual metaphors have a number of universal
physiological and behavioural starting points, and that particular cultures choose
particular linguistic routes. The selection may be partly due to the culture, partly due
to the existing conceptual metaphors.” The importance of cultural influence is
illustrated by the fact that in the past GRIEF was conceptualized in terms of heat, a
conceptualization which is now considered awkward (Aitchison 1992:35). Emanatian
claims that “perhaps we could say that our embodied interactions in the world provide
the fundamental “shape” of experiences, and that our cognitive abilities perceive and
further abstract and schematize those basic shapes. Both, of course, get filtered
through the culture to which we belong” (Emanatian 1995:178).
7 Also Aitchison (1992:35) mentions the humoral doctrine as the historical source of
ANGER-conceptualizations and Fernando (1996:122-136) presents the humoral
doctrine not only as the source of the conceptualization ANGER IS HEAT but also of
HAPPY IS UP and GRIEF IS DOWN (humours connected with air and earth respectively).
8 This view is also to be found in Athanasiadou and Tabakowska’s introduction to the
articles collected in Speaking of Emotions : “while the physiological background as
such may well be universal for all human beings, the actual choice of its elements for
conceptualization, and subsequent expression, need not be. As a rule, this choice
involves particular linguistic, that is cultural, conventions. However, conceptual
differences are mostly the matter of a wide context, both cultural and historical, which
conditions the way in which people conceptualise the world around them”
(Athanasiadou & Tabakowska 1998:xiii).
9 For pre-Galenic associations between anger, bile and fire (in the head), see Onians
(1951). Of particular interest is Bourgery (1961), an edition of Seneca’s dialogue De
ira, in which he mentions several elements that will later be incorporated in the
medieval humoral doctrine : it discusses the four humours and temperaments, links
anger with the stomach and bile, and proposes dietary measures.
10 Klibansky, Panofsky & Saxl (1964:61) claim that “it is very doubtful whether Galen
ever believed that the predominance of one or other humour could determine the
whole being of a specific type of man”, but the belief in the existence of four
temperaments was very much alive in the middle ages. It should be made clear that
the humoral doctrine is not one single theoretical model : the theory was elaborated
throughout the centuries and many different versions existed. Table (3) only shows
some core elements, which were shared by most versions.
22
11 Cameron (1983:152) suggests that “if English medicine had any national character, it
was that perhaps less emphasis was placed on bleeding and more on diet and
medicines”.
12 Fritz (1993:20-21) claims that “la théorie des humeurs et des tempéraments ne repose
pas sur une observation du réel, encore moins sur son expérimentation. Elle fait
d’abord appel à un imaginaire : métaphores, allégories, correspondances, synesthésies
constituent la trame de ce mode de pensée [the humoral doctrine and the theory of the
temperaments are not based on observation of reality, and even less on experiment.
Above all, they appeal to an imaginary world : metaphors, allegories, correspondences
and synaesthesia form the basis of this way of thinking]”.
13 Bonser (1963:35-37) provides similar information : the first references to the theory
of the humours in Anglo-Saxon texts are from the 11th century. Bloodletting,
however, seems to have been in practice much earlier : in his overview of manuscript
sources, Bonser (1963:xvii-xix) mentions the presence of Anglo-Saxon charms for
bloodletting in manuscripts of the 10th century.
14 For a discussion of the use of the humoral doctrine in Chaucer’s writing, see Curry
(1960) and Braswell-Mears (1991).
15 As explained by Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995:164-165), the spleen is normally
considered to produce melancholy, not choler. Reference to the spleen as the source
of anger is either the result of the confusion of elements in the many versions of the
humoral doctrine or it refers to adust melancholy, a form of melancholy that makes
people aggressive and angry rather than fearful and sorrowful.
16 They might, for example, eat millet or drink barberry syrup as “millet according to
Isaac is cold in the first degree and dry in the second. (…) it is sought by the ones for
whom cooling or comforting and the drying of superfluous humors is desired”
(Crossgrove 1995:89) and barberry fruits “are cold and dry in the second degree. They
are effective against febrile distress. A syrup is made from them with sugar against
overheating of the liver. A powder of them is prepared with the juice of nightshade
and placed over the liver. Avicenna says that they are cold and dry in the third
degree. And furthermore he says they can overcome choler, and the fuits in this way
greatly quench thirst” (Crossgrove 1995:90).
17 A similar expression, wit van woede ‘white with anger’ is still to be found in Dutch.
18 Tavris (1982:66-67) reports on a 1894 study based on 2,184 questionnaires that
revealed a different set of physiological reactions to anger. Paling, goose bumps,
chills and shudders and feeling cold were mentioned as some of the symptoms besides
flushing, feeling hot and many others. Such symptoms are consistent with high
adrenalin levels that may accompany the feeling of anger. The fact that people report
such reactions is a challenge to Lakoff’s assigning clear predominance to the ANGER IS
HEAT-model and to his claim that “From the Ekman group’s results, together with our
hypothesis concerning conceptual embodiment, we can make an interesting
prediction, that if we look at metaphors and metonymies for anger in the languages of
the world, we will not find any that contradict the physiological results that they
found. In short, we should not find languages where the basic emotion of anger is
understood in terms of both cold and freedom from pressure” (Lakoff 1987:407).
23
19 This is in keeping with the claim that “Shakespeare mentioned all the humours in his
plays, using them in different contexts and with a wide range of meanings. He knew
which humour was akin to which of the four elements and, not infrequently, used the
humours and elements interchangeably, as though he believed they were the same”
(Kail 1986:142).
24
Chapter 2
Methodology
2.1 SETTING THE BOUNDARIES
2.1.1 Conceptual field vs. lexical field
In synchronic research, there are several ways of reconstructing the conceptual
field of ANGER, i.e. of finding out how people conceptualize ANGER.1 Native
speakers may, for example, be asked to list all the expressions that they use to
refer to ANGER or they may be asked to tell about situations in which someone
was angry. On the basis of that material, the researchers reconstruct the
conceptualizations that lie behind the expressions and images used. Or more
strictly controlled psycholinguistic experiments can be set up in which native
speakers are asked to react to expressions in which ANGER is presented together
with other concepts. In such experiments, shorter reaction times indicate that
some combinations are understood more easily or are more acceptable than
others, showing a closer link between that concept and ANGER.
For historical research, obviously, researchers can only start from the words
and idioms that people actually produced when referring to ANGER in the texts
that have come to us, i.e. the lexical field of ANGER. On the basis of the
expressions in the lexical field, a reconstruction can be made of the conceptual
field. Consequently, unlike in synchronic research, there is a strict match
between the lexical and conceptual field of a domain in historical research in that
the latter can only be a copy of the former.2
2.1.2 Boundaries
A problem that both synchronic and historical research are confronted with is
how to set the boundaries of a lexical or conceptual field. For centuries,
scientists were convinced that every word or concept could be described in terms
of necessary and sufficient conditions. In such a view, lexical or conceptual
fields can be clearly delineated. The past few decades, however, semanticists
and psychologists have proved that words and concepts cannot be defined in
terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. Not only is there quite some
overlap between the concepts and meanings of words, there is also variation
within the concepts and meanings that do not necessarily have one common
25
element. The general picture that emerges is one of concepts and meanings that
fan out from one or more prototypical concepts or meaning clusters and have
blurry edges, so-called fuzzy boundaries.3 Thus, it is impossible to say where
exactly the lexical and conceptual field of ANGER stops and another field begins.4
In spite of the blurriness at the edges of the lexical and conceptual field,
decisions have to be made about whether or not to include certain expressions
and the concepts that they reveal. Fortunately, ANGER has a very strong
prototypical core, answering to so-called “prototypical scenarios”, described by
Wierzbicka (1992:569) as
“X feels something
sometimes a person thinks something like this :
this person did something bad
I don’t want this
because of this, I want to do something
I would want to do something bad to this person
because of this, this person feels something bad
X feels like this”
or by Lakoff (1987:397-398) as consisting of five stages : offending event,
anger, attempt at control, loss of control and act of retribution. The variant forms
of ANGER are clustered around this prototype : with insatiable anger, the act of
retribution cannot put a stop to the emotion, with successful suppression, there is
no loss of control and no retribution, with redirected anger, the target of the
retribution is not the causer of the offending event, etc. Because of the strong
similarity between these variants and prototypical ANGER, these variant forms
can easily be considered part of the lexical and conceptual field.
The suddenness of ANGER and the relatively short period that is taken up by
the whole prototypical scenario are very important, however. If there is a long
period between the feeling of ANGER and the act of retribution (if there ever is
one), the line between ANGER and GRUDGE and HATE becomes quite thin.
Although this line between ANGER and GRUDGE and HATE may seem the best
candidate for debates about where to draw the line between lexical or conceptual
fields and which items to include or exclude, the attestations found in the corpora
are often quite clear. They are assigned to one or other concept by the authors
themselves, who use either a core word of the ANGER-field (like anger, ire,
wrath) or hate or grudge.
The problems of assignation especially crop up when hyperonyms are used
(like Old English anda, which can be used for almost any strong feeling), or for
words that are on the fuzzy borderline between the fields of ANGER and SADNESS.
Although these two fields seem to have nothing in common except the first stage
of the prototypical scenario of ANGER, namely the offending event, their lexical
and conceptual fields prove to show quite some overlap. Wroth, for example,
can mean either ‘sad’ or ‘angry’. In order to assign an attestation to either of
these fields, we need a “recours à la PHILOLOGIE” (Kleiber 1978:44) : the context
26
of the lexical element has to be analysed, in search of disambiguating elements
that will enable the reader to ascribe a certain meaning to the words. Those
elements can be synonyms or near-synonyms, antonyms or syntactic
characteristics. In the case of ANGER, the context can also be checked for
elements that point to Lakoff’s “prototypical scenario”. Apart from the clear
parallel between the situation described in (34) and the prototypical scenario of
ANGER, the meaning of wroth is disambiguated by the syntactic context in which
it features. When it enters into a construction with against, it can only mean
‘angry’ : like in present-day contexts, it is impossible in Middle and Early
Modern English to be ‘sad against/at someone’.5
(34)
And the more that he prayd hym the more he faylled and became pouere
wherfore the man was wel wrothe ageynst his ydolle and took hit by the
legges and smote the hede of hit so strongly ageynst the walle so that it
brake in to many pyeces (Caxton, Æsop p.169 l.8-10)
‘And the more he asked him, the more he failed and became poor,
because of which he was very angry with his idol and took it by the legs
and struck its head so hard against the wall that it broke into many
pieces.’
The modern English words displease, displeasing, displeasure, etc. are a case
in point too : they can be used to refer to emotions ranging from dislike over
mild annoyance to severe anger.6
(35)
(36)
(37)
Thus muche as now, O wommanliche wif, I may out brynge, and if this
yow displese, That shal I wreke upon myn owen lif Right soone, I trowe,
and do youre herte an ese, If with my deth youre wreththe may apese.
(Troilus and Criseyde 3.106-110)
‘This much as now, O womanly woman, I can tell you and if this angers
you, I shall avenge it with my own life right away, I promise, and ease
your heart, if with my death your anger may appease.’
whan reynard herde this. he wente out and saide softly to bellyn the
ramme. lief bellyn wherfore be ye angry kywart speketh wyth his dere
aunte. me tynketh ye ought not to be dysplesid therfore. (Caxton, The
History of Reynard the Fox p.48 l.10-13)
‘When Reynard heard this, he went out and said softly to Bellin the ram,
“Dear Bellin, why are you angry ? Cuwart speaks with his dear aunt. It
seems to me that you ought not to be angry with that.” ’
Unto whom he answered with apparent tokens of heaviness, that
forasmuch as he had given to Xerxes counsel and advice to be reconciled
unto their city, he being moved with ire and displeasure toward him in
most cruel wise caused him to be so shamefully mutilated. (Elyot, The
Boke Named The Governour p.176)7
‘Unto whom he answered with apparent signs of sadness, that much as he
had given Xerxes the advice to be reconciled with the city, being moved
27
(38)
(39)
with anger towards him, he had in a most cruel way caused him to be so
shamefully mutilated.’
And thus kynge dauyd made double synne for an homycyde he was and
hadde accomplysshed and done the synne of lecherye wherfor god was
displeased and sente to hym and to his reame many euyls (Caxton, The
Book of the Knight of the Tower p.107)
‘And thus king David committed a double sin for he was a murderer and
had committed the sin of lechery, for which God was angry and sent
many evils to him and his country.’
And thus whanne he beganne to laboure came he that had the charge of
the felde and the ouersyght And anone beganne to bete one of the
labourers greuously wherof Esope was gretely displeasyd And sayd to
hym in this manere what betest thou hym for nought (Caxton, Æsop p.29
l.17 - p.30 l.3)
‘And thus, when he began to labour, came he who was in charge of the
field and its supervision and immediately he began to beat one of the
labourers severely, for which Aesop was very angry and said to him,
“Why do you beat him for nothing ?” ’
In examples (35), (36) and (37), the ambiguity of the words displease and
displeasure is removed by the occurrence of the synonyms wrath, angry and ire
in the context. The use in medieval texts of doublets, the co-ordination of two
synonyms, like the doublet ire and displeasure in example (37), is very common
and helpful for disambiguating ANGER-terms, especially anger and wroth, which
during certain periods belong to two lexical and conceptual fields (AFFLICTION
and ANGER in the case of anger and SADNESS and ANGER in the case of wroth).
In examples like (38) and (39), there are no synonyms or syntactic clues to
disambiguate the meaning of displease.
There is, however, a clear
correspondence between the situation that is described and the prototypical
scenario. In (38), the offending event consists in David committing sins of
homicide and lechery. These transgressions of his law make God angry, and by
way of retribution, he sends afflictions upon David and his people. Similarly,
there is an offending event in (39), a supervisor beating one of the workmen in
the field, at which Aesop becomes angry and does not control his anger, as an
inferior is supposed to do, but vents it by rebuking the offender.
As the ambiguity of a word like dis-please (literally ‘not please’) shows, the
use of antonyms as disambiguating elements is problematic in the case of
ANGER. The most likely candidates to function as antonyms are the historical
equivalents of present-day glad, pleased, happy, etc., which happen to be the
antonyms of sad as well. That is why examples like (40) remain ambiguous.
(40)
28
But fynally, this is my conclusioun, That she hireself shal han hir
eleccioun Of whom hire lest; whoso be wroth or blythe, Hym that se
cheest, he shal hire han as swithe. (The Parliament of Fowls, 620-623)
‘But finally, this is my decision, that she herself shall choose the one she
likes. Whoever be sad/angry or happy, he whom she chooses will have
her at once.’
The interpretations ‘sad’ and ‘angry’ are equally acceptable as antonyms of
blythe in these contexts : the three male eagles who plead for the hand of the
female, and the parties that have defended them in the debate, may be either
angry or sad when they are not chosen. Such ambiguous cases, in which the
context provides no disambiguating clues, have been excluded from the corpus
of attestations.
2.2 CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
2.2.1 Nature of conceptualizations
The aim of this study is to give as complete as possible an overview of the
conceptual field of ANGER in Old, Middle and Early Modern English. In order to
achieve this, no restrictions have been made on the nature of conceptual relations
between the expressions and the concept of ANGER. Whether that relation is
hyperonymic, metonymical or metaphorical may be interesting when analyzing
the data, but ought not to be an a priori restrictive criterion.8 Any lexical choice
that deviates from the literal expressions of ANGER (present-day anger, angry,
angrily, or one of its historical equivalents), shows some kind of
conceptualization. But even literal expressions are not necessarily conceptually
neutral : the choice between anger and wrath, for example, is supposed to be
based on the conceptualization of ANGER as more or less intense or fierce.9
Especially the boundary between metonymical and metaphorical relations is
sometimes hard to trace. Expressions that are metaphors synchronically
speaking can often be analysed historically as metonyms, or can synchronically
be analysed as being both.10 To swell with pride/anger, for example, is
categorized as figurative (i.e. metaphorical) in the OED :
“Of a person, the heart, etc.: To be affected with such an emotion;
to have a mental sensation as of enlargement or expansion; to be
puffed up, become elated or arrogant. Const. with (esp. pride,
indignation, etc.).” (my emphasis, CG)
There are, however, no indications that such expressions were originally not
interpreted as metonymical, and possibly still are : there are explicit references in
some attestations to heaving chests and expanding hearts. A proud or angry
person can feel his chest inflate when inhaling more deeply because of the
emotion. But the expression can just as well tie in with the overall metaphorical
conceptualization of PRIDE (and to a certain extent also ANGER) AS AN UPWARD
MOVEMENT, which puts the experiencer higher than other persons (to look down
on, high words, to be on the high ropes, etc ). Whether the expression to swell
29
with anger/pride is interpreted as metonymical or metaphorical may vary from
person to person in synchronic analyses and may vary throughout history.
Regardless of the nature of the conceptualization, we will use the
construction “ANGER AS X”, with X naming the source domain. The term source
domain is used to refer to the concept in terms of which ANGER is
conceptualized. The term source domain is a key concept in metaphor research.
It is defined by Kövecses (2002:4) as “the conceptual domain from which we
draw metaphorical expressions to understand another conceptual domain”. Our
referring to the conceptual domain from which we draw expressions to
understand another conceptual domain is broader than this conventional use, and
does not qualify the nature of the conceptualization as metaphorical.
Although the difference and interaction between metonymy and metaphor
may give rise to interesting methodological and theoretical musings, those are
not the main concerns of this study.
Therefore, the nature of the
conceptualizations will only be thoroughly discussed when it proves enlightening
for the interpretation of historical evolutions. Especially for expressions that
have HEAT, FIRE and BODY FLUIDS as source domains, it will be interesting to
search for indications of whether the expressions are used metonymically or
metaphorically and if their status changes in the course of the centuries.
2.2.2 Metaphor level
Lakoff’s vein of metaphor research usually distinguishes between ontological (or
image-schematic or constitutive) metaphors and basic level metaphors. The first
group of terms apply to more abstract ideas and take their source domains in
more abstract concepts. Typical examples are MORE IS UP (wages rose
considerably), IDEAS ARE ENTITIES (share your opinion), STATES ARE
CONTAINERS (to be in love), etc. Basic level metaphors are more restricted in
their application and take their source domains in conceptually rich concepts, e.g.
LOVE IS A JOURNEY (it has been a bumpy road), ECONOMY IS WAR (we have to
invade foreign markets), ARGUMENT IS WAR (he defended his point well), LOVE IS
MAGIC (he was enchanted by her).
When discussing the conceptualizations of ANGER, both groups of metaphors
may come into play. The following ontological metaphors are involved :
EXISTENCE OF EMOTION IS PRESENCE HERE (his anger was gone), EXISTENCE OF
EMOTION IS BEING IN A BOUNDED SPACE (look back in anger), AN EMOTION IS A
NATURAL FORCE (to be overwhelmed by anger), THE HUMAN BODY IS A
CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS (to be filled with anger), etc. (Kövecses
1998:133-5 passim).11 Basic level metaphors can be ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A
CONTAINER (to boil with anger), ANGER IS FIRE (to burn with rage), ANGER IS
INSANITY (to be insane with rage), ANGER IS A CAPTIVE ANIMAL (to unleash
one’s anger), etc. (Kövecses 1998:128-9 passim). As most ontological
metaphors apply to all emotions, they are not very informative of the way in
which people conceptualize ANGER rather than any other emotion.
30
Consequently, they will not be the main object of this study. It is especially the
basic level metaphors that will be reconstructed and analysed.
This means that the approach taken in this study is more restrictive than the
research projects that follow Lakoff’s approach. Whether synchronic or
diachronic, such studies often look for expressions that co-occur with words
denoting the target concept. Thus, Fabiszak (1999, 2002) includes expressions
like beo Godes grama ofer us ‘God’s anger is over us’ and ierre stillan ‘restrain
anger’ and Romano (1999) includes expressions like forlætan ‘let go’, weaxan
‘grow’. These expressions are presented as examples of the conceptualizations
ANGER IS A HOSTILE FORCE, ANGER IS AN OPPONENT, ANGER IS A HOT FLUID and
ANGER IS A LIVING ORGANISM respectively.
Such classifications are
methodologically questionable : do those collocations really express these
conceptualizations ? Do they not rather show more abstract, conventionalized
meanings of be over, restrain, let go and grow ? Vervaeke & Kennedy (1996)
argue in favour of the latter interpretation and criticize this lack of
methodological rigour of the Lakoffian vein of cognitive metaphor research. To
overcome this problem, this research is restricted to collocations that are
synonymous with present-day anger, angry, angrily and be/become/make angry
and it excludes collocations that can refer to emotions in general or a number of
emotions that are quite different from ANGER.
2.2.3 Transparency
Whether an expression is interpreted as metonymical or metaphorical is often a
matter of personal associations and knowledge of the origin and meaning of
certain words. So is the interpretation of conceptualizations as being novel or
conventional, transparent or opaque.12 There are, however, some general
tendencies : nowadays, almost nobody will associate anger with the concept of
PAIN (unless the word is still used in this meaning in the local dialect) or choleric
with the overproduction of bile as a cause of ANGER, although ‘pain’ and ‘bile’
were the original meanings of those words from which the meaning ‘anger’ was
derived. Assigning these original conceptualizations to the conceptual field of
ANGER of the 21st century would be a misrepresentation. In the reconstruction of
the conceptual fields between 800 and 1500, in which conceptualizations are
assigned to expressions on the basis of their etymological origin and the analysis
of the meanings of the earliest attestations, the danger of anachronism always
lurks and methods must be found to verify if the conceptualizations assigned to
expressions make sense historically speaking.13
Although caution is called for because of the problems of representativeness
of the corpora, first attestations of a certain conceptualization can be considered
transparent and motivated. If they were not, these conceptualizations simply
would not come into existence. It is only if an expression becomes increasingly
conventionalized that the conceptualization behind it may become opaque or lose
its motivation. Also new expressions showing the same conceptualization as
31
expressions that have been in use for quite some time can be considered signs of
transparency and motivation : if the conceptualizations were opaque or no longer
motivated, it would not give rise to new expressions in the same vein.14
For expressions that have been in use for some time, it is difficult to find out
if they can still be considered motivated at a certain point in time, if they are not
dead metaphors.15 What can be checked is whether they are possibly transparent.
If the original meaning is used simultaneously with or later than ‘anger’, the
original meaning can be considered transparent, even if the expression is used to
refer to ANGER. As long as anger can mean ‘pain’ besides ‘anger’, or choleric
‘producing bile’ besides ‘angry’, an association between the concepts of PAIN or
16
BODY FLUIDS and ANGER is justifiable.
2.3 A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH
2.3.1 The need for exhaustive corpora
Research into the present-day conceptualization of ANGER can get some results
by making use of the method of introspection, or indirectly doing so by using
thesauri like Roget’s Thesaurus, or a combination of both, even though it will not
result in a full picture of a conceptual field because introspection cannot take into
account token numbers.17 Obviously, the method of introspection cannot be used
for reconstructing the language use and conceptualizations of older language
stages; these can only be reconstructed on the basis of corpora containing the
linguistic material that has been left at our disposal, or the results of corpus
studies in the form of historical dictionaries, concordances and thesauri.
When doing diachronic research into a lexical field, the use of the Historical
Thesaurus of English, in preparation at the university of Glasgow, may seem the
obvious data source. This most valuable work will give a good idea of which
expressions were used to express a certain concept throughout the centuries.
Unfortunately, it does not list the attestations of these expressions, so that it is
impossible to find out the relative frequencies with which the expressions are
used or the contexts in which they were used. Without these attestations, the
data of the Historical Thesaurus of English can only draw a vague picture of the
evolution of a lexical or conceptual field. How, for example, should labels like
OE or 1561-1817 be interpreted ? Does such a label mean that there is a constant
production of the expressions, or are they found only sporadically throughout
this period ? Or are they used only sporadically at the beginning and end of the
period and frequently in between ? And, taking into account that Old and Middle
English texts are often translated or based on foreign models, can those
conceptualizations be considered the scribes’ own ?
Attestations are present in historical dictionaries. However, they merely
function as examples of the meanings that are given, and are therefore often not
32
exhaustive lists.18 There are often time gaps between attestations given as
examples, in the OED often amounting to several centuries. It is never clear
whether those gaps are to be considered as periods of non-occurrence of an
expression or as a result of the author’s selection of a few attestations from a
continuous series of occurrences. Consequently, only exhaustive corpora or real
concordances offer reliable, exhaustive surveys of attestations. For the Middle
and Early English period, an overall concordance does not exist, so that there is
no other option than searching the text corpora directly.
For Old, Middle and Early Modern English, there are a number of corpora
available, probably the best-known of them being the Helsinki Corpus. They
normally consist of large text fragments chosen to “reflect the principles of
socio-historical variation analysis” (Kytö 1996) : they do not only cover different
periods, but also dialectal and sociolinguistic variation and text type variation
throughout the history of English. Although these text fragments eventually
form considerably large corpora (in the case of the Helsinki corpus a total of
1,572,800 words), sufficient for the bulk of grammatical research, these corpora
prove insufficient for the reconstruction of lexical and conceptual fields.
Whereas non-peripheral grammatical phenomena can be found in any sequence
of a few sentences, a lexical item referring to a certain concept may occur only
once in a text of thousands of words. Taking text fragments to form a corpus
will almost automatically result in a distorted representation of those lexical
items.19
By way of test search, the Helsinki corpus was scanned for occurrences of the
various forms of (a/on)belgan and anger/angry. These words are the most
prominent expressions of ANGER in Old and (late) Middle and Early Modern
English respectively. These searches resulted in 7 attestations of (a/on)belgan in
Old English (6 between 950 and 1050, and 1 between 1150 and 1250) and 23
attestations of anger/angry in Middle and Early Modern English (2 between
1150 and 1250, 1 between 1250 and 1350, 7 between 1350 and 1420, and 13
between 1420 and 1500). In the corpus of complete texts that was eventually
used for this research project, (a/on)belgan occurs 237 times with reference to
ANGER in Old English and anger/angry 409 times in Middle and early modern
English. Clearly, using a corpus of text fragments, however adequate for
grammar research, is an inadequate method for lexical studies. If the most
prominent words of a lexical field are so highly underrepresented, more
exceptional words may well not occur at all. Fischer (1989) reaches the same
conclusion after considering the Brown Corpus (Modern American English) :
“the approximately 22,000 hapax phenomena in Brown show that
the likelihood for rare words to go unrecorded in a one-million
word corpus is relatively high. For an overall picture of the lexical
resources available at any given time and of their use, however,
high- as well as low-frequency words must be documented. Very
33
large corpora are thus not only desirable, but imperative for any
type of lexical research.” (Fischer 1989:83)
2.3.2 Corpus description and data retrieval
In order to study the evolution of the lexical and conceptual field of ANGER, text
samples can be taken at reference points spread over the whole period : texts
from c800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400 and 1500. For the Middle and
Early Modern English period, this was easily realized : all available texts written
c1200, 1300, 1400 and 1500 were collected as exhaustively as possible to form
the Middle and Early Modern English corpus. Where possible, the chosen texts
remain within the boundaries of 25 years before and after this reference date, so
that c1400 stands, roughly speaking, for the period 1375-1425. Table (5) gives
an overview of the texts used and the number of attestations of ANGERexpressions found per text.
34
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
LaZamon
c1200
Poema Morale
The Owl and the Nightingale
Ormulum
King Horn
Hali Meiðhad
Seinte Margarete
Ancrene Wisse
Brut
4
25
87
6
16
24
80
115
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
c1300
The Thrush and the Nightingale
The Fox and the Wolf
Of Arthour and of Merlin
Amis and Amiloun
Sir Orfeo
Dame Sirith
Havelok the Dane
Floris and Blauncheflur
Cursor Mundi
Sir Degaré
Sir Isumbras
The Simonie
Sir Beves of Hamtoun
Sir Amadace
King of Tars
Harley lyrics
1
1
41
23
1
3
7
6
132
5
1
3
45
1
13
3
anonymous
Mannyng, Robert
Lay Le Freine
Handling Synne
c1400
anonymous
The Romaunt of the Rose (B-fragment)
anonymous
Pearl
anonymous
Sir Gawayn and þe Grene KnyZ,t
anonymous
Floris and Blauncheflur Ms Trentham
anonymous
Gamelyn
anonymous
Athelston
anonymous
Le Morte Arthur
anonymous
The Sege of Melayne
anonymous
Patience
anonymous
The Cloud of Unknowing
anonymous
The Avowyng of Arthur
anonymous
The Pistil of Swete Susan
anonymous
The Four Leaves of the Truelove
anonymous
Erle of Tolous
anonymous
Sir Cleges
anonymous
Sir Tryamour
anonymous
Emaré
anonymous
Richard the Redeless
anonymous
Alliterative Morte Arthur
anonymous
The Sowdone of Babylone
anonymous
The Tale of Beryn
anonymous
The Lanterne of Light
anonymous
Metrical Paraphrase of the Old
Testament
anonymous
Friar Daw’s Reply
anonymous
Mum and the Sothsegger
Chaucer, Geoffrey Minor Poems
Chaucer, Geoffrey The Booke of the Duchess
Chaucer, Geoffrey The Romaunt of the Rose (A-fragment)
Chaucer, Geoffrey? The Romaunt of the Rose (C-fragment)
Chaucer, Geoffrey Anelida and Arcite
Chaucer, Geoffrey The Parliament of Fowls
Chaucer, Geoffrey Boece
Chaucer, Geoffrey Troilus and Criseyde
Chaucer, Geoffrey The Legend of Good Women
Chaucer, Geoffrey The Canterbury tales
Chestre, Thomas
Sir Launfal
Julian of Norwich
The Shewings of Julian of Norwich
2
98
8
4
6
9
13
2
17
4
14
2
5
1
2
2
3
2
2
8
41
22
29
4
1
2
13
6
4
31
4
4
1
17
41
7
204
7
32
35
Gower, John
Hoccleve, Thomas
Hilton, Walter
Langland, William
Lydgate, John
Lydgate, John
Wycliffe, John
Confessio Amantis
Regiment of Princes
The Scale of Perfection
Piers Plowman
Troy Book
Siege of Thebes
Wycliffe’s Bible
127
44
73
44
300
39
803
c1500
anonymous
Barclay, Alexander
Barclay, Alexander
Caxton, William
Caxton, William
Caxton, William
Caxton, William
Everyman
1
The Ship of Fools
122
Eclogues
45
The History of Reynard the Fox
62
Æsop
43
The Book of the Knight of the Tower
153
The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten
93
Prynce Charles the Grete
Caxton, William
Blanchardyn and Eglantine
51
Caxton, William
The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of
34
Chyvalrye
Cely family
Cely Papers
2
Cox, Leonard
The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke
5
Elyot, Thomas
The Boke Named The Governour
106
Hawes, Stephen
The Passetyme of Pleasure
17
Hawes, Stephen
Minor Poems
9
Medwall, Henry
Plays
22
More, Thomas
The History of King Richard III
29
More, Thomas
A Dialogue of Comfort
46
Paston family
Paston letters
3
Rastell, John
The Pastyme of People
20
Skelton, John
Complete Poems
45
Tyndale, William
Old Testament
200
Tyndale, William
New Testament
68
Wyatt, Thomas
The Quyete of Mynde
17
Wyatt, Thomas
Collected Poems
30
Wyatt, Thomas
Letters
8
table (5) : overview of Middle and Early Modern English texts and number of
attestations per text
As most of the texts of the Old English period cannot be dated precisely,
much broader categories had to be used. The Old English corpus used contains
all the Old English texts, which together form the Toronto Corpus, available in
electronic form through the Oxford Text Archive.20 These texts were subdivided
36
into three periods : texts a850, those between 850 and 950, and those between
950-1050. This division was chosen for several reasons. First of all, it has
become a kind of standard as the division is used in the Helsinki corpus.
Secondly, this is the division that creates the least overlap in the data. If a
division like a800, 800-900, 900-1000 and 1000-1100 were chosen, more
attestations would have to be ascribed to two periods or be left out because of
this overlap. With the data already being rather scarce and fuzzy, overlaps and
omissions have to be avoided at all costs. Finally, this division breaks up the
material in more or less homogeneous sets of texts. The texts a850 can be
considered the pure vernacular texts, while the texts between 850 and 950 are
almost exclusively translations from Latin, produced by King Alfred and his
followers. Between 950 and 1050, about half of the texts are again original texts,
written in the vernacular.21
In the Toronto Corpus, there are several texts of which different versions are
included, like the Psalter versions dating between 950 and 1050. In such cases,
one version has been included in this research project as the basic text, from
which all attestations of ANGER-expressions have been selected. In the other
versions, only those attestations have been selected in which the text clearly
differs from that of the basic version. Spelling variants were not considered
sufficient deviations to be included; there had to be a clear difference in word
choice and/or phrasing, not only in the choice of ANGER-expressions (examples
41 to 44), but also in other words in the context, which may point to independent
translations (examples 45 and 46). The aim of this procedure was to avoid the
repetition of literal copies while taking into consideration the authors’ personal
lexical choices.
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
Ageot ofyr hi yrre þin & æbylhþu yrrys Þinys gegriÞyð hi (Psalms 68.25,
Ms Cambridge)
‘Pour your anger over them and let the wrath of your anger seize them.’
Ageot ofer hig irre þin & hatheortnes irres þines gegripe hig (Psalms
68.25, Ms Arundel)
Ageot ofer hi yrre þin & wræðe yrre þinre fornime hi (Psalms 68.25, Ms
Salisbury)
Ageot hig graman þinne & hatheortnys þines yrres gegripe hig (Psalms
68.25, Ms Lambeth Palace)
& ætywdon wyllas wætyra & onwrigyne synd staðylas ymbhwyrftys
eorðan from þreaunge þinre drihtyn from eðunge gastys yrrys þinys
(Psalms 17.16, Ms Cambridge)
‘wells of water appeared and the foundations of the earth were revealed at
your rebuke, Lord, at the breath of the spirit of your anger.’
& untindon æsprinc wætera & unwrigene wæron staþolas ymbhwyrft
eorþan fram ceaste þinre drihten fram ineþunge gast irres þines (Psalms
17.16, Ms Arundel)
37
The texts of the Toronto Corpus were automatically searched for all the
attestations of expressions of ANGER, using Abundantia Verborum, a search and
database tool designed by Dirk Speelman at the department of linguistics of the
K.U.Leuven (see Speelman (1997)). The list of search terms was generated by
searching the OED for occurrences of anger, angry and angrily in the
explanations and was checked against the information of the Thesaurus of Old
English. The list of spelling variants was based on the information of the OED
and the ASD.22
The texts of the Middle and Early Modern English corpus were read
completely and the attestations of ANGER-expressions were manually copied into
Abundantia Verborum.
2.3.3 Principles of quantification
In order to quantify the data, every citation in the corpus was tagged for every
ANGER-expression it contains. This can be either an expression referring to
ANGER itself or an accompanying expression that reveals a conceptualization
typical of ANGER. Thus, example (47) was tagged for the occurrence of irre,
hatheort and astyrian.
(47)
Þa wæs se niþfulla diofol on helle mid eorre & mid hatheortnesse
astyred & he þa swiþe hlude rymde & þus cwæð, Hwæt is la nu þæt me
beswicen hæfð? (LS 6, 205)
‘Then was the envious devil in hell stirred with anger and with
hotheartedness and he roared loudly and said, “What is this that has
deceived me ?” ’
There may be some discussion about the way these expressions should be
counted if the conceptualizations that they reveal are sustained over a longer
stretch of text. If example (47) were preceded or followed by sentences in which
the HEAT- or MOTION-conceptualizations of ANGER occurred several times,
should all these instances be counted as separate instances of these
conceptualizations (running the risk of overrepresentation), or should the whole
stretch of text be considered as one instance of these conceptualizations, which
just happens to be lexicalized several times (running the risk of
underrepresentation) ? Apart from the fact that in a database resulting from
searches for lexical items tagging individual instances is much more
straightforward and more easily manageable than tagging longer text fragments,
all instances are preferably considered separately because any speaker or author
is at liberty to choose whatever expression he finds most suitable at any moment.
It is not because he has chosen a certain expression and conceptualization once
that he necessarily has to go on in the same vein.23 Whether he does or does not
do so is the speaker’s or author’s choice and every choice he makes has to be
reflected in the data.
38
Chapter 3 gives an overview of the lexical items and the conceptualizations
behind them. All the quantitative data will be mentioned, but for most cases
only a selection of attestations will be given as examples. The complete sets of
attestations can be found on the CD-ROM which accompanies this dissertation.
In the quantitative overviews of the lexical fields, the tags mentioned are not the
words as they actually feature in the texts. They are representative cover terms,
not only referring to the expression chosen as the representative and all its
orthographical variants but also to all its morphological variants. So, when a tag
like belgan is used, it refers to the verbs abelgan, gebelgan and belgan, the
nouns abylgnes and abylgþ, and the adjective bolgenmod, and all their
orthographical, declensional and inflectional variants. An overview of the tags
and the variant lexical forms represented by them is given in the following table.
tag
Old English
irre
weamod
þweorh
hatheort
wilm
hygewælm
onælan
onbærnan
ontendan
hathige
gehyrstan
acoligan
belgan
þindan
þrutian
gram
morphological variants
(declensional variants excluded)
irre, yrreweorces, yrremod, irran, irsung, irringa, irlicum,
yrsien, yrsa, eorsas, yrsige, iorsiges, irsaþ, irsast, yrsiað,
yrsade, yrsodon, irsigende, yrsigendlic, geyrsian, geyrsiað
giiorsas, geyrsode, geyrsod,
weamod, weamodnysse
ðweora, þwyr, yreþweorg
hatheort, hatheortnysse, hathierte, gehathyrt
wilm
hygewælm
onælan, onælde, ælde, onæled
onbærned, forbærnen, byrnyð
ontend
hathige, hatne hyge
gehierste
acolige
æbylgð, gebelh, ebilgæn, gebyligdum, abylgnesse,
eaðbilge, bolgenmod, yðbelige, belgan, bealg, belgaþ,
gebelgan, gebealh, gebulgon, gebolgen, gebylged, abelgan,
abylgeað, abulge, abealh, abylgdon, abolgen, abelged,
geæbylien, geæbilihð, geæbiligde, geæbiligdon, geæbylgyd,
onebilgæn, onbolgen
þindeþ
ðrutunge, þrutigendum
gram, grame, gramlice, gramlicum, grama, gramhydigan,
grambæran, gremian, gremað, gremiað, gremige,
gremigendne, gremede, gremedon, gegremian, gegremað,
gegremode, gegremedon, gegremige, gegremod
39
wrað
reðe
grim
anda
astyrian
drefan
upahafen
onræs
unstil
ahreran
hrædmod
torn
tirgan
teonful
geangsumian
geswencan
ofsettan
sare
gebysgian
unrot
unbliðe
gealh
biter
unweorþ
onscunian
hefig
gryllan
grimetan
woffung
ellenwod
wod
wedan
sweorcan
unmilts
40
wrað, wraðe, wraðmod, wræððe, wræðþiæn, wraðiga,
wreðædon
reþe, reþnesse, reðemod, reðscipe, reðian, reðige,
reþigende
grimlice
anda
astyrien, astyra, astyrige, astyrað, astyrod, stierie,
onstyrede, gestyran
gedrefed, gedrefednesse
upahæfen, ahæfen
onræs
unstilnysse
ahrerede
hrædmod
torn, ligetorne, tornwyrdon, torne
tyrian, tyrie, tyrigð, tyrgdon, tyrigdon, getyrged, getyrigd,
tyrwigende, getyrgdest, getyrigdon
teonful
geangsumod
gesuencedne
ofseten
sare
gebysgad
unrote, unrotnesse
unbliðe
gealgmod
bitter, bitternisse, bitre
unwyrðe, unwurðlice, unweorðscipe, unweorðunga
onscunydon, onscununge
hefig, hefiglice
griellan
agrimette
woffunga
ellenwod
wod, wodlice, tungwod
wedende
geswearc
unmiltse
Middle and Early Modern English
wrath
wrað, wraðe, wroðer, overwroth, wræððe, wreððes,
wraððen, wraðest, wraþþyþ, iwreððede, wraððede,
wrathed, wraththeden, iwrað, iwraððed, awraððed,
wraðeliche, wreðful, wraþfulliche, wrathli, wrothsome,
wrathhede, wrathfulnesse,
gram
gram, grome, gromiende, gromede, gromeð, gromien,
agrame, gramed, igramed, agramed, grammcund,
grammcundnesse
brath
braþ, braþþe, brethe
eie
eZe
reh
ræie, reh
grim
grim, grimmed
fierce
feerse
belgen
ibolwe, abolZe, bælh, anbælh, abolZen, abolwen, bolZhenn,
to bollen
bolnen
to-bolle, bolnyde, bolneden, bolning
bresten
iburst, anburste, anbursten, tobursten
swellen
tosvolle, swelle, sval, toswelleð, swelleð, swollen
gret herte
great heorte, horte was gret, herte grete
irre
irre, ire, yrous, yrously, yrefull, yrefully
weamod
weamod
wayward
wayward
thuert
overthwart
evil part
euil part
wod
wod, wodere, awed, wodschipe, woodnesse
out of mind
ut of witte, ut of rede, lost hys wytte, oute of his memorye
and wytte
rage
rage, ragid, araged, enraged, enragyng, oultrageous
fury
fury, furious, furiousnes
furour
furour
mad
mad, madnesse
tene
teone, teoneð, tenid, oftoned
anger
anger, angry, angerly, angrily, angrynesse, angren, angres,
angreþ, angerde, angred, an-angered, angringe
werien
weorreð
harmen
ihærmed
greven
gref, greve, greven, greyves, grevede, grevyd, agreved,
grevaunce, grievous, greuously
anoien
anoid
onfall
on-fall
41
tarien
terren
tarys, tarid
terren, terre, terridist, terriden, terridterrynge, terryngis,
terrere, terreris
rub upon the rubbed upon the gall
gall
offenden
offendid
hot herte
hot heorte
hot blood
hoot blood
hete
hete
hot
hot, hatZ, hotest
ontenden
ontent
kindelen
kyndlen, kindel ,kundleð, kyndlide, kindeld
wallen
walleð
fire
fire, afire, on fire, fyry
brennen
brenne, brennes, brenneth, brente, brennyng
fervent
fervent
fervor
feruour
boilen
boille, boillid
chaufen
chafen, chaufe, chafe, chaufed, eschauffed, enchaffed,
chauffyng
enflamen
inflame, enflawmed, inflamed
frien
frye
fumen
fume, fuming
incensen
incensed
stiren
stirred, stiride, stireden, astured, sturet, stirynge
moven
meuen, meuestow, mouede, moeved
amoven
amoeved
rese
rese
hastif
hastif, hasty, hastifesse, hastiness, hastely
provoken
provoke, provokedest, provoked, provoking, provocations
irriten
iritatid, yrritinge
stien
stien
heigh
hah
mod
mod, modi
blood arisen blod aryse
mengen blood meinþ þe horte blod
mengen
mengges, for-menged, menging
malencolie
malencolie, malencolien, malencolious, malencolyk
choler
collere
tempren
distempre, attempre
wrah
wrah, wraw, rowe
sori
særi
42
bitter
egre
mispaien
not paid
not well paid
evil paid
displesen
bitter
egre
myspaye, myspayd, mispaiand
nat payd, nouZt ipaied wel
nat wel apayde
evel apayd, ill-apayed, wors apayed
displese, displeseth, displesed, displesaunce, displeasure,
displeasynge, displaysaunt,
not pleased
not wel plesed, not pleased
discontent
discontent, discontenteth, discontented
not content
not contente
evil content
euyl content, werst contente
sori
sori
indignation
indignacioun
disdain
disdeyn, dedeyn, disdaignen, disdaining, desdeigned
despite
despit, despytous, despitously
spite
spytte
unweorth
vnworthili
hevi
hevy, hevyli, hevynesse
crabbed
crab, crabbed
irish
Irish
grucchen
grucchande, gychgide
testy
testy
table (6) : morphological variants represented by tags
The idea behind representing the data as sets of lexical variants, referred to
by means of tags, is that the main interest of this research is the conceptual field,
rather than the lexical one. That is why all the morphological variants are of
minor importance : they can all be brought back to one root (the root belg, for
example, in the case of belgan and its variants) which expresses the
conceptualization. As long as an expression is not morphologically or
syntactically frozen, there are no reasons to assume that the authors chose a
particular expression because it fitted a syntactic pattern and in doing so
expressed a certain conceptualization by accident rather than choosing a certain
expression because it shows a certain conceptualization and adapting the
expression morphologically and syntactically to the context.
2.3.4 Problems of representativeness
Although the eventual corpus is about the most exhaustive one that can be used
for these periods, there are problems of representativeness. Ideally, a corpus
contains texts of all text type varieties and dialectal and sociolinguistic varieties
for each period in time and these variables are kept constant throughout the
periods in the scope of the research project. Obviously, which historical English
43
texts have come to us and which have not is a matter of mere chance.
Sometimes it is difficult to ascribe a certain date, text type, dialect or
sociological profile of the author to a text, let alone keep the variables constant.
In the centuries covered in this study, the dominant dialects almost constantly
change, as well as the dominant text types and the sociological profile of the
authors, and it is impossible to find texts of all text types, dialects and
sociological backgrounds for each period.24
The texts before 850 mainly consist of alliterative heroic poetry. There is
Beowulf, of course, but even the saints’ lives (like Guthlac) and the biblical texts
(like Elene or Juliana) of that period read like heroic poems. These texts are
either original or based on Latin source texts.
For the period between 850 and 950, the corpus mainly consists of
translations of Latin texts. In this period, some major Latin texts were translated
into West-Saxon by and at the instigation of King Alfred. Among those texts,
there are not only translations of the psalms and several saints’ lives, but also
religious treatises (like The Pastoral Care or Augustine’s Soliloquies),
philosophical works (like Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy) and historical
ones (like Orosius’s History). None of the texts of this period are original, and
apart from Andreas, none are written in the alliterative verse typical of Old
English heroic poetry.
The corpus of texts dating between 950 and 1050 is mainly made up of
homilies (among which those of Ælfric and Wulfstan), saints’ lives, biblical and
liturgic texts, letters, laws and parts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Most biblical
and liturgic texts are translations from Latin, while most homilies and saints’
lives are based on Latin source texts without being literal translations. Most
letters and laws are original English texts, as are The Battle of Maldon and The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are but a few poetic works (like The Battle of
Maldon) in this period, so that just like in the previous period the corpus mainly
contains prose texts. This does not mean, however, that the typical element of
Old English versification, i.e. alliteration, no longer has a role to play after the
earliest period in which Old English poetry flourished. Blake (1992:512-513)
claims “that Late Old English prose style borrowed many of the techniques of
Old English poetry (…) Ælfric’s writings are highly alliterative and they are
sometimes printed as verse by modern editors”.
This tradition of alliterative poetry and prose was continued in the Middle
English texts. Gradually, rhyming poetry appeared and became more widely
used than alliterative styles. While all texts in the c1200 corpus but two (The
Owl and the Nightingale and King Horn) belong to the alliterative prose
tradition, all texts in the c1300 corpus rhyme. Around 1400, both alliterative and
rhyming texts are found, but the rhyming poems outnumber the other texts.
Around 1500, the predominance of poetry seems to be over : all poems belong to
the rhyming tradition, but they are outnumbered by prose texts.
44
About half of the Middle and Early Modern English texts in the corpus are
religious ones. They are guides for the spiritual life of the reader (like Ancrene
Wisse, Handling Synne, The Scale of Perfection) or are biblical texts (like Cursor
Mundi or Wycliffe’s and Tyndale’s bible translations). The main non-religious
texts are of course the romances and tales, which dominate the c1300 and c1400
subcorpora. The other non-religious texts come in different kinds. Roughly
speaking, there are the instructional texts, among which a few disputations in the
earlier corpora (like The Owl and the Nightingale, The Thrush and the
Nightingale) and some historical works (Brut, The Pastime of People, The
History of King Richard III), and non-instructional, private letters c1500 (Cely
Papers, Paston Letters, Thomas Wyatt’s letters). It is only in the c1200 corpus
that the non-religious texts are outnumbered by the religious ones.
As to the origin of the texts, there is a mix throughout the Middle and Early
Modern English period of original texts, texts based on foreign source texts and
translated texts. The foreign source texts that are translated or used as a source
of inspiration are often of Romance origin (mainly Latin and French, sometimes
Italian). Caxton was the only person to occasionally translate a Dutch text (The
History of Reynard the Fox).
Having to make do with this imperfect text corpus, there is only one way left
to deal with the problems of representativeness : one has to be constantly aware
of the limitations of the data collection. The main trap to avoid is
overgeneralization. As this study is based on quite a large set of attestations, it is
tempting to speak of a general evolution and general trends. But given the data
scarcity for certain expressions in certain subcorpora, at least some caveats will
be called for.
NOTES
1
2
3
For a discussion of different approaches (intuition, elicitation and testing), see
Deignan (2005:110-113).
See Kittay (1987:224-230) for a discussion of the terms lexical field, content field
(called conceptual field in this dissertation) and semantic field, see also Kronenfeld &
Rundblad (2003:67-68). In this dissertation, we use the term lexical field in its most
widely used sense, namely a group of lexical items which express the same concept,
not in the sense used by Aertsen (1988:44), namely the set of lexical meanings of a
word. See Lehrer (1993) for a discussion of the difference in methodology between
starting from a conceptual field (called frames in this case) and a lexical field. For a
discussion of Trier’s original semantic field theory, see Trier (1973). For a discussion
of Trier’s theory and subsequent reactions to and modifications of the theory, see
Oksaar (1958:13-20) and Lehrer (1974). For an overview of how the semantic field
theory influenced English historical linguistics, see Strite (1989:14-30).
For a discussion of different semasiological and onomasiological models, see
Geeraerts (1989), Lakoff (1987) and Aitchison (1992).
45
4
In order to overcome the delimitation problems, very practical but artificial
boundaries may be set. Lohmander (1992) limits the semantic field of DISGRACE and
DISHONOUR by using only texts translated from Latin and by selecting all the Old and
Middle English words which translate those Latin words that were used at least twice
as translations of Old English bismer and its derivatives and compounds. Most
linguists, however, simply accept that it is impossible to delineate lexical fields (see
for instance Oksaar (1958:17,43), Leisi (1973:106), Strauss (1985:575), Schmid
(1993:108)).
5 The same disambiguating syntactic structure is used by Kleiber (1978:277) for Old
French : “La structure caractéristique pertinente pour la levée de la polysémie est la
construction SN1 / AVOIR // IRE /// A VERS SN2 [the characteristic structure fit for
lifting polysemy is the construction SN1 / AVOIR // IRE /// A VERS SN2 ]”
6 Kay (2000:60-61) discusses the difficulty of assigning a meaning to displeasure.
7 For Elyot’s The Boke named the Governour, a version was used that uses modern
spelling. Apart from the spelling, the text is exactly the same as the original text,
which is now available at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/gov/gov1.htm#XII.
(consulted 3 August 2006).
8 The only a priori restriction that was made is that, unlike in the Historical Thesaurus
of English, expressions referring to specific types of angry behaviour (angry speech,
gnashing teeth, grinning, hissing, etc.) have not been included in the lexical and
conceptual field of ANGER in this study, except if the concept of ANGER is lexicalized
elsewhere in the sentence. A sentence like gnashing his teeth, he left would not be
included, whereas gnashing his teeth in anger, he left would be included as an
attestation of the lexical element anger. Although such expressions can be considered
metonymic references to ANGER, including all references to angry behaviour would
lead this research far too far. There is no reason why gnashing of teeth should be
included, or hissing, and not spitting or swearing, or starting a row, or punching
someone in the face or riding off on horseback, or killing someone. Including all such
references would not only make the analysis of the data quite cumbersome, it would
not add anything significant to the analysis of how people used to conceptualize
ANGER either : it would merely be an encyclopaedic inventory of angry people’s
reactions.
9 This distinction is made by Diller (1994) to describe the difference between the
expressions wrath, anger, annoy and grief in the works of Chaucer. This idea is also
reflected in the definitions of these terms in the OED, where wrath is defined as
‘vehement or violent anger; intense exasperation or resentment; deep indignation’.
Also Wierzbicka (1992:569) considers wrath to be a more violent form of anger.
10 To indicate that the relation between metonymy and metaphor is often not very
straightforward and often mixed, Goossens (1990:323) introduced the term
metaphtonymy “to increase our awareness of the fact that metaphor and metonymy
can be intertwined”. Charteris-Black (2003:293) uses the term metaphoric figurative
blend “to refer to figurative phrases where there is evidence of more than one type of
cognitive process — as in these cases where metaphor and metonymy are both
present” and uses the term conceptual key instead of Lakoff’s term conceptual
metaphor (the term conceptual key thus coincides with the term conceptualization in
46
11
12
13
14
15
this dissertation). Taylor (1995:140) also points to the mixed nature of present-day
HEAT-metaphors “may well have an experiential base in the physiological changes,
such as raised body temperature and increased heart beat, which accompany states of
arousal. The metaphors are thus, once again, grounded in metonymy”, a view which
was formulated earlier by Kövecses (2002:156-157) and by Peña Cervel (2001:249).
The cross-over between metaphor and metonymy is also discussed by Deignan
(2005:63-71), in the third section in Dirven & Pörings (2002), and Evans & Green
(2006:318-321).
In some articles on the conceptualization of emotions (especially Kövecses 1995b,
1995c), the term container metaphor is used to refer to the metaphor ANGER IS THE
HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER, as is ANGER IS HEAT, which is also used to refer to
the metaphor ANGER IS FIRE, or expressions in which the source of the heat is
unspecified. In order to avoid all confusion that may arise from this overlapping use
of terminology, the use of terms will be as strict as possible in this study : the term
container metaphor will only be used to refer to the ontological metaphor THE HUMAN
BODY IS A CONTAINER FOR THE EMOTIONS, while the metaphor ANGER IS HEAT will be
used as a cover term for all the conceptualizations referring to heat, including the
metaphors ANGER IS FIRE and ANGER IS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER.
Pauwels (1995:127) suggests that “faced with metaphors relying on non-salient
concepts, the average language user will either (i) perceive/learn them as
nonfigurative, or (ii) perceive them as figurative and use them, or try to interpret
them, on the basis of knowledge available to him. In the second case he may well
recover different concepts and donor domains to give meaning to the metaphor than
were at work in the original – from a diachronic point of view – metaphorizationprocess.” Steen & Gibbs (1999) claim that there is a considerable difference between
the overviews of metaphors that cognitive linguists produce and the reality that
“ordinary speakers/listeners often make do with incomplete and partial representations
of linguistically and culturally shared metaphorical concepts” (Steen & Gibbs 1999:3)
and that “it is not necessary for every adult to have undergone the same set of cultural
experiences motivating the bulk of conventional conceptual metaphors for these
metaphors to be a significant part of people’s personal conceptual and linguistic
repertories. Adults may have simply learned how to use particular words in a
conventionally metaphorical fashion on suitable occasions” (Steen & Gibbs 1999:4).
The same idea of the explanatory force of etymologies and their limitations is found
in Györi (1998) and Edwards (1997:182).
A new expression revealing an existing conceptualization is, of course, no proof of
transparency and motivation if it originates in a copy of or is inspired by a much older
text. Careful consideration of text origins is therefore imperative. The same problem
rises in translations : a new expression that is the result of literal translation need not
necessarily be transparent and motivated.
The flexibility and force of the human mind in finding or even creating motivations
ought not to be underestimated, however. Proof is to be found in the many
occurrences of reinterpretations and folk etymologies, which are ways to turn opaque
and hence unmotivated meanings of expressions into transparent and motivated ones
(see Geeraerts 1992 and Gevaert 1994).
47
16 As this study is basically an onomasiological one, we have relied on the existing
dictionaries rather than corpus research for information on the use of expressions with
reference to other concepts than ANGER.
17 Introspection is used by Lakoff & Johnson (1980) and in later research by Lakoff and
his followers. The first to do corpus-based synchronic metaphor research were
Goossens et al. (1995), Boers (1996,1999), Boers & Demecheleer (1997) and Deignan
(1997, 2003, 2005). The use of corpus-based approaches in metaphor research is now
more widespread (see Stefanowitsch & Gries 2006). Although there are alternatives
to a corpus-based approach in synchronic studies. Deignan (2005:114-122) argues in
favour of a corpus-based approach even for contemporary language stages.
18 Goossens (1988) notes similar problems with using the attestations mentioned in
dictionaries : “the material on which both the MED and the OED are based is
extremely heterogeneous, and (…) neither of them gives and idea of the proportion in
which a particular use comes” (Goossens 1988:63). The decision of the DOE to
indicate how many of the total set of corpus examples are listed is a major step
forward in this respect. Now the dictionary user can at least check if a list of
examples is exhaustive or not and to what extent it may be fragmentary. According to
Strite (1989:27), the first one to claim that lexicological descriptions should be based
on exhaustive, quantitative semasiological analyses rather than a fragmentary list of
glosses is Strauss (1985:576).
19 Also Deignan (2005:77) warns that metaphors may be underrepresented in corpora
that consist of text fragments.
20 For a general characterization of the Old English texts used, see section 2.3.4. For a
detailed list of all the texts included in the Toronto corpus, see DiPaulo Healey &
Venezky (1980).
21 See Ward & Trent et al. (1907-1921 passim).
22 As the Historical Thesaurus of Old English is also based on the information of the
OED and the ASD, the expressions listed in the Historical Thesaurus of Old English
as referring to ANGER have been included in this study.
23 Deignan (2005:98-99) refers to several studies that showed that in modern texts
metaphors are not used consistently. Rather than elaborating the same metaphor, texts
wander from one isolated metaphor to another.
24 When there was abundant text material, an attempt has been made to keep the dialect
as stable as possible throughout time. In order to do so, Scottish texts (which become
quite abundant c1500) have been excluded.
48
Chapter 3
ANGER a850-1500
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the lexical and conceptual fields of ANGER from a850 to
1500. For each subperiod, a first section will give an overview of the
conceptualizations that are found in the corpus material and it points out which
conceptualizations have disappeared from the conceptual field in comparison to
that of the previous period, and which conceptualizations are new. Then,
conceptualization by conceptualization, an overview is given of the expressions
that reveal those conceptualizations and their syntactic and textual characteristics
and frequencies of occurrence. Each expression is illustrated by a number of
examples from the corpus texts, accompanied by a translation. Unless there is a
reference to the text from which a translation is copied, the translations are my
own. Whenever possible, at least two examples are given. If attestations are
abundant enough to choose from, the attestations are selected to illustrate the
different syntactic uses of the expressions and preference is given to expressions
used in contexts and sentence structures that are relatively transparent. The
complete corpora can be found on the CD-ROM which is part of this
dissertation.
For each subperiod, a second section presents a schematic quantitative
overview of the lexical and conceptual field. This overview is presented in the
form of a table in which the conceptualizations are listed as well as the
corresponding expressions. As pointed out in section 2.3.3, not all syntactic and
morphological forms of the expressions are given, but they are conflated into
representative tags. For each of these expressions, the absolute frequency of
occurrence in the corpus is given, as well as the relative frequency of occurrence
(percentages). Also the relative frequency of occurrence is given of the
conceptualization as a whole.
As it consists mostly of examples, etymological background and syntactic
information, this chapter may be tedious to read. Readers who prefer to get a
general idea of the corpus rather than the details are advised to read the first
section to familiarize themselves with the method used to analyse the lexical data
and the conceptualizations behind them, the tables at the end of each section to
get a good view on the lexical and conceptual field, and the conclusion, which
49
will give a very broad sketch of the most important evolutions in the lexical and
conceptual field.
Throughout the chapter, it is important to keep in mind that the method of
assigning the conceptualizations to the lexical items is basically an etymological
one : it goes back to the original conceptual motif behind using the lexical item
to denote ANGER. It does not take into account the possibility of the original
conceptualizations behind the expressions becoming opaque, being reinterpreted
or completely lost. In order to avoid anachronistic interpretations, corrections to
this etymological approach will be considered in the analyses in the next chapter.
3.2 A850
3.2.1 Overview
After analysing the lexical material of the a850 corpus and taking into account
the etymological origin of the words denoting ANGER, 12 different
conceptualizations were identified, namely :
ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS UNMILDNESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
ANGER AS INSANITY
ANGER AS SWELLING
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS BITTERNESS
ANGER AS DARKNESS
ANGER AS HEAVINESS
Together with emotions like PRIDE and ENVY, ANGER belongs to the domain
of what we could call strong emotions. This conceptualization provides the
encompassing term, the hyperonym, anda ‘emotion of mind,- malice, envy,
hatred, anger, zeal, annoyance, vexation’.1 It finds its origin in the IndoEuropean stem ant ‘breath’.2 Out of the notion of ‘breath’, the notion of ‘soul,
mind’ developed in several languages, the most well-known example of which is
Latin anima. Anda being a hyperonym, its reference is rather vague and only
contextual information reveals whether it refers to ANGER or not.3 The noun
anda occurs twice with reference to ANGER, in Daniel.
(48)
50
Ða wearð bliðemod burga aldor, gealp gramlice gode on andan, cwæð
þæt his hergas hyrran wæron and mihtigran mannum to friðe þonne
Israela ece drihten. (Dan 712)4
(49)
‘So the lord over cities grew merry and boasted immoderately, to the
anger of God. He declared that his armies were greater and more
effectual for people’s protection than the everlasting Lord of the
Israelites.’ (Bradley (1982:85))
Se ðone lig tosceaf, halig and heofonbeorht, hatan fyres, tosweop hine
and toswende þurh þa swiðan miht, ligges leoman, þæt hyra lice ne wæs
owiht geegled, ac he on andan sloh fyr on feondas for fyrendædum. (Dan
339)
‘Holy and heavenly bright, he thrust aside the hot flame of the fire; the
glare of the flame he swept back and brushed aside by his very great
might so that their body was not a whit harmed — rather, he flung the fire
in anger upon their adversaries, for their wicked actions.’ (Bradley
(1982:76))
Like all emotions, ANGER has social connotations as well. In the case of
ANGER there is often a negative connotation : it is a wrong emotion. Such a
negative connotation can be found in the expression irre. It is derived from an
Indo-European er(a)s- root, which is also present in Latin errare, and means ‘to
flow, to move’and hence ‘to stray, to wander’. According to the OED, ‘the
transition to the sense ‘angry’ (…) arose from the consideration of anger as a
wandering or aberration of the mind’. Significantly, irre is still sometimes used
in the sense ‘gone astray’ in Old English. The ASD cites among others :
(50)
(51)
oððæt his ege bið, æfðancum full, ðurh earmra scyld yrre geworden.
(MSol 490)
‘until his eye is filled with evil thoughts and gone astray’ (ASD p.600)
ealle synt yrre, þa þe unwise heora heortan hige healdað mid dysige; (PPs
75.4)
‘All are gone astray who unwisely hold their hearts high with folly.’ (ASD
p.600)
Irre is the most neutral and most frequently used word to indicate ANGER.
There are 45 attestations of irre, spread over 14 texts of different genres. It is
used as a noun (yrre, eorre, ierre, 14 attestations), an adjective (yrre, eorre, 18
attestations) and an adverb (yrre, yrringa, yrremod, 13 attestations).
(52)
(53)
(54)
Hy þa þurh yrre Affricanus, fæder fæmnan ageaf on feonda geweald
Heliseo. (Jul 158)
‘Then in his fury, the virgin’s father Africanus handed her over to the
disposal of her enemies, to Eleusius.’ (Bradley (1982:306))
Þa wearð yrre anmod cyning, het he ofn onhætan to cwale cnihta feorum
forðam þe hie his cræftas onsocon. (Dan 224)
‘Then the obstinate king grew furious. He ordered a furnace to be heated
for the destruction of the young men’s lives because they challenged his
powers.’ (Bradley (1982:73))
Đa to Euan god yrringa spræc: “Wend þe from wynne.” (Gen A,B 918)
51
‘Then to Eve God angrily spoke : ‘Set yourself aside from happiness’.’
(Bradley (1982:37))
The presence of this negative conceptualization is further corroborated by the
occasional addition of the metaphor -þweorh ‘crooked, cross’ to irre. Þweorh is
derived from the Indo-European twerek-root, meaning ‘twist, turn around’,
which also gave rise to Latin torquere ‘to twist’ and Dutch dwars ‘transverse’.
(55)
Eode þa fromlice fæmnan to spræce, anræd ond yreþweorg, yrre
gebolgen, þær he glædmode geonge wiste wic weardian. (Jul 89)
‘He promptly went to speak to the virgin, one-minded and perverted with
anger, puffed up with anger, to where he knew the cheerful young girl
kept residence.’
A concept that typically seems to be associated with ANGER is FIERCENESS, as
persons who are angry tend to be violent. In this group, reðe, wrað and gram are
to be found, which all mean ‘fierce’ besides ‘angry’, as shown in examples (56)
to (58).
(56)
(57)
(58)
Wiht unhælo, grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs, reoc ond reþe, ond on
ræste genam þritig þegna, þanon eft gewat huþe hremig to ham faran, mid
þære wælfylle wica neosan. (Beo 120)
‘This creature beyond redemption, savage and voracious, fierce and
violent, was instantly prepared, and from their resting-place he snatched
thirty thanes. From there, exulting in his plunder, he went journeying
back homewards, seeking his lairs with that feast of carion.’ (Bradley
(1982:414))
Feala ic on þam beorge gebiden hæbbe wraðra wyrda. (Dream 50)
[the holy cross bearing witness to the crucifixion] ‘Many cruel
happenings I have experienced on that hill’ (Bradley (1982:161))
Hie ða fromlice leton forð fleogan flana scuras, hildenædran, of
hornbogan, strælas stedehearde; styrmdon hlude grame guðfrecan, garas
sendon in heardra gemang. (Jud 220)
‘Firmly entrenched, they vigorously let fly from the curved bow showers
of darts, arrows, the serpents of battle. Loudly the fierce fighting-men
roared and sent spears into their cruel enemies’ midst.’ (Bradley
(1982:501))
Reðe is derived from the Indo-European root ret ‘to roar’. Unlike wrað and
gram, ‘fierce’ is clearly its basic meaning. It is only sporadically attested with
clear reference to ANGER. It appears twice as a simple adjective in Juliana, and
twice in the compound adjective reðemod (reðe ‘fierce’+ mod ‘minded,
spirited’).5 This compound adjective occurs in alliteration in Genesis and in
Daniel, which are part of the same manuscript (Junius 11).
(59)
52
Ða wæs ellenwod, yrre ond reþe, frecne ond ferðgrim, fæder wið dehter.
(Jul 140)
(60)
(61)
(62)
‘Then the father was mad with rage, furious and incensed, menacing and
savage-minded towards his daughter.’ (Bradley (1982:305))
Cyning biþ reþe, sigora syllend, þonne synnum fah E W ond U acle bidað
hwæt him æfter dædum deman wille lifes to leane. (Jul 704)
‘The King, Giver of victories, will be wrathful when, stained with sins,
terrified, E, W and U (…) awaits what he wills to decree them according
to their deeds as reward for their life.’ (Bradley (1982:319))
Þa wearð reðemod rices ðeoden, unhold þeodum þam þe æhte geaf. (Dan
33)
‘Then the Prince of power grew angry and disaffected towards the people
to whom he had granted possession.’ (Bradley (1982:68))
Þa com halig god wera cneorissa weorc sceawigan, beorna burhfæsten,
and þæt beacen somed, þe to roderum up ræran ongunnon Adames
eaforan, and þæs unrædes stiðferhð cyning steore gefremede, þa he
reðemod reorde gesette eorðbuendum ungelice, þæt hie þære spæce sped
ne ahton. (Gen A,B 1678)
‘Then came the holy god to look at the work of the generation of men, the
fortress of the chiefs, as well as the beacon that the heirs of Adam had
begun to raise up towards the heavens and for this ill-advised course the
stern-minded king set a punishment : he angrily made the languages of
the earth-dwellers different, so that they had no advantage from speech.’
For both gram and wrað, the meanings ‘fierce’ and ‘angry’ occur side by
side, neither of them clearly being the basic one. Gram and its verbal form
gremian are derived from the Indo-European root ghrem ‘to thunder, growl’ and
hence metonymically ‘to be angry’ (growling being an external sign of anger).
With reference to ANGER, the adjective gram occurs twice (examples (63) and
(64)) and the past participle form of the verb only once (example (65)).
(63)
(64)
(65)
Hete hæfde he æt his hearran gewunnen, hyldo hæfde his ferlorene, gram
wearð him se goda on his mode. (Gen A,B 301)
‘He had won his lord’s hate and he had lost his affection. God became
angry with him in his mind.’
Ealles þæs forgeton siððan grame wurdon Egypta cyn ymb an twig; ða
heo his mægwinum morðor fremedon, wroht berenedon, wære fræton.
(Ex 144)
‘All this they forgot when the Egyptians became angry because of a
disagreement; then they murdered his relatives, accused them falsely and
broke the convenant.’
Hæfde styrne mod, gegremed grymme, grap on wraðe faum folmum, and
him on fæðm gebræc yrre on mode; æðele bescyrede his wiðerbrecan
wuldorgestealdum. (Gen A,B 60)
‘He had a stern heart, unrelentingly provoked; with hostile hands he
snatched up his enemies and crushed them in his grasp, irate in his heart,
53
and cut off his adversaries from their native home, from the heavenly
mansions.’ (Bradley (1982:14))
Wrað is derived from the Indo-European root wreit ‘to twist’ as in presentday English writhe. In Old Norse and Old English, the meaning developed into
‘fierce, angry’, which is also present in present-day Dutch wreed ‘cruel’. Wrað
is basically used as an adjective, either in simple form or in the compound
wraðmod (wrað ‘fierce’+ mod ‘minded, spirited’). Of the 12 attestations, 9 are
adjectives, 2 adverbs and 1 a noun. Most of the attestations of wrað, 8 out of 12,
occur in Genesis. There are 2 attestations in Christ and Satan, 1 in Guthlac and
1 in the Riming Poem. Remarkably, all attestations of wrað alliterate.
(66)
(67)
Him wæs hælend god wrað geworden for womcwidum. (Christ A,B,C
280)
‘God the Saviour had become enraged against them for their
blasphemies.’ (Bradley (1982:94))
Nys unc wuht beforan to scursceade, ne sceattes wiht to mete gemearcod,
ac unc is mihtig god, waldend wraðmod. (Gen A,B 812)
‘There is nothing in front of us as a defence against the storm nor any
provision made for food, but mighty God the Ruler is in angry mood
towards us.’ (Bradley (1982:34)
Perhaps as a parallel to the conceptualization FIERCENESS, ANGER is also
conceptualized as UNMILDNESS. This conceptualization is to be found in the one
occurrence of the expression unmiltse, a noun derived from the Indo-European
roots ante ‘opposite, not’ and meldh ‘soft, mild’, like present-day English and
Dutch mild.
(68)
hæbbe he Godes unmiltse & sancte Martines se þe ðis awende & þere
stowe oþbrede. (Ch 287 (Birch 426) 4.1)
‘may he have God’s and Saint Martin’s wrath who changes this and takes
away this place.’
Another important domain that is associated with ANGER is AFFLICTION.
ANGER is conceptualized as something that hurts and making someone angry as
hurting someone. This conceptualization is present in the expressions torn and
sare. They are all used to refer to affliction in a physical sense, as illustrated by
examples (69) and (70).
(69)
(70)
54
Wæs seo hwil micel; XII wintra tid torn geþolode wine Scyldinga, weana
gehwelcne, sidra sorga. (Beo 146)
[referring to Grendal’s slaughters] ‘It was a great while: for a space of
twelve years the friend and lord of the Scyldings suffered pain, every kind
of misery and profound grief.’ (Bradley (1982:415)
Hwæt we wieton ðæt sio diegle wund bið sarre ðonne sio opene, forðam
ðæt worsm ðæt ðærinne gehweled bið, gif hit bið utforlæten, ðonne bið
sio wund geopenod to hælo ðæs sares. (CP 38.273.21)
‘We know that a hidden wound is sorer than an open wound because of
the pus that is inflamed therein, and if it is let out, then the wound is
opened for the healing of the pain.’
These words tend to be used to refer to psychological rather than physical
affliction. There is but a thin line between ANGER and other kinds of
psychological affliction, so it is often difficult to assign the meaning ‘anger’ to
these expressions with a considerable degree of certainty.
Torn is derived from the Indo-European root der ‘to hurt, to skin’, which also
gave rise to present-day English to tear. There are 10 attestations of torn, 8 of
which are nouns, 1 an adjective and 1 an adverb. 6 attestations alliterate. The
number of text in which torn occurs is restricted, however : 6 attestations are
found in Genesis, 2 in Guthlac and 2 in Beowulf. As with all the expressions
showing the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION, it is contextual
information that enables us to assign the meaning ‘anger’ to torn. In (71), it is
the co-occurrence of the synonym gebolgen. In (72) it is the wider
encyclopaedic knowledge that the god of the Old Testament is not a human
being whose feelings can be hurt, but a powerful ruler who demands obedience
from his servants or else is angry and takes revenge.
(71)
(72)
Beoð þa gebolgne, þa þec breodwiað, tredað þec ond tergað, ond hyra
torn wrecað, toberað þec blodgum lastum; gif þu ure bidan þencest, we
þec niþa genægað. (Guth A,B 287)
‘Then they will be enraged; then they will knock you down and tread on
you and harass you and wreak their anger upon you and scatter you in
bloody remnants. If you presume to face us out we shall attack you with
afflictions.’ (Bradley (1982:257))
Nu me Sethes bearn torn niwiað and him to nimað mægeð to gemæccum
minra feonda; þær wifa wlite onwod grome, idesa ansien, and ece feond
folcdriht wera, þa ær on friðe wæron. (Gen A,B 1257)
‘Now the children of Seth renew the anger in me and are taking to
themselves women as their mates from among my foes; there the beauty
of females, the appearance of the women, and the eternal fiend have
malevolently insinuated themselves into the nation of men who were
previously in concord.’ (Bradley (1982:41))
Another representative of this conceptualization is the word sare (example
73), derived from the Indo-European root sai ‘pain’. This word is used as an
intensifier with words in the conceptual field of AFFLICTION.6 It is the Old
English counterpart of present-day sorely, which can be considered a synonym
of very, but is clearly associated with the domain of AFFLICTION because of the
sore-root. The same combination is to be found in its Dutch counterpart zeer,
which means ‘very’ as well as ‘pain’.
55
(73)
Þa reordade rodora waldend wrað moncynne and þa worde cwæð: “Ne
syndon me on ferhðe freo from gewitene cneorisn Caines, ac me þæt cynn
hafað sare abolgen. (Gen A,B 1253)
‘Then the Ruler of the skies spoke, angry with humankind, and said these
words: ‘The tribe of Cain have not gone from my mind free men, for that
family has sorely enraged me.’ (Bradley (1982:41))
Also expressions referring to a more specific form of psychological
affliction, namely UNHAPPINESS, are used to refer to ANGER. This is the case
with unbliðe ‘not glad’ and gealgmod ‘sad-minded, sad-spirited’. Unbliðe is
derived from the Indo-European roots ante ‘opposite, not’ and bhlei ‘shine’ and
hence ‘glad, friendly’ (cp. Dutch blij) and occurs once in the sense ‘angry’ in the
corpus. Gealgmod occurs twice and is derived from the Indo-European roots
ghalgh ‘seriously thinking’ and me or mo ‘strong will’, hence ‘mind’.
(74)
(75)
(76)
Ða wearð unbliðe Abrahames cwen, hire worcþeowe wrað on mode,
heard and hreðe, higeteonan spræc fræcne on fæmnan. (Gen A,B 2261)
‘Then Abraham’s wife became angry, harsh and cruel at heart with her
slave girl, and spoke injuriously against the woman.’
Ða se gerefa het, gealgmod guma, Iulianan of þam engan hofe ut gelædan
on hyge halge hæþnum to spræce to his domsetle. (Jul 530)
‘Then the prefect, a furious man, ordered Juliana to be led out of the
narrow cell, in a holy state of mind, to his judgement seat for a pagan
judgement.’
Þa se dema wearð hreoh ond hygegrim, ongon his hrægl teran, swylce he
grennade ond gristbitade, wedde on gewitte swa wilde deor, grymetade
gealgmod ond his godu tælde, þæs þe hy ne meahtun mægne wiþstondan
wifes willan. (Jul 594)
‘Then the judge grew wild and savage-minded and began to tear his robe.
He bared his teeth too and ground them. He grew crazed in his wits as a
wild beast. Rabid-hearted, he stormed and abused the gods because they
with their power could not withstand the will of a woman.’ (Bradley
(1982:316))
INSANITY is also closely related to ANGER, as is shown in the one occurrence
of ellenwod, which is a combination of ellen ‘strength’ and wod ‘mad’, from
Indo-European uat ‘excited, inspired’.
(77)
Ða wæs ellenwod, yrre ond reþe, frecne ond ferðgrim, fæder wið dehter.
(Jul 140)
‘Then the father was mad with rage, furious and incensed, menacing and
savage-minded towards his daughter.’ (Bradley (1982:305))
The ANGER-domain also finds a source domain in the domain of bodily
sensations. ANGER is experienced as something dark, bitter and heavy. These
synaesthetic conceptualizations are expressed in the words sweorcan ‘to become
dark’ (1 attestation), biter ‘bitter’ (2 attestations)7, and hefig ‘heavy’ (1
56
attestation) denoting ANGER. These words can be traced back to the IndoEuropean roots suordos ‘black’, bheid ‘split’ (hence ‘bite, biting’) and kap ‘take’
(hence ‘contain’ and hence ‘heavy’) respectively.
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
Geswearc þa swiðferð sweor æfter worde, þære fæmnan fæder, ferðlocan
onspeon (Jul 78)
‘Then the headstrong man, the virgin’s father, grew furious, and after this
speech swore and disclosed his heart’ (Bradley (1982:304))
Gesawon ða æfter wætere wyrmcynnes fela, sellice sædracan, sund
cunnian, swylce on næshleoðum nicras licgean, ða on undernmæl oft
bewitigað sorhfulne sið on seglrade, wyrmas ond wildeor; hie on weg
hruron, bitere ond gebolgne, bearhtm ongeaton, guðhorn galan. (Beo
1425)
‘then they observed the multitude of a species of serpent, strange seadragons taking to the water, as well as amphibian monsters lying on the
slopes of the cliff — reptiles and savage beasts which often at their
morning mealtime make their woe-fraught way into the path of saildriven ships. Aroused and puffed up with anger they plunged away : they
had registered the clarion sound of the battle-horn crying out.’ (Bradley
(1982:449))
Þæt ðam godan wæs hreow on hreðre, hygesorga mæst; wende se wisa
ðæt he wealdende ofer ealde riht, ecean dryhtne, bitre gebulge. (Beo
2327)
‘To that virtuous man this was a heartfelt grief, the greatest of anxieties
upon his mind. The wise man imagined that in breach of ancient law he
had severely provoked God, the ruler, the everlasting Lord;’ (Bradley
(1982:472))
Þæt wæs torn were hefig æt heortan. (Gen A,B 979)
‘This was (a cause of) anger that was oppressive in the man’s heart.’
ANGER is also conceptualized as HEAT. This conceptualization can be found
in the expressions hatheortnysse and hygewælm, which both occur once in the
corpus. The compound noun hatheortnesse consists of hat ‘hot’, from IndoEuropean kai ‘heat’, and heorte ‘heart’, from Indo-European kerd ‘heart’. It
appears in a letter from Saint Boniface to abbess Eadburga, in a passage
translating a verse from a Latin psalm, in which it translates Latin furor.
(82)
And him þuhte þæt þa englas wæron swilce hig byrnende wæron, þa þe
hine læddon ut of þam lichaman, and he ne mihte nænig þinga locian on
hig for þære micclan beorhtnesse þe hig mid ymbseted wæron, and hig
sungon swiðe wynsumum stefnum and swiðe geswegum, and hig
cwædon, Domine, ne in ira tua arguas me, neque in furore tuo corripias
me, þæt is, Drihten, ne þrea þu us in þinum yrre, ne þu us ne steor in þinre
hatheortnysse. (Let 1 (Sisam) 17)
57
‘And he thought that it was angels — so much did they burn — who led
him out of his body, and he could in no way look at them because of the
great brightness with which they were surrounded, and they sung in very
pleasant voices and very harmoniously, saying : “Domine, ne in ira tua
arguas me, neque in furore tuo corripias me”, that is, “Lord, do not rebuke
us in your anger and do not reprove us in your wrath.” ’
In hygewælm, the conceptualization of HEAT is more specific. Its first
component hyge ‘mind, heart, soul’. Wælm does not simply mean ‘heat’, but
‘that which wells up, boils’. It is derived from Old Germanic walmi-z ‘boiling’,
which is itself derived from Indo-European wel ‘to roll’.
Thus, this
conceptualization combines the idea of motion and of heat in the idea of a
boiling fluid (see example (91)). Which of these two ideas is more basic
synchronically speaking is hard to say.
(83)
Hygewælm asteah beorne on breostum, blatende nið, yrre for æfstum.
(Gen A,B 980)
‘Indignation surged up in the man’s bosom, a livid fury, anger out of
envy.’ (Bradley (1982:39))
The conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING is expressed by all the forms of
verbs belgan, abelgan, gebelgan ‘(to cause one) to swell with anger’, the
adjective bolgenmod ‘angry’ and the nouns abylg and abylgþ ‘anger’, all derived
from the Indo-European root bhelgh ‘swell’.8 These expressions occur 4 times
as nouns, 8 times as verbs, 20 times as adjectives (most of which are past
participles), and once as an adverb. With 33 attestations, spread over 11 texts,
the SWELLING-conceptualization takes up a very considerable part of the
conceptual field of ANGER.9
(84)
(85)
(86)
58
Let þa up faran eadige sawle, Adames cyn, ac ne moste Efe þa gyt wlitan
in wuldre ær heo wordum cwæð: Ic þe æne abealh, ece drihten, þa wit
Adam twa eaples þigdon þurh næddran nið, swa wit na ne sceoldon.
(Christ A,B,C 405)
‘Then he let the blessed souls, Adam’s kin, ascend — but Eve could not
yet look upon heaven before she declared aloud: ‘Once I provoked you,
everlasting Lord, when we two, Adam and I, through the serpent’s malice
ate of an apple as we should never have done.’ ’ (Bradley (1982:96))
Þa wearð se mihtiga gebolgen, hehsta heofones waldend, wearp hine of
þan hean stole. (Gen A,B 299)
‘Then the mighty and supreme Ruler of heaven grew angered and threw
him down from the lofty throne.’ (Bradley (1982:20))
Ða him bolgenmod Babilone weard yrre andswarode, eorlum onmælde
grimme þam gingum, and geocre oncwæð, þæt hie gegnunga gyldan
sceolde oððe þrowigean þreanied micel, frecne fyres wylm, nymðe hie
friðes wolde wilnian to þam wyrrestan, weras Ebrea, guman to þam
golde, þe he him to gode teode. (Dan 209)
(87)
‘Then, enraged, the ruler of Babylon furiously answered them and
fiercely informed the young men and harshly told them that they must
forthwith do homage or else suffer great torture, the terrible swirling of
fire, unless they, the Hebrew men, would pray for indemnity to that most
evil thing, to the gold which he had ordained for himself as a god.’
(Bradley (1982:72-73))
Huru, ic nolde sylf þurh gielpcwide gæstes mines frofre gelettan, ne fæder
mines æfre geæfnan, æbylg godes. (Guth A,B 1234)
‘Truly I myself have not wished to jeopardize the comfort of my soul
through bragging, nor ever to cause the anger of God my Father.’
(Bradley (1982:280))
3.2.2 Summary
conceptualization
expression
(root)
irre
þweorh
belgan
wrað
reðe
gram
torn
sare
gealh
unbliðe
anda
biter
hatheort
hygewælm
sweorcan
hefig
ellenwod
unmilts
frequency
absolute
%
WRONG EMOTION
45 36.88
1
0.82
SWELLING
33 27.05
FIERCENESS
12
9.84
4
3.28
3
2.46
AFFLICTION
10
8.20
1
0.82
UNHAPPINESS
2
1.64
1
0.82
STRONG EMOTION
2
1.64
BITTERNESS
2
1.64
HEAT
1
0.82
1
0.82
DARKNESS
1
0.82
HEAVINESS
1
0.82
INSANITY
1
0.82
UNMILDNESS
1
0.82
total
122
100
table (7) : ANGER-expressions a850
%
37.70
27.05
15.57
9.02
2.46
1.64
1.64
1.64
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
100
59
3.3 850-950
3.3.1 Overview
In comparison with the field a850, the lexical field of ANGER between 850
and 950 has lost a few infrequent words (ellenwod, sweorcan, hygewælm) and a
considerable number of new expressions can be found for the existing
conceptualizations. Additionally, some new conceptualizations appear, namely
ANGER AS PRIDE, ANGER AS MOTION and ANGER AS BODILY BEHAVIOUR. As a
result, the conceptual field of ANGER between 850 and 950 shows the following
set of conceptualizations :
ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS UNMILDNESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
ANGER AS INSANITY
ANGER AS SWELLING
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS BITTERNESS
ANGER AS HEAVINESS
ANGER AS PRIDE
ANGER AS MOTION
ANGER AS BODILY BEHAVIOUR
The conceptualization of ANGER as a strong emotion is still expressed by the
hyperonymic noun anda ‘emotion of mind, — malice, envy, hatred, anger, zeal,
annoyance, vexation’. The absolute number of attestations has risen to 28, but
all but one occur in one text, the Pastoral Care.
(88)
(89)
60
Eac hie sculon gehieran hwæt Moyses dyde, ða he ongeat ðæt God wæs
ðæm folce ierre, he bebead ðæt menn namen hiora sweord Godes andan
mid to wrecanne, & cwæð ðæt ða scolden bion synderlice Godes ðegnas,
ða ðe unwandiende ðara scyldegena gyltas ofslogen. (CP 49.381.22)
‘They should also give ear to what Moses did when he learned that God
was angry with the people. He ordered the men to take their swords to
wreak God’s anger, and said that they would especially be God’s
servants, who unhesitatingly killed those guilty of the offences.’
Ond oft eac ungemetlicu irsung bið gelicet, ðæt menn wenað ðæt hit sie
ryhtwislic anda. (CP 20.149.10)
‘And often also immoderate anger pleases, when people believe that it is
rightful anger.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is still most frequently
expressed by irre and its morphological variants. With 245 attestations, it is still
the most frequently used expression in the lexical field. It is used 166 times as a
noun (yrre, irre, (h)ierre, eorre, i(e)rsung, yrsung), 39 times as an adjective
(yrre, irre, ierre, eorre, i(e)rsigend, irsiend, yrsiend) and 16 times as an adverb
(yrre, eorre, yrringa, i(e)rringa, eorringa). There are now also verb forms,
irsian, yrsian and eorsian, which are used relatively frequently (24
attestations).10
(90)
(91)
Eala ðu, mægena god, mære drihten, hu lange yrsast þu on þines esnes
gebed? (PPs 79.5)
‘O powerful god, great lord, how long will you be angry at your servant’s
prayer ?’
Þa yrsode he ond gebealh hyne ond het hig aðenian on yren bed ond hig
begeotan myd weallende leade, ond hyre þæt ne geeglode. (Mart 2.1
(Herzfeld-Kotzor) 330)
‘Then he became angry and puffed up and ordered to stretch them out on
an iron bed and to pour boiling lead over them, and it did not injure
them.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is also still present in the
one occurrence of the expression ðweora ‘crookedness, crossness’.
(92) Be ðæm se æðela lareow cwæð, ða he spon his hieremen to ðære geðylde,
he cwæð: ælc ðweora & ælc ierre & unweorðscipe & geclibs & tæl sie
anumen fram eow. (CP (Cotton) 33.222.7)
‘Concerning that, the noble teacher spoke, as he urged his followers to
patience, “all crossness, anger, indignation, clamour and evil speaking be
taken away from you.” ’
The conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is present in almost the same
expressions as in the a850 corpus. The first and least frequently used expression
is reðe ‘fierce’. It occurs once as the verb form reðian, and once in the noun
reþness.
(93)
(94)
Þa gesawon þæt þa Gotan, hi ongunnon ma reðian & hi gebelgan & þa
ðone halgan man atugon ut of his huse. (GDPref and 3 (C) 18.219.9)
‘The Goths saw this and started to become more angry and puffed up, and
drew the holy man out of his house.’
& swa he wæs fore þam broðrum mid mycelre monþwærnysse, swa he
eac swiðe gelomlice mid his eadmodnesse gestilde þæs lareowes
reþnesse & hatheortnysse. (GD 1 (C) 7.48.29)
‘And so he bore himself before his brothers with much humility, like he
also very frequently with his humbleness pacified the anger and fury of
his master.’
Wrað, which in the period a850 was found to be used mainly as an adjective
and almost exclusively in biblical texts and alliterations, still occurs in the text
61
corpus between 850 and 950. Out of the 6 attestations, 5 are adjectives and 1 is
an adverb, 5 occur in the Paris Psalter, and all of them alliterate. This use of
wrað runs remarkably parallel to its use in the previous period.
(95)
(96)
Gehweorf us hraðe, hælend drihten, and þin yrre fram us eac oncyrre, þæt
ðu us ne weorðe wrað on mode. (PPs 84.4)
‘Convert us at once, Lord Saviour, and turn your anger from us so that
you do not become angry against us in your mind.’
Ac þu hi wide todrif þurh þines wordes mægen, and hi wraðe toweorp,
wealdend min drihten. (PPs 58.11)
‘And you drove the kinsmen wide apart through your words and scattered
them angrily, my mighty lord.’
With 27 attestations, the words derived from the gram-root are used most
frequently to express the conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS. Most of them
are adjectives and verbs; two are adverbs. 6 attestations show the simple form
gram, or occasionally its phonological variant grom.
(97)
Þa wearð se cyning mid hatheortnesse gegremed to þon, þæt he het
acearfan on grund heom heora tungan of. (GDPref and 3 (C) 32.240.18)
‘Then was the king incited with anger towards them, and ordered that
their tongues be cut out to the root.’
(98) Se utalædeð gebundne in strengu gelice & ða ða in eorre gegremmað ða
eardiað in byrgennum
Qui educit uinctos in fortitudine, similiter et eos qui in ira prouocant, qui
habitant in sepulcris. (PsGlA (Kuhn) 67.7)
‘Who leads out those bound in his strength like those who provoke to
anger who live in their graves.’
(99) Đa wearð se cyning swa gram þæt he wolde eft in fyrdian and þone eard
mid ealle fordon. (ChronD (Classen-Harm) 948.7)
‘Then the king became so angry that he wanted to send his armies in
again and destroy the world completely.’
(100) Eac hi gefremedan oðer bysmer, þær hi wiðercwyde wæteres hæfdon; þær
Moyses wearð mægene gebysgad for heora yfelum, swa he oftor wæs, on
his gaste gram; ne mihte him godes willan mid his welerum wisne
getæcean. (PPs 105.25)
‘They also committed other sins of blasphemy, when they showed
resistance at the waters, where Moses was much vexed because of their
evils, as he more often was, angry on his mind, as he could not teach them
God’s will with his lips.’
(101) Đa gebeotode Cirus ðæt he his ðegn on hire swa gewrecan wolde, þa he
swa grom wearð on his mode & wiþ þa ea gebolgen, þæt hie mehte
wifmon be hiere cneowe oferwadan, þær heo ær wæs nigon mila brad
þonne heo fledu wæs. (Or 2 4.43.9)
62
‘Then Cirus vowed that he would avenge his servant on them, and
became so angry in mind and so puffed up with anger against the water,
and that he would let women cross it up to their knees, while it before was
nine miles wide when the river was flooded.’
In 9 attestations, all from the Cura Pastoralis, gram always forms part of the
compound adjective grambære. This compound consists of the noun gram
‘fierceness, anger’ and the adjective bære, derived from the verb beran ‘to bear,
to produce’, so that the literal meaning of the compound adjective literally can be
paraphrased as ‘bearing (i.e. experiencing) or producing fierceness or anger’.
(102) Đætte on oðre wisan sint to manienne ða monðwæran, on oðre ða
grambæran. (CP 40.287.20)
‘That the meek are to be admonished in one way and the angry persons in
another way.’
(103) Oft eac ða grambæra leogað him selfum, ðonne hie wenað ðæt hie
ryhtne andan hæbben. (CP 40.289.16)
‘Often too, the angry person deceives himself, when he thinks that he
experiences rightful anger.’
Similar to the conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is the
conceptualization ANGER AS UNMILDNESS, which is to be found in the one
occurrence of unmilts ‘unmildness’.
(104) Se þe ðæt onwende, hæbbe he Godes unmiltse & ealles ðæs haligdomes
ðe ic on Angelcyn begeat mid Godes miltse. (Rec 6.6 300)
‘May he who changes this have the anger of God and of all the
sanctuaries that I obtained in England through God’s mercy.’
A few expressions expressing the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION
that were present in the a850 field now occur as hapax legomena. Torn, which
was the most frequently used form a850, is still to be found in the compound
noun tornwyrd (‘angry word’, consisting of torn ‘affliction’ and hence ‘anger’ +
wyrd ‘word’).
(105) Hi þa hiera wif him ongean iernende wæron, & hie swiþe tornwyrdon, &
acsedon, gif hie feohtan ne dorsten, hwider hie fleon woldon; þæt hie oðer
gener næfden, buton hie on heora wifa hrif gewiton. (Or 1 12.33.20)
‘Their wives ran towards them and spoke many angry words and asked
them if they did not dare to fight and if they wanted to flee, telling them
that they had no other refuge than their wives’ wombs.’
Also sare ‘sorely’, the intensifier linked to the domain of AFFLICTION, occurs
once.
(106) We gelyfað, þæt se ælmihtiga God þæt forþon dyde, þy læs se halga wer
swa wundorlice bilwitnesse geþristlæhte ofer þæt ænigne man wyrgan,
þeh þe he mid hwylcum sare gegremed & abolgen wære. (GDPref and 3
(C)15.207.22)
63
‘We believe that almighty God did that so that the holy man of such
remarkable simplicity should not again assume to have cursed any man if
he were sorely vexed with anyone and puffed up with anger.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION is further elaborated by the use
of tirgan, geswencan, ofsettan, and gebysgian, which all refer to bodily affliction
as well as to anger. Tirgen, like Dutch tergen, is derived from Indo-European
deregh ‘to split’, geswencan from Indo-European sueng ‘to bend, twist’.
(107) Wordum tyrgdon, slogon ond swungon, synnige ne mihton þurh sarcwide
soð gecyðan. (And 963)
‘they taunted me with words, they buffeted me and flogged me: the
sinners could not prove the truth by sarcasm.’ (Bradley (1982:135))
(108) Đæt getacnað ðætte ðara lareowa tungan ðe ðæt uplice leoht bodiað,
ðonne hie ongietað hwelcne monnan gesuencedne mid irre & mid
hatheortnesse onbærnedne, & ðonne forwandigað ðæt hie mid ðæm
kycglum hiera worda ongean hiera ierre worpigen, sua sua æfner wandade
ðæt he nolde ðane slean ðe hine draf. (CP 40.295.23)
‘It means that the tongue of the teacher that preaches the heavenly light,
when he knows which men are afflicted with anger and incensed with
rage, tries not to hurl the darts of their words at their anger, like Abner
hesitated to slay the one who pursued him.’
(109) Oft eac, ðonne ðæt mod ðæs fæstendan bið mid ðy irre ofseten, ðonne
cymð sio blis seldhwanne, suelce hio sie cuma oððe elðeodig, forðæm
ðæt mod bið mid ðy ierre gewemmed, & forðæm forliesð ðæt god ðære
forhæfdnesse, forðæmðe he hine no ne beheold wið ða gæstlican scylde.
(CP 43.313.22)
‘Often, when the mind of he who fasts is oppressed with anger, bliss
seldom comes, as if she were a guest or a stranger, because the mind is
stained with anger, and therefore loses the goodness of the abstinence
because he does not keep himself from the spiritual sin.’
(110) Eac hi gefremedan oðer bysmer, þær hi wiðercwyde wæteres hæfdon; þær
Moyses wearð mægene gebysgad for heora yfelum, swa he oftor wæs, on
his gaste gram; ne mihte him godes willan mid his welerum wisne
getæcean. (PPs 105.25)
‘They also committed other sins of blasphemy, when they showed
resistance at the waters, where Moses was much vexed because of their
evils, as he more often was, angry on his mind, as he could not teach them
God’s will with his lips.’
But better than by any other word in the lexical field, the conceptualization
is expressed by the new adjective weamod and its nominal form
weamodnesse. They consist of the morpheme wea-, meaning ‘trouble,
affliction’, from Indo-European uai ‘woe’ and -mod ‘inner man, mind, soul’.
AFFLICTION
64
Both the adjective and the noun occur twice, but all in one text, the Pastoral
Care.
(111) Ongean ðæt sint to manianne ða weamodan & ða grambæran, forðæm,
ðonne hie underfoð ðone folgoð, ðonne tyht hie & gremeð ðæt ierre ðæt
hie wealwiað on ða wedenheortnesse, & ðurh ðæt wierð toslieten sio
stilnes hiera hieremonna modes, & bið gedrefed sio smyltnes hiera lifes.
(CP 40.289.4)
‘Against that are to be warned the angry persons, because if they accept
their service as followers, their anger incites and provokes them to
wallow in their insanity, through which the stillness of the minds of their
followers will be torn to pieces and the tranquility of their lives
disturbed.’
(112) Sua sua Assael suiðe hrædlice gefeol, sua ðæt ahrerede mod, ðonne hit
ongiet ðæt him mon birgð mid ðære gesceadlican andsuare, hit bið
getæsed on ðæt ingeðonc, & mid ðære liðelican manunga to ðam aredod
ðæt hit sceal suiðe hrædlice afeallan of ðære weamodnesse ðe hit ær on
ahæfen wæs. (CP 40.297.15)
‘In the same way in which Asael very quickly fell, the stirred mind, when
it perceives that it is preserved by the reasonable answer, is teased by
conscience and with the gentle admonition it shall very quickly fall from
the anger to which it was raised earlier.’
Gealh ‘sad’ is still used with reference to ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS in this
corpus. Its use is restricted, however : it is only used in the compound adjective
gealgmod (gealh ‘sad, angry’ + mod ‘minded, spirited’), which only occurs in
Andreas. There are two attestations of gealgmod.
(113) Swylc wæs þæs folces freoðoleas tacen, unlædra eafoð, þæt hie eagena
gesihð, hettend heorogrimme, heafodgimmas agetton gealgmode gara
ordum. (And 29)
‘Such was the people’s peaceless token, the violence of the wretched
men, that they, very fierce enemies, angrily took the jewels of the head,
the sight of the eyes with their javelins’ points.’
(114) Hæleð unsælige no ðær gelyfdon in hira liffruman, grome gealgmode,
þæt he god wære, þeah ðe he wundra feala weorodum gecyðde, sweotulra
ond gesynra. (And 561)
‘The miserable men did not believe in their author of life, fiercely furious,
that he was god, though he showed the crowds many miracles, clear and
plain.’
A new addition to the conceptualization ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS is unrot ‘not
glad’, derived from Indo-European ante ‘opposite, not’ and red ‘happy’. Like
the other expressions showing this conceptualization, it is the context, in which
there is no reference to UNHAPPINESS but to ANGER, that determines the correct
interpretation.
65
(115) Þonne hi gebolgene weorðað, him wyrð on breostum inne beswungen sefa
on hraðre mid ðæm swiðan welme hatheortnesse, and hreðe siððan
unrotnesse eac geræped, hearde gehæfted. (Met 25.45)
‘When he becomes angry, his heart in his breast beats faster with the heat
of fury and soon afterwards it is also bound with anger and firmly held
prisoner.’
(116) Þonne weaxað eac þa ofermetta & ungeþwærnes; & þonne hi weorðað
gebolgen, þonne wyrð þæt mod beswungen mid þam welme þære
hatheortnesse, oððæt hi weorþað geræpte mid þære unrotnesse, & swa
gehæfte. (Bo 37.111.29)
‘Of this comes also pride and dissension, and they become puffed up with
anger, and the mind is beaten by the heat of their fury, so that they are
bound with the anger and so held prisoner.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY is in this period represented by the
expressions woffunga, derived from woffian ‘to rage’, and wedan ‘to rage’, like
wod derived from Indo-European uat ‘excited, inspired’.
(117) & up ahafenum handum aþenedum reafe he ongann standende gebiddan,
þæt him God forgeafe mid hwam he mihte gestillan þæs hatheortan
mæssepreostes woffunga. (GD 1 (H) 9.65.4)
‘And with his hands lifted up and his robe stretched out, he began to pray
that God might give him that with which he could still the angry priest’s
rage.’
(118) Sua, ðonne ðonne ða hatheortan hie mid nane foreðonce nyllað gestillan,
ac sua wedende folgiað hwam sua sua Assael dyde æfnere, & næfre
nyllað gesuican, ðonne is micel ðearf ðætte se, se ða hatheortnesse
ofercuman wielle, ðætte he hiene ongean ne hathierte, wærlice hine pynge
mid sumum wordum, ðæt he on ðæm ongietan mæge be sumum dæle his
unðeaw. (CP 40.297.3)
‘So, when the angry persons do not want to calm down with forethought,
and so raging follow someone just like Asael did Abner, and will not stop,
then there is much need for him who wants to overcome the anger not to
become angry towards them but to cautiously prick them with some
words, so that he by them may perceive to some extent his vice.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING is still represented by expressions
derived from the belg-root. With 50 attestations, it is still the second most
frequent expression in the lexical field. In 9 attestations, it is used as a noun
(abylignesse or abylgðe and its phonological variants). In 28 attestations it is
used as a verb, and in 13 attestations as a past participle. The past participle can
combine with mod ‘minded, spirited’ to form the adjective bolgenmod (restricted
to Andreas). It can also be used with verbs like beon, weorþan, etc. (like in
example (122)), which can be analysed in two ways : it is either a passive verb
form or a copula and a past participle used as an adjective.
66
(119) Đa Romane þæt geacsedan, þa sendon hie ærendracan to him, & bædon
þæt him man gebette þæt him ðær to abylgðe gedon wæs. (Or 4 1.83.16)
‘When the Romans asked that, they sent messengers to them and
demanded that amends were made for what was done to them, provoking
them to anger.’
(120) Ne gebelg þu þe wit me, þeah ic þe frasige and ðin fandige. (Solil 1
35.18)
‘Do not become puffed up with anger with me, although I tempt you and
try you.’
(121) Æfter þam wordum com werod unmæte, lyswe larsmeoðas, mid
lindgecrode, bolgenmode; bæron ut hræðe ond þam halgan þær handa
gebundon. (And 1219)
‘After these words came an immense hord, corrupt counsellors with a
shield-bearing crowd, puffed up with anger, and soon bore him away and
bound the hands of the holy man.’
(122) Hit gelamp sume dæge, þæt se abbud, se æfter þæs arwurðan Honorates
forðfore heold & hæfde þone ræcenddom & hlaforddom þæs mynstres,
þæt he wearð gebolgen mid mycelre hatheortnysse wið þone æfæstan wer
Libertinum swa swiðe, þæt he hine mid his handum forbeah. (GD 1 (C)
2.20.18)
‘It happened one day, that the abbot who after the death of the honourable
Honorates had the mastery of the monastery, became puffed up with
much anger against the religious man Libertinus, to such an extent that he
with his hands beat him down.’
For the conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING, the verb þindan ‘to swell’ is
occasionally used instead of belgan. It is derived from Indo-European ten(d),
meaning ‘to stretch’. Unlike belgan, it is also used with literal reference to
swelling (see example (124)).
(123) Swa þæt synfull gesyhð, sona yrsað, toþum torn þolað, teonum grimetað,
þearle þindeð, oþþæt þonne byð, þæt fyrenfulra lust fæcne forweorðeð.
(PPs 111.9)
‘When the sinner sees that, at once he is angry, grinds his teeth in anger,
roars with anger, is sorely puffed up, because then the sinful lust
shamefully perishes.’
(124) Gif innoð þinde, nim gate blod mid hyre smeorwe & berene gryta
gemeng, & on wambe utan gewrið. (Med 1.1 (de Vriend) 7.13)
‘If entrails swell, take goat’s blood and its grease and mix it with barley
grits and stick it to the outside of the belly.’
In the conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT, the expression hatheort is joined by
a close parallel, hathyge. It consists of the morphemes hat ‘hot’ and hyge ‘mind,
heart, soul’.11 Whereas the noun hathyge occurs but twice, hatheort occurs 40
67
times. It is mostly used as a noun, hatheortnesse and it phonological variants. It
is used five times as an adjective, and once as a verb.
(125) Þa ongan he mid mycelre stefne hlydan & mid swyðlicre hatheortnysse
clypian & þus cwedan: ealle her libbaþ, & ic ana ne mæg libban on
þysum hirede. (GD 1 (C) 9.64.22)
‘Then he began to clamour in a loud voice and to speak with much anger
and said, “all live here and I alone cannot live in this company.” ’
(126) & he þa sona wæs utgangende of þære cyrcan, & þa awearp he þa
mancossas in þæs hatheortan mæssepreostes sceate þus cweþende: loca,
nu þu hafast þine mancossas, þa þe þu sohtest. (GD 1 (C) 9.65.18)
‘He immediately went out of the church and threw the mancuses [=gold
coins] into the angry priest’s lap, saying, “look, now have you got the
mancuses that you wanted.” ’
(127) Sua, ðonne ðonne ða hatheortan hie mid nane foreðonce nyllað gestillan,
ac sua wedende folgiað hwam sua sua Assael dyde æfnere, & næfre
nyllað gesuican, ðonne is micel ðearf ðætte se, se ða hatheortnesse
ofercuman wielle, ðætte he hiene ongean ne hathierte, wærlice hine
pynge mid sumum wordum, ðæt he on ðæm ongietan mæge be sumum
dæle his unðeaw. (CP 40.297.3)
‘So, when the angry persons do not want to calm down with forethought,
and so raging follow someone just like Asael did Abner, and will not stop,
then there is much need for him who wants to overcome the anger not to
become angry towards them but to cautiously prick them with some
words, so that he by them may perceive to some extent his vice.’
(128) Forþon we on þinum yrre ealle forwurdon, wæron on þinum hathige
hearde gedrefde. (PPs 89.7)
‘Therefore we all perished in your anger, we were much afflicted in your
fury.’
(129) He þa manige fram him mangewyrhtan yrre awende, eall ne wolde þurh
hatne hyge hæleðum cyþan. (PPs 77.38)
‘He often averted his anger from the wicked. He did not want to reveal
all [his anger] through his heated mind to mankind.’
(130) Forþon we on þinum yrre ealle forwurdon, wæron on þinum hathige
hearde gedrefde. (PPs 89.7)
‘Therefore we all perished because of your anger, we were because of
your heated mind harshly troubled.’
New to the field are the expressions that show the conceptualization ANGER
There are two uses : either the experiencer is conceptualized as burning
‘with anger’ (see example (133)) or ANGER is conceptualized as burning (as in
example (132)) or – more exceptionally – as frying (gehyrstan ‘to fry’ in
example (135)). The conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE is most frequently
expressed by onælan ‘to inflame’ (14 attestations), which is derived from IndoEuropean ai-dh ‘to burn’. With 6 attestations, the second most frequently used
AS FIRE.
68
expression is (on)bærnan ‘to burn’, derived from the Indo-European root
bh(e)reu ‘to well, to boil’. Gehyrstan ‘to fry’, derived from the Indo-European
ker-root ‘to burn, to heat’, is used but once.
(131) Oðer ðara irsunga bið to ungemetlice & to ungedafenlice atyht on ðæt ðe
hio mid ryhte irsian sceall, oðer on ðæt ðe hio ne sceal bið ealneg to suiðe
onbærned. (CP 40.293.12)
‘The one kind of anger is too excessively and too unbecomingly attracted
to that with which he shall rightly be angry, the other to that for which he
shall never be too much inflamed.’
(132) Đonne beorneð in scortnisse eorre his eadge alle ða ðe getreowað in hine
Cum exarserit in breui ira eius beati omnes qui confidunt in eum. (PsGlA
(Kuhn) 2.13)
‘Then burns his anger shortly. Blessed all who trust in him.’
(133) Ond suaðeah nu, ðeah se lareow ðis eall smealice & openlice gecyðe, ne
forstent hit him noht, ne him nohte ðon ma ne beoð forlætna his agna
synna, buton he sie onæled mid ryhtwislicum andan wið his hieremonna
scylda. (CP 21.163.18)
‘And although the teacher makes all this clearly and openly known, it is
of no avail to him, and he can do nothing in order that his own sins be
ended, unless he be incensed with righteous anger against his follower’s
faults.’
(134) For þæm þonne his yrre byð onæled, þonne beoð eadige, þa þe nu on hine
getrywað. (PPs (prose) 2.13)
‘For when his anger is incensed, than shall be blessed who now trust in
him.’
(135) Hwæt is ðienga ðe bieterre sie on ðæs lareowes mode, oððe hit suiður
gehierste & gegremige ðonne se anda ðe for ryhtwisnesse bið upahæfen?
(CP 21.165.1)
‘What is more bitter in a teacher’s mind or what further heats and irritates
it than the anger that was raised for righteousness?’
Wilm ‘that which wells up, boils; heat’ too is clearly an example of the
conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT. There are 8 attestations of the use of wilm, in
which it is normally used in the construction ‘(genitive form of)
anda/hatheortnesse + wilm’. It is, however, hard to pinpoint its exact nature. Its
interpretations may range from the very concrete ‘that which wells up’
(combining the conceptualizations ANGER AS HEAT and ANGER AS MOTION) or
‘that which boils’ (ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER) to the quite
abstract interpretation ‘heat’. The fact that it often combines with the abstract
expressions anda and hatheortnesse may suggest a rather abstract interpretation
of wilm.
(136) Se ðe ðonne sua forbygð ðone wielm & ðone onræs his hatheortnesse,
forðæmðe hine mon slea mid liðelicre andsuare, ðonne bið his unðeaw
69
ofslægen butan ælcre niedðrafunga, sua sua Assael wæs dead butan orde.
(CP 40.297.20)
‘If he thus avoids the heat and rush of his anger, because it is slain with a
milder answer, his vice is destroyed without any harsh reproof, as Asael
was dead without a weapon.’
(137) Đa se dema þas word gehyrde, ða wæs he mid miclum wylme & yrre
onstyred; het ða & bebead hraðe swingan & tintregian ðone Godes
andettere. (Bede 1 7.36.29)
‘When the lord heard these words, he was stirred with much fervour and
anger, and ordered immediately to beat and torture God’s confessor.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is also revealed through the use of
acoligan ‘to cool’, derived from the Indo-European root gel ‘cold’. It represents
the disappearance of the emotion as a process of cooling down, implying that the
emotion itself is something hot. There is only one attestation of this use.
(138) Oððe eft ðæt he ryhtlice & stiðlice wrecan sceolde, ðæt he ðæt ne
forielde, ðylæs se ryhtwislica anda acolige, ðæt he hit eft sua eaðe wrecan
ne mæge, ðætte forðy to ungemetlice ne sie geliðod ðæm scyldgan, ðylæs
him ðæs godan weorces lean losige ðe he mid ðære steore geearnian
sceolde. (CP 20.149.24)
‘Or often, when he should rightly and severely avenge, that he do not put
that off, so that the righteous anger does not cool and he afterwards may
not avenge it so easily, that therefore he be not too immoderately
appeased towards the guilty one, so that he does not lose the reward of the
good work which he with the punishment should earn.’
The synaesthetic conceptualizations present a850, in which ANGER is
conceptualized as something bitter and heavy, are also present between 850 and
950. Biter ‘bitter’ occurs twice, once as an adjective and once as an adverb.
Hefig ‘heavy’ occurs three times : twice as an adjective and once as an adverb.
(139) Is nu onbærned biter þin yrre on ðinum folce fyre hatre. (PPs 78.5)
‘Now your anger bitterly burns on your people a hotter fire.’
(140) Ne sceall ic ðe hwæðre, broðor, abelgan; ðu eart swiðe bittres cynnes,
eorre eormenstrynde. (MSol 330)
‘I shall not anger you further, brother, you are of a very bitter kin, an
angry great generation.’
(141) Forðam þa wæs geworden, þæt þa feondas, þe hi gehergodon, wæron
inælede mid hefigum yrre & acwealdon mid heora swurdum ealle, þa þe
hi ne mihton gedon dælnimende heora gedwolan. (GDPref and 3 (C)
28.233.7)
‘Therefore it happened that the foes who had taken them captive were
inflamed with heavy anger and killed with their swords all those who
would not take part in their heresy.’
70
(142) Ealle we witon bi monnum, se se ðe bitt ðone monn ðæt him ðingie wið
oðerne ðe he bið eac ierre, ðæt irsigende mod he gegremeð, & wierse
ierre he astyreð Geðencen ðæt ða ðe ðonne giet ðisse worolde wilniað, &
healden hie ðæt hie mid hira ðingengum hefigre ierre ne astyrien ðæs
ðearlwisan deman. (CP 10.63.11)
‘We all know of men that he who asks a man to intercede for him with
another who is angry with him too provokes his angry mood and stirs
worse anger. Let them, who still want this world, remember this and let
them beware lest with their actions they stir the worse anger of the severe
judge.’
(143) Ac þa hæðenan weras his word hefiglice onfengcon & hine mid
teonwordum wæron ehtende, forðon þe hi ealne dæg mid idelnesse
wunnon & ne mihton nænigne ele awringan of þam byrgum. (GDPref and
3 (C) 37.250.19)
‘But the heathen men took his word heavily and afflicted him with insults
because they had all day laboured in vain and could not wring any oil
from the press.’
In the conceptualization ANGER AS PRIDE, the only clear loan-translation of
the whole field is to be found in the expression unweorð. Un-weorð, literally
meaning ‘un-worthy’, is the structural and semantic analogue of Latin in-dignus.
Besides ‘unworthy’, these words also mean ‘indignant’, which is to be found in
two attestations.
(144) Be ðæm se æðela lareow cwæð, ða he spon his hieremen to ðære geðylde,
he cwæð: ælc ðweora & ælc ierre & unweorðscipe & geclibs & tæl sie
anumen fram eow. (CP (Cotton) 33.222.7)
‘Concerning that, the noble teacher spoke, as he urged his followers to
patience, “all crossness, anger, indignation, clamour and evil speaking be
taken away from you.” ’
(145) Forðæm hit bið unnyt ðæt mon unweorðunga & tæl & geclibs utane
forlæte, gif se yfela willa ðone onwald hæfð ðæs ingeðonces, se is modur
ælces yfeles. (CP (Cotton) 33.222.12)
‘Therefore it is vain that one leaves indignation, evil speaking and
clamour, if the evil will has power over the thoughts, which is the mother
of all evil.’
Onscunian literally means ‘to look down on’, and is normally used to refer to
haughty behaviour. The attestations that are included in the corpora, however,
are used as translations of Latin exacerbare (and between 950 and 1050 also
exasperare) ‘to embitter, to provoke’, which shows them to be expressions
referring to ANGER, not PRIDE. Between 850 and 950 there is one attestation of
this kind of use.
(146) & eardade in geteldum heara cyn & costadon & onscunedun god ðone
hean & cyðnisse his ne heoldun
71
Et habitauit in tabernaculis eorum tribus israhel, et tamptauerunt et
exaceruauerunt deum excelsum et testimonia eius non custodierunt.
(PsGlA (Kuhn) 77.56)
‘The people lived in their tents and tempted and irritated God, the high
one, and did not keep to his testament.’
A more important new conceptualization in the field is ANGER AS MOTION.
ANGER is conceptualized as an emotion with which people can be moved or
stirred or that can be moved itself. To this conceptualization belong the
expressions astyrian ‘to move, to agitate’, drefan ‘to disturb, to agitate’, onræs
‘on-rush’, ahreran ‘to shake’, (up)ahafen ‘to lift up’ and unstil ‘not still’.
Astyrian is derived from the pre-Germanic root sturjan ‘to disturb’, in its turn
derived from Indo-European tuer ‘to turn’, and will later develop into stir. The
same root is to be found in Dutch storen ‘to disturb’. Drefan, which later
develops into drive, is derived from Indo-European dhreibh ‘to drive, to push’,
which is also present in Dutch drijven ‘drive, force to move’. Onræs is derived
from the Indo-European root eres ‘to flow, to move’. Ahreran finds its root in
Indo-European ker´ ‘to mix, to stir’, and is the early form of present-day rear.
Upahafen is the past participle of upahebban, derived from the Indo-European
root kap ‘to hold’ and hence pre-Germanic root hafjan ‘to raise’, which later
develops into heave and Dutch heffen ‘to lift’. Unstil consists of un ‘not’ and
still ‘still’, which is derived from Indo-European stel ‘to stand, to be fixed’.
These expressions are not equally frequent : whereas ahreran, onræs and unstil
are used once, and (up)ahafen twice, drefan occurs 5 times and astyrian 9 times.
(147) Đa se dema þas word gehyrde, ða wæs he mid miclum wylme & yrre
onstyred; het ða & bebead hraðe swingan & tintregian ðone Godes
andettere. (Bede 1 7.36.29)
‘When the lord heard these words, he was stirred with much fervour and
anger, and ordered immediately to beat and torture God’s confessor.’
(148) Ealle we witon bi monnum, se se ðe bitt ðone monn ðæt him ðingie wið
oðerne ðe he bið eac ierre, ðæt irsigende mod he gegremeð, & wierse
ierre he astyreð Geðencen ðæt ða ðe ðonne giet ðisse worolde wilniað, &
healden hie ðæt hie mid hira ðingengum hefigre ierre ne astyrien ðæs
ðearlwisan deman. (CP 10.63.11)
‘We all know of men that he who asks a man to intercede for him with
another who is angry with him too provokes his angry mood and stirs
worse anger. Let them remember this, who still want this world, and let
them beware lest with their actions they stir the worse anger of the severe
judge.’
(149) Ac ða irsunga sindun suiðe ungelica: oðer bið suelce hit sie irres anlicnes,
ðæt is ðæt mon wielle æt oðrum his yfel aðreatigan, & hine on ryhtum
gebringan, oðer bið ðæt ierre ðæt mon sie gedrefed on his mode butan
ælcre ryhtwisnesse; (CP 40.293.9)
72
(150)
(151)
(152)
(153)
(154)
‘And these kinds of anger are very different : one is like the image of
anger, that is that one wants to show the other person the loathsomeness
of his evil and correct him, the other one is that kind of anger by which
one is stirred in one’s mind without any reason.’
Lytligen ða grambæran hiera gedrefednesse. (CP 40.291.2)
‘Let the angry persons lessen their disturbance.’
Sua sua Assael suiðe hrædlice gefeol, sua ðæt ahrerede mod, ðonne hit
ongiet ðæt him mon birgð mid ðære gesceadlican andsuare, hit bið
getæsed on ðæt ingeðonc, & mid ðære liðelican manunga to ðam aredod
ðæt hit sceal suiðe hrædlice afeallan of ðære weamodnesse ðe hit ær on
ahæfen wæs. (CP 40.297.15)
‘In the same way in which Asael very quickly fell, the stirred mind, when
it perceives that it is preserved by the reasonable answer, is teased by
conscience and with the gentle admonition it shall very quickly fall from
the anger to which it was raised earlier.’
Hwæt is ðienga ðe bieterre sie on ðæs lareowes mode, oððe hit suiður
gehierste & gegremige ðonne se anda ðe for ryhtwisnesse bið upahæfen?
(CP 21.165.1)
‘What is more bitter in a teacher’s mind or what further heats and irritates
it than the anger that was raised for righteousness?’
Se ðe ðonne sua forbygð ðone wielm & ðone onræs his hatheortnesse,
forðæmðe hine mon slea mid liðelicre andsuare, ðonne bið his unðeaw
ofslægen butan ælcre niedðrafunga, sua sua Assael wæs dead butan orde.
(CP 40.297.20)
‘If he thus avoids the heat and rush of his anger, because it is slain with a
milder answer, his vice is destroyed without any harsh reproof, as Asael
was dead without a weapon.’
& upp ahafenum handum & aþenedum his sceate he ongan standende
biddan, þæt him God forgæfe, þæt he gestillan mihte þæs hatheortan
preostes unstilnysse. (GD 1 (C) 9.65.4)
‘and with his hands lifted up and his robe stretched out, he began to pray
that God might grant him that he could still the angry priest’s anger.’
Another new conceptualization in the field is that of BODILY BEHAVIOUR. A
first expression in this group, agrimetan, literally means ‘to roar’. Like gram
and gremian, it is derived from Indo-European ghrem ‘to thunder, growl’. In the
context of example (155), however, it is used to refer to someone’s anger rather
than to the roar itself (if there was any).
(155) Þa witodlice þanon gecyrdum þam gedwolbiscop & ham cumendum se
fæder þæs geongran cyninges agrimette & sænde sona his ambihtmæn, to
þon þæt hi acwealdon þone anrædestan Godes andettere þær þær he læg.
(GDPref and 3 (C) 31.238.19)
73
‘The heretical bishop returned thence indeed, and when the father of the
younger king came back, he was angry and immediately sent out his
servants to kill the most steadfast confessor of God where he lay.’
A second expression in this group is gryllan ‘to gnash one’s teeth’. It finds
its origin in the Indo-European gher-root, which imitates a gurgling, gnashing
sound. In example (156), there is no indication that it literally refers to gnashing
of teeth. Its meaning simply seems to be ‘to provoke’, as stated in the ASD.
(156) (…) ða iersigendan ðonne him to getioð ðæt ðætte hie eaðe butan bion
meahton: ðeah hie nan mann mid laðe ne grete, hie wiellað griellan oðre
menn to ðæm ðæt hie niede sculon, & seceað ða ðe hie fleoð, & styrigað
geflitu & geciid, & fægniað ðæt hie moten suincan on ungeðwærnesse.
(CP 40.293.14)
‘(…) angry persons bring on themselves that which they may easily be
without : although no man attacks them, they will provoke other men so
that they are forced (to strife) and seek those that flee from them and stir
up strife and contention and are glad that they may labour at discord.’
3.3.2 Summary
conceptualization
WRONG EMOTION
HEAT
SWELLING
FIERCENESS
STRONG EMOTION
MOTION
74
expression
(root)
irre
þweorh
hatheort
onælan
wilm
onbærnan
hathige
gehyrstan
acoligan
belgan
þindan
gram
wrað
reðe
anda
astyrian
drefan
upahafen
onræs
unstil
ahreran
frequency
absolute
%
%
245 51.04
51.25
1
0.21
40
8.33
14
2.92
8
1.67
6
1.25 15.00
2
0.42
1
0.21
1
0.21
50 10.42
10.63
1
0.21
27
5.63
6
1.25 7.29
2
0.42
28
5.83 5.83
9
1.88
5
1.04
2
0.42
3.96
1
0.21
1
0.21
1
0.21
4
0.83
1
0.21
1
0.21
1
0.21
1
0.21
1
0.21
1
0.21
UNHAPPINESS
2
0.42
2
0.42
BITTERNESS
4
0.83
PRIDE
2
0.42
1
0.21
HEAVINESS
3
0.63
BODILY
1
0.21
BEHAVIOUR
1
0.21
INSANITY
1
0.21
1
0.21
UNMILDNESS
1
0.21
total
480
100
table (8) : ANGER-expressions between 850 and 950
AFFLICTION
weamod
torn
tirgan
geswencan
ofsettan
sare
gebysgian
unrot
gealh
biter
unweorþ
onscunian
hefig
gryllan
grimetan
woffung
wedan
unmilts
2.08
0.83
0.83
0.63
0.63
0.42
0.42
0.21
100
3.4 950-1050
3.4.1 Overview
In comparison with the conceptual field of the previous period, not much has
changed. In the lexical field, however, a considerable number of expressions
have disappeared : hathige, gehyrstan, þindan, torn, geswencan, ofsettan,
gederian, upahafan, onræs, unstil, ahreran, gealh, modig, gryllan, woffung,
unmilts and grimetan, all of which were used very infrequently. As fewer new
expressions are introduced in this period, the lexical field is slightly less varied.
The conceptualizations UNMILDNESS and BODILY BEHAVIOUR have disappeared
from the conceptual field while the conceptualization DARKNESS has re-entered
it. As both take up only a very small part of the field, these changes are almost
irrelevant. The conceptual field covers the following conceptualizations :
ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
ANGER AS INSANITY
75
ANGER AS SWELLING
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS BITTERNESS
ANGER AS HEAVINESS
ANGER AS DARKNESS
ANGER AS PRIDE
ANGER AS MOTION
As in the previous periods, the conceptualization ANGER AS A STRONG
is expressed by the hyperonym anda. It is always used as a noun and
occurs 10 times in the corpus between 950 and 1050. In 3 of the 10 attestations,
it co-occurs with the verb niman.12
EMOTION
(157) On þære niwan gecyðnysse æfter cristes þrowunge and his æriste. and
upstige to heofenum wurdon þa iudeiscan mid andan afyllede ongean his
apostolum. and gebrohton hi on cwearterne; (ÆCHom I, 37 572.23)
‘At this new testimony after Christ’s suffering and his resurrection and
ascent to heaven, the Jews were filled with anger against his disciples and
brought them to jail.’
(158) Hig andswaredon Pilate & cwædon, buton hig habbað andan to hym for
þam þe he hælð earm folc on reste dagum. (Nic (A) 129)
‘They answered Pilate and said, “They are only angry with him because
he cures poor people on Sabbaths.” ’
(159) Þa nam þæt iudeisce folc micelne andan ongean his lare. and smeadon hu
hi mihton hine to deaðe gedon; (ÆCHom I, 1 26.21)
‘Then became the Jewish people very angry against his teaching and
considered how they could put him to death.’
The majority of the whole lexical and conceptual field and of the
conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is still made up of expressions
derived from the irre-root. They occur 425 times, 289 of which are nouns, 65
verbs, 8 past participles, 62 adjectives and 1 adverb. The nouns take on the form
of all possible phonological variants of irre or the form yrsung. The verbs
consist of phonological variants of irsian or geyrsian, except in example (163),
where it seems to take on the form of yrran. Apart from these verb forms, there
are 8 attestations in which past participles are used. These forms can either be
analysed as true verb forms in passive constructions or as adjectivals following a
copula. The other adjectival uses can be found in the form irre and its
phonological variants, as well as in forms of the present participle irsigend and
exceptionally in irlic. The one attestation of the adverbial use, takes the form of
yrsigende.
(160) And wite he, þæt he æghwylcum cristenum men ælc yrre forgife; wite he
eac, ær he had underfo, þæt him ænig man for his gewyrhtum swyðlic
yrre to næbbe. (WPol 3 (Jost) 4)
76
(161)
(162)
(163)
(164)
(165)
(166)
(167)
(168)
‘Let him take heed that he forgives any christian man all anger; let him
also take heed, before he receives [a religious order], that no man has
much anger towards him for his deeds.’
Mine gebroþra ne astyrige ge þone stillan drihten to ænigre yrsunge mid
eowerum anginne; (ÆCHom I, 38 592.2)
‘My brothers, do not stir the quiet lord to any anger with your actions.’
MARIA & Aaron ciddon wið Moyses for his Sigelhearwenan wife, &
cwædon: Segst ðu, spræc Drihten wið Moyses anne; ne spræc he eac wið
us; ða Drihten ðæt gehyrde, ða yrsode he swyðe. (Num 12.1)
‘Mary and Aaron quarrelled with Moses because of his Ethiopian wife
and said, “Say, did the Lord only speak with Moses; did he not speak with
us too ?” When the Lord heard that, he became very angry.’
Gegrypað lare oððe stiernesse þiles hwonne yrhe drihten & ge forwyrðen
of geweyge rihtum
Apprehendite disciplinam ne quando irascatur dominus et pereatis de via
iusta (PsGlE (Harsley) 2.12)
‘Acquire instruction or discipline so that the lord is not angry and you do
not lose the way of the righteous.’
Þa wearð se casere sona geyrsod, and bebead Philippe þæt he buge to his
godum, oððe wære benæmed wurðscipes and æhta. (ÆLS (Eugenia) 288)
‘The emperor soon became angered and ordered Philipus to bow to his
gods or else be deprived of honours and possessions.’
Us is eac to geþencenne hu mycel Godes geþyld is, & hu mycel ure
ungeþyld is; & gif us hwa abylgþ, þonne beo we sona yrre, & willaþ þæt
gewrecan gif we magon, þeah we beotiaþ to. (HomS 10 (BlHom 3) 127)
‘We should also think of how great God’s patience is and how great our
impatience is, and if anyone angers us, we are soon angry and want to
take revenge for it, if we can, although we threaten to.’
Gif se geþyldiga man mid his þolmodnysse his sawle gehylt, swa swa us
sæde Crist, þonne forlyst se yrsigenda wer his agene sawle þurh
weamodnysse, and heo gewislice forfærð. (ÆLS (Maurice) 146)
‘If the patient man with his patience preserves his soul, as Christ told us,
then the angry man loses his own soul through anger and it certainly
perishes.’
Beseah ða mid irlicum andwlitan to him and cwæð: ðu iunga man, þu
eart feor fram rihte; þu dwelast and nis naht þæt þu segst; ac þu hæfst
beheafdunge geearnad. (ApT 5.3)
‘He looked with an angry face at him and said, “Young man, you are far
from right, you are wrong and it is not what you say, but you deserve
beheading.” ’
Se ercediacon þa yrsigende eode, and brohte an reaf ungerydelic him to,
waclic and lytel, mid lytlan wurðe geboht; and mid fullum yrre æt his
77
fotum lede and cwæð, Her is reaf, and her nis nan þearfa. (ÆLS (Martin)
925)
‘The archdeacon went away angrily and violently brought a robe to him,
poor and small, bought at a small price, and with abundant anger he laid it
at his feet and said, “Here is the robe, and there is no poor man here.” ’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is also to be found in the
adjective þweorh, or its phonological variant þwyr, meaning ‘crooked, cross’. In
the corpus between 950 and 1050, it appears twice.
(169) Ne sceole we þeah þa þwyran to ure ehtnysse gremian: ac swiþor gif hi
astyrede beoð mid rihtwisnysse gestillan; (ÆCHom I, 36 554.4)
‘We shall not, however, provoke the cross ones to our persecution, but
rather, if they be stirred up, calm them with reasonableness.’
(170) Quicquid enim proteruus et indignus animus protulerit obiurgantis id est
litigantis furor est non dilectio correctionis
swa hwæt soðlice þwyr & gebolgen mod forðbringð sacendes
hatheortnyss hit ys na lufu þreagincge. (LibSc 36.14)
‘Whatever produces a cross and puffed up spirit, it is the fury of fighting,
not the love of correction.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is mainly expressed by gram.
There are 179 attestations in the corpus between 950 and 1050. 100 of them are
verbs, 57 nouns, 21 adjectives and 1 an adverb.
(171) Þa wearð se heahgerefa hearde gegremod, and het ontendan fyr ætforan
þære dura þær Daria inne wæs mid þam deore samod, wolde hi forbærnan
butu ætgædere. (ÆLS (Chrysanthus) 293)
‘Then the high reeve became very angry and ordered to light a fire before
the door [of the place] that Darius was in together with the animal. He
wanted to burn them both together.’
(172) Gemunat & ne forgytað, hu swyðe ge gremedon Drihten on ðam
westene; Of ðam dæge ðe he eow ut alædde of Egypta lande oð ðisne
andweardan dæg, æfre ge fliton & wunnon ongean Drihten. (Deut 9.7)
‘Remember and do not forget how much you angered the Lord in the
desert. From the day that he led you out of Egypt unto this present day,
you have always rebelled and fought against the Lord.’
(173) Þonne se feond Antecrist þis gesihð, þæt þæt iudeisce mancyn fram him
gebuhð and to ðam soðan gode gehwyrfð, þe heora yldran ær ahengan be
þæs ealdan deofles lare, ðonne gramað him þæt swyðe hearde. (HomU
34 (Nap 42) 177)
‘When the fiend Antichrist saw this, that the Jewish people turned away
from him and turned to the true god, who before hanged their elders
through the teaching of the old devil, then that angered him very much.’
78
(174) Efne nu ðis folc is mid swurde þæs heofonlican graman ofslegen. and
gehwilce ænlipige sind mid færlicum slihte aweste; (ÆCHom II, 9
76.115)
‘Often this people is with the sword of heavenly anger slain and some
individuals are with sudden death destroyed.’
(175) Ac god him gespræc þa and cwæð þæt he him eallum ðrim gram wære.
for þan ðe hi swa rihtlice ætforan him ne spræcon. swa swa Iob his ðegen;
(ÆCHom II, 35 266.180)
‘But god spoke to him and said that he was angry with all three because
they did not so rightly speak to him as his servant Job.’
(176) Wearð þa se ealdorman awreht færlice þurh Godes engel, and he him
gramlice to cwæð, List ðu and rest þe, and Godes þeowa lið æt þinum
gatum? (ÆLS (Martin) 1151)
‘The alderman was suddenly awoken by God’s angel and he angrily said
to him, “Do you lie here and rest while God’s servant lies at your gates ?”
’
The second most frequent group in the conceptualization ANGER AS
consist of expressions based on the wrað-root. These expressions
occur 35 times in all, 23 of them being nouns, 3 verbs and 9 adjectives. These
attestations are no longer restricted to biblical and psalmic texts : while 20 of the
34 attestations still come from those text types, 4 come from homilies and 10
from liturgic texts. Remarkably, however, 26 attestations are of Northumbrian
origin.
FIERCENESS,
(177) Urre & wræþþæ is þare sawlæ geigefan, for þi þæt heo sceal ursien &
wræðþiæn agean sunnæn, & ne beon na sunnen underþeod. (ÆHomM 1
(Bel 9) 166)
‘Anger is given to the soul so that it will become angry against sins and
not be subjected to any sins.’
(178) Et audientes decem indignati sunt de duobus fratribus
& geherdon teno wuraðe weron of ðæm twæm broðrum. (MtGl (Li)
20.24)
‘And when the ten heard this, they were angry with the two brothers.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is also still to be found in the
expression reðe, which occurs 3 times in the corpus.
(179) Si quando doctorem zelus rectitudinis exigit ut erga subiectos saeuiat id
est irascatur furor ipse de amore sit non de crudelitate
gif hwænne lareow nið rihtwisnysse gyrnð þæt he embe underþeodde
reðige hatheortnyss sylf be lufe si na of wælhreownesse. (LibSc 32.63)
‘If the zeal of righteousness requires that the teacher be angry with those
who are subjected to him, the anger is [the result of] love, not of cruelty.’
(180) Erga subiectos suos esse rector debet iustus consulens misericordia et pia
seuiens id est irascens disciplina
79
embe underþeoddan his beon begymend scyl rihtwis axigende
mildheortnyss & arfæst reþigende lar. (LibSc 32.75)
‘To those who are subjected to him, he shall be a righteous guide who
asks compassion and pious furious instruction.’
(181) Weamode lareowas þurh hetolnysse heora reðscipes gehwyrfað þære lare
gemet to ungefoge þære wælhreownysse, & þanon hi heora underþeoddan
mihton gebetan, þanon hi wundiað hi. (ChrodR 1 57.1)
‘Angry teachers through the hostility of their anger convert the
moderation of teaching into the immoderation of cruelty and in order to
correct those subjected to them, they wound them.’
New to the domain of FIERCENESS is the expression grim. It is derived from
the same Indo-European root as gram, gremian and grimetan, namely ghrem ‘to
thunder, growl’. Unlike the other expressions in this domain, it is only used as
an adverb, grimlice, modifying other expressions referring to ANGER (gram and
gremian). It occurs twice.
(182) Ac gewitod witan, þæt hi yfel lean habban sculon and grimlice Godes
graman þurh þæt, þe hy swa God gremiað, þæt hi eall heora lif libbað on
fylðe. (WPol 2.1.1 (Jost) 163)
‘And a wise man knows that they will get a bad retribution and fiercely
suffer God’s anger because they provoke God so for they lead all their
lives in impurity.’
(183) Nu, swa hwa swa hæfð ænigne hyge to gode, he wile hlistan þyssera
worda, ac ic adræde, þæt ge willan heora læs gyman, þonne ge þearfa
ahton, forþan þe ge gremiað god ælmihtigne grimlice oft mid yfelum
worcum. (HomU 46 (Nap 57) 182)
‘Now, whoever has a heart to good, he will listen to these words, but I
fear that you will heed them less than you poor ones think because you
often anger God almighty severely with evil works.’
Occurring sporadically in the corpus between 850 and 950, the expression
weamod ‘troubled, afflicted mind’, showing the conceptualization ANGER AS
AFFLICTION, now occurs much more frequently. Of the 23 attestations, 15 show
nominal forms of weamod and 8 show adjectives. It is still used to refer to an
abstract idea of ANGER, the reference in this period often being to one of the sins
(see examples (184) and (185)).
(184) Se feorða leahtor is ira, þæt is on Englisc weamodnyss. (ÆLS (Memory
of Saints) 286)
‘The fourth sin is ira, which is in English anger.’
(185) Se feorða leahtor is weamet. þæt se man nage his modes geweald. ac
buton ælcere foresceawunge. his yrsunge gefremað; (ÆCHom II, 12.2
124.510)
‘The fourth sin is anger, that is that man does not have the mastery over
his mind, but without any providence accomplishes his anger.’
80
(186) Se þe wære weamod, weorðe se geþyldmod. (WHom 10c 126)
‘Let those who were angry become patient.’
In the domain of AFFLICTION, geangsumian is a new expression. It is a verb
derived from the Indo-European root angh ‘narrow’, the root which is to be
found in Dutch angst ‘fear’ and eng, which means both ‘narrow’ and ‘scary’, and
present-day English anxiety. It is also the root which is to be found in anger,
which enters into the field of ANGER in Middle English. It occurs once in the
corpus between 950 and 1050.
(187) Þis wearð ða gecyd þam casere sona. and he wearð geangsumod. mid
ormætum graman. and het beheafdian ða halgan preostas. and ðæs papan
lima. gelome prician. oð þæt he swulte. ðurh swylcum pinungum;
(ÆCHom II, 20 178.133)
‘This was soon told to the emperor, and he was troubled with excessive
anger and ordered to behead the holy priests, and to prick the pope’s
limbs, so that he should die through such torments.’
Another new expression is teonful. With teon being derived from IndoEuropean dau or d´u ‘to hurt’, teonful is the equivalent of modern vexatious.
This can refer to all kinds of psychological affliction, but when the experiencer is
God, as is the case in the two attestations of teonful that we take into account,
this psychological affliction can only be ANGER.
(188) Be þam cwæð ðe apostol Paulus on sumon his pistol, Fuimus & nos
aliquando filii ire sicud & ceteri; þæt is, on Englisce spæce,We weron eac
hwilon on ure gecynde swa swa oðre men yrres bearn itealde, mid
teonfulle weorcce. (ÆHomM 2 (Bel 7) 94)
‘About those says apostle Paul in one of his letters, “Fuimus & nos
aliquando filii ire sicud & ceteri”, that is in English, “We too were once in
our nature like other men considered children of wrath, with vexatious
works.” ’
(189) Ne syn hi swaswa fæderas heora cneoris þweor & teonful cneoris þe ne
gerehte heortan his & na is gelifed mid gode gast his
Ne fiant sicut patres eorum generatio praua et exasperans generatio que
non direxit cor suum et non est creditus cum deo spiritus eius. (PsGlJ
(Oess) 7.9)
‘Let them not be like the generation of their fathers, a cross and vexatious
generation that does not direct their hearts and is not endowed with the
spirit of god.’
Besides the new expressions geangsumian and teonful, the conceptualization
mainly consists of expressions that also feature in the
older texts. The most frequent expression is tirgan. In example (190) it is
exceptionally combined with mid andan ‘with anger’, but in all other cases it is
used to refer to the concept of ANGER on its own. It occurs 15 times in the
corpus.
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
81
(190) Đa gelamp hit. þæt sume þa hæþenan wurdon mid andan getyrigde. and
heora ærende to þam casere asendon. and him cyddon þæt his folc eall
endemes astyred wære and eallunga fram his bigencgum gecyrred þurh
clementem þæra cristenra biscop; (ÆCHom I, 37 562.28)
‘Then it happened that some heathens were vexed with anger and sent
their message to the emperor and told him that all his people without
exception were stirred and altogether turned away from his worship by
Clemens, the bishop of the christians.’
(191) On ðære fiftan ylde middaneardes wearð þæt israhela folc forscyldegod
wið heora scyppend. and beah se cyning Sedechias to hæþengylde. and
israhela folc samod. and on mislicum forgægednyssum þone ælmihtigan
getyrigdon; (ÆCHom II, 4 36.210)
‘In the fifth age of the world, the people of Israel became wicked towards
their creator and king Sedechias turned to heathen worship together with
the people of Israel and through various transgressions vexed the
almighty.’
A final expression in which the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION is to
be found is sare ‘sorely’. Between 950 and 1050 it occurs once, as an adverb
combined with abolgen.
(192) And ure ælc mæg be woruldlican þingan eac georne gecnawan þæt gyf
hwa hæfð his hlaforde sare abolgen, ne bið him na gebeorhlic þæt he in
him ætforan ga ær he gebete. (WHom 15 58)
‘And each of us may through worldly things readily know that if anyone
has sorely angered his master, it is not safe for him to go close to him
before he has made amends.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS is still expressed by the two
hyperonymic antonyms unrot and unbliðe ‘not glad’. They are only sporadically
used : unrot occurs twice with reference to ANGER, and unbliðe once.
(193) Eall swa gelice Iosep æfter þam hyne ætywde & heom to com & þus
cwæð, for hwig syndon ge swa unrote ongean me? (Nic (A) 218)
‘In exactly the same way, Joseph appeared afterwards and came to them
and said, “Why are you so angry with me ?” ’
(194) Þa þæt gesawon his gingeran, þa wurdon hi swiþe unrote, & hi cwædon,
hwæt is þeos farlorenes þæt ðis wif deð? (HomS 19 (Schaefer) 13)
‘When his disciples saw that, they became very angry and they said,
“What is that waste that this woman did ?” ’
(195) Þa ablicgde Aman unbliþum andwlitan and ne mihte na acuman þæs
cyninges graman, ne he ne dorste beseon to his ansyne. (ÆHomM 14
(Ass 8) 265)
‘Then Aman was afraid of the angry faces and could not bear the king’s
anger, nor dared he look in his face.’
82
The conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY consists of the expressions based
on the wod-root. It is 4 times used as an adjective and 4 times as an adverb
(wodlice), usually in combination with a verb referring to ANGER.
(196) Þa wurdon ða cempan wodlice astyrode, and gelæhton Martinum, and
hine lange swungon mid swipum and mid stafum, and he suwode æfre
swilce he ne gefredde heora swingla nateshwon, and hi þæs þe woddran
wæron him togeanes, and hetelicor beoton þone halgan wer. (ÆLS
(Martin) 974)
‘The soldiers became furiously angry, took Martin captive and beat him
long with whips and sticks. But he remained silent as if he did not feel
their blows and they became more enraged with him and beat the holy
man more violently.’
(197) Þa gebealh hine se cynincg and to his bedde eode, wende hine to wage,
wodlice gebolgen. (ÆLS (Book of Kings) 178)
‘Then the king became angry and went to bed and turned himself to the
wall, furiously angry.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLLING is still expressed by belgan and
expressions derived from it. These are quite frequently used : in all, there are
123 attestations. The verb occurs 65 times, while 37 attestations show derived
nouns (æbylþ, æbylignesse, gebelg), 7 attestations adjectives (yðbylge ‘easily
made angry’, gebolgen) and 14 past participles that can either be analysed as
verb forms in passive constructions or adjectives following a copula.
(198) & ge belgaþ wið me forðam þe ic gehælde anne man on restedæge. (Jn
(WSCp) 7.23)
‘And you are angry with me because I cured a man on a Sabbath.’
(199) And la, leofan men, doð swa ic bidde, butan gebelge hlystað hwæt ic
secge. (WHom 17 74)
‘O dear men, do as I ask; without anger listen to what I say.’
(200) Þa cwæþ se dema þæt hi mid drycræfte þa anlicnyssa towurpon, and
wearð gebolgen. (ÆLS (Eugenia) 376)
‘Then the judge said that they with sorcery destroyed the statues and
became angry.’
(201) Ne werignessa we ne fylian ne heafodlice leahtras ne lufian ne
scyncræftas onhyrgen ne galdorsangas ne unriht lyblac onginnen ne to
yðbelige ne syn ne to langsum yrre hæbben, ne in oferhydo we ne scylon
gewitan. (HomS 40.1 (Nap 49) 52)
‘Let us not pursue weariness, love capital sins, imitate sorcery or
incantations, start bad witchcraft, be too easily or too long angry, nor shall
we turn to pride.’
(202) Se wælhreowa cwellere mid gebolgenum mode. cwæð to his
heahgereuan ualeriane: gif þes bealdwyrda biscop acweald ne bið. syððan
ne bið ure ege ondrædendlic; (ÆCHom I, 29 420.1)
83
‘The cruel executioner said with an angry mood to his high reeve
Valerianus, “If this insolent bishop is not killed, then our awe will be
terrible.” ’
The belgan-expressions are joined by expressions derived from the verb
þrutian ‘to swell’, which is derived from the Indo-Eruropean root (s)ter ‘stiff’.
There is one attestation of an adjectival present participle form, þrutigendum,
and one attestation of a nominal form, ðrutunge. Unlike the belgan-expressions,
þrutian can be found in the Old English corpus with reference to physical
swelling. This proves that the conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING is still
transparent.
(203) Þa awende se Flaccus to Feliculan his mod, and cwæþ hire þus to mid
þrutigendum mode, Geceos þe nu ardlice an þyssere twægra, oþþe ðu
beo min wif oððe gebuh to urum godum and him lac geoffra. (ÆLS
(Peter’s Chair) 272)
‘Then Flaccus turned his mind towards Felicula, and said to her, with
puffed up spirit, “Choose now immediately one of the following two : that
either you be my wife, or you bow to our gods and offer them an
offering.” ’
(204) Befran swa þeah þearle mid mycelre ðrutunge hwæt se brydguma wære
þe agnes onwuldrode. (ÆLS (Agnes) 76)
‘They inquired, however, severely and with much anger who the
bridegroom was whom Agnes glorified.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is mainly expressed by hatheort,
which occurs 47 times. 31 attestations show the nominal form hatheortnysse, or
exceptionally hatheort (example 206). 10 forms are past participles that can
either be verbal or adjectival, while 5 attestations show true adjectives and 1 a
main verb.
(205) Đa wearð se casere mid swyþlicere hatheortnysse geyrsod: and het þone
halgan diacon mid leadenum swipum langlice swingan; (ÆCHom I, 29
426.12)
‘Then the emperor was angered with much anger and ordered to beat the
holy deacon long with lead rods.’
(206) & irre is mid hatheort drihten on folce his & ascunigende wæs
yrfeweardnesse his
Et iratus est furore dominus in populo suo et abhominatus est hereditatem
suam. (PsGlJ (Oess) 105.40)
‘And angry with anger is the lord with his people and despises his
inheritance.’
(207) Ða wearð se cyning astriges gehathyrt. and sende þusend gewæpnodra
cempena þæt hi ðone apostol gebundenne to him bringan sceoldon;
(ÆCHom I, 31 468.9)
84
‘Then king Astriges became angry and sent a thousand armed soldiers to
bring the apostle bound to him.’
(208) Næs he æfstig ne eaðbilge ne hatheort, ne oferfyllo ne lufude he. (HomU
9 (ScraggVerc 4) 138)
‘He was not envious, easily angered nor angry, and he did not love
excess.’
(209) Se godes wiþersaca hine ða gehathyrte and cwæð; (ÆCHom I, 30 450.9)
‘The lord’s enemy then became angry and said’
A second expression illustrating the concept ANGER AS HEAT that is still used
is wilm. It occurs 4 times and all these attestations translate Latin furor.
(210) Þonne sprecð he to hem on his irre & on his wylme vel hatheortnysse he
gedrefð heo
Tunc loquetur ad eos in ira sua et in furore suo conturbabit eos. (PsGlE
(Harsley) 2.5)
‘Then he speaks to them in his anger and in his fury he disturbs them.’
(211) Yrre ne læt þe æfre gewealdan, heah in hreþre, heoroworda grund wylme
bismitan, ac him warnað þæt on geheortum hyge. (Prec 83)
‘Do not let anger ever rule you, high in your bosom, the root of hostile
words (forge ?) fury, but take heed against that in a courageous soul.’
Part of the ANGER AS HEAT conceptualization is ANGER AS FIRE. Between 950
and 1050 it is to be found in the expressions onælan (5 attestations) and
(on)bærnan (4 attestations). All attestations are to be found in psalm texts and in
all but one it is ANGER itself that is represented as the burning entity.
(212) Hu lange drihten þu irsast on ende bið onæled swaswa fyr irre þin
Usquequo domine irasceris in finem accendetur uelat ignis zelus tuus
(PsGlJ (Oess) 78.5)
‘How long, lord, will you be angry ? Will your anger eternally be
inflamed like a fire ?’
(213) He soðlice is mildheort & milde biþ sinnum heræ & ne forspilð hie &
gemonifaldode þet he acherde wreððe hiræ from hem & ne onælede eæll
irræ heræ
Ipse autem est misericors et propitius fit peccatis eorum et non disperdet
eos et multiplicavit ut averteret iram suam ab eis et non accendit omnem
iram suam (PsGlE (Harsley) 77.38)
‘He truly is compassionate and mild for their sins, and he does not
disperse them and he often turns his anger away from them and does not
inflame all his anger.’
(214) Hu lange drihtyn yrsast þu on ende byrnyð swa swa fyr yrre þin
Usquequo domine irasceris in finem exardescit sicut ignis ira tua. (PsGlC
(Wildhagen) 88.47)
‘How long, lord, will you be angry ? Will your anger eternally be
inflamed like a fire ?’
85
(215) Þonne he onbærneþ on scortan irra his eadige ealle þa þe getripaþ on him
Cum exarserit in breui ira eius beati omnes qui confidunt in ea. (PsGlJ
(Oess) 2.213)
‘Then he burns his anger shortly. Blessed all who trust in him.’
A new expression showing the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE is the verb
ontendan ‘to kindle’. Unlike onælan and (on)bærnan, it represents the person
experiencing ANGER as inflamed with ANGER and it is not used in psalmic texts :
there is one attestation in a homily of Ælfric’s and one attestation in one of his
saints’ lives.
(216) Maximianus wearð þa mid micclum graman ontend, and het þa hæþenan
faran and þa halgan ofslean, þæt men mihton geseon hu Maximianus
gewræce his agenne teonan, and eac his goda. (ÆLS (Maurice) 54)
‘Maximilianus became inflamed with much anger and ordered the
heathens to go and slay the holy men, so that men might see how
Maximilianus avenged the wrong done to himself and his gods.’
(217) Ac se swicola feond sæwð ungeðwærnysse betwux mancynne þurh
mislice intingan. and tyht oðerne mann to urum æhtum. and ure mod
ontent mid micclum graman ongean ðæne oþerne. ðe ure ehtan wile;
(ÆCHom I, 38 182.81)
‘But the treacherous fiend sows discord between mankind through
different causes and draws the other man to our possessions and our spirit
inflames with much anger against the other one who wants our
possessions.’
The two synaesthetic conceptualizations ANGER AS BITTERNESS and ANGER
are still present between 950 and 1050. Both occur twice with
clear reference to ANGER. In most attestations of bitter and heavy, however, the
distinction between reference to PAIN or ANGER is hard to make.
AS HEAVINESS
(218) Hwa mæg þyngian þreale hwilcum wiþ his arwesan, gyf he him ærur
hæfð bitere onbolgen, and þæs bote ne deð, ac þa æbyligþe ealdere
wrohte, dæghwamlice dædum niwað? (Seasons 195)
‘Who may intercede for anyone’s punishment with his honoured one if he
has before bitterly angered him and did not make amends for it but the
older cause for anger daily renews in deeds.’
(219) Fratres omnis amaritudo et ira et indignatio et clamor et blasphemia
tollatur a uobis cum omni malitia
aelc bitternisse & irra & wræððo & ceir & ebolsvng sie ginvmmen from
ivh mið ælcvm yfelgiornise. (DurRitGl 1 (Thomp-Lind) 12.18)
‘All bitterness, anger, wrath, clamor and blasphemy be taken away from
you together with all wickedness.’
(220) Quid enim sit iram dei mereri quid uero prouocare prudens lector debet
scire grauior namque ira est quae prouocatur quam ea quae meretur nam
86
meremur quando ignorando peccamus prouocamus quando scimus bonum
facere nec uolumus
hwæt soþlice sy yrre godes geearnian hwæt soþlice forþgeclypian snoter
rædere scyl witan hefigre witodlice yrre ys þæt byþ forþgeclypud þænne
þæt þe byþ geearnud witodlice we geearniaþ þænne we nytende syngiað
we forðclypiað þænne we witan god don ne we nellað. (LibScSen
(Rhodes) 19.7)
‘What truly is it to deserves God’s anger; what truly to provoke; a wise
reader will know that anger that is provoked is certainly more severe than
that which is deserved; we deserve it when we unknowingly sin and we
provoke it when we know how to do good but we do not want to.’
(221) Hælend him þa ondswarede, & cwæþ, Tohwon syndon ge þyses weorces
swa hefige; god weorc heo wæs wyrcende on me. (HomS 21 (BlHom 6)
55)
‘The Saviour answered them and said, “Why are are these actions so
grievous to you ? She did something good for me.’
In two of Ælfric’s texts, the conceptualization ANGER AS DARKNESS is to be
found. Twice, he uses the verb sweorcan with the meaning ‘to become angry’.
The only other text in which this expression was to be found is Cynewulf’s
Juliana, in the a850 corpus. Unless Ælfric’s use of these expressions is based on
this text and unless the absence of sweorcan is due to the loss of the texts in
which it featured, the reappearance of sweorcan is a case of metaphorical
polygenesis : in the course of time the metaphor is repeatedly and independently
invented to refer to the same concept.
(222) Hwæt ða wearð gecydd þam cyninge Antioche embe Iudan sige, and he
geswearc ða on mode, and sende ða his here mid anum heahþegne Lisias
gehaten on Iudea lande. (ÆLS (Maccabees) 328)
‘This was told to king Antiochus about the Jew’s victory, and he became
angry on his mind, and sent his troops with a high officer called Lysias to
Judea.’
(223) Þa geswearc se cyning sona on mode, and het þa biggengan þe bele
þeowdan cuman to his spræce, and cwæð him þuss to: buton ge me
secgan þæt þæt soð is be þisum, hwa þas mettas þicge þe we maciað bele,
ealle ge sceolan sweltan, gif ic gesund beo. (ÆHom 22 378)
‘Then the king became angry on his mind, and ordered the priests who
served Baal to come to speak with him and said to them, “Unless you tell
me what is true about this, who eats the food that we prepare for Baal, or
you will die if I am sound.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS PRIDE is still represented by the expression
onscunian ‘to look down on’ as a translation of Latin exacerbare ‘to embitter, to
provoke’. This expression occurs once as a noun and 6 times as a verb in this
corpus, all of which occur in one text, the psalm glosses in Ms Cambridge.
87
(224) Swa oft swa onscunydon hine on westyne on yrre awehton hyne on
eorðan butan wætre
Quotiens exacerbauerunt eum in deserto in iram concitauerunt eum in
terra sine aqua (PsGlC (Wildhagen) 77.40)
‘So often they angered him in the desert, moved him to anger in the land
without water’
(225) Swa swa on onscununge æftyr dæge costunge on westynne þær costodon
me fædras eowre fandodan vel cunnydon & gesawon worc min
Sicut in exacerbatione secundum diem temptationis in deserto ubi
temptauerut me patres uestri probauerunt et uiderunt opera mea (PsGlC
(Wildhagen) 94.9)
‘Likewise in the anger after the day of temptation in the desert, where
your fathers tried me or tempted me and saw my work.’
Of unweorþ ‘unworthy, indignant’, the loan-translation of Latin indignus,
there are 3 attestations between 950 and 1050.
(226) erant autem quidam indigne ferentes intra semet ipsos et dicentes ut quid
perditio ista ungenti facta est
woeron uutedlice sume hia bulgon vel unwyrðe saegdon vel bituih him
seolfum & cuoedon to huon losuist ðios smirinisse aworden wæs vel is.
(MkGl (Li) 14.4)
‘Indeed there were some who were puffed up with anger and indignantly
said amongst themselves, “why has this ointment been made a waste ?” ’
(227) Sume hit unwurðlice forbæron & betwux him sylfum cwædon, for hwi
wæs þisse sealfe forspillednes geworden? (Mk (WSCp) 14.4)
‘Some bore it indignantly and said amongst themselves, “Why was this
ointment made a waste ?” ’
(228) Þa se Hælend hi geseah unwurðlice he hit forbead & sæde him, lætað þa
lytlingas to me cuman & ne forbeode ge him; Soðlice swylcera is heofona
rice. (Mk (WSCp) 10.14)
‘When the Saviour saw them, indignantly he forbade it and said to them,
“Let the little ones come to me and do not restrain them. Truly, to such
belongs the kingdom of heaven.” ’
The conceptualization ANGER AS MOTION is to be found in the expressions
drefan, astyrian and the new expression hrædmod. All 5 attestations of drefan
show past participle forms. The majority of the attestations of astyrian too are
past participles : only 5 of the 19 attestations show main verbs. Both drefan and
astyrian normally present the angry person as the entity that is being stirred.
Only occasionally does the emotion itself feature as the stirred entity (see
examples (231) and (233)).
(229) Þa wearð Martianus mycclum gedrefed, and het hi ealle gebringan binnan
þam cwearterne eft, and het gearcian ða tunnan to heora bærnette, swa
swa se kasere het þurh his ærendgewrit. (ÆLS (Julian & Basilissa) 299)
88
(230)
(231)
(232)
(233)
(234)
‘Then Martianus was much stirred and ordered to bring all of them to
prison again and ordered to make ready the barrels for burning them, as
the emperor ordered in his message.’
Þa genealæhton hys leorningcnihtas & cwædon, wast þu þæt þa
Fariseiscean synt gedrefede þisum wurde gehyredum? (Mt (WSCp)
15.12)
‘Then his disciples drew near and said, “Do you know that the Pharisees
are stirred on hearing these words ?” ’
Ne astyra þu yrsunga þinum underþeoddum ne ummihtigum men þeah þe
þu mæge bet ac hafa hine swa swilce þin agen lim. (ÆAdmon 1 5.11)
‘Do not stir the anger of your subordinates and powerless men although
you are stronger but keep them like your own limb.’
Mine gebroþra ne astyrige ge þone stillan drihten to ænigre yrsunge mid
eowerum anginne; (ÆCHom I, 38 592.2)
‘My brothers, do not stir the quiet lord to any anger with your actions.’
Ofer ðam lareowum is godes yrre swyðost astyred. for ðan ðe hi
forgymeleasiað. þa godcundan bec. and ymbe ða woruldðing eallunge
hogiað; (ÆCHom II, 22 195.183)
‘Over the teachers is god’s anger most stirred because they entirely
neglect the divine book and strive entirely for worldly matter.’
Đa on þæne Sæternes dæg wearð þa se here swyðe astyred angean þone
bisceop, forþam ðe he nolde him nan feoh behaten, ac he forbead þæt man
nanþing wið him syllan ne moste. (ChronC (Rositzke) 1012.5)
‘On Saturday the army was much stirred against the bishop because he
would not promise them any cattle and forbade that anyone should give
them anything.’
New to the domain of MOTION is the expression hrædmod. It consists of the
morphemes hræd- ‘quick’ (which implies motion), derived from the IndoEuropean root kret ‘to move, to shake’ and mod ‘spirit, mood’. It shows the
same conceptualization as present-day quick-tempered or hasty. The expression
occurs but once.
(235) Se heofonlica wisdom cwæð þæt þæt yrre hæfð wununge on þæs dysegan
bosme þonne he bið to hrædmod & se eall waldenda dema demð æfre
mid smyltnysse & we sceolan mid geþylde oferswiðan þæt yrre.
(ÆAbusMor 66)
‘The heavenly wisdom says that that anger dwells in the bosom of the
fool when he is too quick-tempered. The almighty judge always judges
with serenity and we should with patience overcome that anger.’
89
3.4.2 Summary
conceptualization
expression
frequency
(root)
absolute
%
%
WRONG EMOTION
irre
425 45.36 45.57
þweorh
2
0.21
FIERCENESS
gram
179 19.11
wrað
35
3.74
23.37
reðe
3
0.32
grim
2
0.21
SWELLING
belgan
123 13.13
13.34
þrutian
2
0.21
HEAT
hatheort
47
5.02
onælan
5
0.53
wilm
4
0.43 6.62
onbærnan
4
0.43
ontendan
2
0.21
MOTION
astyrian
19
2.03
drefan
5
0.53 2.67
hrædmod
1
0.11
AFFLICTION
weamod
23
2.45
tirgan
15
1.60
teonful
2
0.21 4.48
sare
1
0.11
geangsumian
1
0.11
STRONG EMOTION
anda
10
1.07 1.07
PRIDE
onscunian
7
0.75
1.07
unweorþ
3
0.32
INSANITY
wod
8
0.85 0.85
UNHAPPINESS
unrot
2
0.21
0.32
unbliðe
1
0.11
BITTERNESS
biter
2
0.21 0.21
DARKNESS
sweorcan
2
0.21 0.21
HEAVINESS
hefig
2
0.21 0.21
total
937
100
100
table (9) : ANGER-expressions between 950 and 1050
90
3.5 C1200
3.5.1 Overview
There are only few texts left from around 1200. Because the morphology and
syntax are significantly different from that of Old English, the language of these
texts is traditionally considered to be early Middle English. The corpus consists
of Poema Morale, The Owl and the Nightingale, Ormulum, King Horn, Hali
Meiðhad, Seinte Margerete, Ancrene Wisse and LaZamon’s Brut, and contains
350 attestations of expressions referring to ANGER. Once again, we see that in
spite of the introduction of quite some new expressions, the attestations reveal
hardly any new conceptualizations while only some minor ones have
disappeared.
The conceptual field c1200 shows the following
conceptualizations :
ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
ANGER AS INSANITY
ANGER AS SWELLING
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS BITTERNESS
ANGER AS MOTION
ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS
In the Old English period, ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION is typically
expressed by anda. In Middle English, the meaning of anda has developed into
mainly ‘malice, hostility’ and ‘envy, jealousy’. The concept ANGER AS A STRONG
EMOTION is now expressed by the hyperonym mod. Like in Old English, this
means ‘spirit’, ‘mood’ and ‘character’ in general, but also ‘strong desire’,
‘courage’, ‘pride’ and ‘anger’. In this corpus, this hyperonym is used three times
to refer to ANGER. It is used once in the nominal form mod and twice in the
adjective modi.
(236) Þe NiZtingale hi understod, An ouergan lette hire mod. (The Owl and the
Nightingale 952-953)
‘The nightingale understood them and let its anger pass.’
(237) “He lyht nou in boure Under covertoure By Rymenyld thy dohter, Ant so
he döth wel ofte. Do him out of londe Er he do more shonde.” Aylmer
gon hom turne Wel mody ant wel sturne. (King Horn 697-704)
91
‘ “He now lies in the bower under the bedclothes with Rymenhild, your
daughter. And he often does so. Send him out of the country before he
does more shame.” Aylmar returned home, very angry and very fierce.’
(238) Horn eode to stable Wel modi for that fable. (King Horn 715-716)
‘Horn went to the stable, very angry for that false story.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is still represtented by
the same expression as in the Old English period : irre. The major change in this
conceptualization lies in the drastic decrease in the frequency of occurrence of
this expression. In the earlier periods, this was always the most frequent
expression and made up half of the lexical field, or slightly less. In the c1200
corpus, however, there are only 17 attestations of irre, amounting to only 4.87%
of the lexical field. 14 attestations show the noun irre, while the remaining three
attestations show adjectival uses. Although irre can be found in four different
texts, 13 of the 17 attestations occur in Ormulum.
(239) nu ase ich seide. we schulen iseon vu’uen us þen ilke eorre demare. þet is
ec witnesse; & wot alle ure gultes. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.137 31-32)
‘Now, as I have said, we shall see above us the same angry Judge who is
also the witness and knows all that we are guilty of.’ (Salu (1955:136))
(240) Forð wende þe eorl, ire on his mode; he wes wærð wið þene king wunder
ane swiðe, and þretede Vther þene king and alle his þeines mid him — ah
he nuste whæt com seoððe sone ðeræfter ! (Brut 9280-9283)
‘Away went the earl with anger in his heart; he was very greatly inflamed
against the king, and uttered threats against King Uther and all his thanes
as well — but he little knew what was to occur shortly thereafter !’
(Barron & Weinberg (1995:479))
(241) J whase itt iss þatt nile nohht Uppo þe Sune trowwenn, þatt illke mann ne
shall nohht sen þe lif off heffness blisse, Acc Godess irre iss upponn
himm, J Godess rihhte wræche. (Ormulum 17996-18001)
‘And whoever it is that will not trust upon the Son, the same man will not
see the life of heavenly bliss, but God’s wrath is upon him and God’s just
vengeance.’
(242) J forr þatt itt bidæledd iss Off all soþ lufess hæte, All iss itt uss bifrorenn
swa þurrh hete J niþ J irre, þatt all itt liþ uss wasstmelæs Off alle gode
dedess. (Ormulum 13854-13859)
‘And because it is deprived of all the heat of true love, it is for us so
frozen through hate and envy and anger, that it all (leaves ?) us barren of
all good deeds.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is well-represented. It is to be
found in the expressions wrath, gram, grim, brath, eie and reh. Like in the
previous period, wrath is the most frequent expression, used 185 times.
Syntactically, this root is very flexible : 79 attestations show nouns, 64
92
adjectives, 6 adverbs, 32 verbs and 4 past participles that can either be analysed
as passive verb forms or predicative adjectives.
(243) Unseheliche Godd, euch godes ful, hwas wreaððe is se gromful þet helle
ware ant heouenes, ant alle cwike þinges, cwakieð þeraZeines: aZein þis
eisfule wiht, þet hit ne eili me nawt, help me, mi Lauerd. (Seinte
Margarete p.58 29-32)
‘Invisible God, full of all goodness, whose wrath is so terrible that all the
inhabitants of hell and heaven, and all living things, tremble before it:
help me, my Lord, against this dreadful creature, so that it may not harm
me.’ (Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:59))
(244) For beo hit nu þet te beo richedom riue, ant tine wide wahes wlonke ant
weolefule, ant habbe monie vnder þe hirdmen in halle, ant ti were beo þe
wrað, oðer iwurðe þe lað, swa þet inker eiþer heasci wið oþer, hwet
worltlich weole mei beo þe wunne ? (Hali Meiðhad p.26 33-6)
‘For suppose now that you have wealth in abundance, and your wide
walls are proud and splendid, and you have many servants under you in
hall, and your husband is angry with you or you have come to hate him,
so that each of you is at odds with the other, what worldly wealth can give
you pleasure ?’ (Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:27-9))
(245) Þus ure beatunge ueol up on him; uor he dude him sulf bitweonen us; &
his feder. þet þret-te us forto smiten. ase þe moder þet is reouðful deð hire
bitweonen hire childe. & þe wroðe sturne ueder; whon he wule beaten.
(Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.166 19-23)
‘Thus our chastisement fell upon Him, for He put Himself between us and
His Father who was threatening to strike us, as a mother full of pity puts
herself between her child and the stern, angry father who is going to strike
it.’ (Salu (1955:162))
(246) Cezar iseh þis writ and he hit wraðliche biheold; abolZen he wes on
mode, he weorp hit to his foten. (Brut 3678-3679)
‘Caesar beheld this letter and he looked upon it angrily; enraged at heart,
he threw it to the ground.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:193))
(247) Þe king nom þat writ on hond and he hit wrodliche biheold; seolcuð him
þuhte swulcere speche. (Brut 244-245)
‘The king took the letter in his hand and looked angrily at it; such words
seemed strange to him.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:17))
(248) Þe luuieð eawiht buten him, ant hwet se ha for him luuieð, ha wreaðeð
him swiðe. (Hali Meiðhad p.36 27-8)
‘Those who love anything apart from him, whatever they love instead of
him, make him very angry.’ (Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:37))
(249) Þa iwreððede Numbert, þa kinges stiward of þat eard. (Brut 727)
‘Then Numbert, the royal steward of that country, grew enraged.’ (Barron
& Weinberg (1995:41))
93
(250) Þa duZeðe wærð iwraððed, duntes þer weoren riue; ærest þa laues heo
weorpen, þa while þa heo ilæsten, and þa bollen seoluerne mid wine
iuulled, and seoððen þa uustes uusden to sweoren. (Brut 11367-11370)
‘The courtiers grew angry, blows were frequent there; first they threw the
loaves, as long as they lasted, and the silver bowls filled with wine, and
next fists flew at necks.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:585))
(251) Nis nout so hot þat hit nacoleþ, Ne noZt so hwit þat hit ne soleþ, Ne noZt
so leof þat hit ne aloþeþ, Ne noZt so glad þat hit ne awroþeþ : Ah eauere
euh þing þat eche nis Agon schal, & al þis worldes blis. (The Owl and the
Nightingale 1275-1280)
‘There is nothing so hot that it does not cool, nothing so white that it does
not soil, nothing so dear that it does not grow loathsome, nothing so glad
that it does not grow angry : everything that is not eternal shall pass away
and all this worldly bliss.’
Besides wrath, there are the forms wreth and wroth. All these forms are
phonological variants of one single root.13 While the forms spelled with o are
derived from Old English forms with ā, the forms spelled with e are derived
from Old English forms with æ, like wræþþu. Middle English forms spelled
with a are derived from Old English forms with either æ or ā. There are some
dialectal, syntactic and semantic differences between these phonological
variants. The forms spelled with e are typical of the Old English Mercian and
Kentish area, the forms with o spread from the South to the North. While wrath
is mainly used as a nominal or verbal form, the wroth-variants are mainly used as
adjectives.
However, wroth proves to have some different semantic
characteristics as well. Unlike the wrath-variants, it can mean ‘troubled’ and
‘sad’. These meanings are especially frequent in the earlier Middle English
periods and shows a link with the conceptualizations ANGER AS AFFLICTION and
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS.
An expression that is also to be found in Old English is gram. In this corpus,
it occurs 36 times. This root too is syntactically flexible : although it is mainly
used as a noun (20 attestations), it is also used as an adjective (8 attestations), as
a verb (13 attestations) and as a past participle (1 attestation).
(252) auh puten honden utward bute hit beo uor neode þis is wowunge efter
godes grome & tollunge of his vuel. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.50 36p.51 1)
‘but the mere putting out of the hand, except in case of necessity, is to
court God’s anger and to invite His wrath.’ (Salu (1955:51))
(253) Forr Godess enngell iss full meoc, J soffte, J milde, J bliþe, J deofell iss
all full off niþ, J full off grammcunndnesse, J full off hete towarrd mann,
J full off modiZnesse, J Ziff he seoþ þe mann forrdredd, He wile himm
skerrenn mare, J ræfenn himm hiss rihhte witt, J shetenn inn hiss heorrte.
(Ormulum 3830-3839)
94
‘For God’s angel is fully meek and soft and mild and glad, and the devil
is full of envy and full of anger and full of hate towards man and full of
pride and if he sees man terrified, he will scare him more and rob him of
his right mind and rush into his heart.’
(254) Maþþew þe Goddspellwrihhte seZZþ O þiss Goddspelless lare, þatt tatt
unnfæle Herode king Wass gramm J grill J bollZhenn forrþrihht, son
summ himm awwnedd wass Off þatt Kalldisskenn genge, þatt cumenn
wass inntill hiss land, An new king forr to sekenn, To lutenn himm, to
lakenn himm, to buZhenn himm o cnewwess. (Ormulum 7142-7151)
‘Matthew the evangelist says in the teaching of the gospel that the wicked
king Herod was angry and fierce and puffed up straightaway. Soon some
were shown to him of the Chaldean company that had come to his land to
search for a new king, to bow to him, to make offerings to him and to
kneel for him.’
(255) Swa longe þe king þis him droh þat Gorlois iwærð him wrað and him
gromede swiðe wið þene king for his wife. (Brut 9257-9258)
‘The king behaved in this fashion so long that Gorlois became angry and
was greatly enraged with the king on account of his wife.’ (Barron &
Weinberg (1995:477))
(256) Þe unbileuede. mid hwon gremeð he god almihti; (Ancrene Wisse (ed.
Day) p.151 11-12)
‘How does the unbeliever provoke God to anger ?’ (Salu (1955:148))
A last expression showing the conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS that
was used in Old English is grim. Unlike wrað and gram, which in most cases
express ANGER and only occasionally refer to FIERCENESS, grim still basically
refers to FIERCENESS. Because these two concepts show a lot of similarity, many
of the occurrences of grim are ambiguous. There is only one occurrence for
which the meaning ‘angry’ seems to prevail over ‘fierce’ because of the presence
of towards in the context.
(257) Þa wes swiðe grim Dinabuz touward Mærlin, and þus quað Dinabz, þe
þene dunt hefde’ (Brut 7768-7769)
‘So Dinabuz, who had received the blows, was very angry with Merlin,
and said’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:401))
New to the lexical field are the nouns and adjectives derived from the root
brath. According to the classification of Serjeantson (1935:83), this is a
Scandinavian loan-word that only occurs in northern texts. It is derived from the
Old Norse expressions braþ ‘haste’ and braþ-r ‘hasty’. In Middle English, it is
used with the meanings ‘fierce’ and ‘angry’.14 C1200 there are 10 attestations of
brath, 8 of which are nouns and 2 of which are adjectives.
(258) Þiss mahhte tredeþþ unnderrfot All grimmeleZZc J braþþe, J hete J niþ J
awwerrmod Itt drifeþþ fra þin herrte, Ziff þatt iss þatt tu lufesst itt J
follZesst itt wiþþ dede; Forr whase iss þwerrt ut milde, J meoc, J soffte, J
95
stille, J liþe, All he forrwerrpeþþ grimmeleZZc, J hete, J niþ, J braþþe.
(Ormulum 4718-4727)
‘This virtue conquers all cruelty and anger and hate and envy and pride.
It drives it from your heart, if that is what you love and follow in deeds.
For who is thoroughly mild and meek and soft and still and gentle, he
rejects cruelty and hate and envy and anger.’
(259) Forr Ziff þe riche mann iss braþ, J grimme, J tor to cwemenn, Hiss lede
þatt iss unnderr himm Himm dredeþþ þess te mare ; (Ormulum 71647167)
‘For if a rich man is angry and fierce and difficult to please, his men who
serve under him fear him the more.’
The Middle English expression eie is derived from Old English ege ‘fear’, in
its turn derived from Indo-European agh ‘to be oppressed, to fear’. In Middle
English, its meaning develops from ‘fear’ over ‘behaviour inspiring fear’ to
‘fierceness’ and ‘anger’. It occurs 7 times in the corpus and is almost
exclusively used as a noun. Only 1 attestation shows adverbial use.
(260) Feondes habbeð fearlac, ant engles, of þin eie. (Seinte Margarete p.60 5)
‘Devils fear your anger, and angels too.’ (Millet & Wogan-Browne
(1992:61))
(261) J wel itt mihhte ben þatt he Wass gramm J grill J bollZhenn All forr þe
naness, forr þatt he Swa wollde don hiss lede to ben all þess te mare
offdredd Off himm J off his eZZe. (Ormulum 7158-7163)
‘And it might well be that he was angry and fierce and puffed up with
anger for that occasion, because he so much wants to do his
commandment that he is the more afraid of him and his anger.’
(262) þos Hule luste þiderward, & hold hire eZe noþerward, & sat tosvolle &
ibolwe Also ho hadde one frogge isuolZe, For ho wel wiste & was iwar
þat ho song hire a bisemar. (The Owl and the Nightingale 143-148)
‘The owl listened to that and held its anger down and sat swollen and
puffed up as if it had swallowed a frog, because it knew well and realized
that it sang to it in mockery.’
(263) And þe king Aruiragus wradliche heom answerede, hehten heom mucle
eiZe ut of his æh-seone, fleon of þissen londe ær heo fæiZe iwurðen. (Brut
4837-4839)
‘And King Arviragus answered them angrily, in great rage ordering them
out of his sight, bidding them flee from this land before they were slain.’
(Barron & Weinberg (1995:251))
Middle English reh is derived from Old English hreoh ‘rough’.15 Reh
meaning ‘anger’ is only to be found in LaZamon’s Brut, where it occurs 3 times
as an adjective, and once as a noun.
96
(264) Ah nu ic þonkie Drihtne þæ scop þas daZes lihte þat Romanisce leoden
sunden swa ræie and heore beot makieð to cumen ure burhes, ure king
binden and to Rome hine bringen. (Brut 12439-12442)
‘But now I thank God who created the light of day that the Romans are so
angered that they are threatening to come to our cities, to put our king in
chains and take him to Rome.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:641))
(265) Æfne þere spæche þa spac þe eorl riche, and onuest he gon riden þe reh
wes on moden. (Brut 10757-10758)
‘With these words which the noble earl spoke, he rode forward quickly,
enraged at heart.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:555))
(266) Riwærdðlan þa seide, ræh he was on mode ; (Brut 13794)
‘Then Ridwathelan, enraged at heart, said :’ (Barron & Weinberg
(1995:709))
(267) Þa iherde Arður þat flit of þissen eorlen and þus spac þe riche wið raZen
his folke (Brut 12459-12460)
‘Then Arthur heard that dispute between these noblemen and the mighty
king spoke thus to his angry followers’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:641))
The conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION is still for the larger part to be
found in the expression tene. Basically meaning ‘pain’, it is used six times with
reference to ANGER. 4 attestations show nominal forms, 1 shows a verbal form
and the other a participial construction.
(268) Þine banes akeð þe ant ti flesch smeorteð þe, þin heorte wiðinne þe
swelleð of sar grome, ant ti neb utewið tendreð ut of teone. (Hali
Meiðhad p.28 6-7)
‘Your bones ache and your flesh smarts, your heart within you swells
with violent rage, and your outward countenance burns with anger.’
(Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:29))
(269) Ah foryef me thi teone, My levedy ant my quene. Horn Y shal thee
fecche, Wham so hit y-recche. (King Horn 355-358)
‘Forgive me your anger, my lady and my queen. I shall fetch Horn for
you, whomever it may trouble.’
(270) aZein bittre ancren dauið seið þis uers. Similis factus sum pellicano
solitudinis & cetera. Ich am ase pellican he seið þet wunieð bi him one.
pellican is a leane fuwel so wea-mod & so wreðful þet hit sleað ofte uor
grome his owune briddes hwon heo teoneð him. (Ancrene Wisse (ed.
Day) p.51 24-30)
‘Against anchoresses who are bitter, David says this verse : I am become
like to a pelican of the wilderness, etc. “I am like a pelican,” he says
“which lives in solitude.” The pelican is a bird which is so prone to anger
that it often kills its own young when they have provoked it;’ (Salu
(1955:53))
(271) Þos Hule luste suþe longe, & was oftoned suþe stronge. (The Owl and the
Nightingale 253-254)
97
‘The owl listened very long and was very much angered.’
Even though weamod has always been one of the less used expressions in the
previous periods, its use is quite exceptional c1200. It occurs but 4 times in the
corpus, 3 attestations of which are to be found in one single text, namely
Ancrene Wisse.
(272) Þes biZet þesne kinedom þurh kenschipe muchele; cniht he wes swiðe
strong, kene and custi, muchel and long; of alle þingen heo weore god Zif
heo neore to wamed. (Brut 3172-3174)
‘This man acquired this kingdom through his great courage; he was a very
powerful warrior, brave and generous, broad and tall; he would have been
excellent in all respects if he had not been so irascible.’ (Barron &
Weinberg (1995:165))
(273) Þeo ðet beoð of bittere. oðer of herde heorte. & nesche to hore vlesche
heo makieð from-mard hore nest. softe wiðuten & þorni wiðinnen. þis
beoð þe weameode & te estfule ancren. bittre wiðin-nen ase þet swete
schole beon. & estfule wiðuten. ase ðet herde schulde beon. (Ancrene
Wisse (ed. Day) p.59 12-17)
‘Those who are bitter or hard of heart, and indulgent to their flesh, are
making their nests the wrong way, soft on the outside and thorny inside.
They are the self-indulgent anchoresses who are often angry, bitter
within, where they should be sweet, and soft without, where they should
be hard.’ (Salu (1955:60))
(274) aZein bittre ancren dauið seið þis uers. Similis factus sum pellicano
solitudinis & cetera. Ich am ase pellican he seið þet wunieð bi him one.
pellican is a leane fuwel so wea-mod & so wreðful þet hit sleað ofte uor
grome his owune briddes hwon heo teoneð him. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day)
p.51 25-30)
‘Against anchoresses who are bitter, David says this verse : I am become
like to a pelican of the wilderness, etc. “I am like a pelican,” he says
“which lives in solitude.” The pelican is a bird which is so prone to anger
that it often kills its own young when they have provoked it;’ (Salu
(1955:53))
(275) þis pellican is ðe weamode ancre. hire briddes þet beoð hire gode
werkes. þet heo sleað ofte mid bile of schearpe wreððe. (Ancrene Wisse
(ed. Day) p.51 34-36)
‘This bird, the pelican, is the anchoress who is prone to anger. Her young
are her good works, which she often kills with the bill of her sharp anger.’
(Salu (1955:53))
For the very first time, the corpus shows the root anger with reference to the
concept ANGER.
Middle English anger is traditionally considered a
Scandinavian loan-word, derived from Old Norse angr ‘trouble, affliction’,
which in its turn is derived from the Indo-European root angh ‘narrow’. The
98
MED suggests that this loan may have been influenced by Latin angor. Like Old
Norse angr and Latin angor, the earliest meaning of English anger is ‘trouble,
affliction, vexation, sorrow’ (OED). Its meaning ‘wrath, ire, hot displeasure’
(OED) occurs only sporadically at first but has already become more frequent by
c1400, a period in which both meanings still occur, and prototypical by c1500.16
The original meaning only lives on in dialect uses, in which anger means
‘physical affliction’. Like almost all early occurrences of anger, those in the
c1200 corpus refer to AFFLICTION. Only two occurrences of the verb angren in
Ormulum (example (276)) can be considered references to ANGER because they
occur in a context in which the synonym wraðe is used (example (277)).
(276) Forr swa we don unnhaZherrliZ Whattse we don to gode, J swa we don itt
wiþþ unnskill Þatt itt maZZ anngrenn oþre. Acc swa ne didenn nohht ta
twa Þatt we nu mælenn ummbe; Forr fand mann nan þing upponn hemm
Þatt mihhte ohht anngrenn oþre; Þurrh whatt tu mihht nu sen þatt teZZ
Rihhtwise J gode wærenn. (Ormulum 425-434)
‘Because we do so unskilfully what we do for good and we do it with
such unskilfulness that it may anger others. But the two that we now
speak of did not do so because people did not find anything on them that
might anger the others, through which you can now see that they were
righteous and good.’
(277) J Zet tiss Goddspell seZZþ off hemm, Forr uss þurrh hemm to lærenn, Þatt
eZZþerr heore Zede swa Rihht affterr Godess lare, Þatt fand mann nan
þing upponn hemm To wreZenn, ne to tælenn, Noff what menn mihhtenn
habbenn niþ, Ne wraþþe Zain heore owwþerr. (Ormulum 411-418)
‘And this Gospel says about them, for us to learn through them, that both
of them followed God’s teaching so well, that no one found anything in
them to denounce or to reproach, nor anything of which people might
have envy or anger against either of them.’
Werien is the Middle English counterpart of Old English werigian ‘to grow
weary’. In Middle English, it still means ‘to tire’ or ‘to become tired’, but it is
once used to refer to God’s anger.
(278) Sori is he on his wise hwon unðeoðe ledeð us forð. & hwon we ure gode
ueder weorreð; mit sunne. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.141 3-5)
‘Our angel grieves, as angels can, when the enemy takes us from him,
when we anger our good Father by sin.’ (Salu (1955:139))
Another hapax legomenon used to express ANGER AS AFFLICTION is harmen
‘to hurt’, derived from Old English hearmian ‘to hurt’.
(279) Þe king Leir iwerðe swa blac; swlch hit a blac cloð weoren iwærð his
hude and his heowe for he was suþe ihærmed; mid þere wræððe he wes
isweued þat he feol iswowen. (Brut 1533-1535)
99
‘Leir flushed, his skin and his complexion darkening like a black cloth,
for he was greatly angered; he was so stunned with rage that he fell into a
stupor.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:81))
The conceptualization ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS is expressed by sori. Sori is
derived from Old English sarig ‘sad’. It is mainly used with the meaning ‘sad’,
but via meanings like ‘upset’ and ‘vexed’ its meaning sometimes develops into
the meaning ‘angry’. In this corpus, there is one such attestation.
(280) Vther king þis isah and herefore særi wes, and nom him forðrihtes twælf
wise cnihtes and sende after Gorlois, gumenene ældere, and beden hine an
hiZinge cumen to þan kinge, and don þan kinge god riht and beon
icnowen of his pliht, þat he hafde þene king iscend and from his borde
wes iwende, he and his cnihtes, mid muchele vnrihte, for þe king him
wæs glad wið and for he hailede in his wif; (Brut 9261-9268)
‘King Uther saw this and was angered by it, and immediately summoned
twelve prudent knights and sent them after Gorlois, that leader of men,
and commanded him to come quickly to the king, and submit to the king
and acknowledge his fault, that he had insulted the king and departed
from his table, he and his knights, most improperly, since the king was
pleased with him and had drunk a toast to his wife;’ (Barron & Weinberg
(1995:477))
Like in Old English, the conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY is mainly
expressed by wod. It occurs 11 times in the corpus and is mainly used as an
adjective (8 attestations). It occurs once in a verbal form and twice in a nominal
one.
(281) Heo ferden toward Humber mid hæZere strengðe, and Humber wes swa
swiðe wod for al þat lond on him stod. (Brut 1094-1095)
‘They advanced upon Humber with a mighty force, and Humber was
furiously angry because that whole region was his possession.’ (Barron &
Weinberg (1995:59))
(282) & we ne muwe nout iþolien þet te wind of aword bere us touward
heouene. auh beoð wode aZeines ham ðet we schulden þoncken. ase þeo
ilke ðet serueð us of muche seruis þauh hit beo hore unðonkes. (Ancrene
Wisse (ed. Day) p.54 6-9)
‘and we are not able to endure that the wind of words should carry us
towards heaven, but are mad with anger against those whom we should
thank because they are doing us a great service, even though it is against
their will.’ (Salu (1955:55))
(283) Þe reue rudnede al of grome se him gromede, ant warð swa wrað ant swa
awed þet he al o wodschipe demde hire to deaþe; ant het on hot heorte
þet me hire heued wið schimminde ant scharp sweord, wið blikinde ant
bitel brond, totweamde from þe bodie. (Seinte Margarete p.76 32-35)
100
‘The governor reddened with the fury that he felt, and became so madly
angry that, quite in a frenzy, he condemned her to death; and in the heat
of passion ordered that her head should be severed from her body with a
sharp and shining sword, with a bright and biting blade.’ (Millet &
Wogan-Browne (1992:77))
From this period onwards, the concept ANGER AS INSANITY is also to be found
in expression of the form out of + a word denoting the mind. In this corpus,
there are two such expressions : ut of rede (1 attestation) and ut of witte (2
attestations).
(284) Þe NiZtingale at þisse worde Was wel neZ ut of rede iworþe, An þoZte
Zorne on hire mode Zif ho oZt elles understode, Zif ho kuþe oZt bute singe
Þat miZte helpe to oþer þinge. (The Owl and the Nightingale 659-664)
‘At these words, the nightingale was almost out of its mind with anger
and eagerly thought in its mind if it could discover anything else, if it
could do anything besides singing that might be helpful for other things.’
(285) a midde þe muðe me gurde him sume cherre inoh-reðe ase me to beot his
cheoken & spette him aschorn. ant on ancre is for o word ut of hire
witte. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.46 34 - p.47 2)
‘When His face was struck He was struck upon the mouth also, and they
spat at Him in scorn: and at a mere word an anchoress is out of her mind
with anger.’ (Salu (1955:46))
(286) He o wraððe warð forneh ut of his witte; ant het swiðe bitterliche hongin
hire ant heouen up herre þen ha ear wes, ant wið sweord scharpe ant
ewles of irne hire freoliche flesch toronden ant torenden. (Seinte
Margarete p.54 12-14)
‘At this he was almost beside himself with fury; and angrily ordered that
she should be suspended still higher than before, and that her fair flesh
should be ripped and torn with a sharp sword and with hooks of iron.’
(Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:55))
Like in the Old English period, ANGER AS SWELLING is mainly expressed by
belgen. It is found in 32 attestations, 30 of which show past participles and two
full verb forms.
(287)
forr þatt Crist itt cnew inoh J wisste itt wel wiþþ alle, Þatt tatt
Farisewisshe follc Zæn himm wass wurrþenn bollZhenn, He for ut off
Judealand Wiþþ hise Lerninngcnihhtess Inntill þe land off Galile, Forr
þeZZre niþ to kelenn. (Ormulum 19577-19584)
‘And because Christ knew fully and knew it thoroughly well that the
Pharisees had become puffed up against him, He went out of Judea with
his apostles to the land of Galilea, to cool their envy.’
(288) Corineus abuten biheold for þe bearn was abolZen, and igrap of onnes
monnes honde ana wiæx swiðe stronge; al þat he neh com þermid he hit
aquelde. (Brut 784-786)
J
101
‘Corineus looked around, for the young warrior was enraged, and seized
from a man’s hand a stout battle axe; with it he slew all whom he came
upon.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:43))
(289) Þis ihærde Mærlin and bælh on his mode, and þas word sæide, wrað þeh
he weore : (Brut 7904-7905)
‘Merlin heard this and was furiously enraged, and, angry as he was, spoke
these words :’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:407))
(290) Þa anbælh Walwain swulc an iburst þein, and þas word sæide Walwain
þe kene : (Brut 13156-13157)
‘Then Gawain grew angry and, princely in his rage, the bold Gawain
spoke these words :’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:677))
A synonym of belgen is swellen. This expression is derived from Old
English swellan ‘to swell’. Whereas it was only used in its literal sense in Old
English, in Middle English it can also refer to ANGER. This expression is used 4
times c1200. 3 attestations show it as a main verb, while 1 shows a past
participle form.
(291) Nu bihalt te alde feond, ant sið þe i þis mihte stonde se hehe, ilich hire ant
hire sune, as engel in heouene, i meiðhades menske, ant toswelleð of
grome; ant scheoteð niht ant dei his earewen, idrencte of an attri healewi,
towart tin heorte to wundi þe wið wac wil, ant makien to fallen, as Crist te
forbeode! (Hali Meiðhad p.12 22-26)
‘Now the ancient enemy looks on, and sees you stand so high in this
virtue, like her and her son, like an angel in heaven, in the glory of
virginity, and swells with fury; and night and day he shoots his arrows,
dipped in a venomous potion, towards your heart, to wound you with
weakness of will and cause you to fall, which Christ forbid !’ (Millet &
Wogan-Browne (1992:13))
(292) Þine banes akeð þe ant ti flesch smeorteð þe, þin heorte wiðinne þe
swelleð of sar grome, ant ti neb utewið tendreð ut of teone. (Hali Meiðhad
p.28 6-7)
‘Your bones ache and your flesh smarts, your heart within you swells
with violent rage, and your outward countenance burns with anger.’
(Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:29))
(293) An aiþer aZen oþer sval & let þat uvole mod ut al ; & eiþer seide of
oþeres custe þat alre worste þat hi wuste. (The Owl and the Nightingale 710)
‘And they both swelled up against each other and let out all their wicked
mood and both said of the other’s character the very worst that they
knew.’
(294) þos Hule luste þiderward, & hold hire eZe noþerward, & sat tosvolle &
ibolwe Also ho hadde one frogge isuolZe, For ho wel wiste & was iwar
þat ho song hire a bisemar. (The Owl and the Nightingale 143-148)
102
‘The owl listened to that and held its anger down and sat swollen and
puffed up as if it had swallowed a frog, because it knew well and realized
that it sang to it in mockery.’
In LaZamon’s Brut, there are six occurrences of the verb bresten ‘burst’.
This expression also shows the conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING. Rather
than referring to the process of swelling itself, it refers to its effect, namely the
breaking apart of things because of an internal pressure.
(295) Þa wes Arðures hired sturneliche awraððed; cnihtes anburste weoren þat
alle heo gunnen biuien. (Brut 12596-12597)
‘Then Arthur’s followers were greatly enraged; his warriors were so
incensed that they all shook with rage.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:649))
(296) Þer wes moni bald Brut þe hafde beres leches, heouen up heore bruwen,
iburst an heore þonke. (Brut 11119-11120)
‘Many a bold Briton there had a bear-like look, wrinkling their brows,
enraged at heart.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:573))
(297) Þa þe cniht wende þat hit þe eotende weoren, and he anbursten agon
swulc weore a wilde bar, and forZæt sone þat his lauerd him sæide. (Brut
12891-12893)
‘The knight thought then that it must be the giant and, growing as furious
as a wild boar, immediately forgot what his lord had said to him.’ (Barron
& Weinberg (1995:663))
The last expression showing the conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING is
gret herte. This expression does not involve some abstract and metaphorical
interpretation of gret as is the case in its interpretation ‘magnanimity’. Unlike in
present-day English, ‘swollen’ was a standard meaning of gret in Middle
English. Example (298) also clearly shows that there is reference to a temporary
state of inflation of the heart, creating internal pressure. This clearly links the
expression to the conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING. Like most expressions
expressing the SWELLING-conceptualization, gret herte can be used for ANGER as
well as for PRIDE. It is used to refer to ANGER three times c1200.
(298) Ho ne miZte no leng bileue, Vor hire horte was so gret Þat wel neZ hire
fnast atschet, & warp a word þarafter longe : (The Owl and the
Nightingale 42-45)
‘It could no longer keep still because its heart was so great that its breath
almost exploded and it uttered a long word afterwards.’
(299) þe oþer kundel is. rancor sive odium. þet is hatunge oþer great heorte.
(Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.89 9-10)
‘The second of these young is Rancour or Odium, that is, hatred or a heart
swollen with anger.’ (Salu (1955:88))
(300) & Zif ðe ueond bloweð bitweonen ou eni wreð-ðe. oðer great heorte. ðet
iesu crist forbeode. er heo beo wel i set; nouh non uorte nimen godes
103
flesch & his blod; ne wurðe non so witleas. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day)
p.115 3-6)
‘If the devil causes any wrath to swell up between you, or fills your hearts
with anger, which Jesus Christ forbid, let no one be so mad as to receive
God’s Body and Blood’ (Salu (1955:114))
The conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is expressed by five expressions that
all occur once in the corpus : hot herte, hete, ontenden, kindelen and wallen.
Except for kindelen, which is usually regarded as a Scandinavian loan derived
from Old Norse kynd-a ‘to kindle’, all these expressions are of Anglo-Saxon
origin. While hot herte ‘hot heart’ refers to an unspecified kind of heat,
ontenden ‘kindle’, kindelen ‘kindle’ and heat ‘heat’ through its association with
hellfire in example (302) show the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE and wallen
‘boil’ the conceptualization ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER.
(301) Þe reue rudnede al of grome se him gromede, ant warð swa wrað ant swa
awed þet he al o wodschipe demde hire to deaþe; ant het on hot heorte
þet me hire heued wið schimminde ant scharp sweord, wið blikinde ant
bitel brond, totweamde from þe bodie. (Seinte Margarete p.76 32-35)
‘The governor reddened with the fury that he felt, and became so madly
angry that, quite in a frenzy, he condemned her to death; and in the heat
of passion ordered that her head should be severed from her body with a
sharp and shining sword, with a bright and biting blade.’ (Millet &
Wogan-Browne (1992:77))
(302) Þeor beð naddren and snaken. eueten and frude þa tered and freteð þe
uuele speken. þe nihtfulle and þe prute Neure sunne þer ne scinð. ne mone
ne steorre þer is muchel godes hete. and muchel godes Zeorre Eure þer is
vuel smech. þusternesse and eie nis þer neure oþer liht. þanne þe swarte
leie (Poema Morale 273-278)
‘There are adders and snakes, newts and ferrets, That tear and fret the evil
speakers, the envious and the proud; Never shineth there the sun, nor the
moon nor the stars. There is much of God’s heat (anger) and much of
God’s wrath, There is ever evil smoke, darkness and awe; There is never
other light than the gloomy flames.’ (Morris (1988:177))
(303) We witen ha beoð iwrahte to stihen to þet stude þet we of feollen; ant us
þuncheð hokerlich and swiðe hofles þrof, swa þet teone ontent us, ant we
iwurðeð wode þurh þe grome þet us gromeð aa wið þe gode — for þet is
ure cunde, þet I þe schulde kennen: beon sorhful ant sari for euch monnes
selhðe, gomenin hwen he gulteð, ne neauer mare ne beo gleade bute of
uuel ane. (Seinte Margarete p.72 18-23)
‘We know they are created to ascend to that place that we ourselves fell
from; and because that injury infuriates us so, this seems to us shameful
and most unfair, and we are driven wild by the anger that we always feel
against the good — for that is our nature, which I must reveal to you : to
104
be full of regret when a man does well, rejoice when he sins, and never to
be glad of anything but evil.’ (Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:73))
(304) Gostlich; as of prude. & of onde. & of wreððe. wreððe; is þe inre
uondunge. auh þet is þe uttre uondunge; þet kundleð wreððe. also as of
Ziscunge. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.86 15-17)
‘spiritual in the case of pride, envy, and anger, — anger is the inner
temptation and the outer temptation is that which kindles anger — and
also of covetousness.’
(305) þeo hwule þet te heorte walleð wiðinnen of wreððe nis ðer no riht dom.
ne no riht gugement. (Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.52 9-11)
‘While the heart is boiling with rage, there is no true judgement,’ (Salu
(1955:53))
Example (305) forms part of a larger context in which the writer explains
why blood is used as a symbol of sin :
“Blood symbolizes sin, for as someone who is bleeding is
grotesque and horrible to the eye of men, so is the sinner in the
eyes of God. Further, blood cannot be properly tested before it has
cooled. And so it is with sin. While the heart is boiling with rage,
there is no true judgement, or while desire towards any sin is hot,
you cannot then judge rightly of its nature, or of its consequences.
But let the desire pass, and you will be glad. Let the heat cool, as
people do when they are about to test blood, and then you will
rightly judge the sin which had seemed attractive to you, to be
hateful and unclean; you will see the evil which would have come
of it, if you had committed it while the heat lasted, to be so great,
that you will judge yourself mad to have considered it. This is true
of every sin, and is the reason why sin is represented by blood; but
particularly anger.” (Day 1957:53–54)
All expressions showing the conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT are used in
only three texts, Poema Morale, Seinte Margarete and Ancrene Wisse. The latter
two texts belong to a close-knit text group within one manuscript. All these texts
are of a religious nature.
Like in Old English, the intensifier bitter is occasionally used with words
expressing ANGER, showing the conceptualization ANGER AS BITTERNESS. There
is one such occurrence c1200.
(306) Cadwadlan þis iherde þe king wes on londe, and iwærð him abolZe bitter
ane swiðe, and aneouste sende sonde to Edwine kinge, and hehte hine
hihZenliche uaren of his riche ; (Brut 15122-15125)
‘Cadwalan, who was king of the country, hearing this, flew into a furious
rage, and immediately sent a messenger to King Edwin, ordering him to
depart from his kingdom instantly :’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:777))
105
The conceptualization ANGER AS MOTION is expressed by stirian, stien and
heigh. Stiren ‘stir’ was already used in the Old English period. Stien ‘to move
up’ and heigh ‘high’, by contrast, are new to the lexical field. Unlike stiren, they
refer to an upward movement; both occur only once in the corpus, while stiren
occurs twice.
(307) Þa þæ ærnde wes iseid, þæ kaisere wes ful særi mon, and astured weoren
Rom-weren alle mid sterclichere wræððe. (Brut 12640-12641)
‘When the message had been delivered, the emperor was greatly cast
down, and all the citizens of Rome roused to furious anger.’ (Barron &
Weinberg (1995:651))
(308) & heo schal beo greattre ibollen. leafdiluker leoten of þen a leafdi of
hames. Zef ha makeð hire wrað aZeines gult of sunne, Zef ha setteð hire
wordes swa efne þ ha ne þunche ouer sturet. ne nawt ilead ouer skile; ah
inwardliche & soðli che wið uten hihðe & hehschipe in a softe steuene.
(Ancrene Wisse (ed. Tolkien) p.58 7-12)
‘She will be more honourably regarded than the lady of a house if,
voicing her anger against the guilt of sin, she speaks her words equably,
not appearing to be excited, nor drawn on beyond the bounds of reason,
but with recollection and truth, and without commotion and arrogance, in
a quiet voice.’ (Salu (1955:47))
(309) þu nouhst nout sturien ne trublen ðine heorte. & stien into wreððe.
(Ancrene Wisse (ed. Day) p.120 15-16)
‘thou shouldst not let thy heart be troubled and roused to anger.’ (Salu
(1955:119))
(310) Þer wes moni hah word; and þa alre seleste eoden tosumne, hulden
muchel husting þa hehste of þan hirde þat heo nolden iþolian for
alþeodene gold þat þeos laððe weore bituxe Corineo and Locrine. (Brut
1161-1165)
‘There was many an angry word; and the most noble men gathered
together, the greatest men in the host held a great council, since they
would not accept that for the sake of foreign gold there should be this
hostility between Corineus and Locrin.’ (Barron & Weinberg (1995:63))
Twice in the corpus, ANGER is conceptualized as a result of the movement of
the body fluids. In example (311), Horn’s blood is said to rise when he meets
the man who killed his father and drove him from the land. It is not quite clear
how the verb arisen should be interpreted. It can simply mean ‘move upwards’,
which may show a link with the conceptualization ANGER AS MOTION, or it can
be interpreted as ‘boil up’, which would link it with the conceptualization ANGER
AS HEAT. It would also make sense to link it with the expression gret herte
because a swelling heart may be the result of the blood moving, but as it is no
reference to the heart in the text fragment, this link remains speculative.
106
(311) Godmod him gon agryse, Ant his blod aryse. Byforen him he seh stonde
That drof him out of londe Ant fader his aquelde. He smot him under
shelde; He lokede on is rynge Ant tohte o Rymenild the yynge; Mid god
swerd at the fürste He smot him thourh the hüerte. (King Horn 877-886)
‘Horn began to shiver and his blood rose. Before him he saw him stand
who drove him out of the country and killed his father. He struck under
his shield, he looked on his ring and thought of Rymenhild the young.
With a good (stroke of the) sword he directly pierced his heart.’
One attestation in The Owl and the Nightingale does refer to the blood in the
heart of an angry person being disturbed. Once again, however, it does not link
it with the SWELLING-conceptualization. There is no indication either that it is
linked with the HEAT-conceptualization.
(312) For hit seide þe King Alfred : ‘Selde erendeð wel þe loþe, An selde
plaideð wel þe wroþe;’ For wraþþe meinþ þe horte blod Þat hit floweþ so
wilde flod An al þe heorte ouergeþ, Þat heo naueþ no þing bute breþ, An
so forleost al hire liht Þat heo ne siþ soð ne riht. (The Owl and the
Nightingale 942-950)
‘For King Alfred said it : “Seldom does a loathsome person intercede well
and seldom does an angry person argue well.” because anger disturbs the
heart’s blood so that it flows like a wild river and overwhelms all the
heart so that it has nothing but anger and thus loses all its light so that it
does not see the truth nor what is right.’
Finally, ANGER is expressed by means of the expression wrah in Brut, in
which it occurs twice. It is impossible to say what conceptualization lies behind
this use as the origin of the word is unknown.
(313) Þis iherde Leir king; þarfore he wes swuþe wrah. (Brut 1675)
‘King Leir heard this; he was very angry at it.’ (Barron & Weinberg
(1995:87))
(314) Cassibellane iseh þat writ — þerfore he wes abolZen; he wes wunderliche
wrah, for þes tidinde him wes læð. (Brut 3648-3649)
‘Cassibellaunus looked upon that letter — he was enraged by it; he was
furiously angry, for this news was hateful to him.’ (Barron & Weinberg
(1995:191))
3.5.2 Summary
107
conceptualization
frequency
absolute
%
FIERCENESS
185 51.97
41 11.52
10
2.81
7
1.97
4
1.12
1
0.28
SWELLING
32
8.99
6
1.69
4
1.12
3
0.84
WRONG EMOTION
17
4.78
INSANITY
11
3.09
3
0.84
AFFLICTION
6
1.68
4
1.12
2
0.56
1
0.28
1
0.28
HEAT
1
0.28
1
0.28
1
0.28
1
0.28
1
0.28
MOTION
2
0.56
1
0.28
1
0.28
STRONG EMOTION
3
0.84
BODY FLUIDS
1
0.28
1
0.28
?
2
0.56
UNHAPPINESS
1
0.28
BITTERNESS
1
0.28
total
356
100
table (10) : ANGER-expressions c1200
108
expression
(root)
wrath
gram
brath
eie
reh
grim
belgen
bresten
swellen
gret herte
irre
wod
out of mind
tene
weamod
anger
werien
harmen
hot herte
hete
ontenden
kindelen
wallen
stiren
stien
heigh
mod
blood arisen
mengen blood
wrah
sori
bitter
%
69.66
12.64
4.78
3.93
3.93
1.40
1.12
0.84
0.56
0.56
0.28
0.28
100
3.6 C1300
3.6.1 Overview
Typical of the lexical field c1300 is the introduction of French loanwords.
Although there are quite a number of them (annoyen, grieven, tarien, rage,
paien, mispaien, egre, malencolie), the major part of the lexical field remains
unchanged in comparison with the previous period. Consequently, also the
conceptual field shows little change : some minor conceptualizations have
disappeared while some other minor ones are introduced. The field contains the
following conceptualizations :
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS INSANITY
ANGER AS SWELLING
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS BITTERNESS
ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS
ANGER AS DISTURBANCE
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
Like in the previous periods, the conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG
is mainly expressed by ire. Of the 39 attestations of ire, 37 are nouns.
Only 2 attestations show adjectives, which take the forms ir(o)us.
EMOTION
(315) Þe liounesse was stout & sterne, AZen to Beues Zhe gan erne And be þe
riZt leg Zhe him grep, Ase þe wolf doþ þe schep, þat neZ Zhe braide out is
sparlire; Þo was Beues in gret yre, And in þat ilche selue veneu ÞourZ
godes grace and is vertu Þe liounesse so harde he smot Wiþ Morgelai, þat
biter bot, Euene vpon þe regge an hiZ, Þat Morgelai in þerþe fliZ. (Sir
Beves of Hamtoun 2483-2494)
‘The lioness was bold and fierce. She again ran towards Beves and she
took him by the right leg, as the wolf does the sheep, so that she almost
tore out his calf. Then was Beves in great anger and in that place through
god’s grace and his virtue he struck the lioness so hard with Morgelai,
that grievously cut, high on the back, so that Morgelai flew into the
ground.’
(316) The touþer synne men calle Ire, Þe deuyls doghter of helle fyre.
(Handling Synne 3705-3706)
‘The other sin is called ire, the devil’s daughter of hellfire.’
(317) Charyte haþ noun enuye And charyte wyl no felonye. Charyte ys nat irus
And charyte ys nat coueytus. (Handling Synne 7151-7154)
109
‘Charity knows no envy and charity wants no wickedness. Charity is not
ireful and charity is not covetous.’
(318) Þo men þat were rede as blode, Þey are yrous & wykked of mode, Here
euen crysten for to slo Wyþ deþ or wyþ pyne do wo. (Handling Synne
10237-10240)
‘Those men who were red as blood were ireful and wicked in mind,
slaying their fellow christians with death or afflicting them with pain.’
Although irre has been part of the lexical field from the earliest period
onwards, the use of ire as of 1300 seems to be different from its earlier uses.
Several elements indicate that ire has to be considered a loan-word from French,
as indicated by the OED and MED.17 First of all, the adjectival form ir(o)us
points to French origin. This form is clearly not based on the older adjectival
form irre or one of its spelling variants, but on Old French iros ‘angry’.
Secondly, ire is used in texts that are based on French sources and also use other
loan-words from French to denote ANGER : Handling Synne (24 attestations),
Cursor Mundi (7 attestations), Sir Beves of Hamtoun (5 attestations), Of Arthour
and of Merlin (2 attestations) and King of Tars (1 attestation). Finally, the
change in spelling is strikingly consistent. While all the older texts have forms
with double r (except for one form in Brut), all occurrences from this period
onwards show forms with single r. If this change were merely a spelling change,
it would most probably show a transition period in which both spelling variants
occur. The question remains, however, if all these elements prove that ire is
purely a loan-word from French. Unlike the other loan-words, there is a form
which is, to say the least, homophonous and has been part of the lexical field of
ANGER for centuries. This older form, irre, may have been associated with its
French counterpart and have gone through a drastic spelling change under its
influence. With both French ire and Latin ira being written with single r, the
presence of a very clear model may have made this a more consistent spelling
change than other ones. Because the presence of irre in the previous periods
simply cannot be ignored, ire will not be considered a full French loan-word in
the discussions that follow.18
Even more than in ire, the conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is
present in the use of the expression thwert ‘cross’. Although þweorh was used in
Old English, thwert seems to be a Scandinavian loan-word, derived from Old
Norse þvert. In the c1300 corpus, thwert is used twice in the northern text
Cursor Mundi.
(319) Vtaine hir can wit þis to tene, And wit þe bolnning of hir hert, Sco kest
sum wordes son ouerthuert. (Cursor Mundi 10462-10464)
‘Utaine became angry with this, and with the swelling of her heart, she
immediately flung out some cross words.’
(320) A maister was þar sumdel kene, At iesu thoght him selcut tene, Þan for he
spak sa skilwisli At him had he ful gret envi, Thoru þe bolning of his hert
Wit ioseph wordes spak ourthuert, (Cursor Mundi 12079-12084)
110
‘There was a teacher who was somewhat eager. He was remarkably
angry with Jesus because he spoke so wisely and he envied him very
much. Through the swelling of his heart, he spoke angry words with
Joseph.’
The main conceptualization of ANGER is still ANGER AS FIERCENESS. None of
the expressions revealing this conceptualization have changed : there is wrath,
gram, brath and grim. The most frequently used expression is wrath. It is used
220 times, 87 times as a noun, 105 times as an adjective, 5 times as an adverb
and 23 times as a verb.
(321) He lovede hir and she him so That neither other mighte be Fro other ne no
joye see But-yif he were togidere bothe; Nevere yete no weren he wrothe
For here love was ay newe; Nevere yete wordes ne grewe Bitwene hem
wharof no lathe Mighte rise ne no wrathe. (Havelok the Dane 29692977)
‘He so loved her and she him that neither of them could be separated from
the other nor know any joy unless they were both together. Never were
they angry because their love was always new. Never were there any
words between them for which there might arise hostility or anger.’
(322) Was tua men in þe kinges hus To prisun sent for þair misdede, (Bot quat
it was can i not rede); Þe spenser and þe botelar bath Þe king self wit
þaim was wrath. (Cursor Mundi 4444-4448)
‘There were two men in the king’s house who were sent to prison for their
offence (but what it was, I cannot say), both the steward and the butler.
The king himself was angry with them.’
(323) God hath ben wroth wid the world, and that is wel i-sene; For al that
whilom was murthe is turned to treie and tene. (The Simonie 379-380)
‘God has been angry with the world and that is easily seen because all
that once was happiness is turned into suffering and affliction.’
(324) Þe werst þarfore y wyl fyrst grope, Þat men kalle wanhope. Al tymes ys
god wroþer wyþ þys Þan wyþ any ouþer synne þat ys. (Handling Synne
12299-12302)
‘Therefore I will first deal with the worst, which is called despair. God is
always more angry for this one than for any other sin that exists.’
(325) Fra biginning o þe werld O suilk a wer was neuer herd, Ne suilk a strijf o
childir tuin Þat lai þer moder wamb wit-in; Þair strut it was vn-stern stith,
Wit wrathli wrestes aiþer writh, Bituix vn-born a batel blind, Suilk an
was ferli to find. (Cursor Mundi 3457-3464)
‘From the beginning of the world, such a war was never heard of, nor
such strife of two children that lay in their mother’s womb. Their strife
was harshly violent. With angry twists both twisted. A blind battle
between unborn children, such one was wonderful to find.’
(326) And when it was comen to the night, Sir Amis and that levedi bright, To
bed thai gun go; And whan thai were togider ylayd, Sir Amis his swerd
111
out braid And layd bituix hem tuo. The levedi loked opon him tho
Wrothlich with her eighen tuo, Sche wend hir lord were wode. (Amis and
Amiloun 1159-1167)
‘And when it was night, Sir Amis and the fair lady went to bed, and when
they lay together, Sir Amis drew out his sword and laid it between them.
The lady looked upon him angrily with her two eyes. She thought that
her lord was mad.’
(327) Hir chaumberlain is a wiman Þat goþ in gise of a man, For he is louely
and of fair hewe Our quen þat is vntrewe Bad hir be hir leman For sche
wend sche were a man, Þis chaumberlain seyd þat he nold Tresoun do for
no gold Wharþurth þe quen pleint made To mi lord þe king and sade Þat
þurh fors hir chaumberlain Wald haue hir forlain. Þe king for þis was
swiþe wroþ And wraþfulliche swore his oþ ‘Zif y may atake þis wrong
He worþ todrawe and tohong!’ (Of Arthour and of Merlin 1349-1364)
‘Her chamberlain is a woman who goes in the disguise of a man. Because
he is lovely and of fair complexion, our queen, who is unfaithful, asked
her to be her lover because she thought she was a man. This chamberlain
said that he would not do any treachery for any gold, because of which
the queen complained to my lord, the king, and said that her chamberlain
wanted to rape her by force. The king was very angry for this and angrily
swore his oath : “If I can arrest this wrongdoer, he will be torn to pieces
and hanged.” ’
(328) Zyf þou art wnt custummably For to curse for lytyl why, Þy tunge berþ
þer of wytnesse Þat men mowe weyl wraþþe yn þe gesse. (Handling
Synne 3759-3762)
‘If you are accustomed habitually to curse for little cause, your tongue
bears witness of the fact that men may well be angry thoughtlessly.’
(329) Dame, God thee foryelde, Bote on that thou me nout bimelde, Ne make
thee wroth; Min hernde willi to thee bede, Bote wraththen thee for ani
dede Were me loth. (Dame Sirith 37-42)
‘Lady, may God reward you, but do not denounce me for it, nor become
angry. I will deliver my message to you, but I do not wish to make you
angry for anything.’
Expressions derived from the gram-root occur 28 times in this corpus. The
majority (18) are nouns, while adjectives, verbs and past participle forms occur
only sporadically (4, 3 and 3 attestations respectively).
(330) Albe her herte wel nigh to-broke, No word of pride ne grame sche spoke.
(Lay Le Freine 353-354)
‘Although her heart was almost broken, she spoke no word of pride or
anger.’
(331) ‘O,’ queþ Beues, ‘so god me spede, Þow hauest don gret vileinie, Whan
þow sparde me bodi And for me gilt min hors aqueld, Þow witest him, þat
mai nouZt weld. Be god, i swere þe an oþ : Þow schelt nouZt, whan we
112
(332)
(333)
(334)
(335)
(336)
te-goþ, LauZande me wende fram, Now þow hauest mad me gram!’ (Sir
Beves of Hamtoun 1890-1898)
‘ “O”, said Beves, “so help me god. You did great wickedness when you
spared my body and because of my guilt killed my horse. You punish
him who cannot win. By God, I swear you an oath : you shall not, when
we part, go from me laughing. Now you have made me angry.” ’
The riche douke gan sore agrame: “Who hath,” he seyd, “don me that
schame? Tel me, y the pray!” (Amis and Amiloun 793-795)
‘The rich duke became very angry. “Who”, he said, “has done me such
shame ? Tell me, I ask you!” ’
Forþ him wente sire Beuoun And tok is in in þat toun, Sore aneiZed and
aschamed, For Zhe hadde him so gramed. (Sir Beves of Hamtoun 11331136)
‘Away went sir Beves and took a lodging in that town, much annoyed and
ashamed because she had angered him so.’
Þou has me werd all fra þe wrak O þaim þat lepe vn-to þe lake, All his
santes nu sal yee sing, In his wirscip þat es vr king. For him to grem it es
full grill, For lastand lijf es in his will. (Cursor Mundi 18313-18318)
‘You have saved me from the vengeance of those who leap into the lake
[pit of hell]. All his saints will now sing for you, in worship of he who is
our king. Because it is terrible to anger him, for everlasting life is in his
power.’
King Grander was agremed strong, Þat sire Beues him stod so long, And
wiþ is swerd a hitte is scheld, A quarter fel in to þe feld, Hauberk, plate
and aktoun, In to Beues forþer arsoun Half a fot he karf doun riZt. (Sir
Beves of Hamtoun 1757-1763)
‘King Grander was angered greatly because sir Beves withstood him so
long and with his sword he struck his shield. A piece fell into the field.
Into his coat of mail, armor and quilted jacket, and into Beves’s
saddlebow, he cut half a foot straight down.’
The messanger was sore aschamed; The knight himself was sore
agramed, And rebouked his levedy To speke any woman vilainy. (Lay Le
Freine 73-76)
‘The messenger was much ashamed. The knight himself was sorely
angered and rebuked his lady for speaking insultingly of a woman.’
The Scandinavian loan-word brath occurs 13 times. All attestations are to be
found in Cursor Mundi. In 10 attestations, brath is used as a noun, while it is
used as an adjective in the other 3 attestations.
(337) Iesus bunden als he was, alsua he lete him be, And wit his sergant he him
sent til herod for to se. For to wreth yeit herod mar pilat thoght ful lath,
For he and he had samen ben, forwit selcuth wrath, For to do his breth to
bu, of him þat was ful brath. (Cursor Mundi 16155-16164)
113
‘Tied as Jesus was, so he let him be, and with his sergeant he sent him to
Herod to be seen — because Pilate was loath to anger Herod even more,
as they both had been remarkably angry before — to avert the anger of
him who was very angry.’
(338) Þe toþer morn her after-ward Þe warlau trauail saul fulhard, Als he was
won bi-gan to rage, And als dauid him come to suage, Þe king til him wit
a sper In breth he wald him thoru ber. Þat thoru he had his bodi born, If
he ne had blenked him be-forn. (Cursor Mundi 7619-7626)
‘The next morning the devil tormented Saul very much, and as he used to
do, he started to rage, and when David came to soothe him, the king in
anger wanted to run him through with a spear, which he would have
pierced through his body if he had not flinched before it.’
(339) And we find cases oþer amang Þat þou mai til anoþer gang, Fra þi preist
þi scrifte to tell Quen he es bath fra-ward and fell. And þou him haue don
priue scath Þat him to scau þou wat war wath, Als brath, and
drunkensum, and skald, And telles in breth þat him es tald. (Cursor
Mundi 26182-26189)
‘And we find cases among others when you may go from your priest to
another to make your confession, when he is both contrary and fierce and
you have secretly done him harm, of which you know it would be
dangerous to reveal it to him, or when he is angry, a drunkard and a
gossip, and he tells in anger what is told to him.’
The last expression showing the conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is
grim. As most of its uses mean ‘fierce’ rather than ‘angry’, this expression
occurs only once with reference to ANGER.
(340) Cum to the kinge swithe and rathe, That sendes he thee word, and bedes
That thu thenke what thou him dedes Whan thu reftes with a knif Hise
sistres here lif And sithen bede thou in the se Drenchen him-that herde he!
He is to thee swithe grim; Cum nu swithe unto him That king is of this
kunerike, Thou fule man, thou wicke swike! And he shall yelde thee thy
mede, By Christ that wolde on rode blede! (Havelok the Dane 2391-2403)
‘Come to the king quickly, who sends word to you and commands that
you think of what you did to him when you took with a knife the life of
his sister and then ordered to drown in the sea he who heard you. He is
very angry with you. Come now quickly to him who is king of this
kingdom, you wicked man, you wretched traitor, and he will give you
your deserts, by Christ who bled on the cross.’
In the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION, there are 3 expressions which
are not of French origin (tene, anger, onfall) and three expressions which are
French loans (greven, annoien, tarien). Of the former set, tene is most
frequently used. There are 10 attestations in which it is used as a noun and 3 in
which it is used as a verb.
114
(341) For þey synne al yn hope of grace; At here endyng wene þey haue space,
Þan þenke þey to shryue hem clene. To swyche men god shewyþ hys
tene. (Handling Synne 4795-4798)
‘Because they all sin in hope of grace. At their ends, they think they have
time left and then they think they can confess themselves clean. To such
men god shows his anger.’
(342) Do wickednes vte of vr thoght, And feluni þat gains noght, And envie and
tene; Þat we mai tak þat ilk flexs, Lauerd ! if þi will it es, Wit bodi and
hert clene; (Cursor Mundi 25598-25603)
‘Ban wickedness out of our thoughts, and villainy that gains nothing and
envy and anger, so that we can take that flesh, Lord, if it is your will, with
a clean body and heart.’
(343) Þe apostels spekand þus and mar, Þe preistes come in þat siquar, Þe
temple maisters wit þam bun, All þai war of on commun. At þair talking
þam tenid sare, “Hu es þis,” þai said, “þat yee dar Suilkin loueword of
him sai, þat we did deme þis endir dai?” (Cursor Mundi 19115-19122)
‘The apostles spoke thus and more. At that time, the priests came,
together with the masters of the temple. They were all of the same
fellowship. They were very angry with their speech and said, “How come
that you dare speak with praise of him who we condemned the other
day?” ’
Because it still mainly refers to other forms of affliction, anger is to be found
but once with reference to ANGER in this corpus.
(344) Zyf þey se þat one douþ more, Enuyus þan angreþ sore. (Handling Synne
3985-3986)
‘If they see that anyone achieves more, the envious are sorely angry.’
ANGER is once referred to as an onfall ‘attack, affliction’.
(345) Wreth it es a brath on-fall, Menging o mode þat cums o gall; (Cursor
Mundi 27738-27739)
‘Anger is a fierce affliction, a disturbance of the mind caused by gall.’
The most important word of French origin showing the conceptualization
is greven, from French grever ‘oppress, afflict’.19 It
occurs 15 times with reference to ANGER, which makes it the most frequent
expression in this domain. It is used as a noun twice, 3 times as a verb and 10
times as a past participle.
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
(346) He sayd, “Gud Lord, nowe with your leve, I pray yo take hit noghte on
greve, For ye may notte wete for me.” (Sir Amadace 106-108)
‘He said, “Good Lord, now with your permission, I pray you not to take it
in anger, because you may not learn anything from me.” ’
(347) “Lord,” he seyde, “for no mys beleue Þat þou shuldest wyþ me þe greue,
But for to shewe þe ryght soþnesse Þat þou art þe sacrament of þe messe,
115
Þat y may make ouþere certeyn Whan y wyþ yen haue þe sen.” (Handling
Synne 10035-10040)
‘ “Lord,” he said, “not for lack of belief, for which you would be angry
with me, but to show the right faith that you are the sacrament of mass,
that I can convince others when I have seen you with my eyes.” ’
(348) ‘For gode,’ queþ he, ‘þat ich do nelle!’ Þemperur to him gan telle, And
was agreued, Anon riZt is swerd out drouZ And þe gode kniZt a slouZ
And nam is heued. (Sir Beves of Hamtoun 271-276)
‘ “By God, I will not do so !” said the emperor to him and was angered.
Straightaway he drew out his sword and slew the good knight and took
his head.’
The expression anoien, from French an(n)oier or en(n)oier ‘to trouble, to
afflict, to make sad’ is used twice as a past participle.
(349) Þo þouZt þe paiem Frelent Awreke his cosyn of þat dent To Arthour wiþ
main he smot His scheld he clef God it wot And of his hauberk a gore
And of his aketoun a fot and more Ac he no tok nouZt his flesche, Herof
Arthour anoid wes A dint he smot anon to him And cleue his helme and
eke bacin And al þe heued to þe brest (Of Arthour and of Merlin 63916401)
‘Then the pagan Frelent thought to avenge his cousin for this blow. To
Arthur he struck out with strength and cleaved his shield, God knows, and
of his coat-of-mail a strip and of his quilted jacket a foot and more, but he
took no flesh. Arthur was much displeased by this and immediately dealt
him a blow and cleaved his helmet and basinet and his whole head to the
breast.’
(350) Ac neuer siþe, wiþ oute fable, Ne com þe stede out of þe stable, So sore
he was aneied þat tide; Siþþe dorste noman on him ride! (Sir Beves of
Hamtoun 2027-2030)
‘And never since, without a lie, has the horse come out of the stable. He
was so very angry at the time that nobody dared to ride on him since.’
The last expression showing the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION is
tarien, derived from French tarier ‘to provoke, to irritate, to hurt’. It is used
twice.
(351) I womman haue vn-buxum bene And tarid myn husband to tene, In many
thyng þat i suld don, And noght queþer my lagh vndon. (Cursor Mundi
28152-28155)
‘I, woman, have been disobedient and have provoked my husband to
anger, in many things that I should do and not in spite of my command
leave undone.’
(352) Bot wijt þou well, wit-vten wene, Þai do bot tarys crist wit tene, And oft
his wrak on þam sua lendes Þat þai er ded wit-vten amendes. (Cursor
Mundi 26786-26789)
116
‘But you know well, undoubtedly, that they but provoke Christ to anger,
and often his revenge dwells on them so, that they are dead without
amends.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS
adjective wod, which is used 23 times.
INSANITY
is mainly expressed by the
(353) “Godote,” said pilate to þam þan, “Þat thinc me ful gode, Bot giues me
consail if yee can, for menged es mi mode. Þis godman es o mikel wijt,
qua-sa it vnder-stode, Bot he has wrethed yow, for-qui yee er wit him sa
wod.” (Cursor Mundi 16221-16228)
‘Then Pilate said to them, “Truly, that seems very good to me, but give
me advice if you can, because my mind is disturbed. This good man has
much wisdom, whoever understands it, but he has angered you, for which
you are so mad at him.’
(354) His statout was and his lawe Þat non no schuld in seuen dawe Þat were of
priis oþer of noblay Fram þat fest wende oway Bot it were bi þe kinges
wille And who so dede he schuld spille. Þo þe king vnderstode Þe douke
ywent he was neiZe wode, Of þat despite pleynt he made And to his folk
seþþen he sade Þat he was digne to dye anon Þat swiche despite hadde
ydon. (Of Arthour and of Merlin 2389-2400)
‘His decree and law was that no one who was of high rank or of nobility
should within seven days depart from the feast unless it was the king’s
will and that whoever did so would be killed. When the king found out
that the duke went away, he was almost insane and made a complaint
about this disobedience and to his people he said that he deserved to die
immediately who had done such defiance.’
Out of witte, the synonym of wod that was already present in the previous
period is used only once to refer to ANGER in this part of the corpus.
(355) He rod eft with gret raundoun And thought to beren him adoun, And girt
Degarre anon Right agein the brest-bon The schaft was stef and wonder
god, And Degarre stede astod, And al biforen he ros on heghth, And tho
was he ifallen neghth; But as God Almighti wold, The schaft brak and
might nowt hold, And Degarre his cours out ritte, And was agramed out
of his witte. (Sir Degaré 529-540)
‘He rode again with great violence and he thought to throw him down and
struck Degaré right on the breastbone. The shaft was strong and
remarkably good and Degaré’s horse reared and like before he rose high
and he nearly fell. But as God the Almighty wanted, the shaft broke and
could no longer hold and Degaré completed his course and he was mad
with anger.’
For the first time, the conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY is expressed by
the French loan-word rage. Its French equivalent, rage, also means both
117
‘insanity’ and ‘anger’. Rage is used 3 times as a noun and once as an adjective.
All the attestations are found in the same text, Of Arthour and of Merlin.
(356) Þis hore com opon a day To hir soster par ma fay And to hir soster sche
gan sigge Þat sche it schuld dere abigge Þat sche hadde hir hiritage, And
ran to hir in gret rage Wiþ herlotes þat wiþ hir ware And sore bete þat
wenche þare; (Of Arthour and of Merlin 823-830)
‘This whore one day came to her sister, by my faith, and to her sister she
said that she would pay dearly for the fact that she had her inheritance and
ran to her in great rage together with the whores who were with her and
sorely beat that girl there.’
(357) Þe king com wiþ his barnage And tounes brent in gret rage He bilay him
swiþe long And men slouZ — it was wiþ wrong. (Of Arthour and of
Merlin 2421-2424)
‘The king came with his retainers and burnt towns in great rage. He
besieged them very long and killed men — it was wicked.’
(358) King Ionap a paien kene (Lengþe he hadde o fet fiftene) He seiZe hou
Arthour ded hem damage He tok a launce in gret rage And biforn him
grop his scheld Arthour he þouZt his harm to Zeld; (Of Arthour and of
Merlin 8845-8850)
‘King Ionap, a bold pagan (he was fifteen feet long) saw how Arthur did
them harm. He took a spear in great rage and held his shield before him.
He thought to repay Arthur for his harm.’
(359) Now telleþ þis romaunce cert Oriens was sore yhert Tofore Camalahot in
þe pleyn And wounded of child Wawain, For his hurtinge and his damage
He was neiZe wode and eke rage He wald him wreke anon riZt Ac it was
almost þo niZt (Of Arthour and of Merlin 7271-7279)
‘Now this romance tells indeed that Oriens was sorely hurt in the field
before Camelot and wounded by the young Gawain. For his hurt and his
injury, he was almost insane and also angry and he wanted to avenge
himself right away, but it was almost night.’
Like in the previous period, the conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING is to
be found in the expressions gret herte and bolnen, which is new to the lexical
field. Both the OED and MED consider bolnen to be a Scandinavian loan-word,
derived from Old Norse bolgna ‘to swell’. It occurs twice and gret herte once in
this corpus.
(360) Vtaine hir can wit þis to tene, And wit þe bolnning of hir hert, Sco kest
sum wordes son ouerthuert. (Cursor Mundi 10462-10464)
‘Utaine became angry with this, and with the swelling of her heart, she
immediately flung out some cross words.’
(361) A maister was þar sumdel kene, At iesu thoght him selcut tene, Þan for he
spak sa skilwisli At him had he ful gret envi, Thoru þe bolning of his hert
Wit ioseph wordes spak ourthuert, (Cursor Mundi 12079-12084)
118
‘There was a teacher who was somewhat bellicose. He was remarkably
angry with Jesus because he spoke so wisely that he envied him very
much. Through the swelling of his heart, he spoke angry words with
Joseph.’
(362) “O sir Mahoun,” he gan to grede, “Wil Ze nouZt helpe me at þis nede ? Þe
deuel Zou brenne ichon!” He hent a staf wiþ herte grete, & stirt anon his
godes to bete, & drouZ hem alle adoun. (King of Tars 646-651)
‘He cried out, “O gods ! Will you not help me in my need ? May the devil
burn each one of you !” He took a staff with anger and started to beat his
gods and drew them all down.’
There are two expressions which reveal the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE,
namely kindlen and brennen. They are used twice and 3 times respectively.
(363) Widues ne barns faderles Do yee na wrang, ne na males, If yee do, cri to
me þai sall, And i, for-soth, sall here þair call, And sal mi wrath be
kindeld sua, Þat i wit suerd þan sal yow sla, Widus sall i mak your wifes,
Your barns haf na faders in liues. (Cursor Mundi 6787-6794)
‘To widows and fatherless children do not do wrong or malice. If you do,
they will cry to me and I, truly, shall hear their call, and my anger will be
kindled so, that I shall kill you with the sword. I shall make your wives
widows and your children will have no fathers alive.’
(364) Steuen tifted him al bun, And þan bigan a gret sarmun, And þar he
puruaid, witvten au, Þat fals it was, all þair onsau. For first to loue godd
he began Of moyses, þat dughti man, And siþen spak he o þair lagh, Þat
þai it cuth noght seluen knau. Bot quen he had þam tald þe soth Þai bigan
to gnast wit toth, Þair thoght þam brast for tene, Eth es to kindel þat es
kene. (Cursor Mundi 19425-19435)
‘Stephen made himself ready and began a great sermon and proved,
without fear, that it was false, their accusation. To praise god he first told
of Moses, that brave man, and subsequently he spoke of their law, that
they could not know themselves. But when he had told them the truth,
they began to gnash their teeth. They thought that they would burst for
anger. It is easy to kindle what is eager.’
(365) Zyf þou for ire a man slogh Þat myghtyst haue left hyt weyl inogh, Þat hyt
was nat þe defendyng, But for wraþþe and ire brennyng, Al þat eure god
shope to be Shal come & fyghte aZens þe At þe day of iuggement, And
aZens alle þou shalt be shent. (Handling Synne 3751-3758)
‘If you slay a man for anger and could have avoided it easily enough, that
is was not done in defence but for wrath and burning anger, all that god
ever brought into existence will come and fight against you on judgement
day and in confrontation with them all you will be destroyed.’
(366) O suernes cums care to strang And þat vnmetele lastand lang For tinsel o
þis werlds gode, Þat man vmquile wexus wode, Þat he gain godd wil
seluen striue, And quilum dos him-self o liue; And in mining of his
119
mistime He wites wend and waris his time, And sua he mengges him wit
ire, Þat brennes mans mede als fire; (Cursor Mundi 27762-27771)
‘Of sloth comes care that is too strong and lasts excessively long for loss
of this world’s goods, that man sometimes becomes mad so that he
himself will fight against god and sometimes kill himself, and in
remembering his misfortune he reproaches his fate and curses his time
and thus he disturbs his mind with anger, which burns man’s spirit like
fire.’
(367) & when he was opon his stede, Him þouZt he brend so spark on glede
For ire & for envie. (King of Tars 193-195)
‘(…) and when he sat upon his steed, he thought that he burnt like a spark
on fire for anger and envy.’
There is also a more abstract version of the ANGER AS HEAT-conceptualization
in the use of the expression hete.
(368) “O sir Mahoun,” he gan to grede, “Wil Ze nouZt helpe me at þis nede ? Þe
deuel Zou brenne ichon!” He hent a staf wiþ grete hete, & stirt anon his
godes to bete, & drouZ hem alle adoun. (King of Tars 646-651)
‘He cried out, “O gods ! Will you not help me in my need ? May the devil
burn each one of you !” He took a staff with great heat and started to beat
his gods and drew them all down.’
This attestation is a variant of example (362). King of Tars has come to us in
three manuscripts : the Auchinleck manuscript, which is considered closest to a
French original, and two slightly later manuscripts, Vernon and Simeon, in
which the text was considerably anglicized. Remarkably, the conceptualization
ANGER AS FIRE is only found in the Auchinleck manuscript. In the process of
anglicization of the other manuscripts, French loan-words were replaced by more
usual English expressions, but both HEAT-conceptualizations were changed as
well. Grete hete in (368), was replaced by herte grete, which became an
instance of the SWELLING-conceptualization. In (367), Him þouZt he brend so
spark on glede is replaced by he sprong as sparkle doþ of glede (‘he sprang like
a sparkle does from the fire’), which is no longer a conceptualization of the
sultan’s ANGER, but of the way he rides off on his horse.
Like in most of the older periods, the c1300 corpus also shows the
conceptualization ANGER AS BITTERNESS. A new element is that it is no longer
expressed by bitter but by a French loan-word, egre, derived from aigre ‘sour,
bitter, sharp’. Unlike bitter, which normally refers to a lasting negative emotion
of a very mixed kind, egre refers to prototypical ANGER, which is sudden and
fierce. Egre is used 3 times, always in the combination egre mod.
(369) The King with egre mod gan speke: “ Do bring me a schaft that wil nowt
breke! A, be mi trewthe, he sschal adoun!” (Sir Degaré 559-561)
‘The king angrily spoke : “Bring me a lance that will not break. By my
truth, he shall be killed.” ’
120
(370) Than was the douke ful egre of mod; Was noman that about him stode
That durst legge on him hond; He spurned him with his fot And laid on,
as he were wode, With his naked brond, And bi the fet the lazer he drough
And drad on him in the slough; For no thing wald he wond, And seyd,
“Thef, thou schalt be slawe, Bot thou wilt be the sothe aknawe, Where
thou the coupe fond.” (Amis and Amiloun 2089-2100)
‘Then the duke was very angry. There was nobody who stood close to
him who dared to lay a hand on him. He kicked him with his foot and
attacked him persistently, as if he were mad, with his bare sword, and by
the feet he drew the leper and terrified him in the mudhole. Nothing
would make him hesitate and he said, “Thief, you will be slain unless you
make known the truth. Where did you find the cup ?” ’
(371) The knyght was hende and good And styrte up with egre mood And
thryys he gan hym sayn. (Sir Isumbras 424-426)
‘The knight was noble and good and stood up in an angry manner and
charged against him thrice.’
The use of the expression malencolie illustrates the conceptualization ANGER
It refers to an overproduction of black bile (Greek μελαν χολη),
which disturbs the balance of the four body fluids (black bile, yellow bile, blood
and phlegm) and results in physical or mental disease. In the middle ages,
malencolie is not only considered to cause a gloomy mental state, which is the
only state to which present-day melancholy refers, but also a state of irritability.20
Hence, it is also used with reference to ANGER itself. This use is not frequent
c1300, there being only one such attestation.
AS BODY FLUIDS.
(372) Forth they went with that may To Beues chamber, there he lay; Beues
lokyd vp stoutly thoo And Iosyan in her armes two Toke hym vp and
kyssud hym swete, His malincoly there to abate ; (Sir Beves of Hamtoun
Paper Ms Chetham Library 577-582)
‘Off they went with the girl to Beves’s chamber, where he lay. Beves
looked up fiercely and Josian took him in her two arms and kissed him
sweetly to lessen his melancholy.’
In Cursor Mundi, there are three attestations of the expression mengen ‘mix’.
This reveals the conceptualization ANGER AS A DISTURBANCE. It is not quite
clear if this is a very abstract or a fairly concrete idea of disturbance : on the one
hand it is used on its own or combined with the abstract word mod, but on the
other hand it is said to be caused by (an overproduction of) gall (example (375)).
It may be linked with several other conceptualizations, like ANGER AS INSANITY
(wode in (373)), ANGER AS FIRE in (374), ANGER AS AFFLICTION (on-fall in (375))
and ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS (gall in (375)).
(373) Ioseph, wen þe Iews wist Þat he hade doluen iesu crist, Wrothe with him
þai wore & wode, Alle for-menged in þar mode. (Cursor Mundi 1728917292)
121
‘When the Jews knew that Joseph had buried Jesus Christ, they were
angry with him and mad, all disturbed in their minds.’
(374) O suernes cums care to strang And þat vnmetele lastand lang For tinsel o
þis werlds gode, Þat man vmquile wexus wode, Þat he gain godd wil
seluen striue, And quilum dos him-self o liue; And in mining of his
mistime He wites wend and waris his time, And sua he mengges him wit
ire, Þat brennes mans mede als fire; (Cursor Mundi 27762-27771)
‘Of sloth comes care that is too strong and lasts excessively long for loss
of this world’s goods, that man sometimes becomes mad so that he
himself will fight against god and sometimes kill himself, and in
remembering his misfortune he reproaches his fate and curses his time
and thus he disturbs his mind with anger, which burns man’s spirit like
fire.’
(375) Wreth it es a brath on-fall, Menging o mode þat cums o gall; (Cursor
Mundi 27738-27739)
‘Anger is a fierce affliction, a disturbance of the mind caused by gall.’
The last two new expressions in the lexical field are the French loan-words
mispaien and not paid. They are both antonyms of paien ‘to satisfy, to please’
and as such they reveal the conceptualization ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS. As was
explained in section 2.1.2, such antonyms may often refer either to ANGER or
SADNESS and it is the contextual information that will have to be used as a
disambiguating factor. Mispaien occurs 3 times with reference to ANGER, once
as an adjective, once as a verb and once as a past participle. Not paid occurs
twice as a past participle.
(376) Þe fende fondyþ wyþ al hys myght To putte sumwhat yn here syght Þat
shal make hem swych þyng beleue, And god almyghty myspaye & greue.
(Handling Synne 487-490)
‘The devil tries with all his might to put something in their sight that will
make them believe such a thing and displease God almighty.’
(377) Zyf þou shewe one o party And a nouþer prest þou tellest a nouþer foly,
Þat shryfte ys noght: þy soule ys betrayd, And god almyghty ys myspayd.
(Handling Synne 11833-11836)
‘If you reveal part to one and tell another priest another foolish act, the
confession is nothing : your soul is betrayed and god almighty is
displeased.’
(378) Þar-til ansuer i þe son, Þat al his god dede formast don He has þam wit þis
ded slain, And al his wicked went again Þat first vr lauerd had forgiuen,
Quen he did penance and wel was scriuen. And rises a sin of vnkindnes
Wit alle þat als greues es, Als all his oþer sinnes ware, And es vr lauerd
mispaiand mare Þan al þe dede he dide be-forn, For his lauerd he driues
to scorn. (Cursor Mundi 26444-26455)
‘To that I answer you, son, that al his good deeds that he did at first, he
has slain with this deed, and all his wickedness comes again that our lord
122
had forgiven before, when he repented and confessed well. If he commits
a sin of impiety, that is all in all as grievous as all his other sins were and
it displeases our lord more than all the deeds he did before because he
brings his lord to scorn.’
(379) Þe hors was nouZt ipaied wel : He arnede awai wiþ þe king ÞourZ felde
& wode, wiþ outen lesing, And in a mure don him cast (Sir Beves of
Hamtoun 2020-2023)
‘The horse was not pleased : it ran away with the king through fields and
woods, without lying, and cast him down in a swamp.’
(380) O nyght þyr was he knewe hys wyff Of flesshely dede as fyl here lyff,
And god was nat payd ne wlde hyt noght, So nygh þe cherche swych
dede were wroght. (Handling Synne 8951-8954)
‘One night he had carnal knowledge of his wife as (?) and god was
displeased and did not want such a deed to be done so close to the
church.’
3.6.2 Summary
conceptualization
FIERCENESS
WRONG EMOTION
AFFLICTION
INSANITY
HEAT
UNHAPPINESS
SWELLING
expression
(root)
wrath
gram
brath
grim
ire
thuert
greven
tene
anoien
tarien
anger
onfall
wod
rage
out of witte
brennen
kindelen
hete
mispaien
not paid
bolnen
gret herte
frequency
absolute
220
28
13
1
39
2
15
13
2
2
1
1
23
4
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
1
%
57.00
7.26
3.37
0.26
10.10
0.52
3.89
3.37
0.52
0.52
0.26
0.26
5.96
1.03
0.26
0.78
0.52
0.26
0.78
0.52
0.52
0.26
%
67.88
10.62
8.81
7.25
1.55
1.30
0.78
123
3
DISTURBANCE
3
BODY FLUIDS
1
total
386
table (11) : ANGER-expressions c1300
BITTERNESS
egre
mengen
malencolie
0.78
0.78
0.26
100
0.78
0.78
0.26
100
3.7 C1400
3.7.1 Overview
Globally speaking, the conceptual field revealed by the c1400 corpus
contains all the conceptualizations present c1300.
In addition, some
conceptualizations that were present in Old English but not in the earlier Middle
English periods (ANGER AS PRIDE, ANGER AS HEAVINESS, ANGER AS BODILY
Finally, some minor new
BEHAVIOUR) now make their reappearance.
conceptualizations are introduced : ANGER AS CRAB-LIKE BEHAVIOUR and ANGER
AS CELTIC BEHAVIOUR. This results in the following overview :
ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
ANGER AS PRIDE
ANGER AS MOTION
ANGER AS INSANITY
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS SWELLING
ANGER AS HEAVINESS
ANGER AS BITTERNESS
ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS
ANGER AS BODILY BEHAVIOUR
ANGER AS CRAB-LIKE BEHAVIOUR
ANGER AS CELTIC BEHAVIOUR
Like c1200, the conceptualization ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION is expressed
by the hyperonym mod. There are 4 attestations c1400, all of which are nouns.
(381) And on hir bare knees adoun they falle And wolde have kist his feet ther
as he stood; Til at the laste aslaked was his mood, For pitee renneth soone
in gentil herte. (The Canterbury Tales - The Knight’s Tale 1758-1761)
‘And on their bare knees they knelt down and would have kissed his feet
as he stood there until at last his anger had passed, for pity soon runs in a
gentle heart.’
124
(382) For if I do aftir youre speche, Sith that ye seyn love is not good, Thanne
must I nedis ay with mood, If I it leve, in hatrede ay Lyven, and voide
love away From me, and ben a synfull wrecche hated of all that love that
tecche. (The Romaunt of the Rose (B-fragment) 5160-5166)
‘For if I do as you say, for you say that love is not good, then must I
necessarily always live with anger, if I believe it, and in hatred, and keep
love away from me and be a sinful wretch, hated by all who love that
quality.’
(383) God in the gospel grymly repreueth Alle that lakken any lyf and lakkes
han hem-selue: Quid consideras festucam in oculo fratris tui, trabem in
oculo tuo non vides ? Why meuestow thi mode for a mote in thi brotheres
eye, Sithen a beem in thine owne ablyndeth thi-selue ? (Piers Plowman
10.261-264)
‘God in the Gospels grimly reproves Those who find fault in others but do
not feel their own : Quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui; et
trabem in oculo tuo non vides? (Why are you moved to condemn a mote
in your brother’s eye, since you are blind to the beam that is in your
own?)’ (Tiller (1981:110))
(384) But evil avengit he his deol, þat, for a litill mode And angir to his
neyZbour, sellith a-wey his good, And goith hym-selff a begging aftir a
breff tyme; He mut be countid a lewd man, in alle maner ryme : (The Tale
of Beryn 2363-2366)
‘But he ill avenges his sorrow who for little anger towards his neighbour
sells his goods and himself goes begging after a short time. He must be
considered a foolish man in every way.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is still mainly to be
found in the expression ire. There are 450 attestations of ire in all. 419 of them
show the use of the noun ire, while 26 contain the adjective irous and 5 the
adverb irously.
(385) His bowe he bente, and sette therinne a flo, And in his ire his wyf thanne
hath he slayn. (The Canterbury Tales - The Manciple’s Tale 264-265)
‘He bent his bow, put an arrow in it, and in his anger he then killed his
wife.’
(386) At his hert the ire frat so sore That with a chere of verray angir pale He
hath hir hewe al on pecis smale, The whiche was so foule a cruel dede.
(Troy Book 4.4338-4341)
‘At his heart his anger gnawed so much that with a face pale with utter
anger he cut her up into small pieces, which was such a foul and cruel
thing to do.’
(387) Lo irous Cirus, thilke Percien, How he destroyed the ryver of Gysen, For
that an hors of his was dreynt therinne, Whan that he wente Babiloigne to
wynne. (The Canterbury Tales - The Summoner’s Tale 2079-2082)
125
‘Listen how angry Cyrus, that Persian, destroyed the river Gyndes
because a horse of his drowned in it when he went to conquer Babylon.’
(388) The fyr of his condicion Appropreth the complexion Which in a man is
Colre hote, Whos propretes ben dreie and hote : It maketh a man ben
enginous And swift of fote and ek irous; (Confessio Amantis 7.429-434)
‘The fire of his condition is a characteristic symptom of the complexion
that in people is called choler, whose properties are dry and hot : it makes
a man engenious and able to run fast and angry too.’
(389) Egerly one Inglisce “Arthure !” he askryes, The tother irouslye ansuers
hym sone On a launde of Lorrayne with a lowde steuen, That ledes
myghte lystene the lenghe of a myle ! (Alliterative Morte Arthur 25292532)
‘And fiercely Gawain cried in English, “Arthur” The other gave him his
answer at once, with wrath, lifting his loud shout in the land of Lorraine
So that any man inside a mile might hear it’ (Gardner (1971:67))
Again, the most frequent conceptualization is ANGER AS FIERCENESS. This
conceptualization is mainly represented in the expression wrath. Wrath occurs
in 798 attestations. They show a wide range of syntactic functions : there are
362 nouns, 370 adjectives, 8 adverbs, 10 intransitive verb forms, 44 transitive or
reflexive verb forms and 4 past participles which can either be analysed as part
of a passive construction or as adjectival forms in a combination with a copula.
(390) Bot he for no suggestioun Which toward him sche couthe stere, He wolde
noght o word ansuere, Bot as a madd man ate laste His heved wepende
awey he caste, And half in wraththe he bad hire go. (Confessio Amantis
8.1684-1689)
‘But to no suggestion that she could make to him, would he answer one
word, but in the end like a mad man he turned away his head, crying, and
half in anger ordered her to go.’
(391) Do þou, on þe same maner, fille þi spirit wiþ þe goostly bemenyng of þis
worde SYNNE, & wiþ-outyn any specyal beholdyng vnto any kynde of
synne, wheþer it be venial or deedly : pryde, wraþþe or enuye, couetyse,
slewþ, glotenie or lecherye. (The Cloud of Unknowing p.78 l.9-12)
‘In the same way you should fill your spirit with the inner meaning of the
single word ‘sin’, without analysing what kind it is, venial or mortal, or
pride, anger, envy, avarice, sloth, gluttony, or lust.’ (Wolters (1978:107))
(392) Make thou not chidyng with a wrathful man, and go thou not in to desert
with an hardi man; for whi blood is as nouyt bifore hym, and where noon
help is, he schal hurtle thee doun. (Wycliffe’s Bible Syrach 8.19)
‘Do not chide with an angry man and do not go into the desert with a
stout-hearted man, because blood is nothing to him and where there is no
help he will knock you down.’
(393) And notwithstondyng al this, I saw sothfastly that our Lord was never
wreth ne never shall. For He is God - good, life, trueth, love, peas. His
126
(394)
(395)
(396)
(397)
(398)
charite and His unite suffrith Hym not to be wroth. (The Shewings of
Julian of Norwich 1621-1623)
‘Notwithstanding all this, I truly saw that our Lord was never angry and
never shall be for he is God - goodness, life, truth, love and peace. His
kindness and his equanimity do not allow Him to be angry.’
Hou that of Troie Lamedon To Hercules and to Jasoun, Whan toward
Colchos out of Grece Be See sailende upon a piece Of lond of Troie reste
preide, - Bot he hem wrathfulli congeide : (Confessio Amantis 5.71977202)
‘how Hercules and Jason, when they sailed from Greece to Colchos,
asked the permission of Lamedon of Troy to rest on a piece of Troyan
land, but he sent them away angrily.’
Zitt es the warlow so wyghte, he welters hyme vndere, Wrothely thai
wrythyne and wrystille to-gederz, (Alliterative Morte Arthur 1140-1141)
‘so powerful is that warlock he rolls him under, And wrathfully they
wrestle and writhe together;’ (Gardner (1971:32))
Zet some, aZein the sonde of owre saueoure of heuene, Caymes kynde and
his kynde coupled togideres, Tyl god wratthed for her werkis and suche a
worde seyde, “That I maked man now it me athynketh;” (Piers Plowman
9.126-129)
‘Yet some, against that speech from our Saviour in Heaven, Did couple
Cain’s offspring with the kin of Seth, Till God grew angry at their deeds,
and gave this judgment : “That I ever made Man, now makes Me sorry” ’
(Tiller (1981:98))
and that noon oother man telle his synne but he hymself; ne he shal nat
nayte ne denye his synne, ne wratthe hym agayn the preest for his
amonestynge to lete synne. (The Canterbury Tales - The Parson’s Tale
1012)
‘And let no other man tell his sins but he himself, nor shall he deny his
sins, nor become angry with the priest for his admonition to leave sin.’
Lever me were that knyves kerve My body shulde in pecys smale, Than
in any wise it shulde falle That ye wratthed shulde ben with me. (The
Romaunt of the Rose (B-fragment) 3094-3097)
‘I had rather have knives cut my body in small pieces than it should
somehow happen that you are angered with me.’
The noun breth, a phonological variant of brath, occurs 6 times in the c1400
corpus. It is restricted to one text, namely Alliterative Morte Arthur.
(399) Ziff thow theis somouns wythsytte, he sendes thie thies wordes, He salle
the seke ouer the see wyth sextene kynges, Bryne Bretayne the brade, and
bryttyne thy knyghtys, And brynge the bouxsomly as a beste with brethe
whare hym lykes, That thow ne schalle rowte ne ryste vndyr the heuene
ryche, Thofe thow for reddour of Rome ryne to the erthe ! (Alliterative
Morte Arthur 104-109)
127
‘If you dare to ignore this summons, he sends you this warning: He will
seek you over the sea with sixteen kings To burn all the breadth of
Britain, and break your knights, And with rage he will drag you about like
a beast where he pleases; And you shall find neither sleep nor rest under
heaven Though you flee to a hole in the earth for fear of Rome.’ (Gardner
(1971:6))
(400) Sexty cowpes of suyte fore the kyng seluyne, Crafty and curious, coruene
fulle faire, In euer-ilk a party pyghte with precyous stones, That nane
enpoysone sulde goo preuely ther-vndyre, Bot the bryght golde for brethe
sulde briste al to peces, Or ells the venyme sulde voyde thurghe vertue of
the stones; (Alliterative Morte Arthur 210-215)
‘Sixty cups of a kind, designed for the king, Curious and crafty and
handsomely cut, And every zone of them ranked with precious stones So
that poison might never be privily slipped inside: For the bright gold, in
its wrath, would burst into pieces, Or the venom be made void by the
virtue of the stones.’ (Gardner (1971:8-9))
Still present in the lexical field as a representative of ANGER AS FIERCENESS is
the expression gram. However, it is much less frequently used than in the
previous periods. It occurs only once as an adjective and once as a noun.
(401) He gapede, he groned faste, with grucchande latez, ffor grefe of the gude
kynge, that hyme with grame gretez ! (Alliterative Morte Arthur 10761077)
‘His mouth gaped and he growled; his look was grim From anger at the
good king who greeted him with wrath;’ (Gardner (1971:30))
(402) But that woot heighe God that sit above, If it be likkere love, or hate, or
grame; And after that, it oughte bere his name. (Troilus and Criseyde
3.1027-1029)
‘But the high God, who is in heaven, knows if it is more like love or hate
or anger and according to that it ought to bear its name.’
Like in most of the previous periods, grim ‘fierce’ is sporadically attested
with reference to ANGER. It occurs once in the c1400 corpus.
(403) The statue of Mars upon a carte stood Armed, and looked grym as he
were wood; And over his heed ther shynen two figures Of sterres, that
been cleped in scriptures, That oon Puella, that oother Rubeus -- This god
of armes was arrayed thus. (Canterbury Tales - The Knight’s Tale 20412046)
‘An statue of Mars stood on a chariot, armed, and it looked angry as if it
were mad, and above its head two images of stars were shining, one of
which was called Puella in the books and the other Rubeus; this god of
arms was thus equipped.’
128
A near-synonym of grim is the French loan-word fers, which is itself derived
from Latin ferus. Besides ‘valiant, noble’ and ‘proud’, this word means the same
as present-day fierce. Rather exceptionally, it is used with reference to ANGER.
(404) The sones of Jacob answeriden in gile to Sichem and his fadir, and weren
feerse for the defoulyng of maidenhod of the sistir, (Wycliffe’s Bible
Genesis 34.13)
‘The sons of Jacob answered deceitfully to Sichem and his father and
were angry for the desacration of their sister’s virginity.’
One of the main representatives of the conceptualization ANGER AS
is anger. Although this expression is still used to refer to bodily
affliction and mental afflictions like sorrow and sadness, it is increasingly used
with reference to ANGER. In all, there are 105 attestations of this use of anger.
The attestations show 59 nominal uses, 30 adjecival uses, 2 adverbials, 4
intransitive verbs, 6 transitive or reflexive verbs and 4 past participles to be
analysed as either verbal or adjectival forms.
AFFLICTION
(405) Whooso weneth thanne hymsilf for to be a perfighte lovere and a folwer
of Cristis techynge and His lyvynge (as sum man weneth that he is, in as
mykil as he prechith and techith and is pore of wordli goodis as Crist
was), and cannot folwe Crist in this love and in this charité for to love his
evene Cristene, ecche man, good and badde, frendes and foos, withoutin
feynynge or flateringe, dispisynge in his herte agens the man,
angrynesse, and maliciousli reprovynge, sothli he bigileth hymsilf. (The
Scale of Perfection 1.2011-2017)
‘Whoever thinks himself to be a perfect lover and a follower of Christ’s
teaching and living (as some think they are, to the extent that they preach
and teach and are poor of worldly goods as Christ was) and cannot follow
Christ in this love and in this benevolence to love his fellow Christian,
each man, good and bad, friend and foe, without pretending or flattering,
despising of the man in his heart, anger and malicious rebuke, truly he
deceives himself.’
(406) After this, thanne cometh sweryng, that is expres agayn the comandement
of God; and this bifalleth ofte of anger and of Ire. (The Canterbury Tales
- The Parson’s Tale 586)
‘After this comes swearing, which is directly opposed to God’s
commandment, and is the result of anger and Wrath.’
(407) He seith there is no God; not with his mouth, for he wole speken of Him
sum tyme whanne he fareth wel fleischli, as it were in reverence, whanne
he seith, “Blissid be God,” summe in dispite whanne he is angry agens
God or his even Cristene, and swerith bi His blissid bodi or ony of His
membris. (The Scale of Perfection 2.788-792)
‘He says that there is no God, not with his mouth, for he will speak of
Him sometimes when he feels well physically, as it were in reverence,
129
(408)
(409)
(410)
(411)
(412)
when he says “Blessed be God” and sometimes in scorn when he is angry
against God or his fellow Christian and swears by His blessed body or
one of His members.’
‘Bet is,’ quod he, ‘hye in the roof abyde, Than with an angry wyf doun in
the hous; They been so wikked and contrarious, They haten that hir
housbondes loven ay.’ (The Canterbury Tales - The Wife of Bath’s Tale
778-781)
‘ “It is better,” he said, “to be high in the roof than down in the house with
an angry wife. They are so wicked and hostile; they hate it that their
husbands always love them.” ’
Thanne comth of Ire attry angre. Whan a man is sharply amonested in his
shrifte to forleten his synne, thanne wole he be angry, and answeren
hokerly and angrily, and deffenden or excusen his synne by
unstedefastnesse of his flessh; or elles he dide it for to holde compaignye
with his felawes, or elles, he seith, the feend enticed hym; (The
Canterbury Tales - The Parson’s Tale 582-583)
‘From Wrath comes poisonous anger. When a man is sharply
admonished in his confession to renounce his sin, he will be angry and
answer scornfully and angrily, and defend or excuse his sin by
mentioning the frailty of the flesh or else that he did it to keep the
company of his fellows or else that the devil tempted him.’
“What vaylith it,” quod hanybald, “to angir or to curs ? And Zit I am in
certen, I shall fare the wers All the dayis of my lyff for þis dayis pleding;”
(The Tale of Beryn 3883-3885)
‘ “Of what use is it,” said Hannibal, “to be angry or to curse ? And yet I
am certain that I shall be off the worse all the days of my life for today’s
dispute.” ’
I wolde that vche a wyght were my knaue, For who-so hath more than I
that angreth me sore. (Piers Plowman 5.116-117)
‘I wish all men and women I meet were my serfs, For it angers me if
anyone has more than I have.’ (Tiller (1981:55))
Than the emperour irus was angerde at his herte, ffor oure valyant
biernez siche prowesche had wonnene. (Alliterative Morte Arthur 19571958)
‘The wrathful emperor was angered in his heart To see that our valiant
soldiers had won such advantage.’ (Gardner (1971:53))
Less frequent is the much older expression tene. Although it is mainly used
as a noun, it is syntactically quite flexible : of the 33 attestations, 30 show nouns,
2 verbs and 1 an adjective.
(413) ‘Now, bi the peril of my soule!’ quod Pieres al in pure tene, ‘But Ze arise
the rather and rape Zow to worche, Shal no greyne that groweth glade Zow
at nede; And though Ze deye for dole the deuel haue that reccheth!’ (Piers
Plowman 6.119-122)
130
(414)
(415)
(416)
(417)
‘ ‘Now, by my soul’s peril,’ cried Piers, in pure rage, ‘Unless you’re on
your feet fast, and flying to work, Not one grain that I grow shall you get
when you need it; And though you die of dearth, devil take me if I care!’ ’
(Tiller (1981:76))
Gamelyn overtook the porter and his teene wrack And gert him in the
necke that the bon tobrack And took him by that oon arm and threw him
in a welle- Seven fadmen it was deep, as I have herd telle. (Gamelyn 303306)
‘Gamelyn caught the porter and avenged his anger and struck him in the
neck that the bone broke and took him by one arm and threw him in a
well - It was seven fathoms deep, I heard tell.’
Wel sore he gan to tene And saide, ‘Fye on the, Sarasyne! For alle thy
grete harde hede, Shaltow never drinke water ner wyne. By God, thou
shalte be dede!’ (The Sowdone of Babylone 2901-2905)
‘He became very angry and said, “Shame on you, Saracens ! For all your
great hard heads you shall never drink water or wine. By God, you shall
be dead!” ’
Thenne tened hym Theologye whan he this tale herde, And seide to
Cyuile ‘now sorwe mot thow haue, Such weddynges to worche to wratthe
with Treuthe; (Piers Plowman 2.114-116)
‘Now Theology lost his temper at that loud proclamation, And said to
Civil Law, ‘Now, sorrow be upon you, To manoeuvre such marriages in
mockery of Truth!’ (Tiller (1981:31))
Bot then Kyng Charls withowtten wene At the Byschopp was so tene, A
fawchone hase he drawen. (The Sege of Melayne 709-711)
‘But then, undoubtedly, King Charles was so angry at the bischop; he
drew a dagger.’
There is one attestation of weamod. This is the very last attestation in the
corpus of this expression, which has been part of the lexical field of ANGER from
850 onwards.
(418) Zet oure lorde to þe lede laused a speche : ‘Is þis ryZt-wys, þou renk, alle
þy ronk noyse, So wroth for a wod-bynde to wax so sone? Why art þou so
waymot, wyZe, for so lyttel?’ (Patience 489-492)
‘And our lord spoke to the prophet : “Is it right, you creature, with all
your excessive noise, to become so angry so quickly for a woodbine ?
Why are you so angry, man, for so little ?” ’
The main verbal expression revealing the categorization ANGER AS
is greven. There are 24 attestations of this expression used as a
transitive or reflexive verb and 3 as an intransitive verb. Moreover, 16
attestations show a past participle form that can be analysed as verbal
constructions or adjectival one. Only 8 attestations show nominal uses.
AFFLICTION
131
(419) “Now, sires,” quod this Osewold the Reve, “I pray yow alle that ye nat
yow greve, Thogh I answere, and somdeel sette his howve; For leveful is
with force force of-showve. (The Canterbury Tales - The Reeve’s Tale
3909-3912)
‘ “Now, sirs,” said Oswald the Reeve, “I ask you all not to be angry if I
answer and somewhat make a fool of him, for it is permitted to repel force
with force.” ’
(420) But, tolde I yow the worste point, I leve, Al seyde I soth, ye wolden at me
greve. (Troilus and Criseyde 1.342-343)
‘But if I told you the worst, I believe, even if I told the truth, you would
be angry at me.’
(421) Thou sees that the emperour es angerde a lyttille; Yt semes be his
sandismene that he es sore greuede; (Alliterative Morte Arthur 265-266)
‘You can see that the emperor is angered a little; Indeed, from his servant
he sounds like a man grieved sore.’ (Gardner (1971:10))
(422) He gapede, he groned faste, with grucchande latez, ffor grefe of the gude
kynge, that hyme with grame gretez ! (Alliterative Morte Arthur 10761077)
‘His mouth gaped and he growled; his look was grim From anger at the
good king who greeted him with wrath;’ (Gardner (1971:30))
New to the lexical field, at first sight, is terren. This form seems to be a
continuation of both Old English tirgan and the French loan-word tarien. This
expression is basically used as a verb. Even the nouns that occur in the
attestations are clearly deverbal derivations. Remarkably, all 72 attestations of
this expression come from the same text, namely Wiclyffe’s Bible.
(423) And Y felde doun bifor the Lord as biforto, in fourti daies and fourti
nyytis, and Y eet not breed, and drank not watir, for alle youre synnes
whiche ye diden ayens the Lord, and terriden hym to greet wraththe;
(Wycliffe’s Bible Deuteronomy 9.18)
‘And I fell down before the Lord as before and for forty days and forty
nights I ate no bread and drank no water for all the sins that you
committed against the Lord and provoked him to great anger.’
(424) Fadris, nyle ye terre youre sones to indignacioun, that thei be not maad
feble hertid. (Wycliffe’s Bible Colosencis 3.21)
‘Fathers, do not provoke your sons to anger, so that they are not made
weak-hearted.’
(425) Therfor thou schalt speke my wordis to hem, if perauenture thei heren,
and resten, for thei ben terreris to wraththe. (Wycliffe’s Bible Ezechiel
2.7)
‘Therefore you shall speak my words to them so that perhaps they listen
and they stop, because they are people who provoke to anger.’
132
(426) As in the terryng to wraththe; bi the dai of temptacioun in desert. Where
youre fadris temptiden me; thei preueden and sien my werkis. (Wycliffe’s
Bible Psalms 94.9)
‘Like in the provocation to anger, the day of temptation in the desert,
when your fathers tempted me and tested and saw my works.’
Finally, the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION is to be found in
offenden. In most attestations of this loan-word from French ofendre or Latin
offendere ‘hit, hurt one’s feelings’, it is hard to determine the exact nature of the
emotion. The central idea is that of feeling wronged, but such a feeling can be
anywhere on the scale between quite mild and very strong. There is but one
attestation in which the syntactic context clearly assigns the expression to the
conceptual field of ANGER :
(427) Wher-of Troyens, whan þei token hede, Disamaied wiþ a mortal drede,
By signes han clerly comprehendid Þat her goddes gretly wer offendid
Ageyn þe toun, whan þe fire went oute; (Troy Book 4.5951-5955)
‘When they noticed this, the Troyans were dismaied with mortal fear. By
the signs, they had clearly understood that their gods were angry with the
town, when the fire went out.’
With the domain of UNHAPPINESS, the lexical field of ANGER shares the
expression sori. There are 2 attestations in which the reference is clearly not to
UNHAPPINESS but to ANGER.
(428) The king was wonder sory tho, And thoghte, if that he seide it oute, Than
were he schamed al aboute. (Confessio Amantis 8.428-430)
[Latin marginal note : Indignacio Antiochi super responsione Appolini]
‘The king was remarkably angry and thought that if he told it, he would
be brought to shame in every way.’
(429) The king was sori for a while, Bot whan he sih that with no wyle He
myhte achieve his crualte, He stinte his wraththe and let him be.
(Confessio Amantis 8.533-536)
‘The king was angry for a while, but when he saw that in spite of his
determination he could not accomplish his cruelty, he put an end to his
anger and left him alone.’
The same conceptualization is to be found in the slightly euphemistic use of
antonyms paien and plesen, both meaning ‘to satisfy, to please’. The antonyms
of paien take on the forms of not well paid (1 attestation), evil paid (1
attestation) or mispaid (3 attestations).
(430) ffawnus herd his sone wele, how he be-gan to cry, And rose vp tho anoon, & to hym dide hiZe; And had for-Zete no thing’, þat Rame had Iseyde; ffor he boillid so his hert, he was nat wel apayde. (The Tale of
Beryn 1235-1238)
133
(431)
(432)
(433)
(434)
‘Faunus heard his son lament and how he began to cry, and immediately
rose up and urged him and he had forgotten nothing that Rame had said,
for his heart boiled so, he was not pleased.’
Thus leve I hym ride forth a while, Whilys that I retourne ageyn my style
Unto the kyng which in the halle stood Among his lordes furious and
wood, In his herte wroth and evel apayd Of the wordes that Tydeus hath
said, Specialy havyng remembraunce On the proude, dispitous diffiaunce
Whilys that he sat in his royal see, Upon which he wil avenged be Ful
cruelly, what evere that befalle. And in his ire he gan to hym calle Chief
constable of his chyvalrye, (Siege of Thebes 2.2123-2135)
‘And so I let him ride on for a while, while I change the subject to the
king who stood in his hall among his furious lords, in his heart angry and
ill pleased with the words that Tydeus had spoken, especially bearing in
mind the proud, scornful defiance when he sat on his royal throne, for
which he will very cruelly take revenge, whatever might happen. And in
his anger he called the chief officer of his knights.’
I wot his myZt is so much, þaZhe be mysse-payed, Þat in his mylde
amesyng he mercy may fynde. (Patience 399-400)
‘I know that his power is so great that, though he is displeased, in his mild
moderation he may find mercy.’
I can noght of Envie finde, That I mispoke have oght behinde Wherof
Love owhte be mispaid. (Confessio Amantis 2.547-549)
‘I can find nothing of Envy that I might have missaid behind her back
with which Love ought to be displeased.’
Wherefor in soth, as I can discerne, Though som clerkis of shrewis have
myssaid, Lat no good womman therof be myspaid: For lak of oon, alle
are nought to blame, And eke of men may be seide the same. (Troy Book
3.4384-4388)
‘Truly, as I can understand, although some clerks have spoken ill of
shrews, let no good woman be displeased with that, because for the fault
of one, all are not to blame and the same can be said of men too.’
Much more frequently used, however, is the expression displesen. It is
derived from French desplaire ‘to displease’. There are 26 attestations of this
expression, 13 of which use it as a transitive or reflexive verb, 1 as an
intransitive verb and 10 as past participles (verbal or adjectival). Only 2
attestations show the deverbal noun displesa(u)nce.
(435) Thus muche as now, O wommanliche wif, I may out brynge, and if this
yow displese, That shal I wreke upon myn owen lif Right soone, I trowe,
and do youre herte an ese, If with my deth youre wreththe may apese.
(Troilus and Criseyde 3.106-111)
‘This much as now, womanly woman, I may tell, and if it displeases you,
I shall take revenge on my own life at once, I daresay, if with my death I
can appease your wrath.’
134
(436) And þerfore, I pray yow, displese yow noZt, And letteZ be your bisinesse,
for I bayþe hit yow neuer to graunte; (Sir Gawayn and þe Grene KnyZt
1840-1841))
‘And therefore I pray you, please be not angry, and cease to insist on it,
for to your suit I will never say no.’ (Tolkien (1975:70))
(437) ‘Blysful’, quod I, ‘may þys be trwe ? DyspleseZ not if I speke errour.’
(Pearl 421-422)
‘ ‘O Blissful!’ said I, ‘can this be true ? Be not displeased if in speech I
err !’ (Tolkien (1975:100))
(438) Whanne Melibee hadde herd dame Prudence maken semblant of wratthe,
he seyde in this wise : “Dame, I prey yow that ye be nat displesed of
thynges that I seye, for ye knowe wel that I am angry and wrooth, and that
is no wonder; and they that been wrothe witen nat wel what they don ne
what they seyn.” (The Canterbury Tales - The Tale of Melibee 28862889)
‘When Melibee had heard lady Prudence feign anger, he said thus, “Lady,
I pray you not to be angry with what I say because you know very well
that I am angry, and that is not surprising, and those who are angry do not
know well what they do or say.’
(439) And ye maistresses, in youre olde lyf, That lordes doghtres han in
governaunce, Ne taketh of my wordes no displesaunce. (The Canterbury
Tales - The Physician’s Tale 72-74)
‘And you governesses, in your old days, who have the daughters of lords
in your governance, do not take offence of my words.’
A conceptualization that was present in the Old English field, but had not
appeared in the Middle English field up to now is ANGER AS PRIDE. In Old
English, it was to be found in the use of unweorþ, a loan-translation from Latin
indignus. This expression is used but once c1400.
(440) Thanne the kyng was kyndlid with wrath, and was fers ayens hym more
crueli aboue alle; and bar vnworthili, ether heuyli, hym silf scorned.
(Wycliffe’s Bible 2 Macabeis 39)
‘Then the king was kindled with anger and was fierce against him and
more cruel than ever and took it indignantly, or heavily, that he was
scorned.’
C1400, this conceptualization is present in 3 expressions of French origin,
disdain, despite and indignation, derived from desdaigner, despit and
indignation respectively (although indignation may be derived directly from
Latin indignatio). Disdain is mainly used as a noun (19 attestations). It is also
used as a transitive verb (1 attestation) and an intransitive verb (4 attestations).
(441) “Whi so ,” quod sche; “for ryght as the stronge man ne semeth nat to
abaissen or disdaignen as ofte tyme as he herith the noyse of the bataile,
135
ne also it ne semeth nat to the wise man to beren it grevously as ofte as he
is lad into the stryf of fortune.” (Boece 4p7.76-81)
‘She said, “Why, just like the strong man does not seem to be afraid or
take offence whenever he hears the noise of battle, so too the wise man
does not seem to bear it heavily whenever he is led into the affliction of
fortune.” ’
(442) Bot sielde whanne it falleth so, For fewe men ther ben of tho, Bot of these
othre ynowe be, Whiche of here oghne nycete Ayein Nature and hire
office Deliten hem in sondri vice, Wherof that sche fulofte hath pleigned,
And ek my Court it hath desdeigned And evere schal; for it receiveth
Non such that kinde so deceiveth. (Confessio Amantis 8.2335-2344)
‘But seldom when it happens, for there are few such men that are known
apart from these other ones, which of their own wantonness take delight
in several sins against nature and her function, about which she has often
complained and it has also caused indignation in my court and ever shall
do so, because it accepts none that thus deceive nature.’
(443) Than seyde he thus, fulfild of heigh desdayn: “O cruel Jove, and thow,
Fortune adverse, This al and som : that falsly have ye slayn Criseyde, and
syn ye may do me no werse, Fy on youre myght and werkes so dyverse!”
(Troilus and Criseyde 4.1191-1195)
‘Then he said, full of indignation, “Cruel Jupiter, and you, contrary
Fortune, this is the whole story : that you have wrongly killed Criseyde
and you may do no worse to me, shame on your power and your so
hostile deeds !” ’
(444) And the prince of the synagoge answerde, hauynge dedeyn for Jhesus
hadde heelid in the sabat; and he seide to the puple, Ther ben sixe dayes,
in whiche it bihoueth to worche; therfor come ye in these, and be ye
heelid, and not in the daie of sabat. (Wycliffe’s Bible Luke 13.13-14)
‘And the ruler of the synagogue answered, indignant because Jesus had
cured on a sabbath, and said to the people, “There are six days when it is
fitting to work, so come on one of those to be cured, and not on the day of
the sabbath.” ’
Despitously and spite, derived from French despit or the adjective despitos,
occur 5 times in all. Their use seems to be quite restricted : despitously only
occurs in Chaucer’s texts and spite only in the Alliterative Morte Arthur.
(445) This Palamon, whan he tho wordes herde, Dispitously he looked and
answerde, “Wheither seistow this in ernest or in pley ?” (The Canterbury
Tales - The Knight’s Tale 1123-1125)
‘When Palamon heard these words, he looked angrily and answered, “Do
you say this in earnest or in disport ?” ’
(446) And by the throte-bolle he caughte Alayn, And he hente hym despitously
agayn, And on the nose he smoot hym with his fest. (The Canterbury
Tales - The Reeve’s Tale 4273-4275)
136
‘And he caught Alain by the Adam’s apple and struck him angrily again,
and hit him on the nose with his fist.’
(447) But -- weilawey, save only Goddes wille, Despitously hym slough the
fierse Achille. (Troilus and Criseyde 5.1805-1806)
‘But alas, except that it was God’s will, fierce Achilles killed him
angrily.’
(448) And on a day in his malencolie, Of hiZe despit and indignacioun, Ful inly
fret with Irous passioun, He gan breke oute, & his rancour shewe By
certeyn signes, þouZ he spak but fewe. (Troy Book 4.116-120)
‘And one day in his melancholy, due to high indignation, inwardly
consumed by angry passion, he broke out and showed his bitterness
through certain signs, although he spoke but little.’
(449) I myght noghte speke for spytte, so my herte trymblyde ! (Alliterative
Morte Arthur 270)
‘I could not speak for anger, so did my heart tremble !’’
The most frequent expression showing the conceptualization ANGER AS PRIDE
is indignation. It is attested 122 times. 110 of these attestations, however, are
found in one text, namely Wycliffe’s Bible translation.
(450) And Asa was wrooth ayens the prophete, and comaundide hym to be sent
in to stockis. Forsothe the Lord hadde indignacioun greetli on this thing,
and killide ful many of the puple in that tyme. (Wycliffe’s Bible 2
Paralipomenon 26.9-10)
‘And Asa was angry with the prophet and ordered him to be sent to the
block. Truly, the Lord was very indignant at this and killed many of the
people in those days.’
(451) Lo! the whirlewynd of the Lordis indignacioun schal go out, and tempest
brekynge schal come on the heed of wickid men. (Wycliffe’s Bible
Jeremiah 23.19)
‘The whirlwind of the Lord’s indignation will rise and the crushing
tempest will come over the heads of the wicked.’
Another conceptualization that was to be found in the Old English field but
was virtually absent in the early Middle English periods is ANGER AS MOTION.
Like in Old English, one of the most frequent expressions is stiren (Old English
astyrian). It is used 12 times as a transitive or reflexive verb and 24 times as
either a verbal or an adjectival past participle. It may be important, however, to
note that these attestations are almost exclusive to two texts : apart from one
occurrence in Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee and one in Lydgate’s Troy Book, it
occurs only in Hilton’s The Scale of Perfection (12 attestations) and Wycliffe’s
bible translation (22 attestations).
(452) Thei weren not stired to ire ne to felnesse, for to ben venged of the Jewes
that beten hem, as a wordli man wolde ben whanne he suffreth a litil
137
harm, be hit never so litil, of his even Cristen. (The Scale of Perfection
2.2723-2725)
‘They were not stirred to anger or fierceness to take revenge upon the
Jews that beat them, as a mortal person would be when he suffers a little
harm, be it ever so little, of his fellow christian.’
(453) Feyneris and false men stiren the ire of God; and thei schulen not crye,
whanne thei ben boundun. (Wycliffe’s Bible Job 36.13)
‘Hypocrites and false people stir the anger of God and they ought not to
cry when they are bound.’
(454) The thridde is this, that he that is irous and wrooth, as seith Senec, ne may
nat speke but blameful thynges, and with his viciouse wordes he stireth
oother folk to angre and to ire. (The Canterbury Tales - The Tale of
Melibee 2316-2317)
‘The third is that he who is angry, as Seneca says, cannot say anything but
reprehensible things and with his vicious words he stirs other people to
anger.’
Moven or meven is derived from French movoir ‘to move’ and is used in
more or less the same way as native English stiren. Movoir has two roots, movand meuv-, and most Middle English forms c1400 reflect the meuv-root. Moven
occurs 7 times in the corpus, and like stiren, it is used as a transitive or reflexive
verb (2 attestations) or a past participle (5 attestations).
(455) Take we her wordes at worthe for here witnesse be trewe, And medle we
nauZt muche with hem to meuen any wrathe, Lest cheste chafen vs to
choppe vche man other; (Piers Plowman 12.125-127)
‘Respect the worth of their words, for they witness truth. Do not meddle
much with them, in case you make them angry, Lest strife should stir us
up to strike one another;’ (Tiller (1981:139))
(456) Socrates seith, no mannes governance Is wys but it be by souffrance
preeved; A good man souffreth wrong and is nat meeved. The kynde of
pacience is to susteene Mightily wronges and hem nevere wreke, But hem
forgeve, and wratthe and irous teene Out of the herte for to spere and
steke. (Regiment of Princes 3459-3469)
‘Socrates says that no man’s behaviour is wise unless it is tested by
suffering : a good man suffers wrong and is not angry. The nature of
patience is to bear wrongs and not to avenge them but to forgive them and
to drive anger from the heart.’
Besides moven, there is the form amoved (6 attestations). This is derived
from French amovoir ‘to raise, to excite’.
(457) A philosophre upon a tyme, that wolde have beten his disciple for his
grete trespas, for which he was greetly amoeved, and broghte a yerde to
scoure with the child; (The Canterbury Tales - The Parson’s Tale 669)
138
‘Once upon a time a philosopher wanted to beat a disciple for great wrong
he did, for which he was very angry and he brought a stick to beat the
child with.’
(458) The Sowdan seyinge this myschief, How Charles hade him agreved, That
grevaunce was him no thinge lese; He was ful sore ameved. (The
Sowdone of Babylone 991-994)
‘When the Sultan saw this offence, how Charles had done him wrong,
that wrong was for him not a small thing. He was very angry.’
There are also two occurrences of rese, the Middle English counterpart of
Old English onræs ‘rush’.
(459) Than bispack his brother, that rape was of rees, “Stond stille, gadeling,
and hold right thy pees. (Gamelyn 101-102)
‘Then his brother, who was easily angered, said, “Stand still, rascal, and
be calm.” ’
(460) The key of the kychen, as it were for þe nonys, Is above with oure dame,
& she hath such vsage, And she be waken of hir sclepe, she fallith in such
a rage, That al the wook aftir ther may no man hir plese, So she sterith
aboute this house in a ful wood rese. (The Tale of Beryn 544-548)
‘The key of the kitchen, as it were on purpose, is upstairs with our lady
and she has the habit of, when she is awoken in her sleep, breaking out in
such rage that for a week after that, no one can please her because she
moves about the house in such rage.’
Finally, the conceptualization ANGER AS MOTION can also be found in the
expression hastif ‘hasty’ (2 attestations). This is once more a French loan-word.
It is derived from French hasti(f) ‘hasty’.
(461) And of the galle the goddesse, For sche was full of hastifesse Of wraththe
and liht to grieve also, Thei made and seide it was Juno. (Confessio
Amantis 5.1481-1484)
‘And from the gall they made the goddess called Juno because she was
full of wrath and easy to anger.’
(462) And tho Juno, which was the wif Of Jupiter, wroth and hastif, In pourpos
forto do vengance Cam forth upon this ilke chance, (Confessio Amantis
5.6285-6288)
‘And then Juno, who was the wife of Jupiter, wrath and angry, in order to
take revenge availed herself of this chance.’
There are 5 expressions showing the conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY :
wod, rage, out of wit, which were already part of the field in earlier periods, and
2 expressions which are new to the field, namely fury and mad.
The most frequent expression is wod, there being 82 attestations, in which
wod is used as a noun (33 attestations), an adjective (48 attestations) and an
adverb (1 attestation).
139
(463) ffawnus, with the same word, gaff þe chayir a but, And lepe out of the
Chambir, as who seyd “cut!” And swore, in verry woodnes, be God
omnipotent, That Beryn of his wordis shulde sore repent ! (The Tale of
Beryn 1287-1290)
‘At that word Faunus gave the chair a push and leapt out of the room as
one who said “Cut!” and swore in utter fury by the almighty God that
Beryn would sorely pay for his words.’
(464) This word is not that stirith merci; but rather that stirith ire, and kyndlith
woodnesse. (Wycliffe’s Bible Judith 8.12)
‘This is not a word that stirs mercy, but rather one that stirs anger and
kindles fury.’
(465) Thanne the King wax wroth as winde; A wodere man mightee no man
finde Than he began to be. (Athelston 453-455)
‘Then the king became angry as the wind. No one could find a man who
was more mad than he began to be.’
(466) The Erl of Chestere therof seigh; For wrethe in herte he was wod neigh
And rod to Sir Launfale And smot him in the helm on heigh That the crest
adoun fleigh (Thus seid the Frenshe tale). (Sir Launfal 469-474)
‘The Earl of Chester saw all this. He was in his heart almost mad with
anger and rode to Sir Launfal an hit him high on the helmet so that the
crest flew down, so says the French tale.’
(467) the sones of Beniamyn braken out of the yates of Gabaa, and camen to
hem; and the sones of Beniamyn weren wood ayens hem bi so greet
sleyng, that thei castiden doun eiytene thousynde of men drawynge
swerd. (Wycliffe’s Bible Judges 20.25)
‘The sons of Benjamin broke out of the gates of Gaba and came to them
and the sons of Benjamin were so mad at them for so big a slaughter that
they defeated eighty thousand men bearing swords.’
(468) He loked on hir al grymme As he wode wroth were And saide, ‘Fye on
the, stronge hore; Mahounde confounde the!’ (The Sowdone of Babylone
3129-3132)
‘He looked fiercely at her as if he was madly angry and said, “Shame on
you, whore. May Mahomet curse you!” ’
Considerably less frequent is the use of the noun rage. It occurs only 11
times in the corpus.
(469) The key of the kychen, as it were for þe nonys, Is above with oure dame,
& she hath such vsage, And she be waken of hir sclepe, she fallith in such
a rage, That al the wook aftir ther’ may no man hir’ plese, So she sterith
aboute this house in a ful wood rese. (The Tale of Beryn 544-548)
‘The key of the kitchen, as it were on purpose, is upstairs with our lady
and she has the habit of, when she is awoken in her sleep, breaking out in
such rage that for a week after that, no one can please her because she
moves about the house in such rage.’
140
(470) “Sirs,” quod he, “Fortunys variaunce, Hir cher fraward & dowble
countenaunce, And sodeyn torn of hir false visage Zoure hertis hath putte
in swich a rage Fro þe mordre, to God & man odible, Of Achilles, cruel
and orible, By compassyng of Eccuba þe quene. (Troy Book 4.3271-3277)
‘He said, “Sirs, the inconstancy of Fortune, with her hostile and double
face, and her false face suddenly torn away, has put your hearts in such
rage for the murder, hateful to God and man, of Achilles, cruel and
horrible, through plotting of queen Hecuba” ’
(471) And sche began the wode rage, And axeth him what devel he thoghte,
And bar on hond that him ne roghte What labour that sche toke on honde,
And seith that such an Housebonde Was to a wif noght worth a Stre.
(Confessio Amantis 3.662-667)
‘And she began to rage and asked him what the devil he thought and
claimed that he did not care about the work she did and said that such a
husband was not worth a straw to his wife.’
There is but one attestation of out of wit.
(472) Mordred out of wit ner yede, And wrothly into his saddle he light; (Le
Morte Arthur 3354-3355)
‘Mordred went almost mad with anger and angrily sprang to his saddle.’
New to the field is the expression mad. It is derived from the Old English
past participle form Zemæd ‘rendered insane’. Like all the other expressions it
basically refers to INSANITY and sporadically to ANGER.
(473) And tho the kyng almost mad for wroth In purpoos was forto slee this
knyght, Oonly for he seide to hym right. (Siege of Thebes 2.2506-2508)
‘And then the king was almost mad with anger and wanted to kill this
knight only because he had told him the truth.’
Similarly, the expression furious is used to refer to ANGER besides INSANITY
(11 attestations). It is a loan-word derived from French furieus or Latin furiosus,
both meaning ‘insane, angry’.
(474) To whom anoon Kyng Menelaus, For verray ire wood and furious, And
Kyng Thoas, the duke eke of Athene, As thei that myght no lenger hym
sustene (To suffren hym thei were so rekeles), Spak alle attonis unto
Achilles. (Troy Book 4.1135-1140)
‘King Menelaos, mad and furious with sincere anger, and king Thoas and
the duke of Athens, as they could no longer tolerate him (they would have
been reckless to endure him), spoke all together to Achilles.’
(475) And thus the Grekis, furious and wrothe, Han al that day robbed and
ybrent, Til that the Kyng Agamenoun hath sent For his lordis to assemble
ifere In Pallas temple, only for to here Her wyse avis uppon thinges
tweyne: (Troy Book 4.6534-6539)
141
‘And thus the Greeks, furious and angry, had robbed and burned all day
until King Agamemnon had sent for his lords to assemble in the temple of
Pallas to hear her wise advice on two things.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT gives rise to a relatively wide range of
expressions. Some of them reveal a rather abstract concept of HEAT (hete, hot,
chaufen), while other expressions refer to ANGER in terms of fire (kindlen,
brennen, fire, enflamen) or boiling (boilen).
The more abstract concept of HEAT is to be found in the new expression
chaufen. It is a loan from French chaufer ‘make warm’, which is continued in
present-day chafe. Basically meaning ‘to make warm’, it does not refer to a
specific source of heat. There are 2 attestations in which this expression is used
with reference to ANGER.
(476) Take we her wordes at worthe for here witnesse be trewe, And medle we
nauZt muche with hem to meuen any wrathe, Lest cheste chafen vs to
choppe vche man other; (Piers Plowman 12.125-127)
‘Respect the worth of their words, for they witness truth. Do not meddle
much with them, in case you make them angry, Lest strife should stir us
up to strike one another;’ (Tiller (1981:139))
(477) A prince moot been of condicioun Pitous, and his angyr refreyne and ire,
Lest an unavysid commocioun Him chaufe so and sette his herte on fyre,
That him to venge as blyve he desyre, And fulfille it in dede. (Regiment of
Princes 3102-3107)
‘A prince must be of piteous disposition and control his anger lest rash
commotion so chafes him and sets his heart on fire that he wants to take
revenge and fulfils this wish in deeds.’
More frequently than in chaufen, the abstract concept of HEAT is to be found
in the expressions hete (6 attestations) and hot (6 attestations).
(478) And anon his brother in that grete hete Made his men fette staves
Gamelyn to bete. (Gamelyn 117-118)
‘And rightaway his brother in his great anger made his men fetch staves
to beat Gamelyn.’
(479) So hatZ anger onhit his hert, he calleZ A prayer to þe hyZe prynce, for
pyne, on þys wyse: (Patience 411-412)
‘Such anger struck hot to his heart that he cried In his pain a prayer to the
high Prince, in these words:’ (Stone (1970:132))
(480) With hatel anger and hot heterly he calleZ: (Patience 481)
‘Then raging with wrath, he roared hotly,’ (Stone (1970:134))
(481) Him owith knowe His errour, and qwenche that fyry lowe. Aristotle
amonestith wondir faste, In his book which to Alisaundre he wroot, If he
wolde have his regne endure and laste, That for noon ire he nevere be so
hoot Blood of man shede. (Regiment of Princes 3107-3112)
142
‘He ought to know his transgression and quench that fire. Aristotle
admonishes very firmly in his book that he wrote for Alexander, that if he
wants his reign to endure, he should never be so hot with anger as to shed
a man’s blood.’
(482) Hou Apemen, of Besazis Which dowhter was, in the paleis Sittende upon
his hihe deis, Whan he was hotest in his ire Toward the grete of his
empire, Cirus the king tirant sche tok, And only with hire goodly lok Sche
made him debonaire and meke, (Confessio Amantis 7.1884-1891)
‘How Apemen, who was the daughter of Besazis, when Cirus the king
tyrant, sitting in the palace on his high throne, was hottest in his anger
towards the great ones in his empire, she with only her gracious look
made him gentle and meek.’
(483) To the whiche thing Achilles anon, Hoot in his ire and furious also,
Brennynge ful hote for anger and for wo, Assentid is with a dispitous
chere; (Troy Book 3.4018-4021)
‘To this Achilles, hot in his anger and furious, burning hotly for anger and
grief, immediately agreed, with a scornful face.’
(484) And Hermonye, in hir Ire al hoot, In compleynyng to hir fader wrot Þat
hir fere, for al hir hiZe degre, Andronomeca was cherisshed bet &t;an she
(Troy Book 5.2763-2766)
‘Hermione, hot in her anger, wrote to her father complaining that her
companion Andromache, in spite of her high status, was cherished more
than she.’
In the Trentham manuscript of Floris and Blauncheflur, there are two
attestations of hot that are different from the other uses in the corpus. While
most of them are quite abstract, these attestations show the expression hot blood,
which is far more concrete. By explicitly referring to a process in which the
blood of the angry person is heated, it seems to be on the borderline of several
conceptualizations. It may be considered an example of ANGER AS THE HEAT OF
A FLUID IN A CONTAINER, but it is a less prototypical example of this
conceptualization because it does not refer to a process of boiling and building
up steam pressure that is typical of this conceptualization and as such it still
seems to belong to the more abstract conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT.
Additionally, by referring to blood, it combines the conceptualization ANGER AS
HEAT with ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS. This is in keeping with the humoral doctrine,
in which the overproduction of choler, yellow bile, is thought to cause anger. As
is clear from table (3), choler is a hot and dry humour, which is transported in the
blood. The expression hot blood may therefore refer to blood that contains too
much choler.
(485) The Amiral was so woode Ne might he nought cele his hoot bloode. He
bade the children fast be bound And in to the fire slong. (Floris and
Blauncheflur Ms Trentham 994-997)
143
‘The Admiral was so furious that he could not cool his hot blood. He
ordered the children to be bound and cast into the fire.’
(486) Than were they to me so looth I thought to have slain hem booth, I was so
wroth and so woode; Yit I withdrough min hoot bloode Till I have sende
after you, by assent, To wreke me with jugement. (Floris and
Blauncheflur Ms Trentham 934-939)
‘Then they were to me so loathsome that I would have killed both of
them. I was so angry and furious. Yet, I withdrew my hot blood until I
had sent for you, with your approval, to take revenge through judgement.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS THE HEAT
clearly present in two attestations of boilen.
OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER
is
(487) ffawnus herd his sone wele, how he be-gan to cry, And rose vp tho anoon, & to hym dide hiZe; And had for-Zete no thing’, þat Rame had Iseyde; ffor he boillid so his hert, he was nat wel apayde. (The Tale of
Beryn 1235-1238)
‘Faunus heard his son lament and how he began to cry, and immediately
rose up and urged him and he had forgotten nothing that Rame had said,
for his heart boiled so, he was not pleased.’
(488) Til Merioun with thre thousand knyghtes Armed in stele rounde aboute
hym alle Is sodeynly upon Hector falle, The dede cors of Patroclus to
save, That his purpos Hector may nat have At liberté the riche kyng to
spoille, Whiche caused hym in anger for to boille. To whom the kyng
callid Merion, Irous and wood, seide among echon: (Troy Book 3.812820)
‘Then Merion with three thousand knights armed in steel around him
suddenly attacked Hector to save the dead body of Patrocles, so that
Hector would not freely fulfil his purpose to spoil the rich king, which
caused him to boil for anger, and to him king Merion, angry and furious,
said among all :’
Much more frequent than the conceptualizations ANGER AS HEAT and ANGER
is the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE.
It gives rise to the expressions kindelen (14 attestations), brennen (15
attestations), fire (18 attestations) and enflamen (1 attestation), a loan from
French enflamer ‘to inflame’.
AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER
(489) The wynes delicat and sweete and stronge Causen ful many an
inconvenience; If that a man outrageously hem fonge, They birien wit and
forbeeden silence Of conseil; they outrayen pacience; They kyndlen ire
and fyren leccherie, And causen bothe body and soule die. (Regiment of
Princes 3830-3836)
‘Delicate, sweet and strong wines cause many inconveniences: if a man
drinks them excessively, they bury his wit and silence counsel, oppress
144
(490)
(491)
(492)
(493)
(494)
(495)
patience, kindle anger and lust and cause both the body and the soul to
die.’
Thei that forsaken the lawe, preisen a wickid man; thei that kepen the
lawe, ben kyndlid ayens hym. (Wycliffe’s Bible Proverbs 28.4)
‘Those who do not keep to the law praise a wicked man; those who keep
to the law are kindled with anger against him.’
And for my part trusteth in certeyn, Ye have no sone that wolde halfe so
feyn Upon Grekis avenged ben as I: For here my trouth I seye yow
feithfully, For ire of hem I brenne as doth the glede (Troy Book 2.22172221)
‘As to my part, trust for sure : you have no son who would half as
willingly take revenge upon the Greeks as I, for hear the truth that I tell
you faithfully, for anger against them I burn like a coal.’
And it was teld to Holofernes, prince of the chiualrie of Assiriens, that the
children of Israel maden redi hem silf to ayenstonde, and that thei hadden
closid togidere the weies of hillis. And bi ouer greet woodnesse he brente
out in to greet wrathfulnesse; and he clepide alle the princes of Moab, and
the duykis of Amon, (Wycliffe’s Bible Judith 5.1-2)
‘Holofernes, the leader of the Assyrian army, was told that the children of
Israel had prepared themselves to withstand him and that they had closed
the roads in the hills and in extreme fury he burnt out in anger and he
called all the princes of Moab and the dukes of Amon.’
Ye lye heere ful of anger and of ire, With which the devel set youre herte
afyre, And chiden heere the sely innocent, Youre wyf, that is so meke
and pacient. (The Canterbury Tales - The Summoner’s Tale 1981-1984)
‘You are lying here full of anger, with which the devil sets your heart on
fire and chide the poor innocent one, your wife, who is so gentle and
patient.’
And than anoon, as Jason was in pes, The manly knyght, the worthi
Hercules, Whan he had herd this thing fro poynt to point, He was anoon
brought in swyche disjoint Of hasty rancour and of sodeyn ire, The
whiche his hert almost set afire, That sodeynly, as he abreyde abak, Of
high disdeyn even thus he spak With cher askoyn unto the messanger
(Troy Book 1.1137-1146)
‘When Jason was silent, the brave knight, worthy Hercules when he had
heard this point by point was brought to such an outburst of rash hatred
and sudden anger, which almost set his heart on fire, that suddenly, as he
started back, of great scorn he spoke with a glance askance to the
messenger.’
And ye shul understonde that looke, by any wey, whan any man shal
chastise another, that he be war from chidynge or reprevynge. For
trewely, but he be war, he may ful lightly quyken the fir of angre and of
wratthe, which that he sholde quenche, and peraventure sleeth hym which
145
that he myghte chastise with benignitee. (The Canterbury Tales - The
Parson’s Tale 627)
‘And you shall understand that look, in any way, when a man will
chastise another, that he beware of chiding and reproving. For, truly,
unless he beware, he may easily stir the fire of anger or wrath, which he
should quench and perhaps destroy him who he might chastise with
kindness.’
(496) And it schal be, in that dai, in the dai of the comyng of Gog on the lond of
Israel, seith the Lord God, myn indignacioun schal stie in my strong
veniaunce, and in my feruour; Y spak in the fier of my wraththe.
(Wycliffe’s Bible Ezechiel 38.18-19)
‘ “And it shall be in that day, in the day of the coming of Gog in the land
of Israel,” says the Lord God, “that my indignation shall rise in my strong
vengeance and in my fierceness. I spoke in the fire of my anger.” ’
(497) But for the Lord is pacient, do we penaunce for this synne, and axe we
with teeris his foryyuenesse; for God schal not manaasse so as man, nethir
as a sone of man he schal be enflawmed to wrathfulnesse. (Wycliffe’s
Bible Judith 8.14-15)
‘But because the Lord is patient, let us repent our sins and ask in tears for
his forgiveness, for God will not threaten as men do, nor will he like a
man’s son be inflamed with anger.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is also present in the new expression
fervent (7 attestations). It is a loan from French fervent, basically meaning
‘warm’ and more exceptionally meaning ‘brave’. In its literal use, it can refer to
burning (e.g. fire or sun) as well as simmering or boiling (e.g. oil or water).
Consequently, the underlying conceptualization may either be ANGER AS FIRE or
ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER.
(498) When Beryn fro þe Steward þus departid was, And was with-out þe gate,
he lokid oppon the plase, And cursid it wondir bittirly, in a feruent Ire,
And wisshid many tymes it had been a feir’: (The Tale of Beryn 23072310)
‘When Beryn had left the steward and was outside the gate, he looked
upon the place and cursed it very bitterly, in fervent anger, and many
times wished it had been on fire.’
(499) Now pees approche and dryve out werre and stryf; Frendshipe appeere
and banisshe thow hate; Tranquillitee, reve thow ire hir lyf That fervent
is and leef for to debate. (Regiment of Princes 5405-5408)
‘Now let peace come and drive out war and strife, friendship appear and
ban hate, tranquility take the life of anger, which is fervent and likes to
debate.’
Finally, the conceptualization ANGER
frien ‘to fry’ in the following fragment :
146
AS HEAT
also gives rise to the use of
(500) I made hym of the same wode a croce; Nat of my body, in no foul
manere, But certeinly, I made folk swich cheere That in his owene grece I
made hym frye For angre, and for verray jalousye. (The Canterbury Tales
- The Wife of Bath’s Tale 484-488)
‘I made him a cross of the same wood, not with my body, in a wicked
way, but surely I treated people in such a way that I made him fry in his
own fat for anger and jealousy.’
Although it has become a marginal conceptualization, there are still a few
attestations of ANGER AS SWELLING. It is expressed by means of swellen twice.
This expression was also part of the lexical field of ANGER c1200. Besides these,
there are 3 attestations of bolnen.
(501) And sche, which mai hirself noght hyde, Began withinne forto swelle,
And that sche broghte in fro the welle, The waterpot sche hente alofte
And bad him speke, and he al softe Sat stille and noght a word ansuerde;
(Confessio Amantis 3.670-675)
‘And she, who could not hide herself, began to swell with anger within
and the waterpot that she had brought from the well, she held high and
asked him to speak and he sat quietly and did not answer a word.’
(502) And riZt anoon þe Troyan Eneas Of Ire and rancour so ameved was
Ageyn þe kyng, with a swollen herte, Þat sodeynly oute at þe dore he
sterte, After he hadde, for to ben a-wroke Ful many worde ageyn þe kyng
y-spoke - (Troy Book 4.4887-4892)
‘And immediately the Troyan Aeneas was so moved with anger and
bitterness against the king, with a swollen heart, that he suddenly walked
out the door after he had spoken many words against the king to be
avenged.’
(503) And the men of Effraym seiden to hym, What is this thing, which thou
woldist do, that thou clepidist not vs, whanne thou yedist to batel ayens
Madian? And thei chidden strongli, and almest diden violence. To whiche
he answeride, What sotheli siche thing myyte Y do, what maner thing ye
diden? Whethir a reisyn of Effraym is not betere than the vindagis of
Abiezer? And the Lord bitook in to youre hondis the princes of Madian,
Oreb and Zeb. What sich thing myyte Y do, what maner thing ye diden?
And whanne he hadde spoke this thing, the spirit of hem restide, bi which
thei bolneden ayens hym. (Wycliffe’s Bible Judges 8.1-3)
‘And the men of Effraim said to him, “What is it you want to do by not
calling us when you go to fight against Madian ?” and they chided
fiercely and almost became violent. He answered, “How could I possibly
do such a thing as you did ? Is the grape of Effraim not better than the
whole grape harvest of Abizer ? The Lord gave the princes of Madian,
Oreb and Zeb into your hands. How could I do such a thing as you did ?”
And when he had said this, the spirit by which they became angry against
him rested.’
147
(504) And Jacob bolnyde, and seide with strijf, For what cause of me, and for
what synne of me, hast thou come so fersly aftir me, (Wycliffe’s Bible
Genesis 31.36)
‘Jacob became angry and said, arguing, “For what cause and for what sin
have you pursued me so fiercely ?” ’
(505) His body was to-bolle for wratthe that he bote his lippes, And wryngynge
he Zede with the fiste to wreke hymself he thouZte With werkes or with
wordes whan he seighe his tyme. (Piers Plowman 5.84-86)
‘His body was bursting with rage, he bit his lips for it, Writhing his
fingers around while he waited to wreak vengeance In word or in deed
whenever he might see his chance.’ (Tiller (1981:54))
Having been part of the Old English conceptual field but not of the Middle
English one up to now, ANGER AS HEAVINESS makes its reappearance. There are
10 attestations of the expression hevi, 1 in Lydgate’s Troy Book, 3 in Chaucer’s
texts and 6 in Wycliffe’s bible translation. In the latter text, 5 out of 6
attestations show the expressions take/bear heavily, which are most probably
loan-translations of Latin graviter ferre.
(506) But peraventure he hath swich hevynesse and swich wratthe to us-ward
by cause of oure offense that he wole enjoyne us swich a peyne as we
mowe nat bere ne susteene. (The Canterbury Tales - The Tale of Melibee
2937-2938)
‘But sometimes he has such anger and wrath towards us because of our
offence that he will impose such pains on us as we cannot bear.’
(507) But there weren summe that beren it heuyli with ynne hem silf, and
seiden, Wher to is this losse of oynement maad? (Wycliffe’s Bible Mark
14.4)
‘But there were some who took it heavily inwardly and said, “What is this
ointment wasted for ?” ’
(508) Forsothe Joseph seiy that his fadir hadde set the riyt hond on the heed of
Effraym, and took heuyli, and he enforside to reise the fadris hond takun
fro the heed of Effraym, and to bere ouer on the heed of Manasses. And
he seide to the fadir, Fadir, it acordith not so; for this is the firste gendrid;
sette thi riyt hond on the heed of hym. (Wycliffe’s Bible Genesis 48.1718)
‘Joseph saw that his father had laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim
and he took it heavily and he forced his father’s hand to raise and took it
from Ephraim’s head and moved it to Manasseh’s and said to his father,
“Father, this is not right because he is the first-born. Put your right hand
on his head.” ’
There is one attestation of the French loan-word egre ‘bitter’ with reference
to ANGER.
148
(509) The knight answerede with egre mode, Before the King ther he stode,
The Quene on him gan lie. (Sir Launfal 769-771)
‘The knight answered with angry mood, before the king, where he stood,
that the queen had lied about him.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS is still mainly represented by
the expression malencolie. It occurs 34 times in the corpus. It is mainly used as
a noun, there being only 3 attestations of adjectival forms.
(510) And with that word the Kyng Alcamus Of malencolye felt his herte ryve,
And in his ire hent a spere blyve, And prikynge after enhasteth what he
might, Til he of hem pleinly had a sight That besy wern Troylus for to
lede. (Troy Book 3.1052-1057)
‘And at that word, king Alcamus felt his heart tear with melancholy and
in his anger he grabbed a spear, and giving his horse the spurs, he hurried
as fast as he could until he could plainly see those who were leading
Troilus away.’
(511) Valerie tellith how with greet array Kyng Alisandre and his oost on a day,
Meeved of ire and of malencolie, Unto a citee dressid him in hye, Which
that yclept and callid was Lapsat, Purposynge him bete it to the eerthe
adoun. (Regiment of Princes 2300-2305)
‘Valerius tells how one day with a great show of military power king
Alexander and his army, moved with anger and melancholy, advanced
against a city which was called Lapsat with the intention of knocking it
down to the ground.’
(512) Mi Sone, schrif thee now forthi : Hast thou be Malencolien ? (Confessio
Amantis 3.32-33) [the answer gives examples of cases in which Amans
was angry]
‘My son, confess now : have you ever been melancholic ?’
(513) Whan I ne may my ladi se, The more I am redy to wraththe, That for the
touchinge of a laththe Or for the torninge of a stree I wode as doth the
wylde Se, And am so malencolious, That ther nys servant in myn hous
Ne non of tho that ben aboute, That ech of hem ne stant in doute, And
wenen that I scholde rave For Anger that thei se me have; (Confessio
Amantis 3.82-92)
‘If I cannot see my lady, the more am I prone to anger, so that for
touching a strip of wood or turning a straw I am furious as the wild sea
and am so melancholic that there is no servant in or about the house but
doubts and thinks that I will go mad for the anger that they see me have.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS is also present in the
expression tempren ‘to mix, to balance, to control’. Central to the humoral
doctrine is the idea that the four body fluids should be in balance, as
overproduction of one fluid will cause physical and/or mental diseases. The
expression that is used for mixing the fluids in a balanced way is (at)tempren,
149
while the expression distempren is used to indicate a process that disturbs the
humoral balance. One of the effects of a disturbed balance, usually caused by
the presence of too much choler, yellow bile, is anger.
(514) Mi Sone, attempre thi corage Fro Wraththe, and let thin herte assuage
(Confessio Amantis 3.1613-1614)
‘My son, restrain your temperament from Wrath and let your heart be
appeased.’
(515) and if he be a pryve awaytour yhid, and rejoiseth hym to ravyssche be
wiles, thow schalt seyn hym lik to the fox whelpes; and Zif he be
distempre, and quakith for ire, men schal wene that he bereth the corage
of a lyoun; (Boece 4p3.109-114)
‘And if he is one who lies in ambush secretly in hiding and if he likes to
steal sometimes, you shall say that he is like a fox’s cubs and if he is
distempered and trembles with anger, people will think that he has the
courage of a lion.’
(516) Distempre yow noght; ye be my confessour; Ye been the salt of the erthe
and the savour. (The Canterbury Tales - The Summoner’s Tale 21952196)
‘Do not be angry. You are my confessor. You are the salt of the earth
and the delight.’
New to the field is the expression gruchen, which is derived from French
grocier ‘to grumble’. Besides ‘to murmur’ and ‘to moan’, this expression can
also mean ‘to be angry’, in cases where there is no reference to speech. Like
gryllan and grimetan in Old English, gruchen reveals the metonymical
conceptualization ANGER AS BODILY BEHAVIOUR. In the c1400 corpus, there are
two such attestations.
(517) Thane sir Gawayne was greuede, and grychgide fulle sorel; With Galuthe
his gude swerde grymlye he strykes ! (Alliterative Morte Arthur 25572558)
‘Then Sir Gawain grew angry and worked in a rage, And grimly he struck
with his good sword Galuth,’ (Gardner (1971:68))
(518) Thane greuyde sir Gawayne at his grett wordes, Graythes to-warde the
gome with grucchande herte; (Alliterative Morte Arthur 1352-1353)
‘At these grim jokes, Sir Gawain was filled with rage, And he darted
toward the fellow with anger in his heart’ (Gardner (1971:37))
There are 2 attestations of crabbed, revealing the conceptualization ANGER AS
CRAB-LIKE BEHAVIOUR. According to the OED, this expression will later be
reinterpreted as referring to crab apples, but the original reference is to the
animal. As this animal moves sideways, is always ready to attack and does not
easily let go of its victim, crabbed acquired the meaning ‘perverse, vicious’ and
hence also ‘angry’.
150
(519) Ne dreed hem nat; doth hem no reverence, For though thyn housbonde
armed be in maille, The arwes of thy crabbed eloquence Shal perce his
brest and eek his aventaille. (The Canterbury Tales - The Clerk’s Tale
1201-1204)
‘Do not be afraid of him. Do not give him respect for although your
husband is in armor, the arrows of your angry eloquence will pierce his
brest and neck protection.’
(520) The greedy herte that wolde al embrace With irous wil and crabbid, pale
face, And swipir feendly hand, with strook vengeable Hath many a
womman maad hem clothe in sable. (Regiment of Princes 5219-5222)
‘The greedy heart that wants to embrace all with an angry mood and an
angry, pale face and agile hostile hands has with a vengeful blow made
many women clothe themselves in sable.’
In The Romaunt of the Rose, a first attestation of the conceptualization ANGER
AS CELTIC is to be found. While this conceptualization will in later periods give
rise to expressions like paddy(whack), this first attestation seems to be based on
a pun in translation : the line in the French original reads Qu’il fu filz d’une
vieille ireuse (Strubel 1992:232) ‘that he was a son of an old angry woman’. The
pun is based on the phonetic similarity between French ireuse, and English irous
and Irish.21
(521) He myghte not his tunge withstond Worse to reporte than he fond, He was
so full of cursed rage, It sat hym well of his lynage, For hym an Irish
womman bar. (The Romaunt of the Rose (B-fragment) 3807-3811)
‘He could not withhold his tongue from reporting worse than he found, so
full was he of wicked rage. It accorded well with his lineage, because an
Irish woman bore him.’
Finally, there are 2 attestations of wrah. As mentioned in section 3.5.1, it is
not clear which conceptualization lies behind this expression.
(522) And with this speche the Cook wax wrooth and wraw, And on the
Manciple he gan nodde faste For lakke of speche, and doun the hors hym
caste, Where as he lay, til that men hym up took. (The Canterbury Tales The Manciple’s Tale 46-49)
‘And with those words, the cook became angry and began to shake his
head at the manciple because he could not speak and off the horse he
threw him, where he lay until some men picked him up.’
(523) At which the God of Love gan loken rowe Right for despit, and shop for
to ben wroken. (Troilus and Criseyde 1.206-207)
‘The God of Love began to look angrily at this for sheer disdain and
intended to take revenge.’
3.7.2 Summary
151
conceptualization
FIERCENESS
WRONG EMOTION
AFFLICTION
PRIDE
INSANITY
HEAT
MOTION
BODY FLUIDS
152
expression
(root)
wrath
brath
gram
fierce
grim
ire
anger
terren
greven
tene
weamod
offenden
indignation
disdain
despite
spite
unweorth
wod
rage
fury
mad
out of mind
fire
brennen
kindelen
fervent
hot
hete
hot blood
boilen
chaufen
enflamen
frien
stiren
moven
amoven
rese
hastif
malencolie
frequency
absolute
798
6
2
1
1
449
105
72
51
33
1
1
122
25
4
1
1
82
11
11
1
1
18
15
14
7
6
6
2
2
2
1
1
36
7
6
2
2
34
%
39.84
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.05
22.42
5.25
3.60
2.55
1.65
0.05
0.05
6.09
1.25
0.20
0.05
0.05
4.09
0.55
0.55
0.05
0.05
0.90
0.75
0.70
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
1.80
0.35
0.30
0.10
0.10
1.70
%
40.34
22.42
13.13
7.64
5.29
3.69
2.65
1.85
tempren
displesen
mispaien
sori
not well paid
evil paid
hevi
bolnen
swellen
mod
grucchen
crabbed
wrah
egre
irish
3
0.15
UNHAPPINESS
26
1.30
3
0.15
2
0.10
1
0.05
1
0.05
HEAVINESS
10
0.50
SWELLING
3
0.15
2
0.10
STRONG EMOTION
4
0.20
BODILY BEHAVIOUR
2
0.10
CRAB-LIKE
2
0.10
?
2
0.10
BITTERNESS
1
0.05
CELTIC
1
0.05
total
2003
100
table (12) : ANGER-expressions c1400
1.65
0.50
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
100
3.8 C1500
3.8.1 Overview
The corpus of texts written c1500 shows more or less the same set of
conceptualizations as the c1400 one. Only some marginal conceptualizations
have disappeared from the conceptual field. The most important of those, given
its presence throughout the ages and its relatively high frequency in certain
periods, is ANGER AS SWELLING.
The c1500 corpus shows the following conceptualizations :
ANGER AS FIERCENESS
ANGER AS AFFLICTION
ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS PRIDE
ANGER AS INSANITY
ANGER AS HEAT
ANGER AS MOTION
ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS
ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION
ANGER AS CRAB-LIKE BEHAVIOUR
ANGER AS STUBBORNNESS
ANGER AS STIMULATION
153
A very large part of the lexical field is still taken up by the expression wrath
(386 attestations). Wrath is again mainly used as a noun (237 attestations) or an
adjective (147 attestations), there being only 1 attestation showing an adverb and
1 an intransitive verb.
(524) Titus recognized his negligence in forgetting Gisippus, and Titus being
advertised of the exile of Gisippus, and the despiteful cruelty of his
kindred, he was therewith wonderful wrath (Elyot, The Boke Named The
Governour p.149)
‘Titus recognized his negligence in forgetting Gisippus, and on being
informed about the exile of Gisippus and the scornful cruelty of his
family, he was very angry for it.’
(525) How Grimbert the Dasse Warned the Fox That the King Was Wroth with
Him and Would Slay Him (Caxton, The History of Reynard the Fox p.55
l.16-17)
‘How Grimbert the badger warned the fox that the king was angry with
him and wanted to kill him.’
(526) Enuyes darte doth his begynnynge fynde In wrathfull hertes, it wastyth
his owne nest Nat suffrynge other to lyue in eas and rest (Barclay, The
Ship of Fools 1 p.253)
‘An envious attack finds its origin in angry hearts. It fouls its own nest by
not suffering others to live in ease and rest.’
(527) Wherfore deare brethren, let every man be swyfte to heare, slowe to
speake, and slowe to wrathe. For the wrathe off man worketh not that
which is righteous before God. (Tyndale, Old Testament p. 508)
‘Therefore, dear brothers, let everybody be quick to hear, slow to speak
and slow to become angry, for men’s anger does not produce that which
is righteous in the eyes of God.’
(528) The thyrde kynde is : wherin is lauded or blamed nother person nor dede
but some other thynge as vertue / vice / iustice / iniurie / charite / enuie /
pacience / wrothe and suche lyke. (Cox, The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke
p.49)
‘The third kind is that which does not praise or blame a person or action
but some other thing like virtue, vice, justice, injustice, charity, envy,
pacience, anger, etc.’
(529) And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, but shall walk contrary
unto me, then I will walk contrary unto you also wrathfully, and will also
chastise you seven times for your sins: so that ye shall eat the flesh of
your sons and the flesh of your daughters. (Tyndale, Old Testament
p.188)
‘And if for all this you will not yet listen to me but will walk against me,
then I will also walk angrily against you and I will punish you seven
times for your sins, so that you will eat the flesh of your sons and
daughters.’
154
Besides in wrath, the conceptualization ANGER AS FIERCENESS is found in the
sporadic occurrences of the expressions gram and grim (1 attestation each).
(530) Wherefore should I be blamed ? Ye ought to be ashamed, Against me to
be gramed, And can tell no cause why, But that I write truly! (Skelton,
Complete Poems p.282)
‘What should I be blamed for ? You ought to be ashamed of being angry
with me and cannot tell me why, except that I write the truth !’
(531) whan that ysegrym gate a calf, a ramme or a weder thenne grimmed he,
and was angry on me and droof me fro hym, and held my part and his to
(Caxton, The History of Reynard the Fox p.34 l.1-4)
‘When Isegrim got a calf, a ram, or a wether, he was angry with me and
drove me from him and held my part and his too.’
The second most frequent conceptualization is ANGER AS AFFLICTION. This
conceptualization is mainly, and almost exclusively, to be found in the use of
anger. With 301 attestations, anger has become one of the most important
expressions in the lexical field. It is syntactically quite flexible : although the
majority of the attestations show adjectival use (165 attestations), it also
frequently occurs as a noun (94 attestations), or as a transitive verb (33
attestations), an adverb (6 attestations) or a past participle that can either be
considered an adjectival or verbal form (3 attestations).
(532) All men my lordes Senatoures whiche syt councellyng vpon any doubtfull
maner muste be voyde of hatred / frendshyppe / anger / pitye/ or mercye.
(Cox, The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke p.66)
‘All men, my lords senators, who give advice on a doubtful case should
be void of hatred, friendship, anger, pity or merci.’
(533) And yf her frendes be with you angry Suffre theyr wordes and take it
pacyently (Hawes, The Passetyme of Pleasure p.176)
‘And if her friends are angry with you, tolerate their words and take it
patiently.’
(534) and the very pains of hell find us out: there the soul feeleth the fierce
wrath of God, and wisheth mountains to fall on her, and to hide her (if it
were possible) from the angry face of God. (Tyndale, Old Testament
p.10)
‘The very pains of hell find us out : there the soul feels the fierce wrath of
God and wishes mountains to fall on her and to hide her, if it were
possible, from the angry face of God.’
(535) For, except he lack faith, he cannot but know that our Lord is everywhere
present, and while he so shamefully forsaketh Him, full angerly looketh
on. (More, A Dialogue of Comfort p.403)
‘Except if he lacks faith, he cannot but know that our Lord is present
everywhere and, while he so shamefully forsakes Him, He very angrily
watches it.’
155
(536) Thenne sayd Exantus to Esope ne seest thou not how thou hast angryd
my wyf See that thou appease her And Esope said It is not a lyght thyng
tappease the yre of a woman (Caxton, Æsop p.37 l.12-17)
‘Then Exantus said to Aesop, “Don’t you see how you have angered my
wife ? Make sure you appease her.” And Aesop said, “It is not easy to
appease a woman’s anger.” ’
(537) he sware and made his auowe that he shold neuer haue Ioye at his herte
vnto the tyme his brothers deth were auenged Sore an angred & ful of
wrath, smote hym self in to the thyckest of the bataylle (Caxton,
Blanchardyn and Eglantine p.106 l.5-9)
‘He swore that he would never have joy in his heart until the time when
his brother’s death was avenged and, sorely angry and full of wrath, he
engaged himself in the thick of battle.’
A much less frequently used expression showing the conceptualization
ANGER AS AFFLICTION is greven. This expression is used 6 times as a transitive
verb, 4 times as a past participle, once as an adverb and once as a noun.
(538) But I shall nat so sharply them repreue I am full lothe relygious men to
greue Or discontent : for if I so do wolde A myghty volume coude nat
theyr vyces holde (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.322)
‘But I shall not reprove them so sharply because I loathe to anger or
displease religious men. If I did so, a massive volume could not contain
their vices.’
(539) Wherfore as the holy goost sayth: todaye if ye shall heare his voyce,
harden not youre hertes, as when ye provoked in tyme of temptacion in
the wildernes, where youre fathers tempted me, proved me, and sawe my
workes xl yeare longe. Wherfore I was greved with that generacion and
sayd : They ever erre in their hertes; they verely have not knowen my
wayes, so that I sware in my wrathe, that they shulde not enter into my
rest. (Tyndale, New Testament p.488)
‘Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost says, “Today if you will hear his voice,
harden not your hearts, like when you angered me at the time of
temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me, tested me,
and saw my works forty years long, for which I was angry with that
generation, and said, “They always err in their hearts; truly, they have not
known my ways”, so that I swore in my wrath that they should not enter
into my rest.” ’
(540) whiche Constables with the co(m)mons (by the extortynge of Hughe
Spencer Constable of y(e) Towre) went to the thystelworth beyonde
westmyster and there spoyled the maner of the kynge of Romayns whiche
dede was the great cause of the warre for the kynge toke it greuously and
gathered great power and at the last came to the towne of Lewys in
Sussex (Rastell, The Pastyme of People p.323 l.42-47)
156
‘These constables together with the commons, because of the extortion of
Hugh Spencer, constable of the Tower, went to Thistleworth beyond
Westminster and there plundered the manor of the Roman king, which
was the great cause of the war because the king took offence and gathered
a great army and in the end came to the town of Lewys in Sussex.’
(541) Yet some there be therewith that take grievance, And grudge thereat with
frowning countenance; (Skelton, Complete Poems 388)
‘Yet there are some who take offence at this and grumble at it with
frowning faces.’
Finally, the conceptualization ANGER AS AFFLICTION is found in the one
attestation of the new expression rubben someone upon the gall. In this
expression, gall means ‘sore spot’.22
(542) Juvenal was threat, pardee, for to kill For certain invectives, yet wrote he
none ill, Saving he rubbed some upon the gall (Skelton, Complete
Poems p.350)
‘Juvenal, by God, was threatened to be killed for certain denunciations.
Yet, he wrote no ill, except that he rubbed some on the gall.’
Unlike wrath, wroth or anger, whose use remains or has become wellestablished, ire has considerably lost ground : it occurs only 98 times in the
c1500 corpus. 86 of these attestations show nominal uses of ire, while 11 show
adjectival uses and 1 attestation adverbial use. Although this expression is used
in several texts, slightly less than half of the attestations (42 out of 98) are to be
found in Caxton’s The Book of the Knight of the Tower, a translation from
French. In all, 63 out of 98 attestations come from books translated from French
by Caxton and 26 attestations from other writers’ translations from French, Latin
or Italian.
(543) And doo not lyke as dyd the man and his wyf the whiche thurgh theyr yre
cursed theyr child and after gaf hym to the deuyll wherfor the child was in
perylle alle his lyf durynge (Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower
p.115)
‘And do not act like the man and wife who through their anger cursed
their child and gave him to the devil, because of which the child was in
danger all through his life.’
(544) Therfore ye haue here good ensample how euery good woman must suffre
of her lord and ought to answere for hym ouer al al be he neuer so yrous
ne cruel to her and saue and kepe hym fro all peryls (Caxton, The Book of
the Knight of the Tower p.123)
‘Therefore you have a good example here of how every good woman
must tolerate her lord and ought always to answer for him, even if he is
angry and cruel towards her, and keep him from all danger.’
157
(545) By wrath he rageth, and still doth chide and brall, Such as would enter
repelling with his crye, As well estates as homely men rurall At the first
entry he threatneth yrefully. (Barclay, Eclogues p.172)
‘He rages in anger and chides and wrangles, repelling with his cries those
that want to enter. Persons of rank as well as simple country-folk he
angrily threatens at their first entrance.’
(546) And yet there may be no comparyson Bytwyxt the leste part of hys payn
And the gretest wrong that to the can be don. Wherfore thou wreth
shuldyst not dysdayn, But gladly thou shuldyst thy selfe refrayn From
yrefull passyons as I sayd byfore, Syth thou shalt have a reward in heven
therfore. (Medwall, Plays Nature l.1216-1222)
‘And yet, there is no comparison between the least part of his pain and the
greatest wrong that can be done to you. Therefore you should not become
angry but you should happily refrain from angry passions, as I said
before, since you will be rewarded for it in heaven.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A WRONG EMOTION is also to be found in
some hapax legomena within the corpus : thuert, wayward and take something in
evil part. Like thuert, which was already present in earlier periods, the new
expression wayward, being a shorter form of awayward, means ‘going in the
opposite direction’and hence ‘cross, perverse’. To take something in evil part
means ‘to take something in a bad way’ and hence ‘to take offence, to be angry
at something’.
(547) (C.Count) Take no displeasure of what we say.
(Cr.Con) Nay, an you be angry and overthwart, A man may beshrew
your angry heart. (Skelton, Complete Poems p.182)
‘(C.Count) Do not be angry with what we say.
(Cr.Con) No, when you are angry and cross, one may corrupt your angry
heart.’
(548) Then went Ahab unto his house wayward and evil apaid, because of the
words which Naboth the Jezrahelite had spoken unto him saying: I will
not give to thee, the inheritance of my fathers. (Tyndale, Old Testament
p.497)
‘And Ahab went home cross and displeased because of the words which
Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him, saying : I will not give you the
inheritance of my fathers.’
(549) when the protectour rode through London toward his coronacion, he
fained himself sick, because he wold not ride with hym. And the tother
taking it in euil part, sent hym worde to rise, & come ride or he wold
make him be caried. (More, The History of King Richard III l.1930-1932)
‘When the regent rode through London towards his coronation, he
pretended to be ill because he did not want to ride with him, and the other
one taking offence, ordered him to rise and come and ride or he would
have him carried.’
158
Like in the c1400 corpus, the conceptualization ANGER AS PRIDE is to be
found in loan-words from French : indignation (20 attestations), disdain (21
attestations) and despite (3 attestations). These expressions are mostly used as
nouns. In 7 attestations disdain is used as an intransitive verb, in 1 as a past
participle, and despite is used as an adjective once.
(550) Saul being therefore in a rage, having indignation at David, pursued him
with a great host to have slain him (Elyot, The Boke Named The
Governour p.175)
‘Saul was enraged because of that and, having indignation at David,
pursued him with a great army to kill him.’
(551) Nor no more was in Nineveh the king and all the city, but they wailed and
did painful penance for their sin to procure God to pity them and
withdraw His indignation. (More, A Dialogue of Comfort p.228)
‘In Nineveh, the king and the citizens all wailed and repented theirs sin to
make God pity them and withdraw His indignation.’
(552) The knyght abode there stylle a grete whyle and sayd my nyece shalle not
come And her seruauntes ansuerd to hym that she shold soone come The
knyght had desdayne and was angry of her long taryenge seyng that
longe before she had not sene hym wherfor he lepe vpon his hors and
tooke his way toward the hows of his other nyece (Caxton, The Book of
the Knight of the Tower p.139)
‘The knight remained there another great while and sayd, “My niece will
not come” and the servants answered that she would soon come. The
knight was indignant and angry at her lingering long as she had not seen
him for a long while. Consequently, he mounted his horse and went to
the house of his other niece.’
(553) Yf a man on the saboth daye receave circumcision without breakynge of
the lawe off Moses: Disdayne ye at me, because I made a man every whit
whoale on the saboth daye? (Tyndale, New Testament p.211)
‘If a man is circumcised on the day of the Sabbath without breaking the
law of Moses, then why are you angry with me for curing a man on the
day of the Sabbath ?’
(554) And wote ye who ys gretely dysdayned Wyth our mayster now ?
(Medwall, Plays Nature l.1250-1251)
‘And do you know who is very angry with our master now ?’
(555) And there is not in the world so grete ease as to haue a wyfe sure &
stedfast ne none so grete & fair noblesse & therfor I chose the thyrd
doughter For I wylle haue none of the other. & thenne he sent for to
fetche her wherof the two older doughters had grete despyte & grete
desdayne (Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower p.26-27)
‘There is no greater ease in the world than to have a wife who is constant,
nor greater and fairer nobility, and therefore I choose the third daughter,
159
because I will have none of the others. Then he ordered to fetch her, at
which the two older daughters had much indignation.’
(556) But thus it happed that the yonger was quene of spayne by cause she was
humble and softe of speche to greete and smale by her grete curtosye
wherof the oldest doughter had so greete desdayn & so grete despit þt she
bycam al frantyke & from her self (Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the
Tower p.29)
‘But thus it happened that the younger was queen of Spain because she
was humble and soft of speech to great and small through her
courteousness. The oldest daughter had such indignation at this that she
became insane and beside herself.’
(557) She answerd thenne to proudely and to lyghtly And had not her lord in
honour by fayre wordes ne by curtosye neyther humbly she spake to hym
as she oughte to haue do And therfor her lord that was felon and
despytous and wrothe of her proud and hyghe spekynge toke a knyf and
slewe her (Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower p.93)
‘She then answered too proudly and too lightly and did not honour her
lord through fair words nor courteousness, nor spoke to him humbly as
she ought to have done, and therefore her lord, who was fierce, indignant
and angry at her proud and high speech, took a knife and killed her.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY is first of all represented by a
number of expressions of Germanic origin. In the previous periods, this was
mainly the expression wod, which is still present in the c1500 corpus, but is
gradually being superseded by the use of mad : while wod occurs but once, mad
occurs 10 times (5 adjectives and 5 nouns).
(558) And when Absolon hir broder of fader and moder wyst and knewe it al
moost he wexe woode for yre and anger He slewe his broder Amon that
suche desloyalte and vntrouth had done to his suster (Caxton, The Book of
the Knight of the Tower p.87)
‘When her brother Absalon learnt about it from her father and mother, he
became almost mad with anger and killed his brother Amon, who had
been so disloyal and untrue to his sister.’
(559) Wherfore ye folys se ye no lenger tary But on the dull Asse hastely
assende That a slowe beest may hasty folys cary For your mad wrath
dowtyth no thynge the ende (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 1 p.185)
‘Therefore, you fools, make sure you no longer tarry, but quickly mount
on the dull ass so that a slow animal may carry hasty fools, for your mad
anger does not apprehend the end of anything.’
(560) And I punnysshed them ofte in every sinagoge, and compelled them to
blaspheme. and was yett more mad apon them and persecuted them, even
unto straunge cites. (Tyndale, New Testament p.312)
160
‘And I punished them often in every synagogue, and compelled them to
blaspheme; and was even more mad against them and persecuted them
even unto strange cities.’
(561) This wrath in woman is rotyd so by kynde That if she be onys set in hir
madnesse She passyth all the cruell bestis of Inde The bere the wolf fell
lyon, and the lyones. (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.5)
‘This anger is so rooted in the nature of a woman that once she is set in
her madness, she surpasses all the cruel animals of India, the bear, the
wolf, the fierce lion and the lioness.’
Another expression of Germanic origin showing the conceptualization ANGER
AS INSANITY is out of + word denoting ‘mind’ or to lose + word denoting ‘mind’.
Such expressions occur 8 times in the corpus.
(562) The Duc took the bronde, and knewe wel the manere that the paynym
wold hurt hym, and approched to hym, and blewe the bronde so
puyssauntly that it fyl al on a flame and came to the vysage of the
Paynym, in suche wye that it brente al hys berde. Whan the paynym sawe
that, he was almoost out of his wytte for angre. (Caxton, The Lyf of the
Noble and Crysten Prynce Charles the Grete p.118 l.32 - p.119 l.3)
‘The duke took the torch and knew well how the pagan would hurt him
and approached him and blew the torch so strongly that it was all aflame
and came up to the face of the pagan and thus burnt his beard. When the
pagan saw that, he was almost out of his mind with anger.’
(563) but whan charles sawe theym thus ladde for angre he loste almoost hys
wytte, And wyth an hyghe voys cryed : “saue, kepe, and socoure the
barons.” (Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten Prynce Charles the
Grete p.83 l.3-5)
‘But when Charles saw them being thus led away, he almost lost his mind
for anger and in a loud voice he cried : “Save the barons.” ’
Much more frequent within the category ANGER AS INSANITY are the newer
loan-words from French : rage (22 attestations), fury (19 attestations) and its
nominal variant with the more Latinate ending, furour (14 attestations). These
expressions are most frequently used as nouns. Rage is also used as an adjective
(1 attestation), an intransitive verb (2 attestations) and a past participle (7
attestations), and fury is used as an adjective in 3 attestations.
(564) It happened that one of his servants whom he well favoured, for felony
by him committed, was arraigned at the King’s Bench; whereof he being
advertised, and incensed by light persons about him, in furious rage came
hastily to the bar, where his servant stood as a prisoner, and commanded
him to be ungyved and set at liberty (Elyot, The Boke Named The
Governour p.114)
‘It happened that one of his servants who he favoured was called to the
Kings’s Bench to answer for a crime he had committed. On being
161
(565)
(566)
(567)
(568)
(569)
(570)
162
informed about that and incensed by unthinking persons around him, he
came in a furious rage to the court, where his servant stood as a prisoner
and ordered him to be released and set at liberty.’
Thadmyral ballant, replenysshed of an entencyon moche oultrageous,
sayd to Naymes the duc : “Thou hast gretely defouled me by oultrage, and
I haue wyllyngly herde the.” (Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten
Prynce Charles the Grete p.108 l.10-14))
‘Admiral Ballant, full of a very outraging emotion, said to duke Naymes,
“You have greatly outraged me with your insolence and I have listened to
you willingly.” ’
Ballant was soo euyl contente wyth that stroke, that he was al enraged for
the deth of the paynym, as for the mysprysyng that guy had doon in hys
presence tofore his eyen, and cryed with a loude voys that he shold be
taken (Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten Prynce Charles the
Grete p.132 l.24-28)
‘Ballant was so displeased with that stroke that he was enraged for the
death of the pagan, for the scornful deed that Guy had done in his
presence, before his eyes, and cried in a loud voice that he should be
taken.’
Whan the Admyral vnderstoode this langage, vnnethe he myght kepe
hymself fro enragyng. (Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten Prynce
Charles the Grete p.107 l.26-28)
‘When the admiral understood these words, he could hardly keep himself
from being enraged.’
With which commandment the Prince, being set all in a fury, all chafed,
and in a terrible manner, came up to the place of judgment - men thinking
that he would have slain the judge, or have done to him some damage;
(Elyot, The Boke Named The Governour p.114)
‘With this command, the Prince, set in a fury and terribly chafed, came to
the place of judgement. People thought that he would have killed the
judge or have hurt him.’
And inwardly they shall theym selfe repente That they to you haue
contraryous In suche fyry angry hote and furyous (Hawes, The Passetyme
of Pleasure p.176)
‘And inwardly, they will repent that they have been opposed to you, hot
and furious in such fiery anger.’
I open here and spred My fawte to the, but thou, for thi goodnes, Mesure
it not in largenes nor in bred, Punish it not, as askyth the grettnes Off thi
furour, provokt by my offence. (Wyatt, Collected Poems p.101)
‘I lay bare my offence to you, but you, because of your goodness, do not
measure its length and breadth, punish it not, as the greatness of your
anger, provoked by my offence, requires.’
Of all the conceptualizations, ANGER AS HEAT shows the widest range of
expressions. First of all, there is the group that refers to an abstract kind of heat.
This group consists of the expressions hete, hot and chaufen. Unlike chaufen
and hete, which are found in different texts, the use of hot is mainly to be found
in one text : 12 of the 16 attestations, all of the form wrath wax hot, are to be
found in Tyndale’s Bible translation.
(571) Which history shall be expedient for governors to have in remembrance,
that when according to the laws they do punish offenders, they
themselves be not chafed or moved with wrath, but (as Tully saith) be
like to the laws, which be provoked to punish not by wrath or displeasure,
but only by equity. (Elyot, The Boke Named The Governour p.212)
‘This story will be suitable for governors to keep in mind, so that when
they punish offenders according to the laws, they are themselves not
chafed or moved with anger, but (as Tully says) are like the laws, which
are enticed to punish, not by anger or displeasure, but by impartiality
only.’
(572) And it happeth of tymes sayth he that almost all the corages of men are
troubled in hem self whan they shall goo to the bataylle but to theym that
be fyrst chaffed and angry is the force of hardynes encreced wythyn hem
and doo forgete al parell (Caxton, The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of
Chyvalrye p.85 l.7-12)
‘It sometimes happens, he says, that almost all the hearts of men are
troubled within them when they should go to battle, but for those who are
first chafed and angry, the force of boldness increases within them and
they forget all danger.’
(573) His wisdom is so discreet That, in a fume or an heat ‘Warden of the Fleet,
Set him fast by the feet!’ (Skelton, Complete Poems p.321)
‘His wisdom is so cautious that in a fume or a heat, he orders, “Warden of
the Fleet, fetter his feet !” ’
(574) Therfore he is wyse that can in his angre/ mesure hym self and not be
ouer hasty, and to see wel what may falle or happe afterward to hym,
what man that in his angre can wel aduyse hym certaynly he is wyse, Men
fynde many fooles that in hete hasten hem so moche, that after they
repente hem, and thenne it is to late (Caxton, The History of Reynard the
Fox p.103 l.9-14)
‘Therefore, he is wise who in his anger can restrain himself and not be too
rash, and consider well what may happen to him afterwards. A man who
in his anger can be well-advised, he is certainly wise. One finds many
fools who in anger are so rash, that they are sorry afterwards, and then it
is too late.’
(575) And yet more I saye that for whatsomeuer wordes of iniurie þt it be yf
they ben saide in an angre or in hete by suspecyon or malencolye and that
he ayenst whom suche wordes haue ben wyl fyght for hit there ought not
163
(576)
(577)
(578)
(579)
to be iuged noo bataylle wythout that he that hathe saide them wolde
maynten styll the same and wolde fyght in thys quarelle (Caxton, The
Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye p.276 l.6-10)
‘And yet again I say that for whatever hurtful words, if they are uttered in
anger or heat caused by suspicion or melancholy and he to whom these
words were uttered will fight for it, no battle should be judged without he
who uttered the words maintaining them and wanting to fight in this
quarrel.’
For many ben so haultayn and of soo euyl courage that they saye in
hastynesse and hete alle that they knowe and cometh to mouthe (Caxton,
The Book of the Knight of the Tower p.37)
‘For many are so arrogant and of so evil disposition that they in anger and
heat say all that they know and comes to their mouth.’
Neuertheless it is noo doubte that the fyrst moeuynge that is in hym to
fele hym self hurte and the hasty hete that causeth and chaffeth hym sore
to folowe excuseth hym moche wherfore more moderatly he ought to be
punysshed for (Caxton, The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye
p.211 l.39-p.212 l.4)
‘Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that the first impulse in him is to feel
himself hurt and the hasty heat that chafes him sorely and makes him do
the same exempts him much, because of which he ought to be more
moderately punished.’
Ye shall trouble no widow nor fatherless child: If ye shall trouble them:
they shall cry unto me, and I will surely hear their cry and then will my
wrath wax hot and I will kill you with sword, and your wives shall be
widows and your children fatherless. (Tyndale, Old Testament p.119)
‘You shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If you afflict them,
they will cry out to me and I will surely hear their cry and my anger will
be hot and I will kill you with the sword and your wives will be widows
and your children fatherless.’
this is al trewe. but I was so sore meuyd whan I was enformed of kywarts
deth and sawe his heed. that I was hoot and hasty. (Caxton, The History
of Reynard the Fox p.75 l.20-22)
‘This is all true, but I was so extremely angered when I was informed of
Cuwart’s death and saw his head, that I was hot and hasty.’
As explained in 3.7.1, fervent may refer to heat in general, as well as to fire
or boiling. Fervent is used once in the c1500 corpus. The nominal form fervour
is used once too.
(580) Wherfore ye folys se ye no lenger tary But on the dull Asse hastely
assende That a slowe beest may hasty folys cary For your mad wrath
dowtyth no thynge the ende Your madnes can nat your blynde mysdede
defende For who that one sleyth, angry and feruent Ought to be hangyd
whan he is pacyent (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 1 p.185)
164
‘Therefore, you fools, make sure you no longer tarry, but quickly mount
on the dull ass so that a slow animal may carry hasty fools, for your mad
anger does not apprehend the end of anything. Your madness cannot
answer for your blind offence, for he who kills somebody when angry and
fervent ought to be hanged when he is patient.’
(581) But with feble waxe suche bande can not last, When loue waxeth colde,
then shall the linkes brast. The feruour of wrath shall them consume and
melt, Then is thy fauour scant worth a shepes pelt. (Barclay, Eclogues
p.37)
‘But with weak seals such ties cannot last; when love grows cold, the
chains will burst. The fervor of anger will consume and melt them and
then your favour is hardly worth a sheep’s skin.’
Finally, there is the set of expressions that clearly refer to fire as the source of
heat. This group consists of fire (9 attestations), enflamen (8 attestations), and
kindelen (3 attestations) and the new French loans incensen (1 attestation) and
fume (3 attestations). The French loan-words are derived from encenser ‘to set
on fire’ and fumer ‘to smoke’ respectively.
(582) The remedy of wreth and outragyouse yre Must nedys com of me and
none other wyse, For I am called Pacyence, whyche quencheth the fyre
And flammys of wreth. (Medwall, Plays Nature l.1202-1205)
‘The remedy for wrath and outrageous anger must needs come from me
and in no other way, because I am called Pacience, which puts out the fire
and flames of anger.’
(583) and where he findeth some folk full of hot blood and choler he maketh
those humours his instruments to set their heart on fire in wrath and fierce
furious anger (More, A Dialogue of Comfort p.275)
‘And where he finds people full of hot blood and choler, he makes those
humours his instruments with which to set their hearts on fire in wrath
and fierce, furious anger.’
(584) She dyde nothynge but for to mocke and scorne This true louer whiche
was for loue forlorne But whan he knewe the poynt of the case The fyry
angre dyde his herte enbrace (Hawes, The Passetyme of Pleasure p.138)
‘She did but mock and scorn this true lover, who was lost for love, but
when he knew the point of the case, fiery anger embraced his heart.’
(585) How agreeth this with thy doctrine that preachest so much of patience,
and in all thy lessons reprovest wrath, and now contrary to thine own
teaching, thou art all inflamed with wrath, and clean from the patience
which thou so much praisest? (Elyot, The Boke Named The Governour
p.212)
‘How does this agree with your doctrine, you who preach so much of
patience and in all your lessons reprove anger, and now, contrary to you
own teaching, you are all enflamed with anger and void of the patience
that you praise so much ?’
165
(586) A woman iust and to goodnes inclyned If wrath and yre hir husbonde do
inflame With hir good counsell shall mytigate his mynde And pease his
wrath (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.3)
‘A woman who is righteous and enclined to goodnes will, if anger
inflames her husband, with her good counsel mitigate his mind and
appease his anger.’
(587) Therefore is my wrath kindled against this place, and shall not be
quenched. (Tyndale, Old Testament p.536)
‘Therefore my anger is kindled against this place and it shall not be
extinguished.’
(588) For it is a great wrath of the Lord that is kindled upon us, that our fathers
have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do in all points as it is
written therein. (Tyndale, Old Testament p.536)
‘For it is great anger of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our
fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do in every point as
is written in it.’
(589) With these wordes and writynges and suche other, the Duke of Gloucester
sone set a fyre, them that were of themself ethe to kindle, and in especiall
twayne, Edwarde Duke of Buckingham, and Richard Lord Hastinges and
chaumberlayn, both men of honour and of great power. (More, The
History of King Richard III 294-297)
‘With these words and writings and suchlike, the duke of Gloucester soon
set on fire those that were by themselves easy to kindle, and two in
particular, Edward Duke of Buckingham and Richard Lord Hastings,
chamberlain, both men of honour and great power.’
(590) It happened that one of his servants whom he well favoured, for felony by
him committed, was arraigned at the King’s Bench; whereof he being
advertised, and incensed by light persons about him, in furious rage came
hastily to the bar, where his servant stood as a prisoner, and commanded
him to be ungyved and set at liberty (Elyot, The Boke Named The
Governour p.114)
‘It happened that one of his servants who he favoured was called to the
Kings’s Bench to answer for a crime he had committed. On being
informed about that and incensed by unthinking persons around him, he
came in a furious rage to the court, where his servant stood as a prisoner
and ordered him to be released and set at liberty.’
(591) His wisdom is so discreet That, in a fume or an heat ‘Warden of the Fleet,
Set him fast by the feet!’ (Skelton, Complete Poems p.321)
‘His wisdom is so cautious that in a fume or a heat, he orders, “Warden of
the Fleet, fetter his feet !”
(592) and considering that suffer it needs he must while he can by no manner of
mean put it from him, the very necessity is half counsel enough to take it
in good worth and bear it patiently, and rather of his patience to take both
166
ease and thank than by fretting and fuming to increase his present pain,
and by murmur and grudge fall in farther danger after by displeasing of
God with his froward behaviour. (More, A Dialogue of Comfort p.221)
‘Considering that he must needs suffer it as he can by no means turn it
away from him, this necessity is half the counsel to take it in good part
and to bear it patiently and to take ease and thanks from his patience,
rather than by fretting and fuming increase his present pain and by
muttering and grumbling be in further danger of displeasing God with his
unruly behaviour.’
(593) when thou hast made an end of telling the story of war unto the king if he
begin to fume and say unto thee: wherefore approached ye so nigh unto
the city to fight? (Tyndale, Old Testament p.436)
‘when you have finished telling the story of the war to the king, if he
begins to fume and say to you “Why did you go so close to the city to
fight?” ’
The conceptualization ANGER AS MOTION is found in the expressions stiren,
moven and hastif. While stiren has been present in the lexical field from 850950 onwards (although not constantly), moven and hastif have entered the field
c1400. These new forms already outnumber the older one c1500 : whereas
stiren is used in only 4 attestations, moven is used in 24 (all past participles) and
hastif in 15 (7 adjectives and 8 nouns).
(594) Reduce, revyve my sowle: be thow the Leche, And reconcyle the great
hatred and stryfe That it hath tane agaynste the flesshe, the wretche That
stirred hathe thie wrathe bye filthie life. (Wyatt, Collected Poems p.102)
‘Restore and revive my soul, be the physician and reconcile the great
hatred and strife that it has done to the flesh, the wretch that has stirred
your anger with its filthy life.’
(595) It weryeth the bodye, by anger and syknes Styrynge it to wrath, to
fyghtynge and varyaunce (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.262)
‘It tires the body, with anger and illness stirring it to anger, fighting and
discord.’
(596) and mutablyte Styreth the hertis of labourynge men to yre That the most
part abyde in pouertye (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.316)
‘Inconsistency stirs the hearts of working men to anger, who mostly live
in poverty.’
(597) A couetous herte by game is kept in fere And styrred to yre euer whan it
can nat wyn (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.71)
‘A greedy heart is kept in fear by games and is stirred to anger whenever
it cannot win.’
(598) Noble the kyng was sore meuyd and angry whan he had herde thise
complayntes of the cony and of the roek (Caxton, The History of Reynard
the Fox p.53 l.21-22)
167
(599)
(600)
(601)
(602)
(603)
‘King Noble was sorely moved and angry when he had heard these
complaints of the rabbit and the rook.’
For moved with wrath he caused divers to be slain, for whom after he
demanded and would send for to supper. (Elyot, The Boke Named The
Governour p.113)
‘Because moved with anger, he caused several to be killed whom he had
asked and sent for to have supper with.’
I tell thee Faustus, this hastynes of thee Passeth the boundes of right and
honestie. All men thou blamest by wrath and hastynes, As all Citizens
were full of viciousnes. (Barclay, Eclogues p.215)
‘I tell you, Faustus, this anger of yours surpasses the boundaries of
righteousness and honesty. You blame all men in anger as if all citizens
were full of viciousness.’
Come nere, ye wrathfull men, take your rowme and place Within our
shyp, and to slake our hastynes Mount on an Asse slowe of hir gate and
pace Syns troublous wrath, in you, styreth this madnes (Barclay, The Ship
of Fools 1 p.182)
‘Come closer, you angry men, and take your place in our ship, and to
appease [y]our anger, mount an ass slow of pace, as troublesome anger
stirs this madness in you.’
And ther was a damoysell douZter of a right gentyl knyZt And she waxe
angry in playeng atte tables with a gentylman whiche was hoote and
hasty and moost Ryotous (Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower
p.30)
‘And there was a lady, the daughter of a noble knight, and she became
angry while playing a boardgame with a nobleman who was hot and
angry and most willing to fight.’
For right so shold a wyse woman do by thensample of the wyse quene
hester wyf of the kyng Assuere whiche was moche melancolyque and
hasty But the good lady answerd not to his yre But after when she sawe
hym well attempryd place and tyme thenne dyde she what she wold
(Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower p.35)
‘For exactly so should a wise woman do, after the example of the wise
queen Esther, wife of king Ahasuerus, who was very melancholic and
angry, but the good lady did not react to his anger, but afterwards, when
she saw him tempered, there and then she did what she wanted.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS A BODY FLUID is first of all to be found in
the 4 attestations of the expression malencolie.
(604) It longeth nat to any man of hye prudence For to be wrothe, yrous, or
gyuys to malancoly No suche passyon nor inconuenyence Can fall to
man, ay stedfast wyse and holy (Barclay, Ship of Fools 1 p.184)
168
‘It is not fitting for a man of high prudence to be angry or (given ?) to
melancholy. No such passion or impropriety can overcome a man who is
constantly wise and sanctified.’
(605) as it may wel be that he was euyll informed or ellis chaffed for anger or
malencolie or haply for takyng of ouere moche wyne this thynge by gode
meanes may lightly ynoughe be remytted in a manere that to that other
ought to suffyse (Caxton, The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye
p.276 l.6-10)
‘It may well be that he was ill-informed or else chafed with anger and
melancholy or perhaps for drinking too much wine. By good means,
these things may easily enough be pardoned in a way that ought to be
sufficient to the other.’
(606) And yet more I saye that for whatsomeuer wordes of iniurie þt it be yf
they ben saide in an angre or in hete by suspecyon or malencolye and that
he ayenst whom suche wordes haue ben wyl fyght for hit there ought not
to be iuged noo bataylle wythout that he that hathe saide them wolde
maynten styll the same and wolde fyght in thys quarelle (Caxton, The
Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye p.276 l.6-10)
‘And yet again I say that for whatever hurtful words, if they are uttered in
anger or heat caused by suspicion or melancholy and he to whom these
words were uttered will fight for it, no battle should be judged without he
who uttered the words maintaining them and wanting to fight in this
quarrel.’
(607) For right so shold a wyse woman do by thensample of the wyse quene
hester wyf of the kyng Assuere whiche was moche melancolyque and
hasty But the good lady answerd not to his yre But after when she sawe
hym well attempryd place and tyme thenne dyde she what she wold
(Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower p.35)
‘For exactly so should a wise woman do, after the example of the wise
queen Esther, wife of king Ahasuerus, who was very melancholic and
angry, but the good lady did not react to his anger, but afterwards, when
she saw him tempered, there and then she did what she wanted.’
Besides to malencolie, there is reference to another body fluid to denote
After having been used for centuries with literal reference to (red or
yellow) bile, as in examples (390) and (586), choler is used in the sense of
‘anger’ once in the c1500 corpus.
ANGER.
(608) A Secretary of th’emperour to one that resonyd with him how the amytie
could stond with oute Millan, and howe Geens shuld do if Millan were
gyven, sayd in gret Collere: ‘These be practises and perswations of
Venetyens and other that sowe cocle in clene whete; but they shalbe
frindes in spyte of the devill, and all them that have been aboute to let it,
the matter is clere ynowgh.’ (Wyatt, Letters p.152)
169
‘To one who argued with him how the agreement could stand without
Milan and what Genova would do if Milan was given away, a secretary of
the emperor said in great anger : “These are practices and argumentations
of Venetians and others who sow cockles in clean wheat, but they shall be
friends in spite of the devil and all those who have been about to let it
(happen ?); this is clear enough.” ’
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS is becoming quite an important conceptualization. It
is mainly expressed in the use of displease (151 attestations), used 74 times as a
noun, 44 times as a transitive verb, 27 times as a past participle and 6 times as an
adjective.
(609) Syr my lord sayth he marvell that ye wryte hym noo letters he sayth had
noo word from yowr mastyrschyppis syns he departed owte of Ynglond
wherfor he feryth hym yee schuld tak som displesyr wt hym or wt som of
hys. (Cely Papers p.132)
‘Sir, my lord says that he is surprised that you write him no letters. He
says that he has not had word of your mastership since he departed from
England. He therefore fears that you should be angry with him or with
one of his family.’
(610) And therefore if ye will well do, reckon yourself very sure that when you
deadly displease God for the getting or the keeping of your goods, God
shall not suffer those goods to do you good, (More, A Dialogue of
Comfort p.351)
‘Therefore, if you want to do well, be sure that when you utterly anger
God in getting or keeping your goods, God will not allow those goods to
do you good.’
(611) And thus whanne he beganne to laboure came he that had the charge of
the felde and the ouersyght And anone beganne to bete one of the
labourers greuously wherof Esope was gretely displeasyd And sayd to
hym in this manere what betest thou hym for nought (Caxton, Æsop p.29
l.17 - p.30 l.3)
‘And thus, when he began to labour, came he who was in charge of the
field and its supervision and immediately he began to beat one of the
labourers severely, for which Aesop was very angry and said to him,
“Why do you beat him for nothing ?” ’
(612) And thenne when thenemye sawe their grete pryde and their desguysynge
he made them to falle in the fylthe of the stynkyng synne of lecherye
whiche thynge was so moche displesynge to god. that he dyde made to
rayne fourty dayes and fourty nyghtes withoute cessynge (Caxton, The
Book of the Knight of the Tower p.70)
‘And when the devil saw their great pride and their strange dressing, he
made them fall into the filth of the stinking sin of lechery, which so much
angered God that he made it rain for forty days and forty nights without
interruption.’
170
(613) And for the concupyscence of that golde they faught and slewe eche
other. Wherfore thadmyral was so dysplaysaunt & angry that he wende
to haue dyed (Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten Prynce Charles
the Grete p.143 l.12-15)
‘For the desire of that gold they fought and killed each other. The admiral
was so displeased and angry at this that he thought he would die.’
Quite a number of synonyms of displeased are used too : not well pleased (1
attestation), not well paid (1 attestation), evil paid (5 attestations), not content (3
attestations), discontent (9 attestations) and evil content (13 attestations).
(614) he wrastled so sore/ that he sprang on his feet whyles he rubbed his eyen,
the wulf was not wel plesyd ther wythalle/ And smote after hym er he
escaped and caught hym in his armes and helde hym faste,
notwythstandyng that he bledde (Caxton, The History of Reynard the Fox
p.101 l.21-24)
‘He wrestled so hard and jumped to his feet while he rubbed his eyes.
The wolf was angry at this and struck at him before he could escape and
caught him and held him tightly, notwithstanding that he was bleeding.’
(615) Grymbert was not wel a payd but the foxe had euer his eyen toward the
polayl (Caxton, The History of Reynard the Fox p.28 l.33-34)
‘Grimbert was angry, but the fox constantly had his eyes on the poultry.’
(616) Then went Ahab unto his house wayward and evil apaid, because of the
words which Naboth the Jezrahelite had spoken unto him saying: I will
not give to thee, the inheritance of my fathers. (Tyndale, Old Testament
p.497)
‘And Ahab went home angry and displeased because of the words which
Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him, saying : I will not give you the
inheritance of my fathers.’
(617) the sayd kynge Philyppe there made Edwarde the kynge of Englande his
eldyst son duke of Guyan wherwith kynge Edwarde was nat content &
dyd exyle bothe the quene & his sayd son out of Englande (Rastell, The
Pastyme of People p.338 l.19-22)
‘This king Philip made Edward king of England and his eldest son duke
of Guienne. King Edward was angry with it and sent both the queen and
his son into exile out of England.’
(618) Therefore Jonas was sore discontent and angry. (Tyndale, Old Testament
p.643)
‘Jonah was sorely angry at it.’
(619) But I shall nat so sharply them repreue I am full lothe relygious men to
greue Or discontent : for if I so do wolde A myghty volume coude nat
theyr vyces holde (Barclay, The Ship of Fools 2 p.322)
‘But I shall not reprove them so sharply because I loathe to anger or
displease religious men. If I did so, a massive volume could not contain
their vices.’
171
(620) For such fervent love entereth not into the heart of a wise man and
virtuous, but by a divine disposition; whereat if I should be discontented
or grudge, I should not only be unjust to you, withholding that from you
which is undoubtedly yours, but also obstinate and repugnant against the
determination of God; (Elyot, The Boke Named The Governour p.140141)
‘For such fervent love does not enter into the heart of a wise and virtuous
man but by divine arrangement. If I should be angry at this and complain,
I would not only be unjust towards you, withholding from you what is
undoubtedly yours, but also unyielding and contrary to God’s
determination.’
(621) Rolland was euyl contente and sayd to Naymes : “What hondred
thousand of deuyls hath maad you to speke now of loue ? It is not now
tyme to speke of suche thynge.” (Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and
Crysten Prynce Charles the Grete p.113 l.16-20)
‘Roland was angry and said to Naymes, “What the devil made you speak
of love now ? This is not the time to speak of such things.” ’
There is one attestation in the corpus of the use of the hyperonym mod with
reference to ANGER, revealing the conceptualization ANGER AS A STRONG
EMOTION. It is used in the expression piken mood ‘to become angry’.
(622) Whoso thereat picketh mood, The tokens are not good To be true English
blood; (Skelton, Complete Poems p.146)
‘Whoever is angry at that, the signs are not good for his being of true
English blood.’
The conceptualization ANGER AS CRAB-LIKE BEHAVIOUR is found once in the
c1500 corpus, in the use of the noun crab, meaning ‘angry person’.
(623) Disdain, I ween, this comerous crab is hight. (Skelton, Complete Poems
p.46)
‘Disdain, I think, this cumbersome crab is named.’
New to the lexical field is testy. It is a loan-word derived from French testu
‘headstrong, stubborn’, revealing the conceptualization ANGER AS
STUBBORNNESS.
(624) And then came halting Joan, And brought a gambone Of bacon that was
reasty: But, Lord, as she was testy, Angry as a waspy! (Skelton, Complete
Poems p.121)
‘Then came limping Joan, who brought a gamon of bacon that was rancid.
But lord, she was testy, angry as a wasp !’
Throughout the Middle English period, provoken to + word denoting action
or emotion is used with the meaning ‘to urge, incite’. In Early modern English,
irriten is used in the same constructions, with the same meaning. In the c1500
corpus, there are several attestations of provoken (19 attestations) and one of
172
irriten in isolation, the action or emotion not being specified. These uses always
denote ANGER, which must have been considered the standard reference and
therefore no longer needed to be lexicalised.
(625) And to that I replied, that if thei entended it not to the Frenchmen, it were
better now to prouok them with a flat dispair being spent and poore, then
herafter when thei by peace of two or thre yeeres shall be waxen rich and
then not to have the occasion that thei now haue of the kinges aide.
(Wyatt, Letters p.77)
‘And to this I replied that if they did not intend to give it to the French, it
was better to anger them with utter despair while they were worn out and
poor, then later, when they after two or three years of peace will have
become rich and then not to have the opportunity that they now have of
the king’s help.’
(626) but hast done evil above all that were before thee, and hast gone and made
the other gods and images of metal, to provoke me (Tyndale, Old
Testament p.485)
‘But you have done greater evil than those that were before you and have
gone and made other gods and metal images to anger me.’
(627) Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from his fear and great wrath
wherewith he was angry against Juda upon all the provocations that
Manasseh provoked him. (Tyndale, Old Testament p.538)
‘Nonetheless, the Lord did not turn from his fear and great anger with
which he was angry against Juda for all the provocations with which
Manasseh angered him.’
(628) Perswading hym by this to take that way that myght be best to joyne them
vnto hym, tho it were not all as he wold. Yet tho it were something
dishonest in his own opinion ffor that if thei were iritatid he dowbtid
much some grete invndation by theire furour over all Italy and
Christendome. (Wyatt, Letters p.147-148)
‘By this persuading him to take that way that might best ally them to him,
even though it were not completely as he wanted it to be and it were
something dishonest in his opinion, for if they were angered, he much
expected some great inundation all over Italy and christianity due to their
anger.’
3.8.2 Summary
173
conceptualization
FIERCENESS
AFFLICTION
UNHAPPINESS
WRONG EMOTION
INSANITY
HEAT
PRIDE
MOTION
174
expression
(root)
wrath
gram
grim
anger
greven
rubben upon the gall
displesen
evil content
discontent
evil paid
not content
not paid
not pleased
ire
wayward
thuert
evil part
rage
fury
furour
mad
out of wit
wod
hot
chaufen
fire
enflamen
hete
fumen
kindelen
incensen
fervent
fervor
indignation
disdain
despite
moven
frequency
absolute
%
386 31.36
1
0.08
1
0.08
301 24.45
12
0.98
1
0.08
151 12.27
13
1.06
9
0.73
5
0.41
3
0.24
1
0.08
1
0.08
98
7.96
1
0.08
1
0.08
1
0.08
22
1.79
19
1.54
14
1.14
9
0.73
8
0.65
1
0.08
16
1.30
11
0.89
8
0.65
8
0.65
5
0.41
3
0.24
3
0.24
1
0.08
1
0.08
1
0.08
20
1.62
21
1.71
3
0.24
24
1.95
%
31.52
25.51
14.87
8.20
5.93
4.62
3.57
3.49
hastif
stiren
provoken
irriten
malencolie
choler
mod
crab
testy
15
4
STIMULATION
19
1
BODY FLUIDS
4
1
STRONG EMOTION
1
CRAB-LIKE
1
STUBBORNNESS
1
total
1231
table (13) : ANGER-expressions c1500
1.22
0.32
1.54
0.08
0.32
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
100
1.62
0.40
0.08
0.08
0.08
100
3.9 CONCLUSION
This chapter has presented the lexical and conceptual field of ANGER as it is
revealed in English texts from the earliest texts available up to 1500. For each of
the seven subperiods, it discussed which lexical items expressed the concept of
ANGER and which conceptualization they reveal given their etymological origin
and semasiological development.
It also discussed in which syntactic
constructions those expressions were used and how many attestations were found
in the corpora.
By way of summary, table (14) gives an overview of all the quantitative data
discussed in this chapter. For the sake of convenience, the data have not been
split out over the different lexical items, but have been summarized on the level
of the conceptualizations. Lexical details can be found in the tables at the end of
each section in this chapter.
These data show that although there may be considerable variation in
prominence of conceptualizations from one period to another, the conceptual
field is relatively stable. Generally speaking, many conceptualizations are
present throughout the period studied and only minor Old English
conceptualizations (DARKNESS, HEAVINESS, UNMILDNESS) were lost and only
minor conceptualizations (BODY FLUIDS, DISTURBANCE, CRAB-LIKE, CELTIC,
STIMULATION, STUBBORNNESS) were introduced in the Middle and Early Modern
English period. One important exception is the SWELLING-conceptualization,
which is quite frequently used in the Old English texts, but which is almost
absent as of 1300.
This relative stability on the conceptual level is somewhat surprising because
Old, Middle and Early Modern English differ considerably on the lexical level.
Whereas the Old English lexicon is almost exclusively made up of Germanic
words, the Middle and Early Modern English lexicon is a mixture of Germanic,
Scandinavian and Romance words. This is also the case in this lexical field : in
the Middle and Early Modern English period, quite some Romance loans were
175
introduced (like tarien, greven, indignation, rage, fury, chaufen, fervent,
enflamen, incensen, malencolie, displesen, provoken), and the Scandinavian loan
anger becomes a very frequent term for denoting ANGER from 1400 onwards.
a850 850-950 950-1050 1200 1300 1400
37.70
51.25
45.57 4.78 10.62 22.42
SWELLING
27.05
10.63
13.34 12.64 0.78 0.25
FIERCENESS
15.57
7.29
23.37 69.66 67.88 40.34
AFFLICTION
9.02
2.08
4.48 3.93 8.81 13.13
UNHAPPINESS
2.46
0.83
0.32 0.28 1.30 1.65
STRONG EMOTION
1.64
5.83
1.07 0.84
0 0.20
BITTERNESS
1.64
0.83
0.21 0.28 0.78 0.05
HEAT
1.64
15.00
6.62 1.40 1.55 3.69
INSANITY
0.82
0.42
0.85 3.93 7.25 5.29
DARKNESS
0.82
0
0.21
0
0
0
HEAVINESS
0.82
0.63
0.21
0
0 0.50
UNMILDNESS
0.82
0.21
0
0
0
0
MOTION
0
3.96
2.67 1.12
0 2.65
PRIDE
0
0.63
1.07
0
0 7.64
BODILY BEHAVIOUR
0
0.42
0
0
0 0.10
BODY FLUIDS
0
0
0 0.56 0.26 1.85
? (wrah)
0
0
0 0.56
0 0.10
DISTURBANCE
0
0
0
0 0.78
0
CRAB-LIKE
0
0
0
0
0 0.10
CELTIC
0
0
0
0
0 0.05
STIMULATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
STUBBORNNESS
0
0
0
0
0
0
table (14) : overview conceptualizations a850-1500
WRONG EMOTION
1500
8.20
0
31.52
25.51
14.87
0.08
0
4.62
5.93
0
0
0
3.49
3.57
0
0.40
0
0
0.08
0
1.62
0.08
The general overview in this table also shows that the HEATconceptualization is present in all the subcorpora. Quantitatively speaking,
however, it is never very prominent, except between 850 and 950. The overall
data do not provide clues as to whether this conceptualization is somehow
connected with the humoral doctrine. The only thing they do show is that
expressions which can be linked to the humoral doctrine (BODY FLUIDS) do occur
in the Middle and Modern English period, but their attestations are rather scarce.
NOTES
1
The term hyperonym or hypernym refers to words which are semantically umbrella
terms, encompassing a group of words with more specific meanings, which are
labelled hyponyms. The word sibling, for example, is a hyperonym of sister and
176
brother, while being a hyponym of relative, which encompasses a set of words
containing nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, parent, sibling, etc. See also section 4.2.3.
All the meanings of Old English words are taken from ASD. Those of Middle English
words are taken from MED.
2 The etymological information throughout this chapter is taken from Pokorny (19591969) and Pokorny & Walde (1973).
3 Another hyperonym that is sometimes considered to refer to ANGER is mod. After
considering the arguments in favour, Phillips (1985) argues against such an
interpretation. His main objections are that “mod does not gloss or translate ira or any
other Latin anger-term” (Phillips (1985:203)) and “mod’s not appearing in the typical
and central syntactic constructions of an anger-term” (Phillips (1985:204)).
4 All the references to texts in sections 3.2 to 3.4 are from the Toronto Corpus (DiPaulo
Healey & Venezky (1980)).
5 For a discussion of the evolution of the meanings of mod, see Kiricsi (2004).
6 See Ingersoll (1978:184) : “In the OE period sare retains much of its qualitative
meaning and usually modifies verbs, participles, and adjectives expressing injury,
treachery, or death.” For a description of the meaning of sare and its evolution, see
Molina (2005).
7 According to Ingersoll (1978:164), biter is “generally used in OE to intensify verbs of
strong emotion, as bitterly still is in ModE”.
8 According to Ingersoll (1978:103), the a-prefix “acts as an intensive prefix with verbs
of motion”.
9 The conceptualization ANGER AS SWELLING is also found in old Irish and Welsh texts,
according to Davies (1998:197). The fact that belgen is not one of the major
representatives of sinful anger in Tetzlaff (1954) may be due to the fact that the
expression is not often used with reference to the capital sin (Tetzlaff (1954:107)).
However, it may well be the result of methodological bias as this study is limited to
nouns denoting the capital sins and belgan is not very often used nominally.
10 Obviously, the new noun forms i(e)rsung and yrsung (16 attestations) and the
adjectival forms i(e)rsigend, irsiend and yrsiend (6 attestations) are derived from the
verbs.
11 For a thorough discussion of the different literal meanings of hat and its metonymic
and metaphorical extensions, see Goossens (1998). The meaning extension ‘angry’
proves to be one of the less frequent ones. If this extension is to be considered a
metaphorical one, Goossens (1998) presents it as having a strong metonymic basis.
He considers it to be based on the meaning ‘having “hot/heat” as a/its quality’, which,
being mainly used in leechbooks, proves to be based on the theories of anger as
presented by the humoral doctrine. Contrary to Ayoub’s claim that “in Anglo-Saxon
England humoral theory was specialized medical information rather than common
knowledge” (Ayoub 1995:344), he states that the humoral doctrine “can be assumed
to have been familiar to most literate Anglo-Saxons” (Goossens 1998:142).
12 Because it is normal in Old English to combine nouns denoting emotions with the
verb niman, Godden (1985:286) concludes that “here was presumably some rooted
sense that passions, or feelings towards other people and things, did not just take hold
of one from outside or inside but involved, at some level, an act of will. Such uses
177
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
link with the prevalence of active, simplex verbs for psychological states where
Modern English has to use a periphrastic form with an adjective”.
The information on the phonological variation is taken from Jordan (1974) (see
especially pp. 44, 54 and 72-74).
The occurrences in which the meaning is ‘hasty’ are rare and of later dates. The
earliest example is Cursor Mundi 27738-27739 : Wreth it es a brath on-fall, Menging
o mode þat cums o gall. ‘Anger is a sudden affliction, a disturbance of the spirit
caused by gall.’
The etymology of Old English hreoh is not clear. Pokorny (1959-1969) suggests
Indo-European kreu ‘ice, freeze’ as a possible root, but considers it questionable.
As the prototypical meaning ‘trouble, affliction, vexation, sorrow’ is replaced by the
peripheral meaning ‘wrath, ire, hot displeasure’, this word would fit in well with other
cases of words showing loss of prototypical meanings, mentioned in Dekeyser (1995)
and Dekeyser (1996).
In a personal communication, Anthony Esposito, one of the OED etymologists,
pointed out that they do not consider Middle English ire a continuation of Old English
irre because the Middle English reflexes of the latter are only to be found in very
early Middle English texts, all of which are from the West Midlands. So it was
already “on the way out and restricted to a particular region of England, while 'ire'
was about to make its tumultuous appearance”.
A similar view is adopted by Ogura (2002), who does not list this verb with other OE
verbs superseded by Old French or Old Norse loans, stating that “Yrre or ierre,
judging from its frequent use, must be derived from Latin ira, not from OF ire.”
(Ogura 2002:498)
The meanings of French words are taken from Godefroy (1965) and Tobler &
Lommatzsch (1925-2002).
Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between quick anger, which is choleric, and slow
anger, which is melancholic (Boyde 1993:260-261).
Bourgery (1961:45) shows how Seneca already qualifies people with ginger hair as
being choleric. This humoral association between choler and redness (including redheadedness, a typical characteristic of the Celts) ties in with the age-old reputation of
the Celts being rash and fierce.
As gall ‘gall, gall bladder’ and gall ‘sore spot’ are homonyms, the presence of the
word gall in this expression may unintentionally have been associated with the
element of choler in the humoral doctrine.
178
Chapter 4
Analyses
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, several analyses of the material presented in the previous chapter
will be discussed. The analyses are inspired by two major trends in cognitive
linguistics, especially the Lakoffian approach, namely the emphasis on figurative
language and on the universal physiological basis of metaphors.
First of all, Lakoffian linguistics puts the emphasis on metaphors rather than
literal expressions. The emphasis on the extent to which all language use shows
certain conceptualizations may result in a neglect of literal language use. The
question to what extent the conceptualizations discovered during the linguistic
analysis of a set of expressions also make sense for the average language user
has not been the main concern of these linguists. If the expression to fall in love
is used, the speaker conceptualizes LOVE in terms of a SPACE, or if the expression
fume is used, the speaker conceptualizes ANGER in terms of HEAT. What is
hardly ever considered is the fact that those analyses may be etymologically or
historically correct, but that the speaker may no longer be aware of those origins
and may be using the expressions as literal references to the target concept.1
In answer to this methodological problem, we will first of all consider in how
far the etymological conceptualizations that were proposed in the previous
chapter can be used without leading to anachronistic interpretations. As not all
conceptualizations seem to be metaphorical, we will also consider what the
nature of the different conceptualizations, if any, might be : are they
hyperonymical, metonymical or metaphorical ?
The second issue is that of the physiological basis of emotion metaphors. For
a very long time, the emphasis on the universality of human physiology and
certain emotion metaphors simply ignored the fact that the conceptualizations
may also show cultural influences. This chapter will discuss four instances of
cultural influence that may have influenced the conceptual field of ANGER in
Old, Middle and Early Modern English : the suggestion that anger was
introduced into the field in order to reflect social changes, the influence of Latin
and of Romance, and the nature of the HEAT-conceptualizations.
The first case study focuses on the introduction of anger in the lexical field.
It has often been mentioned that this word, of Scandinavian origin, was
introduced in Middle English and that it originally meant ‘affliction’ and
179
gradually became the standard expression for the concept of ANGER. Only one
study, Diller (1994), proposed a theory explaining why this expression was
introduced in the lexical field of ANGER. His analysis of the use of anger in
Chaucer’s texts results in the suggestion that its semantic characteristics differ
from those of wrath with respect to the social status of the experiencer, which
explains its introduction in the lexical field. We will study to what extent these
findings are corroborated by our data collection or whether the introduction of
anger was rather due to another set of cultural influences, namely stylistic ones.
Next, we will try to find out to what extent the lexical and conceptual field of
ANGER was influenced by foreign cultures. For the Old English period, a case
study will focus on the influence of the Latin source texts that were used. The
main aim will be to find out to what extent the translators adopted concepts used
in the source texts. For the Middle and Early Modern English period, we will
study how Romance (i.e. French, Latin, Latin through French, etc.) loans affect
the lexical and conceptual fields and ways to measure their impact. The
influence of Romance elements in English has been the subject of many previous
studies. They all differ, however, in the ways in which they select their material
and the way in which they quantify the Romance influence. We will compare
these approaches and study what the data of the present study may add to the
discussion.
Finally, we will study what the corpus data reveal about the conceptualization
ANGER AS HEAT.
In order to study whether this conceptualization is as
omnipresent as suggested by present-day analyses, this will first of all be a
quantitative study, revealing the relative share of the conceptualization in the
whole field. This analysis will be followed by a qualitative one, showing what
contextual information can tell us about the nature of the conceptualization. We
will look for indications that it was an embodied conceptualization, based on
universal physiology, that it was influenced by the humoral doctrine, which is a
cultural element, or that it was not embodied at all.
4.2 LITERAL VS. CONCEPTUALIZATION
4.2.1 Introduction
Given the fact that the Lakoffian vein of cognitive linguistics claims that
metaphor is ubiquitous, it is interesting to consider what the corpus data reveal
about the nature of the conceptual field of ANGER. Is the way in which people
conceive ANGER typically a metaphorical one, a metonymical one, or still
something else ?
Before this question can be answered, however, it has to be considered to
what extent the etymological classification of the conceptualizations presented in
chapter 3 is adequate. These conceptualizations are based on the etymology of
180
the lexical elements expressing ANGER.
In using such etymological
classifications, there is a considerable risk of anachronistic misrepresentations.
Just like it would be an anachronism to state that the current most neutral literal
expression, anger, is still clearly associated with its original notion of
AFFLICTION, it would most probably be wrong to state that all the expressions
could be associated with their (often reconstructed Indo-European) origins
throughout the Old, Middle and Early Modern English period.
That is why this section will first of all discuss which expressions in the
lexical field of ANGER may be considered literal ones and what part of the lexical
field they take up. In order to identify the literal expressions in this
onomasiological study, the criterion of frequency of occurrence will be used : the
most frequently used expressions will be considered default expressions which
show no special conceptualization. Two different cut-off points for literalness
will be taken into account.
4.2.2 Literal expressions
If we assume that there must have been literal expressions, which due to
semantic bleaching were probably not felt to represent special conceptualizations
or only to a very limited extent, we must look for ways to identify them. In a
diachronic study determining whether an expression does or does not show a
special conceptualization necessarily remains precarious and very much a matter
of interpretation. The ideal way to identify literal expressions is a semasiological
approach, in which all the occurrences of one expression can be taken into
account. Such an approach may show whether an expression exclusively or
prototypically (in the sense of most frequently) refers to one concept rather than
another. This study, however, is an onomasiological one and as such draws upon
dictionaries for the semasiological information. As explained in section 2.3.1, it
is impossible to rely on the examples given in such traditional dictionaries to
determine precisely which meaning of a word was the most prototypical one and
to what extent the different meanings were used. Therefore, we will have to look
for a method to distinguish literal uses which suits the onomasiological approach
of this study.
If a concept can be expressed by several expressions, but one of them is
selected in most cases, that expression can be considered the standard
expression. Selecting this expression is a default option, implying no special
conceptual choice. Such expressions showing no special conceptualization will
be set apart from those that may show special conceptualizations and will be
considered as literal expressions. A second principle that will be adopted is that
once an expression is considered a literal one, it will automatically be considered
literal in the following periods as well, regardless of its frequency in the lexical
fields of those periods. Once the possibility of a form representing a special
conceptualization is gone, etymological reinterpretation is not impossible but
seems hardly likely to occur.
181
a850 850-950 950-1050 1200 1300 1400 1500
literal
36.88
51.04
45.36 56.75 67.10 62.26 39.32
irre
36.88
51.04
45.36 4.78 10.10 22.42 7.96
wrath
51.97 57.00 39.84 31.36
WRONG EMOTION
0.82
0.21
0.21
0 0.52
0 0.24
SWELLING
27.05
10.63
13.34 12.64 0.78 0.25
0
FIERCENESS
15.57
7.29
23.38 17.69 10.88 0.50 0.16
AFFLICTION
9.02
2.08
4.48 3.93 8.81 13.13 25.51
UNHAPPINESS
2.46
0.83
0.32 0.28 1.30 1.65 14.87
STRONG EMOTION
1.64
5.83
1.07 0.84
0 0.20 0.08
BITTERNESS
1.64
0.83
0.21 0.28 0.78 0.05
0
HEAT
1.64
15.00
6.62 1.40 1.55 3.69 4.62
DARKNESS
0.82
0
0.21
0
0
0
0
HEAVINESS
0.82
0.63
0.21
0
0 0.50
0
INSANITY
0.82
0.42
0.85 3.93 7.25 5.29 5.93
UNMILDNESS
0.82
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
MOTION
0
3.96
2.67 1.12
0 2.65 3.49
PRIDE
0
0.63
1.07
0
0 7.64 3.58
BODILY BEHAVIOUR
0
0.42
0
0
0 0.10
0
BODY FLUIDS
0
0
0 0.56 0.26 1.85 0.40
? (wrah)
0
0
0 0.56
0 0.10
0
DISTURBANCE
0
0
0
0 0.78
0
0
CRAB-LIKE
0
0
0
0
0 0.10 0.08
CELTIC
0
0
0
0
0 0.05
0
STIMULATION
0
0
0
0
0
0 1.62
STUBBORNNESS
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.08
table (15) : overview of conceptualizations a850-1500 (most frequent=literal)
One can now wonder what the cut-off point is beyond which one can
consider an expression to be literal. Given the criterion that the most frequent
expression in the field is considered literal, any expression that is used beyond
50% of the cases (i.e. the frequency of occurrence of irre between 850 and 950
and of wrathe c1200) can be considered literal. In the a850 data, the most
frequent expression takes up only about 37% of the lexical field. Although these
figures must be cautiously interpreted because the a850 material is rather scarce
and may not be very representative, the 37% frequency of irre may indicate that
the cut-off point for literal expressions may well be much lower than 50%. The
frequencies of occurrence of belgan in Old English and of anger c1500 also
point in this direction.
Although all the morphological derivations of belgan are clearly derived
from the Indo-European root bhelgh ‘swell’, the interpretation of the belganexpressions is always ‘(being or causing someone to be puffed up with) anger or
pride’. There are no attestations of references to physical swelling in the corpus.
182
It is therefore legitimate to question the transparency and motivation of the
conceptualization : was the link between the expressions and the concept
SWELLING still clear or did they simply refer to ANGER and PRIDE literally ?
There are three elements that point to transparency of the conceptualization
ANGER AS SWELLING. First of all, it seems transparent because in the later stages
the expression þindan can be found to denote ANGER, while it is basically used to
refer to physical swelling. Secondly, the same belg-root is used with a more
literal reference to SWELLING, in the noun belg ‘bellows’. The use of the prefixes
a- or ge- and the suffix -an in the verb will not have made the link with the belgroot in abelgan or gebelgan opaque as these affixes were generally used and
were still productive at the time. Finally, in early Middle English, the verbs
bellen and bollen both refer to physical swelling in addition to ‘being swollen
with anger or pride’. It is not quite clear if these forms should be considered as
Middle English continuations of Old English belgan, as the OED suggests, or of
the Scandinavian loan-word bolnen, as the MED suggests. If they are related to
belgan, the absence of the physical interpretation in Old English and its presence
in early Middle English can be explained in two ways : either the absence in Old
English is accidental and is due to the loss of the texts in which it featured, or the
physical interpretation is a reinterpretation. Whichever way it is, the link
between the concept of ANGER and the concept of SWELLING must have been
transparent.
Although belgan will probably remain a borderline case because of its
transparent conceptualization, it should be considered a literal expression if we
apply the principle of semasiological prototypicality : it simply does not have
another meaning than ‘anger’. Representing only about 27% of the lexical field,
belgan marks the cut-off point for literalness considerably lower than 50%.
Another phenomenon marking a lower cut-off point is the frequency of
occurrence of anger c1500. When collecting the data, many occurrences of
anger c1400 had to be discarded from the corpus because they referred to the
concept of AFFLICTION, but hardly any such occurrences were found in the c1500
data. This is an indication that anger may be considered a literal expression as
of c1500. Consequently, it takes the cut-off point down to 24%.
Table (16) gives an overview of the whole conceptual field when all
expressions that take up more than 24% of the lexical field are taken to be literal.
This results in an almost constant group of literal elements, that represent
between 58% and 68% of all attestations. This indicates that about two thirds of
the lexical field consists of literal expressions and that special conceptualizations
are much rarer than most cognitive linguists claim them to be.
183
a850 850-950 950-1050 1200 1300 1400 1500
literal
63.93
61.46
58.49 65.74 67.62 62.26 63.80
belgan
27.05
10.42
13.13 8.99 0.52
0
0
irre
36.88
51.04
45.36 4.78 10.10 22.42 7.97
51.79 57.00 39.84 31.38
wrath
anger
24.45
WRONG EMOTION
0.82
0.21
0.21
0 0.52
0 0.24
SWELLING
0
0.21
0.21 3.65 0.26 0.25
0
FIERCENESS
15.57
7.29
23.38 17.69 10.88 0.50 0.16
AFFLICTION
9.02
2.08
4.48 3.93 8.81 13.13 1.06
UNHAPPINESS
2.46
0.83
0.32 0.28 1.30 1.65 14.88
STRONG EMOTION
1.64
5.83
1.07 0.84
0 0.20 0.08
BITTERNESS
1.64
0.83
0.21 0.28 0.78 0.05
0
HEAT
1.64
15
6.62 1.40 1.55 3.69 4.55
DARKNESS
0.82
0
0.21
0
0
0
0
HEAVINESS
0.82
0.63
0.21
0
0 0.50
0
INSANITY
0.82
0.42
0.85 3.93 7.25 5.29 5.93
UNMILDNESS
0.82
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
MOTION
0
3.96
2.67 1.12
0 2.65 3.50
PRIDE
0
0.63
1.07
0
0 7.64 3.58
BODILY BEHAVIOUR
0
0.42
0
0
0 0.10
0
BODY FLUIDS
0
0
0 0.56 0.26 1.85 0.41
? (wrah)
0
0
0 0.56
0 0.10
0
DISTURBANCE
0
0
0
0 0.78
0
0
CRAB-LIKE
0
0
0
0
0 0.10 0.08
CELTIC
0
0
0
0
0 0.05
0
STIMULATION
0
0
0
0
0
0 1.63
STUBBORNNESS
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.08
table (16) : overview of conceptualizations a850-1500 (literal >24%)
4.2.3 Conceptualizations
Even in table (16), which separates the literal expressions from those showing
special conceptualizations, the latter group remains a mixed one. The table does
not distinguish between hyperonymic, metonymic and metaphorical
conceptualizations. In this section, we will first of all define the nature of
hyperonymy, metonymy and metaphor, and then discuss which ANGERconceptualizations belong to which type.
The relation between hyperonyms and hyponyms, like fruit and apple, is a
matter of taxonymy. A hyperonym is a superordinate : when considering the
outside world referents that they refer to, “the class denoted by the superordinate
term includes the class denoted by the hyponym as a subclass” (Cruse 2000:150).
184
From the point of view of meaning, the meaning of the hyperonym is included in
the more specified meaning of the hyponym : “we may say that the meaning
(sense) of apple is richer than that of fruit and includes, or contains within it, the
meaning of fruit.” (Cruse 2000:151)
The nature of metonymy and metaphor has been discussed in various
theories, a good overview of which is to be found in, among others, Taylor
(1995:122-141), Ungerer & Schmid (1996:114-155) and Cruse (2000:202-216).
In what follows, we will adopt the cognitive linguistic view on metaphor and
metonymy, in which metaphor is characterized “by the conceptualization of one
cognitive domain in terms of components more usually associated with another
cognitive domain” (Taylor 1995:133) while “the essence of metonymy resides in
the possibility of establishing connections between entities which co-occur
within a given conceptual structure” (Taylor 1995:123-124). If one uses the
expression we’re on a bumpy road to describe one’s marriage problems, this is a
metaphorical use because the marriage is conceptualized in terms of an
uncomfortable journey over a bumpy road and marriages and bumpy roads do
not belong to one conceptual domain. If one uses the expression the kettle is
boiling, one uses a metonymical expression because it is not the kettle that is
boiling, but the water inside the kettle. The kettle, the water inside it and the
boiling, however, co-occur in reality, and hence also in one conceptual domain.
Importantly, the difference between metaphor and metonymy is also a
difference between figurative language use, in which one concept is restructured
in terms of another one, and literal language use, in which there is no such
restructuring. This is especially clear from the way in which Cruse (2000:211)
formulates the difference between metaphor and metonymy : “Metaphor
involves the use of one domain as an analogical model (…) to structure our
conception of another domain; in other words the process crucially involves two
(in the simplest cases) distinct conceptual domains. Metonymy, on the other
hand, relies on an (actual, literal) association between two components within a
single domain (and no restructuring is involved)”.2
We will now try to establish which conceptualizations in the conceptual field
of ANGER belong to which type. First of all, there are the hyperonymical
conceptualizations. The most obvious representatives of this group are the
expressions anda and mod, which mean ‘emotion’ or ‘spirit’ in general. A
second group of hyperonymical expressions is the conceptualization ANGER AS A
WRONG EMOTION, found in þweorh, weamod, thwert, wayward and evil part.
These conceptualize ANGER as belonging to a larger group of wrong things. For
þweorh, thwert and wayward, the link between the meanings ‘transverse’ and
‘angry’ seems to pass over the much more frequent meaning ‘wrong’. The
semantic relation between ‘transverse’ and ‘wrong’ is a metonymical one :
whatever deviates from the direction taken as a point of reference follows a
wrong direction. The meaning ‘wrong’ is then hyperonymically used to refer to
WRONG EMOTIONS, in most cases STUBBORNNESS, but sporadically also ANGER.
185
Finally, there are the hyperonymical categories ANGER AS UNMILDNESS and
ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS. Like the previous conceptualizations, they refer to one
overall category of actions and emotions that are not mild or not happy. Unlike
unrot, unbliDe, not content, displeased, etc., gealh and sori do not express
UNHAPPINESS in this very general way : they typically refer to SADNESS. As
such, they should be considered metonyms rather than hyperonyms, referring to
an emotion that often co-occurs with anger.
In section 3.8.1, we discussed how Early Modern English provoken and
irriten were normally followed by to and a word denoting an action or emotion.
These expressions simply meant ‘to urge, incite’, the incited action or emotion
being specified in what followed. When this specification of ANGER is left out,
these expressions are underspecified, and as was shown by Cruse’s description
of the meaning of hyperonymical terms (Cruse 2000:151), underspecification is
typical of hyperonyms. Hence, these expressions are used hyperonymically to
refer to the emotion of ANGER.
Another conceptualization that may be considered a hyperonym is ANGER AS
INSANITY. There are two ways to view the relation between the concepts of
ANGER and INSANITY : the behaviour of an angry person is either seen as a
temporary form of insanity, as in the Latin saying ira furor brevis est, or it is
seen as being accompanied by insanity. In the former case, the conceptualization
is hyperonymical, while it is metonymical in the latter.
Similarly, ANGER AS AFFLICTION can be considered either a hyperonymical or
a metonymical conceptualization. There may be one hyperonymical category of
AFFLICTION, consisting of physical affliction and all its specific forms as well as
psychological affliction and its subtypes. Alternatively, ANGER can be seen as
co-occurring with pain, in which case there is a metonymical relation between
the two feelings.
Clear examples of metonymical conceptualizations are ANGER AS FIERCENESS
(fierce reaction), ANGER AS CELTIC BEHAVIOUR (the Celts are considered irritable
and angry people), ANGER AS BODILY BEHAVIOUR (roaring, gnashing of teeth and
murmuring are seen as angry reactions), ANGER AS STUBBORNNESS (angry people
are considered to be stubborn) and ANGER AS PRIDE (proud people are considered
irritable and angry). Also ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS should be classified as
metonymical : in the humoral doctrine, the emotion is seen as a direct result of
an imbalance in the body fluids.
The humoral doctrine also classifies ANGER as an emotion that is hot because
it is caused by choler, a hot humour (see table (3)). In such a view, ANGER AS
HEAT is metonymical and hence literal. If there is no such underlying theory, the
conceptualization may be metaphorical, based on the perceptual similarities
between ANGER and a fluid that is heated or a burning fire, as described by
Lakoff (1997:387-389). Whether there are contextual clues that may show us
how to interpret this conceptualization will be discussed in section 4.6.3.3
186
There may be a link between the conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT and
ANGER AS SWELLING. If the process of getting angry is conceptualized as being
similar to fluid being heated up in a container, the pressure inside the container
can cause it to expand. Similarly, the angry person may be thought to expand.
This would be a metaphorical relation. Alternatively, the conceptualization can
be considered a metonym. Angry people typically draw deep breaths and the
swelling of the chest can metonymically refer to those people’s feeling of anger.
This explanation for the use of SWELL to refer to ANGER can be found in Onians
(1951), who describes the use of Greek θυμος ‘breath’ in this sense, and in
Neushaefer (1903), who describes two lines in the Old Saxon Heliand in which
the link with the heaving breast is explicit. It is also supported by the claim of
Godden (1985:290) that “there are frequent references too to the hreþer as the
seat of the mind or place of thought and emotion : (…) ‘let not anger overpower
you in hreþer’ (Precepts). Hreþer is glossed as ‘bosom’ or ‘breast’ in BosworthToller, but uses seem to suggest something more like ‘lungs’ or the part of the
body containing them.”
Within the frame of the humoral doctrine, ANGER AS MOTION can be
considered metonymical too : the humours circulate through the human body and
so can be set in motion. However, it may also be a metaphor based on the
similarity between the emotional turmoil experienced by an angry person and a
mechanism that is set in motion.
Also the conceptualization ANGER AS DISTURBANCE can be linked with the
humoral doctrine as anger is caused by a disturbance of the humours. The fact
that the expression mengen is used, which typically refers to fluids, may point to
this metonymical interpretation. Alternatively, there may be a metaphorical
interpretation which draws a parallel between the emotional turmoil of an angry
person and the agitation of different liquids that are mixed.
ANGER AS BITTERNESS is linked to the humoral doctrine through the bitter
nature of choler. Again, there may be a metaphorical shift of domain between
the feeling one experiences when eating something bitter and when being angry.4
Finally, there are a few conceptualizations that are clearly metaphorical
ones : ANGER AS DARKNESS, ANGER AS HEAVINESS and ANGER AS CRAB-LIKE
BEHAVIOUR. There is a considerable distance between the source domains and
the target domain. Consequently, there is no question of contiguity of these
domains in reality (metonymy) but of transfer of similarities between different
domains (metaphor).
The conceptualization patterns behind the non-literal expressions of ANGER
are summarized in table (17). It shows that 13 out of the 20 conceptualizations
are hyperonymical or metonymical, while 4 are undecided between metonymical
and metaphorical and 3 are clearly metaphorical. Taking into account that
almost all the texts in the corpus are literary texts, which could be expected to
show quite some metaphorical language use, a rate of at most 8 metaphorical
187
conceptualizations out of 20 is rather low. Metaphor does not seem to be so
widespread as many cognitive linguists assume it to be.5
conceptualization
expressions
DISTURBANCE
anda, mod
þweorh, thwert, wayward, evil part
unmilts
unrot, unbliDe, mispaien, not (well)
paid, displesen, evil paid, evil
content, discontent, not content, not
pleased
gealh, sori
provoken, irriten
ellenwod, woffung, wedan, wod, out
of mind, out of witte, rage, fury,
mad, furour
weamod, torn, sare, tirgan,
geswencan, ofsettan, gebysgian,
teonful, geangsumian, tene, anger
(a1500), werien, harmen, greven,
anoien, tarien, onfall, terren,
offenden, rubben upon the gall
wraDe (a1200), reDe, gram, grim,
brath, eie, reh, fierce
irish
gryllan, grimetan, grucchen
testy
unweorþ, indignation, onscunian,
disdain, despite, spite
blood arisen, mengen blood,
malencolie, tempren, choler
hatheort, hygewælm, onælan, wilm,
onbærnan, hathige, gehyrstan,
acoligan, ontendan, hete, kindelen,
wallen, fire, brennen, hot, hot blood,
boilen, chaufen, fervent, enflamen,
frien, fumen, incensen, fervor
þindan, þrutian, bresten, swellen,
gret herte, bolnen
astyrian, drefan, upahafen, onræs,
unstil, ahreran, hrædmod, stien,
heigh, moven, amoven, rese, hastif,
stiren
mengen
BITTERNESS
bit(t)er, egre
STRONG EMOTION
WRONG EMOTION
UNMILDNESS
UNHAPPINESS
STIMULATION
INSANITY
AFFLICTION
FIERCENESS
CELTIC BEHAVIOUR
BODILY BEHAVIOUR
STUBBORNNESS
PRIDE
BODY FLUID
HEAT
SWELLING
MOTION
188
conceptual
type
hyperonym
hyperonym
hyperonym
hyperonym
metonym
hyperonym
hyperonym
or metonym
hyperonym
or metonym
metonym
metonym
metonym
metonym
metonym
metonym
metonym or
metaphor
metonym or
metaphor
metonym or
metaphor
metonym or
metaphor
metonym or
metaphor
DARKNESS
HEAVINESS
CRAB-LIKE
BEHAVIOUR
sweorcan
hefig
crabbed, crab
metaphor
metaphor
metaphor
table (17) : conceptualization type of non-literal ANGER-expressions
metaphorical vs. nonmetaphorical (%)
metaphorical vs. nonmetaphorical (%)
number of attestations
conceptual type
conceptualization
When considering the number of attestations in table (18), the share of the
metaphors within the group of non-literal expressions (which on average make
up only 37% of the whole lexical field) proves even smaller. In a maximalist
view, counting all the attestations of conceptualizations that can be either
metonymical or metaphorical as metaphorical ones in the whole corpus, the
metaphors take up 23.44%. In a minimalistic view, counting the undecided
conceptualizations as metonymical, their share drops to 1.07%.
hyperonym
48
WRONG EMOTION
hyperonym
9
UNMILDNESS
hyperonym
2
UNHAPPINESS
hyperonym and metonym 232
STIMULATION
hyperonym
20
INSANITY
hyperonym or metonym
232
AFFLICTION
hyperonym or metonym
387 76.56
FIERCENESS
metonym
390
CELTIC BEHAVIOUR
metonym
1
98.93
BODILY BEHAVIOUR
metonym
4
STUBBORNNESS
metonym
1
PRIDE
metonym
210
BODY FLUID
metonym
45
HEAT
metonym or metaphor
278
SWELLING
metonym or metaphor
24
MOTION
metonym or metaphor
144
DISTURBANCE
metonym or metaphor
3 23.44
BITTERNESS
metonym or metaphor
13
DARKNESS
metaphor
3
1.07
HEAVINESS
metaphor
16
CRAB-LIKE BEHAVIOUR metaphor
3
table (18) : metaphorical vs. non-metaphorical conceptualizations of ANGER
STRONG EMOTION
189
4.3 THE INTRODUCTION OF ANGER
4.3.1 Introduction
The lexical item anger is part of the field of ANGER as of c1200. C1200 and
c1300, it is mainly used with reference to AFFLICTION and only sporadically
refers to ANGER (0.56% c1200 and 0.26% c1300). C1400 it truly becomes part
of the lexical field as it is much more frequently used (5.27%) and c1500 it has
already become a standard, literal expression for ANGER besides wrath (which it
will eventually replace). In this section, we will try to find out if, after having
lingered on as a very marginal expression for a few centuries, it truly became
part of the lexical field c1400 because it expressed a new socio-cultural type of
ANGER.
When investigating the reasons for the introduction of the lexeme anger in
the lexical field, there are two groups of elements to consider. The one could be
considered “external” elements and have to do with the style and the genre of the
texts in which anger is used.6 Most of the corpus texts are literary texts, in
which stylistic elements like alliteration and rhyme may influence word choice.
The texts also show different genres : broadly speaking, there are religious texts
and non-religious ones, and texts translated or adapted from Romance originals
and original texts. These factors may also influence word choice : some words
may be considered more appropriate in religious texts, or rather in non-religious
ones, or may be associated with Romance texts or non-Romance ones. The
other, “internal”, reason for introducing a new word, has to do with the meaning
of different items in the lexical field. A new word may be introduced into a
lexical field because its semantic features are different from those of the words
already present in the field. Because of its different semantic constitution, the
new word may be able to express elements that need to be expressed and cannot
be expressed by the existing ones. Diller (1994) suggests that anger was
introduced to refer to the emotion felt by people with low social status, whose
private values are offended and who react in a less violent way than people
higher up the social ladder.
To study the influence of the semantic factors of offended value, rank of the
experiencer and reaction, the corpus data have been restricted to those instances
in which ANGER is seen as a transitory state. In the other cases, reference is often
to ANGER as one of the capital sins or as a permanent personality trait, in which
these semantic factors play hardly any role. Table (19) shows that the cases
referring to ANGER as a transitory state form the bulk of the corpus. Both anger
and wra/oth prototypically refer to such situations. Ire does so too, but it is also
often used to name the capital sin.
190
other (%°)
name sin (%)
transitory state (%)
other
name sin
transitory state
1300
ire
20 16
3 51.28 41.03
7.69
wra/oth 172 31 17 78.18 14.09
7.73
1400 anger
85
5 15 80.95
4.76 14.29
ire
306 73 70 68.15 16.26 15.59
wra/oth 703 46 49 88.10
5.76
6.14
1500 anger
276
9 20 90.49
2.95
6.56
ire
59 23 17 59.60 23.23 17.17
wra/oth 294 48 51 74.81 12.21 12.98
table (19) : transitory state, sin and other references in ME texts
The figures in table (19) show that in spite of the data restrictions required for
the analysis of the semantic factors most attestations are taken into consideration.
The reduction may be considerable for ire c1300 and c1500, periods in which a
large share of those attestations refer to the capital sin and non-transitory states,
but the effect of this reduction in our analyses will be small because the analyses
will primarily focus on the c1400 data, which show the introduction of the
expression anger. For reasons of comparison, these data restrictions will also be
used in the larger part of the analyses of the influence of stylistic factors, which
will be discussed first.
4.3.2 Style and genre
First of all, we will consider if the introduction of new elements into the lexical
field may have been caused by a need for words that rhyme or alliterate. While
all the texts in the c1300 corpus rhyme, both alliterative and rhyming texts are
found c1400, but the rhyming poems outnumber the other texts. Around 1500,
the predominance of poetry seems to be over : all the poems belong to the
rhyming tradition, but they are outnumbered by prose texts.
There is one methodological problem that should be mentioned before
considering to what extent alliteration and rhyme may influence lexical choices :
it is impossible to find out whether the ANGER-expressions determine the choice
of the alliterating or rhyming words or vice versa. There is a basic difference
between reading an alliteration or a rhyme, a process in which the choice of the
second expression seems to be determined by the first one, and the process of
composing such a text. The writer will consider the two expressions in rhymes
and alliterations simultaneously and he may just as well adapt the first
expression to fit the second as change them the other way round. This
191
in rhyme (% of all new types)
in alliteration (% of all new types)
new types in rhyme
new types in alliteration
new types
methodological problem, however, does not prevent us from considering how
frequently certain expressions alliterate or rhyme and whether their capacity for
doing so may have promoted or hampered their use.
We can first of all investigate if there are signs in the data which suggest that
the need for rhyming or alliterating words triggers the introduction of new
expressions within the lexical field of ANGER as a whole. This will provide clues
as to what extent lexical innovation within the field may be driven by stylistic
rather than conceptual motives. Just like in our search into the Romance
influence on the introduction of new expressions, we can use several methods to
measure the amount of alliteration or rhyme in the new expressions and vice
versa. Traditional studies, like Mersand (1939), have only counted the number
of new types in alliteration and rhyme. We will also take into consideration the
token level and calculate how many new tokens are to be found in alliteration
and rhyme. Occurrences that both alliterate and rhyme have been included in
both categories. We will both consider what percentage of all new tokens they
represent as well as what percentage of all the tokens are found in alliteration and
rhyme. The results of the type counts, first of all, are presented in the following
table :
850-950
20
4
0
20
0
950-1050
6
3
0
50
0
1200
17
6
4 35.29 23.53
1300
11
4
6 36.36 54.55
1400
27
10
14 37.04 51.85
1500
6
0
1
0 16.67
table (20) : alliteration and rhyme in new expressions (types)
The data show that, on type level, the majority (58.82 to 90.91%) of new
expressions introduced between 1200 and 1400 appear in alliteration or rhyme.
If we consider how many of all the new tokens appear in alliteration or rhyme
(see table (21), fifth and sixth column), the percentages are considerably lower
(41.67 to 68,42%). Only for a few variables, the difference in type counts and
192
in rhyme (% of all rhyme)
in alliteration (% of all alliteration)
in rhyme (% of all new tokens)
in alliteration (% of all new tokens)
new tokens in rhyme
new tokens in alliteration
new tokens
token counts are minimal (like alliteration c1200 or rhyme c1300). For most of
them, the token counts are much lower than the type counts, the most extreme
example of which are the new expressions in rhyming position c1400, for which
the type count shows 51.85% of the expressions to rhyme, whereas the token
count reveals that only 19.84% of the tokens rhyme.
850-950
49
8
0 16.33
0 18.61
0
950-1050
10
5
0
50
0
3.73
0
1200
48
15
5 31.25 10.42
7.96 13.15
1300
38
6
20 15.79 52.63
2.74 11.96
1400
257
72
51 28.02 19.84
8.25 17.34
1500
21
0
4
0 19.05
0
5.41
table (21) : alliteration and rhyme in new expressions (tokens)
Although these percentages are lower than the frequencies on type level, they
are still quite considerable and may cause one to conclude that alliteration and
rhyme play a considerable role in the introduction of new expressions. However,
when we consider what part of the whole set of expressions featuring in
alliteration and rhyme is made up of newly introduced expressions (the last two
columns in table (21)) the highest percentage is 17.34. This indicates that the
vast majority of cases in which alliteration or rhyme was needed was still
covered by older expressions. Consequently, the innovative drive of alliteration
and rhyme should not be overrated.
Let us now turn to the expression anger and investigate whether rhyme or
alliteration may have played a role in its introduction. Tables (22) and (23)
shows how many of the occurrences of ire, wra/oth and anger are to be found in
alliteration and rhyme in the corpus from c1300 onwards. These tables show
both what percentage of the expressions is used in alliteration or rhyme (item
view) and what percentage of alliteration or rhyme is covered by the three
expressions (stylistic view). The last column presents the results of statistical
tests (χ2), which indicate whether the distribution of the factors mentioned is
significantly different. Throughout the analyses, we will adopt the most
193
generally used significance level of .05 (i.e. p-values lower than 0.05 indicate
significant differences in distribution).
1300
1400
1500
ire
wra/oth
anger
ire
wra/oth
anger
ire
wra/oth
none (%°)
p-value
none (%°)
alliteration (%)
none (%°)
alliteration (%)
rhyme (%)
none
rhyme
item view
28.13
71.88
10.80
54.66
34.53
31.89
20.39
47.72
1 e-8
0
0
stylistic view
14
25 35.90 64.10 22.97
60 160 27.27 72.72 81.08
0 105
0
100
0
39 410
8.69 91.31 30.00
91 707 11.40 88.60 70.00
2 299
0.66 99.34
8.00
7
91
7.14 92.86 28.00
16 370
4.15 95.85 64.00
table (23) : rhyme in ME texts
13.51
86.49
8.59
33.55
57.86
39.34
11.97
48.68
p-value
1500
3
36
7.69 92.31
2.29
128
92 58.18 41.82 97.71
39
66 37.14 62.86
5.26
115 334 25.61 74.39 15.52
587 211 73.56 26.44 79.22
154 147 51.16 48.84 47.53
4
94
4.08 95.92
1.23
166 220 43.01 56.99 51.23
table (22) : alliteration in ME texts
none (%°)
1400
ire
wra/oth
anger
ire
wra/oth
anger
ire
wra/oth
stylistic view
rhyme (%)
1300
none
alliteration
item view
0.2719
0.0007
0.0021
The data in table (23) show that anger was most certainly not introduced for
reasons of rhyme : c1400 none of its occurrences are to be found in rhyming
positions. Whether or not it was introduced for reasons of alliteration is harder
to tell. About one third of its occurrences alliterate, but the category of
alliteration has been quite broadly applied : traditionally, only words starting in
consonants are taken into account for alliteration, so that in this view anger
never alliterates. Additionally, anger does not alliterate as often as wra/oth does,
a word which is much more convenient for purposes of versification as it does
not only alliterate quite easily, but rhymes easily as well. The flexibility of this
194
p-value
Romance (%)
other (%°)
genre view
other (%°)
item view
Romance (%)
other
Romance
expression and its dominance in expressing alliteration and rhyme make it highly
unlikely that there was a very urgent need for new lexical items to solve
problems of rhyme or alliteration.
Next, we will consider if anger may have been introduced because unlike ire
and/or wra/othe, it was typically (not) associated with texts of Romance origin.
While ire is a form which is easily associated with Latin ira or Old French ire,
both anger and wra/oth lack such associations. This is confirmed by the figures
in table (24) (item view) : most attestations of ire occur in texts of Romance
origin, whereas most attestations of wra/oth occur in non-Romance texts. When
anger is introduced, it is used significantly less in texts of Romance origin than
ire and wra/oth, which also holds for the c1500 data. Before the introduction of
anger, ire proves to have been typically associated with texts of Romance origin
and wra/oth was used significantly more in texts of non-Romance origin.
Wra/oth does not, however, seem to have been viewed as a typical non-Romance
element : the genre view shows that c1300 and c1400 it is the default expression
both in Romance as in non-Romance texts. Anger, as a newcomer in the field,
takes second position in non-Romance texts c1400 and becomes first choice
c1500.
1300
ire
14
6 70.00 30.00 17.95
5.26
0.0047
wra/oth
64 108 37.21 62.79 82.05 94.74
1400 anger
41
44 48.24 51.76
5.29 13.79
0
ire
269
37 87.91 12.09 34.71 11.60
wra/oth
465 238 66.15 33.71 60.00 74.61
1500 anger
190
86 68.84 31.16 38.15 65.65
3 e-8
ire
56
3 94.92
5.08 11.24
2.29
wra/oth
252
42 85.71 14.29 50.60 32.06
table (24) : literal expressions in Romance vs. non-Romance ME texts
Table (25) shows the expressions spread over religious and non-religious text
genres. The item view shows that c1400 anger is used significantly more
frequently in non-religious texts, while ire and wra/oth are more equally spread
over both text types, with ire showing a slight preference for non-religious texts
and wra/oth for religious ones. When we take the genre view, however, we see
that both in religious and non-religious texts c1400, the concept of ANGER is far
more often expressed by ire or wra/oth than by anger. Even though it is used
more often in non-religious texts, anger remains the least often used option.
This indicates that anger is not felt to be more adequate in religious texts than
195
the other expressions available. C1500, the genre view shows some difference
between the use of anger and wra/oth in religious and non-religious texts : in
religious texts, wra/oth remains the most frequent expression, whereas anger is
the most frequent one in non-religious texts.
p-value
other (%°)
genre view
religious (%)
other (%°)
religious (%)
other
religious
item view
1300
ire
13
7 65.00
35.00 11.21
9.21
0.6580
wra/oth 103
69 59.88
40.12 88.79 90.79
1400
anger
16
69 18.82
81.18
2.90 12.73
0
ire
135 171 44.12
55.88 24.46 31.55
wra/oth 401 302 57.04
42.96 72.64 55.72
1500
anger
79 197 28.62
71.38 40.10 45.29
1 e-8
ire
0
59
0.00 100.00
0 13.56
wra/oth 118 179 40.14
59.86 59.90 41.15
table (25) : literal expressions in religious vs. non-religious ME texts
4.3.3 Semantic factors
Diller (1994:227) formulates an interesting hypothesis about the introduction of
anger into the lexical field. He claims that “it seems a reasonable hypothesis that
the growing distinction between private and “social” made the emergence of a
lexeme with the meaning of anger1 a necessity”.7 Diller presents a semantic
analysis of anger, wrath, annoy and grief and their morphological derivations in
Chaucer’s works (with a few sporadic sideglances at the text of Piers Plowman).
He claims that wrath and anger are semantically different in that wrath is used
when the experiencer is of a high social rank, typically gods and mighty people,
and the offence involves “the dignity, the authority of the Experiencer, whose
functioning is relevant to an entire social order” (Diller 1994:227).8 When anger
is used, the social rank of the experiencer is usually not higher than that of the
offender and the offended value is personally rather than socially important. The
reaction also seems to be less violent than with wrath. This hypothesis is
certainly worth considering as only the fact of the introduction of anger into the
lexical field has usually been noted, without suggesting explanations.9
There are, however, some elements in Diller’s study that indicate that his
hypothesis may not hold. The semantic traits that can be assigned to wrath in
Chaucer’s work do not seem to hold for Piers Plowman. The usages of wrath in
those two texts are “so much at variance with each other that any generalizations
about meaning-in-the-language must be made with the greatest caution” (Diller
1994:232). Moreover, he mentions frequent co-occurrences of wrath, anger and
196
ire, which may indicate that there is but little semantic difference between those
expressions.10
The semantic analysis implemented by Diller is not without methodological
problems either. As Diller (1994:222) points out, the question which offended
value is involved is “a question to which objective answers are often
impossible”.11 Similarly, the rank of the experiencer cannot be objectively
assessed in a number of cases and is therefore very much a matter of
interpretation too. Let us take the following example : a Jewish king wants to
marry a married woman, for which he is rebuked by a prophet, which makes him
angry. Socially speaking, the king is superior to a prophet, typically someone
with a low social profile, but a high moral one. Morally speaking, however, the
righteous prophet is the wicked king’s superior. And should we suppose that the
king is angry because he is rebuked by a subordinate ? Is his anger the result of a
lack of respect for his social status or of his being thwarted in the fulfilment of
his personal desires ? In most cases, the context does not provide information
that points to one interpretation rather than an alternative one. Consequently,
assigning social ranks and interpreting which values have been offended is
anything but easy and straightforward. The only semantic feature that can be
labelled more or less objectively is the degree of violence of the experiencer’s
reaction, provided that this reaction is mentioned in the text.
In spite of all these difficulties, it is worth testing Diller’s hypothesis against
the data of this study. After all, it is the only hypothesis that has been formulated
so far and it does make sense, intrinsically, as semantic differentiation is a wellknown mechanism behind lexical innovation and that such changes can be
caused by socio-cultural changes.12
In order to study the semantic factors, one additional data restriction has to be
made : all instances have been excluded in which one of the literal expressions
was used as a (near-)synonym of another in the immediate context, the most
typical examples of which are the medieval doublets. The use of near-synonyms
“a pour effet de NEUTRALISER les traits distinctifs qui opposent les lexèmes
entre eux [has the effect of neutralizing the distinctive features that distinguish
the lexemes among each other]” (Kleiber 1978:60). In other words, it leads to
semantic levelling, a phenomenon that had better be excluded in our search for
possible semantic differences between (near-)synonyms.
We will take into consideration the data of three periods. Evidently, the
c1400 data will be considered, as this is the period in which anger is introduced
into the lexical field and in which the semantic factors that are typical of anger
may be revealed. By taking into account the c1500 data, we can see if any of
these semantic factors persist after the period of introduction. We will also take
into account the c1300 data in order to see if the introduction of anger was an
answer to a certain need, a lexical gap, i.e. the inability of the existing lexical
items to express semantic factors that need to be expressed.
197
We will consider two types of analyses : semasiological analyses and
onomasiological ones. In the semasiological analyses, we will start from the
literal expressions of ANGER and study their semantic make-up. For each of
these expressions (irre, wra/oth and anger), we will investigate how often they
refer to private offended values, the different ranks of experiencers and specific
reactions. These analyses will reveal to what extent the near-synonyms differ
from each other semantically and what the differences are. The onomasiological
analyses start from the concepts that need to be expressed, and studies which
lexical elements are used to express them. Thus, the two approaches investigate
two very different questions, the answers to which need not a priori run parallel.
It is not because one expression proves to express a semantic factor in most of its
attestations in the semasiological analysis that it will automatically be frequently
used to express the same factor when considered onomasiologically : that factor
may well be expressed much more often by another expression, for which the
same factor may or may not be more prominent in the semasiological analysis.
The two approaches are simply complementary.
In our analyses, we first take the semasiological approach. We will first of
all consider which expressions refer to cases in which the offended value is a
private one. Unlike in Diller’s study, we will try to rule out personal
interpretation as much as possible and only apply the label private offended
value to very clear cases, like slighted secret love (in which social implications
are ruled out because it is secret) or anger at practical problems (a broken sword,
an intractable donkey, a horse that is killed, being in pain, being hungry, etc.).
The other category, labelled “other”, contains the attestations in which it is hard
to determine whether the offended value is a private or a public one and those
situations that affect “the dignity, the authority of the Experiencer, whose
functioning is relevant to an entire social order” (Diller 1994:227), like a king’s
status which is threatened by loss of warriors in a battle or by an inferior
disobeying his order. The figures for the offended value as a semantic factor are
represented in table (26).
The results of the χ2-test show that c1300, there is no significant difference in
the spread of private offended values and other ones in the attestations of ire and
wra/oth. This indicates that the semantic factor ‘private offended value’ vs.
‘other offended value’ is not an element that distinguishes the use of ire or
wra/oth. When anger is introduced c1400, it is not used more often with
reference to private offended values than ire or wra/oth were c1300 and the
majority of the attestations refer to non-private offended values. In spite of that,
there seems to be semantic differentiation as far as offended value is concerned :
anger refers significantly more often to private offended values than ire or
wra/oth. This semantic differentiation does no longer hold c1500, however.
198
p-value
other (%°)
private (%)
other
private
1300
ire
6
13 31.58 68.42
0.6864
wra/oth
42 130 24.42 75.58 (Yates’)13
1400
anger
17
55 23.61 76.39
0
ire
9 281
3.10 96.90
wra/oth
31 656
4.51 95.49
1500
anger
71 183 27.95 72.05
0.1796
ire
13
26 33.33 66.66
wra/oth
58 202 22.31 77.69
table (26) : private offended value in ME texts (semasiological view)
p-value
low (%)
neutral (%)
high (%)
low
neutral
high
Next, we will consider the effect of the rank of the experiencer. We
tentatively distinguish between high, neutral and low social ranks. Ranks that
are considered high are God, pagan gods, authorities in some field, the elements,
kings, knights, husbands (vs. wives), parents (vs. children) and superiors. Ranks
that are considered low are animals, children, servants, the author of the text
(who often presents himself as the reader’s humble servant) and sinners.
Exceptions have been made for situations in which people of the same rank are
involved : those were labelled as neutral, as were all other ranks.
1300
ire
12
7
0 63.16 36.84
0
0.612714
wra/oth
83
82
5 48.82 48.24
2.94
1400 anger
25
43
7 33.33 57.33
9.33
2 e-8
ire
191 103
4 64.09 34.56
1.34
wra/oth 460 196 30 67.06 28.57
4.37
1500 anger
131 113 11 51.37 44.31
4.31
0.0080
ire
17
17
4 44.74 44.74 10.53
wra/oth 162
78 12 64.29 30.95
4.76
table (27) : rank of experiencer in ME texts (semasiological view)
The absolute number of socially low experiencers is relatively small, which
may cause problems in relative frequencies and statistical tests. Especially the
relative onomasiological frequencies (i.e. vertically within the column labelled
“low”), which will be dealt with later on, will be rather distorted and hence hard
to interpret. The categories will therefore be regrouped into two : “high” vs.
“non-high”, with the latter encompassing the original categories “neutral” and
“low”. These regrouped labels will be used throughout the following analyses.
199
p-value
non-high (%)
high (%)
non-high
high
1300
ire
12
7
63.16
36.84
0.2359
wra/oth
83
87
48.82
51.18
1400 anger
25
50
33.33
66.67
6 e-8
ire
191
107
64.09
35.91
wra/oth
460
226
67.06
32.94
1500 anger
131
124
51.37
48.63
ire
17
21
44.74
55.26 0.0039
wra/oth
162
90
64.29
35.71
table (28) : rank of experiencer (high vs. non-high) in ME texts (semasiological
view)
The χ2-test in table (28) shows that the rank of the experiencer is not a
distinguishing semantic factor c1300 either. Both ire and wra/oth can be used to
refer to experiencers of a high social rank as well as to those of a non-high rank
and the distribution of those uses is statistically not significantly different. The
introduction of anger again leads to a certain differentiation c1400 : it refers
significantly more often to experiencers with non-high social ranks, while ire
and wra/oth refer more to experiencers of high social ranks. The difference in
the experiencer’s rank between anger and wra/oth is also significant c1500, even
though the relative figures are less outspoken.
To study the influence of the experiencer’s reaction, one additional restriction
as to the data needs to be made : texts stating that a person was not angry have
been excluded. While in most of those cases it is possible to identify who might
have been angry and sometimes also why, it is hard to say which reaction was
expected without leaving the facts otherwise mentioned in the context and
entering into speculation.
The figures in table (29) run remarkably parallel to those in the previous
tables. C1300 both ire and wra/oth refer to both violent and non-violent
reactions, without there being a significant difference between them. Again, the
introduction of anger shows some semantic differentiation as to the
experiencer’s reaction : it refers significantly more often to non-violent reactions
than ire or wra/oth. This differentiation between anger and wra/oth seems
logical, given the etymological origin of both words, with the original reference
of anger being to AFFLICTION and wra/oth to FIERCENESS. The differentiation of
the intensity of reaction between anger and wra/oth still holds c1500, although
anger’s reference to violent reactions and affliction increases.
200
p-value
other (%°)
affliction (%)
violence (%)
other
affliction
violence
1300
ire
8
2
5 53.33 13.33 33.33
0.722314
wra/oth
44
23
33 44.00 23.00 33.00
1400 anger
7
3
26 19.44
8.33 72.22
0
ire
87 113
45 35.51 46.12 18.37
wra/oth 112 287
90 22.90 58.69 18.40
1500 anger
43
55
80 24.16 30.90 44.94
0
ire
18
6
7 58.06 19.35 22.58
wra/oth
51 101
38 26.84 53.16 20.00
table (29) : intensity of reaction in ME texts (semasiological view)
In conclusion, the semasiological analyses have shown that c1300, there is no
difference in the semantic make-up of ire and wra/oth as far as the semantic
factors of offended value, rank of experiencer and intensity of reaction are
concerned. When anger is introduced c1400, there is semantic differentiation
between anger on the one hand and ire and wra/oth on the other hand. The
semantic factors of private offended value (although still representing a minority
of the cases), non-high experiencers and reactions other than violence and
affliction play a much more important role in the meaning of anger than in that
of ire and wra/oth. In those expressions, the opposite factors play a more
important role. These findings seem to corroborate those of Diller (1994).
C1500 this clear differentiation no longer holds for the semantic factor of
offended value, whereas it still holds for the experiencers’ ranks and the intensity
of their reactions, albeit less outspokenly so.
There are two important remarks to be made concerning these basic
semasiological analyses. A first remark is that if the semasiological analyses
corroborate those of Diller (1994), we have to take into account that the corpora
overlap. Diller (1994) studied Chaucer’s texts, which are also included in the
corpus used for this study. If most of our attestations come from these texts, it is
only logical that they corroborate Diller’s analyses. We will therefore have to
check to what extent Diller’s semasiological analyses overlap with ours. A
second remark is that the semantic factors distinguished most probably do not
occur independently of one another. If we see that, when introduced, anger
refers more to private offended values, non-violent reactions and experiencers of
a non-high rank than the other items, we may not be seeing the influence of
different factors. Possibly, non-violent reactions typically co-occur with private
offended values while experiencers of lower ranks may typically react in a nonviolent way, etc. There may even be interaction of stylistic factors and semantic
ones. Such co-occurrences cannot be ruled out a priori.
201
other (%)
7
8
1
14
1
8
10
47
24
36
9
18
41.18
14.55
4.00
28.00
10.00
30.77
58.82 0.0432
85.45
96.00 0.0143
72.00
90.00 0.3903
69.23
p-value
(Yates’)
Chaucer
(%)
private
non-private
rank experiencer high
non-high
reaction
violent
non-violent
other
offended value
Chaucer
Let us first turn to the impact of Chaucer’s texts (and hence Diller’s analyses)
on our own analyses. This problem can be split up in two questions : first of all,
does the semantic make-up of Chaucer’s anger differ from that of the rest of the
corpus, and if so, to what extent does it influence our results. The latter question
can be answered by calculating the relative share of the Chaucer attestations in
the analyses of the different factors.
The data in table (30) answer both questions : the p-values of the χ2-tests
indicate whether there is a difference between Chaucer’s use and that of the other
attestations in the c1400 corpus, while the percentages in the fifth column
indicate the relative share of Chaucer’s attestations in the overall set of
attestations of anger.
table (30) : share of Chaucer’s texts in total corpus for anger c1400
The figures in table (30) show that there is no statistically significant
difference between Chaucer’s attestations and the other ones as far as the
intensity of the reactions is concerned. For the semantic factors of offended
values and experiencers’ rank, there is a significant difference. If the overall
data show the element of non-high experiencers to be a typical element of anger,
only 28% of the underlying attestations are from Chaucer. Because of this
relatively low share, these analyses are reliable. In the analysis of the offended
values, however, about 41% of the attestations showing private offended values
are from Chaucer. Even though Diller’s analyses of the Chaucer data and mine
were carried out completely independently, their results should be interpreted
cautiously because of the considerable overlap in the data.
In order to study the co-occurrence of factors in the make-up of anger, the
spread of each factor over every other factor will have to be taken into
consideration within the group of attestations of anger. The same restrictions are
used as before : only those attestations referring to a transitory state have been
taken into consideration, no (near-)synonyms have been allowed in the context
and, whenever the intensity of the reaction was involved, the attestations stating
that a person was not angry have been excluded. We will discuss the interaction
202
of the stylistic and semantic factors first, and the interaction of the semantic
factors afterwards.
Table (31) investigates possible differences in the spread of the semantic
elements over the different text genres. The stylistic factors remain Romance vs.
non-Romance texts on the one hand, and religious vs. non-religious on the other.
The semantic parameters are offended value (private or non-private), reaction
(violence, affliction and other reactions) and rank of experiencer (high or nonhigh), which we will deal with in turn.
p-value
non-private (%)
vertical view
private (%)
non-private (%)
private (%)
non-private
private
horizontal view
8
27 22.86
77.14 47.06 49.09
Romance
0.8848
9
28
24.32
82.35 52.94 50.91
non-Romance
3
11 21.43
78.57 17.65 20.00
0.8904
religious
14
44 24.14
75.86 82.35 80.00 (Yates’)
non-religious
table (31) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and offended value for anger c1400
The p-values in table (31) show that there is no difference in distribution of
the references to private offended values and non-private offended values in
Romance and non-Romance texts on the one hand, and religious and nonreligious texts on the other hand. This indicates that there is no problem of
intertwining factors in this case. Whether one takes Romance or non-Romance
texts, or religious or non-religious ones, the relative share of private and nonprivate offended values in the attestations of anger will be the same, and vice
versa.
p-value
(Fisher)
other (%°)
affliction (%)
vertical view
violence (%)
other (%°)
affliction (%)
violence (%)
other
affliction
violence
horizontal view
5
1 18 20.83
4.17 75.00 71.43 33.33 69.23
Romance
0.4461
non2
2
8 16.67 16.67 66.67 28.57 66.67 30.77
Romance
1
0
3 25.00
0 75.00 14.29
0 11.54
religious
1
non6
3 23 18.75
9.38 71.88 85.71
100 88.46
religious
table (32) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and reaction for anger c1400
203
Next, we will consider the distribution of the reactions over the different text
genres. Because some absolute figures, especially those for affliction, are rather
low, a regrouping of the factors in violent and non-violent ones should be
considered. The classification of affliction, however, is not a straightforward
one : should this be considered as a violent reaction or a non-violent one ? It is
certainly less violent than killing the causer of one’s anger, but it is more violent
than simply leaving or cursing, for example. To overcome the classification
problem, we will consider both options.
p-value (Yates’)
other (%°)
vertical view
violence + affliction(%)
other (%°)
violence + affliction(%)
other
violence + affliction
horizontal view
6
18 25.00
75.00 60.00
69.23
Romance
0.8963
4
8 33.33
66.67 40.00
30.77
non-Romance
1
3 25.00
75.00 10.00
11.54
religious
0.6452
9
23 28.12
71.88 90.00
88.46
non-religious
table (33) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and reaction (violence + affliction
vs. other) for anger c1400
p-value
affliction + other(%)
vertical view
violence (%)
affliction + other(%)
violence (%)
affliction + other
violence
horizontal view
5 19
20.83 79.17
71.43
65.52
Romance
0.8821
2 10
16.67 83.33
28.57
34.48 (Yates’)
non-Romance
1
3
25.00 75.00
14.29
10.34
religious
0.596814
6 26
18.75 81.25
85.71
89.66
non-religious
table (34) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and reaction (violence vs. affliction
+ other) for anger c1400
Tables (32), (33) and (34) reveal that there is no statistically significant
difference in the distribution of violent and non-violent reactions referred to by
means of anger in the different text genres, whichever classification is used.
204
Finally, we will consider the co-occurrences of the stylistic factors and the
rank of the experiencers.
p-value
non-high (%)
vertical view
high (%)
non-high (%)
high (%)
non-high
high
horizontal view
17 19
47.22 52.78
68.00
40.43
Romance
0.0259
8 28
20.51 79.49
32.00
59.57
non-Romance
1 12
7.69 92.31
4.00
24.00
religious
0.0667
24
38
38.71
61.29
96.00
76.00
(Yates’)
non-religious
table (35) : co-occurrence of stylistic factors and rank of experiencer for anger
c1400
The p-values in table (35) show that the rank of experiencers of the angerattestations is spread significantly differently in Romance texts as compared with
non-Romance texts. The relative figures show that the non-high experiencers
feature significantly more frequently in non-Romance texts compared with
Romance ones. So if we find that the use of anger correlates with non-high
experiencers and with non-Romance texts, we should keep in mind that both
factors tend to co-occur. This is also the case, to some extent, for the spread of
the different ranks of experiencers over the religious and non-religious texts.
There is a tendency, albeit not a statistically significant one, for non-high
experiencers to co-occur with non-religious texts. The main tendencies of this
spread, however, are for high experiencers to imply non-religious texts and for
religious texts to imply non-high experiencers. As neither high experiencers nor
religious texts prove the most important semantic factors of anger, these cooccurrences are not very important in our analyses.
In brief, if we only take into consideration the statistically significant cooccurrences, semantic factors do not seem to be intertwined with genres except
for non-high experiencers, which co-occur with non-Romance texts. Having
considered the co-occurrence of stylistic and semantic factors, the next element
to be taken into consideration is the possible co-occurrence of semantic factors
among themselves. We will in turn deal with the interaction of offended values
and reactions, offended values and experiencers, and experiencers and reactions.
Table (36) presents the co-occurrences of the factors of the offended values
and intensity of reactions. The vertical view may suggest a clear co-occurrence
pattern of non-violent reactions and private offended values, but they seem to be
distorted by the low absolute figures. The p-values show that this should only be
seen as a tendency, as there is no statistically significant difference in the
distribution of these semantic factors.
205
non-private (%)
p-value (Yates’)
vertical view
private (%)
non-private (%)
private (%)
non-private
private
horizontal view
violence + affliction
1 11
8.33
91.67 10.00 42.31
0.1479
other
9 15 37.50
62.50 90.00 57.69
violence
0 12
0
100
0 41.38
0.1015
affliction + other
7 17 29.17
70.83
100 58.62
table (36) : co-occurrence of offended value and intensity of reaction for anger
c1400
Table (37) shows a statistically significant distribution pattern for offended
values and experiencers. High experiencers typically co-occur with non-private
offended values. Conversely, private offended values typically go together with
non-high experiencers. This implies that the factors private offended values and
non-high experiencers in anger overlap to a large extent.
p-value
private (%)
non-private (%)
vertical view
non-private (%)
private (%)
non-private
private
horizontal view
high
2
23
8.00
92.00
9.52 45.10
0.0040
19
28
40.43
59.57 90.48 54.90
non-high
table (37) : co-occurrence of offended value and rank of experiencer for anger
c1400
p-value
(Yates’)
non-high (%)
vertical view
high (%)
non-high (%)
high (%)
non-high
high
horizontal view
violence + affliction
8
2
80.00 20.00 50.00
9.09
0.0100
other
8
20
28.57 71.43 50.00 90.91
violence
6
1
85.71 14.29 37.50
4.55
0.0175
affliction + other
10
21
32.26
67.74 62.50 95.45
table (38) : co-occurrence of intensity of reaction and rank of experiencer for
anger c1400
206
p-value
other (%°)
private (%)
other
private
Table (38), finally, shows that there is a significant difference between the
groups of experiencers as far as their co-occurrence with the different intensity
levels of the reaction is concerned. Violent reactions go together with high
experiencers, while non-violent reactions and non-high experiencers typically
co-occur.
To summarize briefly, some factors that seem typical of the make-up of
anger co-occur. The non-Romance factor implies non-high experiencers, as does
private offended value, while non-high experiencers and non-violent reactions
co-occur. Neither the semasiological analyses nor the analyses of the cooccurrences have established which factor triggers the use of anger rather than
ire or wra/oth, but if a decisive factor can be found, these semasiological
overlaps will have to be taken into account.15
One possible method of finding out which factor may trigger the use of anger
is onomasiological analyses. In the onomasiological analyses we take a semantic
factor as a starting-point and investigate how often it is expressed by the lexical
items. If certain concepts are expressed by anger rather than one of its nearsynonyms, this points to an expressive need fulfilled by this lexical element. We
again deal with the semantic factors of offended values, rank of experiencers and
intensity of reaction in turn.
1300
ire
6
13 12.50
9.09
0.6864
wra/oth 42 130 87.50 90.91 (Yates’)
1400 anger
17
55 29.82
5.54
0
ire
9 281 15.79 28.33
wra/oth 31 656 54.39 66.13
1500 anger
71 183 50.00 44.53
0.1796
ire
13
26
9.15
6.33
wra/oth 58 202 40.85 49.15
table (39) : private offended value in ME texts (onomasiological view)
A first striking element shown by table (39) is that although the c1400 corpus
is over five times the size of the c1300 corpus, the absolute number of times that
private offended values are referred to is only slightly higher. C1300 the
references to private offended values take up 25.93% (48 attestations out of 191)
of the corpus. This drops to 5.43% (57 out of 1049) c1400, to rise again to
25.68% (142 out of 553) c1500. Such an evolution is hard to reconcile with
lexical gap theories. Strictly speaking, if a word is introduced to answer the need
to express certain meanings that cannot be expressed by the existing expressions,
one would not expect the meaning in question to be expressed at all before the
new word is introduced. And even if one accepts that the meaning was
207
p-value
non-high (%)
high (%)
non-high
high
expressed, albeit inadequately so, before the introduction of the new element,
one would not expect the need to express that meaning to be less urgent (in the
case of private offended values almost non-existent) at the time of its
introduction.
A second element revealed by table (39) is that wra/oth is the overall
dominant expression. C1300 and c1400, both private offended values and nonprivate ones are in most cases referred to by means of wra/oth. As a newcomer,
anger takes up an impressive 30% of all the references to private offended values
c1400. By contrast, it is hardly ever used to refer to non-private offended values
in comparison with ire and wra/oth. C1500 anger and wra/oth take up about
half of the references to both private and non-private offended values, with a
slight preference for anger with reference to private offended values and wra/oth
for non-private ones.
1300
ire
12
7 12.63
7.45 0.2359
wra/oth
83
87 87.37
92.55
1400 anger
25
50
3.70
13.05
6 e-8
ire
191
107 28.25
27.94
wra/oth
460
226 68.05
59.01
1500 anger
131
124 42.26
52.77
ire
17
21
5.48
8.94 0.0039
wra/oth
162
90 52.26
38.30
table (40) : rank of experiencer in ME texts (onomasiological view)
Table (40) shows that also the need to express non-high experiencers is lower
c1400 (36.17% or 383 attestations out of 1059) than c1300 (49.74% or 94
attestations out of 189) and c1500 (43.12% or 235 attestations out of 545).
Again, wra/oth is the overall dominant lexicalization, except for the c1500
corpus, where anger is used more frequently with reference to non-high
experiencers. The tendency to prefer anger to refer to non-high experiencers and
wra/oth to refer to high experiencers c1500 is more clear-cut than was the case
with private and non-private offended values in the previous table. At the time
of its introduction, however, anger was the third and last choice for referring to
either high or non-high experiencers.
Table (41) shows figures that are similar to those in the previous table. Here
too, the need to express non-violent afflictions c1400 (20.91%) is lower than
c1300 (33.04%) and c1500 (31.33%). Again, anger is the first choice to express
non-violent reactions c1500, while wra/oth is much more frequently used to refer
to more violent reactions. C1400, however, anger is the form that is used least
208
p-value
other (%°)
affliction (%)
violence (%)
other
affliction
violence
frequently with reference to non-violent reactions, even though this use is much
higher than the almost non-existing use with reference to more violent reactions.
ire
8
2
5
15.38
8.00
13.16 0.722314
wra/oth
44
23
33
84.62
92.00
86.84
1400 anger
7
3
26
3.40
0.74
16.15
0
ire
87
113
45
42.23
28.04
27.95
wra/oth
112
287
90
54.37
71.22
55.90
1500 anger
43
55
80
38.39
33.95
64.00
0
ire
18
6
7
16.07
3.70
5.60
wra/oth
51
101
38
45.54
62.35
30.40
table (41) : intensity of reaction in ME texts (onomasiological view)
1300
The onomasiological analyses have resulted in a completely different image
than the one suggested by the semasiological analyses. They have shown that
the need to express the elements that were typical of the semasiological make-up
of anger was extremely small. Those elements were expressed less often in the
c1400 corpus, when anger was introduced, and it was frequently, and hence
probably adequately, expressed by ire and wra/oth c1300. Consequently, the
suggestion that anger was introduced to express meanings that could not be
expressed otherwise is proven wrong. Although the relatively high frequency
(about 30%) with which it is used to express the notion of private offended
value, anger is always the third and last choice c1400. Its semasiological
potential for referring to non-high experiencers and non-violent reactions only
starts to be realized on the onomasiological level c1500.
4.3.4 Conclusion
In this section, we have investigated several factors that may have influenced the
increased use of anger c1400. Having ruled out the stylistic factors of rhyme
and alliteration, the study focuses on register and semantic factors. In
comparison with ire and wra/oth, anger is used more often in non-Romance and
non-religious texts and more frequently refers to non-high experiencers, nonviolent reactions and private offended values (with some of these characteristics
typically co-occurring). These semantic characteristics confirm the semantic
analyses done by Diller (1994), although the results for the feature “private
offended value” should be treated cautiously because it is very much a matter of
interpretation and because there is considerable overlap between Diller’s data
and those used in our own research.
209
What the analyses do not bear out is Diller’s hypothesis that anger was used
precisely because it showed those semantic features. The onomasiological
analyses, starting from the semantic factors rather than from the expressions,
show that there was no increased need for expressing those features. Moreover,
they were adequately expressed c1300 by ire and wra/oth.
4.4 LATIN INFLUENCE
4.4.1 Introduction
Besides studying the hypothesis that anger was introduced because of sociocultural changes, this dissertation will investigate in what way and to what extent
the lexical and conceptual fields of ANGER have been influenced by two foreign
languages (and hence cultures) : Latin in Old English and Romance languages
(mainly French) as of c1200. This section deals with Latin in Old English. The
Latin influence will be studied in two ways. First, a comparison will be made
between the lexical and conceptual fields in original texts, texts based on Latin
originals and translations from Latin. Such a comparison can reveal whether
those fields differ, and which expressions and conceptualizations are most
probably native or non-native. For the period between 850 and 950, for which
such a comparison cannot be made, a comparison will be made between the
lexical and conceptual choices in translations from Latin and the Latin originals.
4.4.2 Overall comparison
Table (42) presents the relative frequency of all the items in the Old English
corpus and their distribution over the three categories of text origins present in
the corpus. Texts originally composed in Old English are labelled “original”,
while texts translated from Latin are labelled “translation Latin”. The third
category, “source Latin” is an intermediate one. It is the category of texts based
on Latin sources without being true translations : the writer uses the Latin works
as sources of inspiration, but renders the information in a text of his own,
without translating the Latin text word by word or line by line. Is such texts, the
writer may choose to write a text that runs quite parallel to the original one, but
he may also deviate from it considerably, elaborating the content of a few lines
in the original into a text of several pages or the other way round.
Because all the material in the 850-950 corpus consists of translations from
Latin, the overall figures and those for the translations from Latin are the same.
For the other periods, it is not always possible to trace the origin of all the texts.
Texts for which this was not possible have not been included in the figures for
the different text origins but are included in the overall corpus. That is why the
overall figure in the bottom row of the table is not necessarily the sum of the
figures in the columns representing the different text sources.
210
WRONG
EMOTION
FIERCENESS
HEAT
SWELLING
AFFLICTION
MOTION
% original
% source Latin
% translation Latin
950-1050
total
% original
% source Latin
total
expression (root)
conceptualization
literal
% translation Latin
850950
a850
irre
38.14 41.03 39.29 54.93 46.05 57.11 30.69 33.33
belgan
27.97 30.77 23.21 11.21 13.33 10.61 12.87 27.78
weamod
0
0
0 0.90 2.49 2.03 2.97 5.56
þweorh
0.85 2.56
0 0.22 0.22 0.45
0
0
gram
2.54
0 3.57 6.05 19.39 9.26 33.66 23.33
wrað
10.17 7.69 7.14 1.35 3.79 6.77 0.66
0
reðe
3.39 5.13 1.79 0.45 0.33 0.68
0
0
grim
0
0
0
0 0.22
0
0 2.22
hatheort
0.85
0 1.79 8.97 5.09 5.42 5.94
0
onælan
0
0
0 3.14 0.54 1.13
0
0
wilm
0
0
0 1.79 0.43 0.68
0
0
onbærnan
0
0
0 1.35 0.43 0.90
0
0
hathige
0
0
0 0.45
0
0
0
0
hygewælm
0.85
0 1.79
0
0
0
0
0
gehyrstan
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
acoligan
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
ontendan
0
0
0
0 0.22
0 0.66
0
þindan
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
þrutian
0
0
0
0 0.22
0 0.66
0
torn
9.32 5.13 14.29 0.22
0
0
0
0
tirgan
0
0
0 0.22 1.63 0.68 2.64 2.22
geswencan
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
ofsettan
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
sare
0.85
0 1.79 0.22 0.11
0
0 1.11
gebysgian
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
teon
0
0
0
0 0.22 0.23 0.33
0
geangsumian
0
0
0
0 0.11
0 0.33
0
astyrian
0
0
0 2.02 2.06 0.90 4.62 1.11
drefan
0
0
0 1.12 0.54 0.23 1.32
0
upahafen
0
0
0 0.45
0
0
0
0
onræs
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
unstil
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
0
211
ahreran
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
hrædmod
0
0
0
0 0.11
0 0.33
ellenwod
0.85 2.56
0
0
0
0
0
INSANITY
wod
0
0
0 0.22 0.87 0.23 1.98
woffung
0
0
0 0.22
0
0
0
gealh
1.69 5.13
0 0.45
0
0
0
UNHAPPINESS
unbliðe
0.85
0 1.79
0 0.11
0 0.33
unrot
0
0
0 0.45 0.22 0.23
0
unweorþ
0
0
0 0.45 0.33 0.68
0
PRIDE
onscunian
0
0
0 0.22 0.76 1.58
0
BITTERNESS
biter
1.69
0 3.57 0.90 0.22 0.23
0
total (absolute figures)
118
39
56 446 923 443 303
table (42) : ANGER-expressions in Old English texts of different origins
0
0
0
1.11
0
0
0
1.11
0
0
1.11
90
For some lexical items (table (42)) and conceptualizations as a whole (table
(43)), the material is too scarce to draw any reliable conclusions concerning
Latin influence. The only infrequent conceptualization that seems to consistently
correlate with texts of Latin origin is ANGER AS PRIDE.
% original
% source Latin
% translation Latin
950-1050
total
% original
% source Latin
total
conceptualization
% translation Latin
850950
a850
literal
66.11 71.80 62.50 66.14 59.38 67.72 43.56 61.11
0.85 2.56
0 1.12 2.71 2.48 2.97 5.56
FIERCENESS
16.10 12.82 12.50 7.85 23.73 16.71 34.32 23.33
HEAT
1.70
0 3.58 16.14 6.71 8.13 6.60
0
SWELLING
0
0
0 0.22 0.22
0 0.66
0
AFFLICTION
10.17 5.13 16.08 1.32 2.07 0.91 3.30 3.33
MOTION
0
0
0 4.25 2.71 1.13 6.27 1.11
INSANITY
0.85 2.56
0 0.44 0.87 0.23 1.98 1.11
UNHAPPINESS
2.54 5.13 1.79 0.90 0.33 0.23 0.33 1.11
PRIDE
0
0
0 0.67 1.09 2.26
0
0
BITTERNESS
1.69
0 3.57 0.90 0.22 0.23
0 1.11
total (absolute figures) 118
39
56 446 923 443 303
90
table (43) : conceptualizations in Old English texts of different origins
WRONG EMOTION
Among the more frequently used lexical items and conceptualizations, we
can see certain trends. In the group of literal expressions, we see that irre is used
212
more frequently in texts that have a Latin source (a850) or are translated from
Latin (950-1050)16. This also accounts for its high frequency of occurrence
between 850 and 950, a period in which all texts are translations from Latin. For
the belgan-forms, we see the opposite distribution : those are clearly more
frequent in original texts between 950 and 1050, which would again explain why
they are used less frequently between 850 and 950.
Although the distribution pattern of the conceptualization ANGER AS MOTION
between 950 and 1050 is not a very clear one, it does not appear in the a850
corpus while it is more frequently used between 850 and 950. This suggests that
it finds its origin in Latin texts.
Also the conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT proves to correlate with texts of
Latin origin. For the a850 occurrence of hatheort, we have to take into account
that it is found in the group labelled “original” in this table because the text in
which it occurs is original as a whole, but that it actually features in a translation
of a Latin quote within that original text :
(629) And him þuhte þæt þa englas wæron swilce hig byrnende wæron, þa þe
hine læddon ut of þam lichaman, and he ne mihte nænig þinga locian on
hig for þære micclan beorhtnesse þe hig mid ymbseted wæron, and hig
sungon swiðe wynsumum stefnum and swiðe geswegum, and hig
cwædon, Domine, ne in ira tua arguas me, neque in furore tuo corripias
me, þæt is, Drihten, ne þrea þu us in þinum yrre, ne þu us ne steor in þinre
hatheortnysse. (Let 1 (Sisam) 17)
‘And he thought that it was angels — so much did they burn — who led
him out of his body, and he could in no way look at them because of the
great brightness with which they were surrounded, and they sung in very
pleasant voices and very harmoniously, saying : “Domine, ne in ira tua
arguas me, neque in furore tuo corripias me”, that is, “Lord, do not rebuke
us in your anger and do not reprove us in your wrath.” ’.
Additionally, we see that this conceptualization is most extensively used
between 850 and 950, and that also the total absence of this conceptualization in
original texts between 950 and 1050 points to a Latin origin.
4.4.3 Lexical comparison 850-95017
Between 850 and 950, almost all the texts are translations of Latin ones. A great
number of attestations derive from material that has come to us both in the Old
English and the Latin version so that a comparison can be made between the
translations and the Latin originals.18 Such a comparison can reveal to what
extent the translations adopt, or are influenced by, the lexical and conceptual
choices of the original. Table (44) gives an overview of the conceptualizations
and lexical items used in the English texts. The third column lists the
expressions used in the Latin originals that show the same conceptualization and
the number of attestations in which the English expression is used to translate
213
literal
214
irre
ira 123
iracundia 7
irasci 51
% correlation per
conceptualization
% correlation per
item
non-equivalent
Latin translation
total equivalent
Latin translation
total subcorpus
equivalent Latin
translation
expression
conceptualization
that Latin expression. Those that do not show the same conceptualization are
listed in the fourth column. The next columns show the sums of the number of
matches between the English and the Latin conceptualizations, the number of
expressions used in the whole subcorpus, and the degree of correspondence (in
percentages) per item and per conceptualization.19 The attestations of Old
English hatheort, for example, are found to translate Latin calere (1 attestation),
fervor (3 attestations), furor (23 attestations), iracundus (6 attestations) and zelus
(1 attestation). Additionally, there are 2 attestations in which hatheort does not
translate a Latin expression. In such cases, the translator simply does not follow
the Latin source text : whereas he refers to the concept of ANGER, the Latin
source text does not.
The English expression hatheort shows the
conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT, a conceptualization that is also present in the
Latin expressions calere, which basically means ‘to be warm’, and fervor, which
means ‘heat’.
Unlike hatheort, Latin furor ‘insanity’ shows the
conceptualization ANGER AS INSANITY; iracundus literally means ‘anger’ and
thus shows no special conceptualization, and zelus ‘zeal’ shows the
conceptualization ANGER AS A STRONG EMOTION. Of the 36 attestations of
hatheort, only 4 attestations (= 11.11%) show the same conceptualization as the
expressions used in the Latin source texts. In those cases, the choice of hatheort
may have been inspired by the HEAT-conceptualization in the original texts. In
all the other cases, which clearly show different conceptualizations in the Latin
text, the use of hatheort is certainly the translator’s own choice.
dedignari 2
181 218 83.03
indignatio 2
displicere 1
furor 5
offensio 1
71.65
reatus 1
aemulatio 1
animadversio
1
zelus 1
none 22
STRONG
belgan
se erigere 1
anda
zelus 15
EMOTION
weamod
WRONG
EMOTION
HEAT
þweorh
hatheort
calere 1
fervor 3
offendere 5
infendere 1
commotus 1
permotus 1
exacerbare 1
indignari 4
indignatio 5
furor 1
scidere 1
ira 1
iratus 1
tabescere 1
turbare 1
none 11
livor 1
aemulatio 4
none 7
iracundia 1
furor 2
none 1
amaritudo 1
furor 23
iracundus 6
zelus 1
none 2
onælan
accendere 6 distulere 1
succendere 1 excitare 1
fervere 1
none 2
exardescere 2
wilm
fervor 2
furor 2
ardor 1
none 1
onbærnan exardescere 2 none 1
incendium 1
accendere 1
inflammare 1
hathige
accendere 1 furor 1
gehyrstan frigere 1
acoligan
none 1
1 36 2.78
15 27 55.56
0
4
55.56
0
0
0 1
0
4 36 11.11
10 14 71.43
3
6
50
5
6 83.33
1
1
0
2
1
1
36.36
50
100
0
215
FIERCENESS
gram
wrað
MOTION
reðe
astyrian
drefan
upahafen
unstil
ahreran
onraes
AFFLICTION
PRIDE
torn
geswencan
ofsettan
gederian
gebysgian
sare
onscunian
unweorþ
BODILY
agrimetan
BEHAVIOUR
griellan
wod
woffung
biter
hefig
þindan
dolor 1
excruciare 1
vexare 1
iracundus 5
iratus 1
raptus 1
provocari 4
impellere 1
exacerbare 1
none 8
saevire 1
ira 2
irasci 2
none 1
saevire 1
iracundia 1
commovere 3 provocare 1
exagitare 1 accendere 1
exhortari 1
none 1
turbare 3
none 1
erigere 1
none 1
insania 1
commovere 1
impetu 1
none 1
abruptus 1
deprimere 1
lesus 1
vexatus 1
dolore 1
exacerbare 1
indignatio 2
indignitas 1
infremere 1
insequi 1
insanire 1
insania 1
none 2
gravis 2
moleste 1
tabescere 1
0 24
0
6.25
1
6 16.67
1
4
2
8
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
50
50
75 58.82
50
0
100
100
0
0
100 66.67
100
100
100
0
75
100
1 1 100
50
0 1
0
INSANITY
1 1 100
100
1 1 100
BITTERNESS
0 2
0
0
HEAVINESS
2 3 66.67 66.67
SWELLING
0 1
0
0
total
245 421
58.19
table (44) : correlation between translations and their Latin original 850-950
In table (44) we see that there is a group of conceptualizations that show a
high correlation between the Old English and the Latin texts. This group
216
comprises the literal expression irre and ANGER AS FIRE (i.e. onælan, onbærnan
and gehyrstan, yielding a correlation of 76.19%) and STRONG EMOTION,
20
Also PRIDE,
AFFLICTION and MOTION, which show slightly lower correlations.
INSANITY and HEAVINESS show high correlations with their Latin counterparts,
but their absolute number is too low to be really reliable. FIERCENESS, by
contrast, show a low correlation. These data confirm those of tables (42) and
(43) : lexical items and conceptualizations that were used more frequently in
texts of Latin origin now prove to show a high correlation between the lexical
and conceptual choices of the Latin text and those of the Old English translation.
This proves that the Old English lexical and conceptual field of ANGER were
influenced by Latin culture in certain periods.
One of the conceptualizations influenced by Latin, ANGER AS HEAT, shows
two different correlation patterns within the conceptualization. On the one hand,
there is the variant ANGER AS FIRE, which shows a very high correlation (76.19%)
with the Latin source texts. On the other hand, there is the more abstract HEATconceptualization in the expressions hathige and hatheort. The position of
hathige and especially hatheort is exceptional and intriguing. On the basis of the
comparison between the Latin originals and the Old English translations,
hatheort shows to be a preferred translation of furor and vice versa : of the 34
attestations of furor, 23 are translated by hatheort (i.e. 67.65%), while 23 of the
36 attestations (i.e. 63.89%) of hatheort translate furor. This correlation was
also described by Tetzlaff (1954:108). There are no indications, however, that
Latin furor was typically associated with the concept of HEAT. That is what
makes it exceptional : unlike for the other expressions, the lexical level shows a
very high correlation with one Latin expression while the conceptualizations
behind the English and the Latin expression do not correlate. As the texts in
which hatheort and hathige are found also use the FIRE-conceptualization, the
authors’ familiarity with the FIRE-conceptualization may have been the basis for
their use of the more abstract HEAT-conceptualization in hatheort and hathige.
4.4.4 Conclusion
The comparison between the lexical and conceptual fields of ANGER in Old
English original texts, texts based on Latin originals and the ones translated from
Latin has shown that a number of expressions and conceptualizations are
typically used in texts of Latin origin, while others are typically used in original
texts, so that much of the variation in the Old English subcorpora is due to the
presence or absence of Latin influence. The conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is
one of the conceptualizations that is typical of texts of Latin origin. The
comparison between the Old English expressions and the expressions used in the
Latin source texts has revealed that the Old English expressions referring to
ANGER AS FIRE show a high correlation with their Latin equivalents, while
hathige and hatheort correlate with Latin furor, which does not show the HEATconceptualization.
217
4.5 ROMANCE ORIGIN
4.5.1 Previous studies
Besides the influence of Latin translations in Old English, the influence of
Romance loanwords in the Middle and Early Modern English lexical field has to
be studied closely. It being obvious that the English lexicon contains an
immense number of Romance loans, many linguists have tried to measure the
extent of this Romance influence.21 Some linguists counted the number of
Romance loans in the present-day English lexicon (Bliss (1966), Scheler (1977),
Berndt (1982), Dekeyser (1990)). The older and more elaborate tradition,
however, was a purely diachronic one. In this vein of research, the main
question was how many Romance loans entered the English language in which
period.
In 1905, Jespersen published Growth and Structure of the English Language,
in which he discussed the introduction of one thousand French loan words : the
first one hundred of the letters A-H of what was to become the OED and the first
fifty of the letters J-L, excluding all words with less than five illustrating
quotations in the OED. He counted how many of these words were introduced in
which half-century and these figures were compared. Using the same method,
Koszul (1937) studied the letters M-Z. Baugh (1935) rejected the principle of
excluding words with less than five quotations because it worked to the
disadvantage of late borrowings. He counted the French loans again, sampling
the whole OED (pages numbered -00, -20, -40, -60, -80) and discarding only the
words labelled nonce-word or unassimilated by the OED. Mossé (1943:35)
rejected even this selection, claiming that even nonce-words and unassimilated
words should be included because “they are unsuccessful attempts, but none the
less they bear witness to that [=French, CG] influence”. Consequently, he
included all expressions, whether assimilated or not, in his count of all the
expressions listed under A in the OED (a sampling method found to be
insufficiently representative of the whole lexicon by Pennanen (1971:22-23)).
Scheler (1977), finally, does not explicitly state which lexical elements he
accepted as French loan-words and which he rejected. He only mentions that he
studied 2,000 French loans taken from 40 equally large samples of the OED. In
spite of the differences in sampling method, Jespersen (1905:87), Koszul
(1937:81), Baugh (1935:91), Mossé (1943:37) and Scheler (1977:52) came to the
conclusion that the Romance influence did not start immediately after the
Norman Conquest and that the highest number of Romance loans was introduced
in Middle English between 1350 and 1400.22
That the initial methodological discussions were restricted to the question of
which expressions to include or exclude is unfortunate because the approach
shows more basic flaws. It may well reveal how many Romance loans were
introduced during which half-century, but it reveals nothing about the extent of
218
the influence of these Romance loans as there are no data to compare the number
of Romance loan words with.
Additionally, Baugh (1935:92) noted that “the number of words found in a
given period (at least up to 1400), seems to bear a very direct relation to the
amount of literature preserved through the various centuries of Middle English”.
A similar remark was made by Dekeyser (1986:253), who claims that the counts
by Jespersen and his followers are “strongly biased by the overall intake of
words in a given period. The peak around 1375-1400 (…) must undoubtedly be
put down to Chaucer’s work and the massive impact it had on the number of
quotations both in the OED and the MED”.23 It is true, of course, that the harder
people can and do look for new words in the work of a particular author, the
more likely they are to find them. That there is such a correlation between the
number of first citations and the level of source coverage in the OED has also
been demonstrated by Schäfer (1980:172). But while Baugh (1935:92) stated
that “there is no remedy for whatever element of error results from this
circumstance”, Dekeyser (1986) points out that this bias can be overcome by
using relative frequencies indicating how many of all the new words of a period
are Romance loans. This improved methodology was adopted by the major
publications on the influence of Romance loans of later dates (Coleman (1995),
Culpeper & Clapham (1996)). Due to different sampling methods, however, the
period with the highest relative number of new Romance loans differs in these
studies. Dekeyser (1986:259) finds the highest peak between 1300 and 1350 in
his study of the first 150 entries under A-O in the MED, while Culpeper &
Clapham’s (1996:215) study of all the loans in the OED points to 1251-1375 and
Coleman’s (1995:107) use of the material of the semantic fields of HATE, LOVE,
SEX and MARRIAGE in The Historical Thesaurus of English points to the late 13th
century.
As far as the sampling method is concerned, Coleman (1995) is an outsider :
while most studies select all or a random number of loans of all the letters
covered by the MED or OED up to a certain date, Coleman studies the
expressions in a limited number of semantic fields. By calculating relative
frequencies, the methodological problems of the earlier studies are overcome, but
working with a limited number of semantic fields may introduce a semantic bias,
as the comparison of Coleman’s own figures with those of other semantic fields
studied by Chase (1988) and Thornton (1988) seems to indicate (Coleman
1995:97). This problem can only be solved by studying several semantic fields
and comparing the results in order to find the general tendencies and the
idiosyncrasies of a field. But working with semantic fields also opens important
new opportunities. By selecting semantic fields, Coleman (1995) can calculate
the share of the Romance loan words in the newly introduced words, but also
their share in the whole lexicon of the field.24 This is an important
methodological advantage : none of the “traditional” approaches, including
Dekeyser (1986) and Culpeper & Clapham (1996) or even the attempt of
219
Dekeyser & Pauwels (1990) to combine data on Romance innovation and Old
English loss, can measure the influence of the Romance loans on the English
language. They can only show what part they play in lexical innovation.
The second very important methodological remark in Dekeyser (1986) is that
because the counts of Jespersen and his followers are based on dictionary
information, they only reveal which loans (types) were introduced, not to what
extent these loans were actually used (tokens). Dekeyser (1986) reports on an
unpublished pilot study that tries to ascertain whether studies on type-level show
different results from studies on token-level.25 Thirteen samples of Middle
English texts, ranging between 300 and 600 running words each, were analysed.
Both the number of Romance loans and English words (types) and the number of
times they were used (tokens) were counted. The results show that for the
English words, the relative type frequencies are systematically lower than the
relative token frequencies while the reverse pattern holds for the Romance
loans.26 However, there is one major methodological drawback : all words are
counted alike. As function words are typically of English or (less so)
Scandinavian origin and are used more often than lexical words, counts
including only lexical words may well show different results. Before token
ratios make sense, the different token frequencies of lexical words and function
words should be neutralized.
This problem can be overcome by taking a corpus-based approach within
lexical field studies. In such studies, lexical words and function words are
normally not mixed. Like the lexical field approach presented by Coleman
(1995), such an approach can measure to what extent the Romance loans play a
part in lexical innovation and to what extent they make up the lexicon within the
field. Additionally, it supplies the answer to the question left unanswered by
Coleman (1995) : what is the part of the Romance loans in actual language use ?
Thus, it takes the tradition of research into the influence of Romance loans in
English methodologically one step further. It is not the final step, however :
reduplication of this kind of research for different lexical fields is needed to
check for and do away with possible semantic bias.
4.5.2 Quantifications in the present study
The corpus used for this study of the lexical field of ANGER, being centred
around several points in time, does not show the same fine-tuned temporal
subdivisions as the earlier studies on the Romance loans in Middle English,
which all show a continuum of half-centuries or even quarters of centuries (as in
Dekeyser (1986)). Together with the possible semantic bias, this is a drawback
of this material. However, the data can be used to show how different
quantitative approaches lead to different results and how there are more options
than only measuring the share of Romance loans in lexical innovation.
When studying the data, the element that proves the most difficult to interpret
is the absence from the corpus material of certain expressions that should have
220
occurred. In this study, there are expressions that occur c1200 and c1400, but
not c1300. This can be interpreted as an indication that these expressions no
longer expressed the meaning ‘anger’ after 1200 and acquired this meaning again
c1400. Such cases of semantic polygenesis do occur, as discussed in Geeraerts
(1997:62-68). One of the criteria mentioned for considering re-appearance as
semantic polygenesis, namely the presence of a considerable time lapse between
the occurrences, is certainly fulfilled in this case. One more basic criterion,
however, is not met : as the early Middle English sources are rather scarce, we
cannot be sure that the non-occurrence of these expressions is not due to a lack
of source material. Therefore, expressions that disappear in one period and reappear in a later one have not been counted as newly introduced items. They are
assumed to have been covertly present in the intermediate period as well.27
1200
1300
1400
1500
19
0
0.00 32
0
0.00
10
8
80.00 25
8 32.00
25
19
76.00 54
26 48.15
15
12
80.00 46
27 58.70
table (45) : Romance loans type frequencies28
Romance loans %
weighted
Romance loans %
Romance loans
all expressions
total types
new
Romance loans %
new
Romance loans
new types
new expressions
0.00
32.00
44.91
48.37
As has been mentioned earlier, several methods have been used to quantify
the influence of Romance loans. Table (45) shows the data for the lexical field
of ANGER on type level, the level which most of the previous research projects
have reported on. The left half of the table shows the oldest approaches. The
second and third column show the absolute numbers of new types and new
Romance loans. The fourth column shows the relative frequencies of the new
Romance loans, as suggested by Dekeyser (1986). As Dekeyser (1986) already
pointed out, the absolute and relative numbers show different tendencies. In
absolute terms, most new Romance loans are to be found c1400. In relative
terms, however, the share of Romance loans in the newly introduced expressions
is almost constant from c1300 to c1500. The right half of the table shows the
share of all the Romance loans in the whole lexical field, a count proposed by
Coleman (1995). Both the absolute and relative figures show a gradual increase
of the Romance element starting from c1300. Contrary to the absolute figures,
which suggest the largest increase between 1300 and 1400, the relative figures
show the largest increase between 1200 and 1300.
The last column shows weighted relative frequencies. This starts from the
idea that not all expressions within a lexical field are equally representative of a
221
certain characteristic (for a similar approach see Geeraerts, Grondelaers &
Speelman 1999). In this case, expressions that have been part of the English
lexicon for a century or more ought not to be considered as purely Romance
anymore : they have become assimilated to a certain extent. If new Romance
loans fully count as indications of Romance influence, older expressions do so to
a smaller extent. That is why the numerical data of expressions that have been in
use for a century have been multiplied by 0.75 and those in use for two centuries
by 0.50 in the weighted frequency counts. 29 Above all, the weighted frequency
counts are meant as a more fine-grained quantification method. Although they
show the same general tendencies as the unweighted ones, they also show that
the weighted frequency count for the c1500 material is much lower than the
unweighted count, suggesting that the Romance loans in this period are more
typically older expressions, in spite of the fact that quite some new Romance
loans were introduced in this period.
Romance loans %
weighted
Romance loans
total tokens
0.00
8.29
17.69
23.86
new
Romance loans
Romance loans %
all expressions
50
0
0.00
357
0
0.00
33
32
96.97
386
32
8.29
258
225
87.21 2003 398 19.87
70
67
95.71 1231 384 31.19
table (46) : Romance loans token frequencies
new tokens
1200
1300
1400
1500
new
Romance loans %
new expressions
Table (46) shows the numerical data for the tokens, i.e. for the (unweighted
and weighted) frequencies with which the expressions are used in the corpus.
The left half of table (46), which only takes into account the new lexical
elements, shows relative frequencies that are even higher than those on type
level. C1300 and c1500, almost all of the new expressions are Romance ones.
The relative frequency for the c1400 data is somewhat lower, but still amounts to
87.21% of all the new expressions. The right half of the table shows the data for
the whole lexical field. As in the pilot study of Dekeyser (1986), the token
frequencies are considerably lower than the type frequencies : they show
frequencies that are less than half of the type frequencies. The difference is
considerable : whereas the type frequencies show the Romance component to
take up up to 50% (weighted) or 60% (unweighted) of the lexical field c1500, the
total token frequencies show that portion to be less than one third (unweighted)
or even less than one fourth (weighted) of the field. The difference between the
weighted and unweighted frequencies is again the highest c1500, once more
suggesting that there is considerable use of older Romance loans in that period.
222
Is it possible to ascertain whether these figures show a semantic bias ? As
many quantitative results of previous studies are restricted to measuring the role
of Romance loans in lexical innovation, the only study with which this one can
be compared is Coleman (1995). As the latter does not use a corpus, comparison
of token frequencies is ruled out altogether. On type level, the results of the
present study do not contradict those of Coleman (1995). Her study locates the
largest share of Romance loans in lexical innovation in the late 13th century
(Coleman 1995:107). The present study also shows the largest Romance share
c1300, although it remains almost at the same level for the next two periods.
Coleman locates the largest share of Romance loans in the lexis of her lexical
fields in the late 15th century (Coleman 1995:117). Although it is impossible to
see what happens after c1500 and although the figures are much higher in this
study, the largest share of Romance loans in the whole lexical field is also to be
found c1500.
Up to now, the main point of this discussion has been to show that there are
different ways to measure the extent of Romance influence on the English
language, as some earlier studies claimed to do (Dekeyser (1986), Mossé
(1943)). The different quantification methods show different results, all of
which are valuable in their own right because they reveal different aspects of
Romance influence. The traditional approach, in which the number of new
Romance loans over a number of periods is counted, measures the extent of the
Romance influence on the lexical innovation, provided that it is expressed as a
relative share of all new lexical items. Additionally, the share of the Romance
loans in the whole lexicon can be counted. Technically, this could be done on
the basis of dictionary information and could cover the whole lexicon, but so far
it has only been done in research limited to certain lexical fields. Finally, the
influence on the language use of certain periods can be studied. This requires a
corpus-based approach in which the frequencies of occurrence of grammatical
words can be distinguished from those of lexical words. As long as there are no
exhaustive corpora that are lexically tagged, computing such frequencies of
occurrence remains a painstaking activity that is shunned by most linguists.
Although it still requires a lot of effort and is a very inefficient way of doing this
kind of research, dealing with this type of quantification lexical field by lexical
field may overcome possible semantic biases. In spite of these difficulties, it is
an aspect that should not be neglected because it demonstrates the Romance
influence on the language in use.
4.5.3 Conceptual influence
Starting from the quantifications that best reflect language use, i.e. token
frequencies, we will now consider how and to what extent the Romance loanwords influenced the conceptual fields of ANGER between 1300 and 1500. In this
analysis, the literal expressions are left out, as they do not show special
conceptualizations (and no Romance influence either, if we consider ire to have
223
been part of the lexical field throughout Old and Middle English). Figures for
the share of the Romance loans per conceptualization are given in table (47). As
all the loans are new c1300, no weighted figures are given for this period. The
right half of the table shows the overall share of each conceptualization taken as
a whole, including all its expressions, regardless of their origins. Because the
absolute numbers of attestations for some categorizations are relatively small,
these figures help to interpret the relevance of the categorizations in the entire
field.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.29
55.88
100
100
100
0
0
c1500
0
c1400
c1500
weighted
c1500
0
wrah
total
c1400
weighted
0
HEAVINESS
CELTIC
FIERCENESS
HEAT
INSANITY
AFFLICTION
BITTERNESS
BODY FLUIDS
UNHAPPINESS
PRIDE
MOTION
BODILY
BEHAVIOUR
STIMULATION
STUBBORNNESS
overall %
c1300
WRONG
EMOTION
SWELLING
STRONG
EMOTION
CRAB-LIKE
DISTURBANCE
c1400
c1300
Romance share %
0.52
0.05
0.24
0.26
0.25
0
0.20
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.78
0
0
0
10.00
17.57
20.75
47.33
100
100
93.94
99.35
28.30
0
0
0
10.00
17.57
18.16
35.59
75
77.03
90.15
99.35
28.30
100
100
0
0 10.88
43.86 35.09 1.55
75.34 53.77 7.25
92.31 46.15 8.81
0.78
100 75.00 0.26
100 77.73 1.30
100 75.00
90.70 77.33
0.50
0.10
0.05
0.50 0.16
3.60 4.55
5.30 5.93
13.09 1.06
0.05
1.85 0.41
1.65 14.88
7.65 3.58
2.65 3.50
0.10
100
100
1.62
100
100
0.08
25.20 52.65 46.89 86.10 65.86 32.38 37.68 36.20
table (47) : Romance share in ANGER-expressions c1300-c1500
The top half of table (47), up to and including FIERCENESS, presents the
conceptualizations in which there is no or hardly any presence of Romance
loans. From the overall percentages, it is clear that this group is not very
224
important in the conceptual field, quantitatively speaking. The largest share in
the field as a whole is taken up by the conceptualizations in the lower half of the
table, in which Romance expressions do play a role. The importance of the
Romance loans is also reflected in the overall percentages in the bottom line,
showing their share within the whole group of conceptualizations : after a
modest start c1300, Romance loans take up half of the expressions showing
special conceptualizations c1400 and 86.10% of them c1500. The growing
difference between the unweighted percentages and the weighted ones shows
that the group contains increasingly more older Romance loans, but even the
weighted percentages remain high, with 47.05% and 65.86% for the data c1400
and c1500 respectively. The following discussion will focus on the Romance
loans, i.e. the lower half of the table.
As mentioned before (see section 3.9) the Romance loan-words do not cause
radical changes in the conceptual fields in that they do not introduce new
conceptualizations in a massive way. The very few new conceptualizations
which are introduced by Romance loans, namely BODILY BEHAVIOUR,
STIMULATION and STUBBORNNESS, are all in all but minor ones. The general
tendency for Romance loans is to tie in with existing conceptualizations and to
gain dominance over native expressions. This can happen rather gradually (like
for HEAT or INSANITY) or rather radically (like for PRIDE or UNHAPPINESS). What
is striking, however, is that they mainly take up conceptualizations that in the
previous section proved to have shown considerable Latin influence in the Old
English period, like ANGER AS HEAT, PRIDE and MOTION, and conceptualizations
that were used in both Latin and original text types but which showed high
correlation with their Latin equivalents in translations, like INSANITY and
AFFLICTION. The fact that those conceptualizations were picked up by Romance
loans seems to have guaranteed their survival and to have promoted their use, as
Latin texts had done in the Old English period.
What is different from the way in which Latin influenced the Old English is
the influence of the Romance loans on the Middle and Early Modern English
conceptualization ANGER AS UNHAPPINESS. This conceptualization, which was
present throughout Old English but was never very significant quantitatively
speaking, is exclusively expressed by means of Romance loans as of c1300.
These euphemistic expressions are used rather infrequently c1300 and c1400,
although the figures may be underrepresented due to problems of interpretation
(see section 2.1) in those corpora, but their share in the c1500 corpus rises to
almost 15%. This makes it the most important conceptualization c1500 and its
main representative, displesen, with its share of 12.27% of the whole lexical
field, may well be on its way to becoming a standard expression for ANGER.
4.5.4 Conclusion
A first concern in this section has been the frequently discussed problem of how
to quantify the influence of the Romance loans on the English vocabulary. The
225
discussion has shown that only relative frequencies give reliable information.
More importantly, however, the discussion has shown that the options for
quantification largely depend on the data collection used, with dictionary and
thesaurus data restricting quantification to type level and only corpus analysis
allowing quantification on token level.
Secondly, it has been discussed how and to what extent the Romance loans
influenced the conceptual domain. The data revealed that the Romance loans
take up a considerable share of the conceptual domain. Their influence,
however, is rather subtle : they do not introduce many new concepts as such, but
take their place within the existing conceptualizations, in which they gradually or
quite radically become the dominant expressions. In doing so, they typically
take over the conceptualizations which in Old English were linked with Latin.
An important exception is the euphemistic UNHAPPINESS-conceptualization,
which does not show much influence from Latin in Old English, but is
completely taken over by Romance words in Middle English and which takes up
a large share of the conceptual field c1500, in which the frequency of occurrence
of displesen seems to indicate that it may well become one of the standard
expressions for ANGER.
4.6 ANGER AS HEAT
4.6.1 Introduction
The starting-point for this onomasiological study was the question whether the
conceptualizations of ANGER in Old, Middle and Early Modern English were the
same as those in present-day English. Given that, from Lakoff & Johnson (1980)
onwards, ANGER AS HEAT has been considered a very important
conceptualization in present-day English, the attestations of this
conceptualization in earlier periods are of great interest. In this section, we will
first of all consider the occurrences of these attestations from a quantitative point
of view. The quantitative analysis will reveal that the HEAT-conceptualization is
only sporadically used in our corpora and that most of its attestations are found
in Latin or Romance texts, which are often also religious ones. We will also
look for contextual clues which could reveal how we should interpret this
conceptualization : is it part of a physiological folk theory or is there another
motivation behind it ?30 This analysis will show that contextual references to
physiology are few and late and in most cases linked with the humoral doctrine.
4.6.2 Quantitative analysis
Within the group of HEAT-conceptualizations, we distinguish between three
variants : ANGER AS HEAT in the strictest sense, ANGER AS FIRE and ANGER AS THE
HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER. The frequencies of occurrence of ANGER AS
226
in table (48) show that the most general conceptualization, ANGER AS
HEAT, is to be found in all the subcorpora, as is ANGER AS FIRE (although it is
missing in the earliest period, maybe due to lack of data). ANGER AS THE HEAT
OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER, by contrast, appears much more sporadically and is
only to be found in the later texts (c1200 and c1400).
IN A CONTAINER
HEAT OF A FLUID
FIRE
HEAT (strict
sense)
HEAT
a850
1.64
0
0
850-950
10.62
4.38
0
950-1050
5.45
1.17
0
c1200
0.56
0.56
0.28
c1300
0.26
1.29
0
c1400
0.70
2.70
0.20
c1500
2.60
2.02
0
table (48) : quantitative data for ANGER AS HEAT (% of whole corpus)
Table (48) also shows that although the main variants of this
conceptualization are present throughout the periods studied, they do not take up
a considerable part of the whole field. Only in between 850 and 950, and
slightly less so between 950 and 1050, are they numerically of any importance.
With merely 5 attestations in the whole corpus, it does not make sense to
analyse ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER quantitatively. The
analyses in this section will therefore focus to the patterns of occurrence of the
two main HEAT-conceptualizations, ANGER AS HEAT in the strictest sense and
ANGER AS FIRE.
The most general variant, ANGER AS HEAT in the strictest sense, is present in
all the subcorpora. As discussed earlier and as shown in table (49), it is strongly
influenced by Latin throughout the Old English period. Almost all of its
attestations in the Old English corpora are found in texts of Latin origin.
Between 950 and 1050, the corpus consists of translations from Latin, texts
based on Latin sources and truly original texts. The attestations that are not
assigned to Latin texts in this table are texts whose origin has not been
established, not original ones. As shown in table (49), there are no attestations of
ANGER AS HEAT in the original texts between 950 and 1050. In the Old English
period, the conceptualization is mainly to be found in the use of hatheort. In the
comparison with the Latin source texts in section 4.4.3, hatheort showed to be
the standard translation of Latin furor. Consequently, the Latin influence is
indirect : the expression is not a direct translation of a Latin expression showing
227
absolute number
a850
850-950
950-1050
1200
1300
1400
1500
religious texts (%)
HEAT-conceptualization,
Latin/Romance texts
(%)
but it is most probably inspired by the wider use of
31
HEAT-conceptualizations in Latin and/or religious texts.
the
50.00
100
88.24
50.00
100
60.00
75.00
100
84.31
90.20
100
0
13.33
37.50
2
51
51
2
1
15
32
table (49) : ANGER AS HEAT in Romance and religious registers
Whereas it is impossible to distinguish between Latin and religious influence
in Old English, the figures for the Middle and Early Modern English period
suggest that the ANGER AS HEAT-conceptualization is more typically Romance
rather than religious. C1200 and c1300 the occurrences of ANGER AS HEAT are
extremely scarce, but still mainly of Romance origin. The conceptualization is
more abundant c1400, as is the overall conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT.
ANGER AS HEAT in its strictest sense is attested in the use of hot, hete and
chaufen. With 7 of the 15 attestations coming from Lydgate’s Troy Book and 2
from Hoccleve’s Regiment of Princes, 60% of these attestations may find their
origin in Latin source texts.
Also in the c1500 corpus, the ANGER AS HEAT-conceptualization is found in
the use of hot, hete and chaufen. 12 of the 16 attestations of hot feature in the
quite fixed expression (someone’s) anger wax hot in Tyndale’s bible translation.
This seems to be an idiosyncrasy of Tyndale’s as it does not appear in other texts
in the corpus. A comparison of his lexical and conceptual choices with the
original Latin and Greek bible texts show that they were not borrowed from
these original texts.32 All the other attestations of hot and hete but one are to be
found in Caxton’s texts, more specifically in The History of Reynard the Fox (2
attestations), The book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye (1 attestation) and
The Book of the Knight of the Tower (4 attestations). In all attestations but one,
Caxton combines hot or hete with hasty, a combination that is not used by other
authors in the c1500 corpus. Also chaufen is mainly to be found in Caxton’s
texts : 6 of the 11 attestations are from his texts, the other ones coming from
Elyot’s The Boke Named The Governour (4 attestations) and Medwall’s plays (1
228
a850
850-950
950-1050
1200
1300
1400
1500
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100 80.00
89.09 47.27
48.00 16.00
absolute number
religious texts (%)
Latin/Romance texts
(%)
attestation). The link with its Romance origin still seems to be relevant : all
Caxton’s uses of chaufen feature in texts translated from French, all of them
dealing with courtly matters.
The second most important HEAT-conceptualization is the conceptualization
ANGER AS FIRE. In the Old English corpus, it is found in the texts dating between
850 and 950 (21 attestations) and between 950 and 1050 (11 attestations). For
the earlier period, a comparison was made between the English expressions and
the Latin expressions in the source texts (see section 4.4.3) It showed that there
was a very high correlation between the use of ANGER AS FIRE-conceptualizations
in the Latin source texts and the English translations : they correlated in 16 of the
21 cases, i.e. in 76.19% of the cases. Moreover, the 5 non-correlating
attestations are to be found in the same texts. In other words, they are used by
writers who are familiar with them through the translations of other parts of the
texts and their lexical choice may well have been influenced by the instances in
which they did borrow the Latin conceptualization. Consequently, the data
suggest that ANGER AS FIRE is to be considered a conceptualization borrowed
from Latin.
0
21
11
2
5
55
25
table (50) : ANGER AS FIRE in Romance and religious registers
Table (50) shows that once again there is a high correlation with the religious
register. An element that certainly needs to be taken into consideration is the
possibility of the use of ANGER AS FIRE not being religious in a wide sense but
being typically biblical.33 In the 850-950 corpus, 8 of the 21 attestations are
found in psalm texts. Between 950 and 1050, ANGER AS FIRE is also almost
exclusively used in psalm texts : only the two attestations of the new expression
ontendan are to be found in Ælfric’s homilies and saints’ lives. Such a biblical
or psalmic origin would suggest that this conceptualization is not to be
interpreted as a physiological theory because it may well be based on a
229
metonymical relation between God’s anger and his punishment through fire,
which is referred to time and again in the Old Testament and especially in the
psalms. Such a metonymical link between the HEAT-conceptualization for God’s
anger and his punishment by fire shows up in the following example :
(630) Forþan gehyrde drihtyn & onælde & ofyrsette & fyr onælyd ys on iacob
& yrre astah on israhel (PsGlC 77.21)
‘Because the Lord heard this, he was inflamed and oppressed and fire was
kindled on Jacob and anger rose on Israel.’
Because of the very low number of attestations in Early Middle English, it is
impossible to tell whether ANGER AS FIRE is typically Romance or typically
religious. C1200 there are but two attestations of ANGER AS FIRE. Both are
found in religious texts of Latin origin, namely Seinte Margarete and Ancrene
Wisse.34 Also c1300 the attestations of ANGER AS FIRE are scarce and, except for
one attestation in King of Tars, occur mostly in religious texts of Romance origin
(Cursor Mundi and Handling Synne).35 As explained in section 3.6.1, the
anglicized version of King of Tars, which does away with the French loan-words
in the text, also replaces the attestation of ANGER AS FIRE. Him þouZt he brend so
spark on glede (‘he thought that he burnt like a spark on fire’) is replaced by he
sprong as sparkle doþ of glede (‘he sprang like a sparkle does from the fire’),
referring to the way in which he rides off on his horse. That this attestation,
which contains no French loan-words, is replaced in this process of anglicization
may indicate that the ANGER AS FIRE-conceptualization was considered awkward
or typically Romance.
The situation of the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE seems to change
c1400 : like the overall conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT, it is used more
frequently (2.38% of the corpus vs. 0.84% c1200 and 1.3% c1300) and there is
considerable lexical diversification (not only brennen and kindelen are used, but
also fire, enflamen and fervent). However, the conceptualization is to be found
in the texts of only 5 different authors, and for a large part in the texts of two of
them, namely Wycliffe (19 attestations out of 55) and Lydgate (20 attestations
out of 55). Taking this into account, it should certainly not be considered a
widespread conceptualization.
There are several elements that link the FIRE-conceptualization with Latin
rather than Romance origins. A comparison in Petersen (1973) between
Chaucer’s text and the Latin originals used in The Parson’s Tale reveals that
most of the imagery used by Chaucer, including fire imagery, is not original but
is borrowed from its source texts. The attestations of the FIRE-conceptualization
from The Parson’s Tale can be traced back to Peraldus’ Tractatus de Viciis, one
of the main Latin source texts used by Chaucer :
(631) For trewely, but he be war, he may ful lightly quyken the fir of angre and
of wratthe, which that he sholde quenche, and peraventure sleeth hym
230
which that he myghte chastise with benignitee. (The Canterbury Tales The Parson’s Tale 627)
Nisi enim homo caveat sibi, ipse ignem incendit quem debuit extinguere
et occidit quem debuit sanare et tenetur de damno quod verbum incaute
ab eo prolatum fecerit. (Petersen 1973:57)
[man should beware not to kindle the very fire that he must extinguish
and to kill what he must cure and to keep from damnation what a word
uncautiously uttered by him would do]
(632) For certes, richt so as fir is moore mighty to destroyen erthely thynges
than any oother element, right so Ire is myghty to destroyen alle spiritueel
thynges. Loke how that fyr of smale gledes, that been almost dede under
asshen, wollen quike agayn whan they been touched with brimstoon; right
so Ire wol evermo quiken agayn, whan it is touched by the pryde that is
covered in mannes herte. (The Canterbury Tales – The Parson’s Tale
546-547)
[Certainly, just as fire is more capable of destroying earthly things
than any other element, anger is capable of destroying all spiritual
things. Look how a fire of slightly burning coals, that is almost
quenched under ashes, will flare up again when touched with
brimstone; in the very same way will anger flare up again when
touched by the pride that is covered in man’s heart.]”
The comparison between Chaucer’s text and the Latin source texts in
Petersen (1973) also shows that the latter conceptualization, although elaborated
in an original way, is borrowed from the Latin text :
“Unde sicut ignis naturalis potentior est ad destructionem quam
alia elementa, sic ira que est ignis spiritualis (…) Homo iracundus
est velut rhamnus ignem ex se producens ad impetum venti,
secundum Josephum. Sic iracundus ad ventum superbie ignem ire
ex se producit.” (Petersen 1973:51)
[Therefore, just like natural fire is more powerful at destroying
than any other element, likewise anger which is spiritual fire (…)
An angry man is like buckthorn, which produces fire out of itself
at a gust of wind, according to Joseph. Likewise, an angry man
produces the fire of anger out of himself at the wind of pride.]”
Through its frequent occurrence in Wycliffe’s bible translation, the FIREconceptualization again seems to be linked with biblical, and hence Latin, texts.
Its spread over Lydgate’s texts also points to a typical association with texts of
Latin origin. There is a clear differentiation within Lydgate’s texts : 18 of the 20
attestations of ANGER AS FIRE in his texts come from Troy Book, which was
translated from Latin, while Siege of Thebes, translated from French, shows only
2 attestations of ANGER AS FIRE.36 Finally, this correlation with Latin is also
corroborated by the occurrence of 2 attestations of ANGER AS FIRE in Hoccleve’s
231
Regiment of Princes. Thus, 42 out of 55 of the occurrences of this
conceptualization are to be found in translations of Latin texts.
C1500 the conceptualization is used more widely : it features in 10 texts,
written by no fewer than 8 different authors. Only 4 of the 23 attestations are
found in Tyndale’s bible translation, so the conceptualization does not seem to
be confined to the bible. Also the conceptualization’s tendency to turn up in
translations from Latin (or French) is no longer very strict. Only 9 of the 23
attestations feature in such translations (Barclay’s Eclogue and The Ship of
Fools, Tyndale’s bible translation and Caxton’s The lyf of the Noble and Crysten
Prynce Charles the Grete). As a matter of course, the influence may have been
indirect : the renaissance texts need not strictly be translations of Latin source
texts to be greatly influenced by Latin culture. Elyot’s The Boke named The
Governour, for example, is not a translation of a Latin source, strictly speaking,
but it is full of references to Latin authors and their texts.
In conclusion, this quantitative analysis of the attestations of the
conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT has first of all demonstrated that its frequency
of occurrence varies quite considerably in the subcorpora. In some, it is
extremely scarcely attested, if at all. There is also a considerable difference in
frequency of occurrence between the conceptualizations ANGER AS HEAT, ANGER
AS FIRE and ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER. While ANGER AS
HEAT and ANGER AS FIRE are found throughout the different periods, ANGER AS
THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER occurs only sporadically.
There are indications that the use of this conceptualization is highly
influenced by the Latin (and Romance) source texts. The high frequency of
occurrence between 850 and 950 can be put down to Latin influence. All the
texts of that period are translations from Latin and a comparison between the
translations and the Latin source texts revealed that hatheort was used as a
standard translation of Latin furor and that over 76% of all the uses of the ANGER
The HEATAS FIRE-conceptualization were borrowed from Latin.
conceptualization as a whole, but especially ANGER AS FIRE, is mainly used in
texts of Latin or Romance origin throughout the corpora. C1500 the use of the
FIRE-conceptualization is less outspokenly Romance. Up to c1300, the Latin
context of the HEAT-conceptualizations is at the same time a religious one. It is
impossible to tell whether it is the religious register or the Latinate one that
determines this use, but whichever it is, the influence is clearly a cultural one.
4.6.3 Qualitative analysis
This dissertation does not only try to shed light on how often the HEATconceptualizations are used. It will also investigate if there are clues in the
context of those attestations as to how to interpret that conceptualization. As
discussed earlier (see section 4.2.3), the conceptualization can be metonymical or
metaphorical. If it is based on bodily experiences of heat, it is metonymical; if it
is based on the similarity between the typical scenario of ANGER and that of a
232
burning fire, it is metaphorical rather than metonymical. In order to try and find
clues pointing to a metonymical or metaphorical interpretation, this section will
take a closer look at the context in which the attestations of the HEATconceptualization are used.
This section will in turn deal with the
conceptualizations ANGER AS HEAT in the strict sense, ANGER AS FIRE, and ANGER
AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER.
The main representative of the HEAT-conceptualization in Old English is
hatheort. As shown in section 4.4.3, hatheort was the standard translation of
Latin furor. There is no HEAT-conceptualization in the expression furor, so the
conceptualization underlying hatheort is certainly not borrowed directly from
Latin. Although the inspiration for the HEAT-conceptualization may have come
from the wider use of HEAT-conceptualizations in Latin, the morphological
make-up of hatheort is typically Germanic. Is it possible that, despite its
correlation with Latin furor, it reveals a Germanic folk theory on the
physiological processes taking place when people become angry ? To answer
this question, we will investigate which conceptualization pattern lay behind this
compound.37 As the pattern adjective + heort was quite productive in Old
English, we can make quite a reliable reconstruction.
expression
bliDheort
gramheort
mildheort
translation
happy-hearted
fierce/hostilehearted
mild-hearted
concept
HOSTILITY
pattern
literal+heort
literal+heort
GENTLENESS,
literal+heort
HAPPINESS
COMPASSION
unmildheort
wedenheort
wodheort
rihtheort
rumheort
not mild-hearted
mad-hearted
mad-hearted
upright hearted
free/liberalhearted
PITILESSNESS
MADNESS
MADNESS
RIGHTEOUSNESS
FREEDOM
FROM
literal+heort
literal+heort
literal+heort
metaphor+heort
metaphor+heort
TROUBLE
MUNIFICENCE
clænheort
clean-hearted
PURITY,
metaphor+heort
MORAL CLEANNESS
heahheort
heardheort
stearcheort
efenheort
high-hearted
PRIDE
metaphor+heort
hard-hearted
STERNNESS
metaphor+heort
strong-hearted
BOLDNESS
metaphor+heort
even/equalPEACE, TRANQUILLITY
metaphor+heort
hearted
CONCORD, HARMONY
cealdheort
cold-hearted
CRUELTY, SEVERITY
???
hatheort
hot-hearted
FERVOUR, ANGER
???
table (51) : compounds adjective + heort in Old English
233
An overview of the different adjective + heort patterns in Old English is
given in table (51).38 There are several indications that the expressions of the
type adjective + heort should not be interpreted as reflecting physiological
models. Table (51) shows two patterns : a literal reference to the emotion +
heort (indicating the location of the emotion), and a metaphorical reference to an
emotion + heort.39 Both the literal references to the emotions and the
metaphorical references used in these compounds can be used on their own to
describe the emotion. The addition of heort does not seem to be essential.
Moreover, many of those metaphors that could possibly be interpreted as a
reference to a physiological folk model when used in combination with heort can
also enter into a compound with mod (rummod, clænmod, heahmod, heardmod,
stearcmod, efenmod), with exactly the same meaning. Compounds of the type
adjective + mod are far more frequent than compounds ending in heort, as shown
in table (52), and can therefore be considered the more basic model. As mod,
meaning ‘inner man, mind, soul’, is more abstract than heort, it is far more
difficult to interpret those compounds as physiological conceptualizations.40
expression
Qwiscmod
acolmod
Qtrenmod
angmod
anmod
translation
ashamed-mood/mind
frightened-mood/mind
poisonous-mood/mind
narrow-mood/mind
one-mood/mind
concept
SHAME
FEAR
MALEVOLENCE, MALICE
SADNESS
STRENGTH, UNANIMITY,
CONSTANCY
bliDemod
bolgenmod
clQnmod
deormod
dreorigmod
eaþmod
efenmodlice
happy-mood/mind
swollen-mood/mind
clean-mood/mind
bold-mood/mind
sad-mood/mind
easy-mood/mind
even-mood/mind
HAPPINESS
ANGER
PURITY, MORAL CLEANNESS
STRENGTH, FORTITUDE
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
HUMILITY, OBEDIENCE
GENTLENESS, MEEKNESS,
COMPOSURE
fQstmod
forhtmod
freorigmod
gealgmod
firm-mood/mind
fearful-mood/mind
chilled/sad-mood/mind
sad-mood/mind
CONSTANCY
FEAR
BAD FEELINGS, SADNESS
BAD FEELINGS, SADNESS,
ANGER
geomormod
sad-mod/mind
gewealdenmod
glQdmod
controlled-mood/mind
glad-mood/mind
BAD FEELING, SADNESS,
DEJECTION
RESTRAINT, TEMPERANCE
GLADNESS, CHEERFULNESS
FAVOUR, KINDNESS, GRACE
PROMPTITUDE, READINESS
234
gleawmod
grammod
wise/skilful-mood/mind
fierce-mood/mind
SAGACITY
HARDHEARTEDNESS, CRUELTY,
SEVERITY
heahmod
high-mood/mind
PRIDE
EXULTATION, JOY
MAGNANIMITY, GREATNESS OF
SOUL
heanmod
heardmod
low/poor-mood/mind
hard-mood/mind
DEJECTION
STRENGTH, FORTITUDE
OBSTINACY
hefigmod
heavy-mood/mind
hohmod
hreowigmod
hwQtmod
ierremod
langmod
laþwendemod
leasmodnes
careful/thoughtfulmood/mind
sad-mood/mind or
fierce-mood/mind
sad-mood/mind
swift/bold-mood/mind
angry-mood/mind
long-mood/mind
evilly disposed mood/mind
not truthful-mood/mind
leohtmod
light-mood/mind
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
OPPRESSIVE DISPOSITION
hreohmod
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
FIERCENESS
DEJECTION
BOLDNESS
ANGER
PATIENCE
HATRED
WANTONNESS, LEVITY,
FRIVOLITY
WANTONNESS, LEVITY,
FRIVOLITY
lytelmod
madmod
meagolmod
micelmod
small-mood/mind
senseless-mood/mind
earnest-mood/mind
great/much-mood/mind
COWARDICE, PUSILLANIMITY
mihtmod
powerful-mood/mind
ANGER
reomigmod or
reonigmod
reþemod
sad-mood/mind
SADNESS
fierce-mood/mind
FIERCENESS
PRIDE
EARNESTNESS
MAGNANIMITY, GREATNESS OF
SOUL
STRONG FEELING, PASSION
WRATH, STERNNESS,
DISPLEASURE
rummod
liberal-mood/mind
ABUNDANCE
BOUNTIFULNESS, MUNIFICENCE
OVERLIBERALITY, WASTE OF
MONEY
sarigmod
sad-mood/mind
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
235
sceohmod
seocmod
fearful-mood/mind
sick-mood/mind
sleacmodnes
slack-mood/mind
stearcmod
stiþmod
strong-mood/mind
strong/fierce-mood/mind
FEAR
MENTAL WEAKNESS
WEAK-MINDEDNESS
DISINCLINATION TO ACT,
LISTLESSNESS
OBSTINACY
WILL, DETERMINATION,
RESOLUTION
OBSTINACY
HARDHEARTEDNESS, CRUELTY,
SEVERITY
strangmod
strong-mood/mind
WILL, DETERMINATION,
RESOLUTION
streccanmod
styrnmod
extended/spreadmood/mind
stern-mood/mind
PERSEVERANCE
WILL, DETERMINATION,
RESOLUTION
swQrmod
heavy-mood/mind
DISINCLINATION TO ACT,
LISTLESSNESS
swearcmodnes
swiþmod
dark?-mood/mind
strong-mood/mind
COWARDICE, PUSILLANIMITY
WILL, DETERMINATION,
RESOLUTION
PROUD, ARROGANT
MAGNANIMITY, GREATNESS OF
SOUL
þancolmod
þearlmod
wise-mood/mind
severe-mood/mind
SAGACITY
HARDHEARTEDNESS, CRUELTY,
SEVERITY
STRICTNESS, AUSTERITY,
SEVERITY
tilmodig
good-mood/minded
torhtmod
splendid-mood/mind
FAVOUR, KINDNESS, GRACE
NOBLE-MINDEDNESS
GLORY, SPLENDOUR,
MAGNIFICENCE
tornmod
unbliþemede
unforhtmod
unrotmod
wacmod
grievous-mood/mind
not glad-mood/mind
not frightened-mood/mind
sad-mood/mind
weak-mood/mind
weamod
welrummod
trouble-mood/mind
liberal-mood/mind
ANGER
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
FEARLESSNESS
BAD FEELING, SADNESS
MORAL WEAKNESS
COWARDICE, PUSILLANIMITY
236
ANGER
FAVOUR, KINDNESS, GRACE
werigmod
wraþmod
tired/sad-mood/mind
DEJECTION
angry-mood/mind
ANGER
table (52) : compounds adjective + mod in Old English
The general pattern proves to have been ‘name of emotion (whether literal or
metaphorical) + optional addition of mod or heort’.41 Although ceald and hat are
not used on their own to refer to an emotion in the surviving texts and do not
seem to combine with mod (hat does combine with hyge, which also means
‘mind, heart, soul’), cealdheort and hatheort must have tied in with this general
pattern and are not to be rashly interpreted as references to a physiological folk
model.42
Besides in hatheort, the conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is also found in
wilm in Old English. As argued in section 3.3.1, wilm can be translated as ‘that
which wells up’, ‘that which boils’ or ‘heat’. It co-occurs once with onstirred
and once with onræs, which point to motion and would favour the translation
‘that which wells up’. In most cases, however, it co-occurs with the quite
abstract nouns hatheort and anda. The comparison with Latin source texts in
section 4.4.3, shows that it corresponds to the Latin terms fervor, ardor and
furor, which are also quite abstract. It is therefore more likely to have been quite
an abstract term, corresponding to present-day heat. The few contextual clues
that are available do not suggest an ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER-conceptualization for this expression, nor an underlying
physiological model.
C1200 and c1300, the occurrences of ANGER AS HEAT are extremely scarce.
There are but 3 attestations :
(633) Þe reue rudnede al of grome se him gromede, ant warð swa wrað ant swa
awed þet he al o wodschipe demde hire to deaþe; ant het on hot heorte
þet me hire heued wið schimminde ant scharp sweord, wið blikinde ant
bitel brond, totweamde from þe bodie. (Seinte Margarete p.76 32-35)
‘The governor reddened with the fury that he felt, and became so madly
angry that, quite in a frenzy, he condemned her to death; and in the heat
of passion ordered that her head should be severed from her body with a
sharp and shining sword, with a bright and biting blade.’ (Millet &
Wogan-Browne 1992:77)
(634) Þeor beð naddren and snaken. eueten and frude þa tered and freteð þe
uuele speken. þe nihtfulle and þe prute Neure sunne þer ne scinð. ne mone
ne steorre þer is muchel godes hete. and muchel godes Zeorre Eure þer is
vuel smech. þusternesse and eie nis þer neure oþer liht. þanne þe swarte
leie (Poema Morale 273-278)
‘There are adders and snakes, newts and ferrets, That tear and fret the evil
speakers, the envious and the proud; Never shineth there the sun, nor the
moon nor the stars. There is much of God’s heat (anger) and much of
237
God’s wrath, There is ever evil smoke, darkness and awe; There is never
other light than the gloomy flames.’ (Morris 1988:177)
(635) “O sir Mahoun,” he gan to grede, “Wil Ze nouZt helpe me at þis nede ? Þe
deuel Zou brenne ichon!” He hent a staf wiþ grete hete, & stirt anon his
godes to bete, & drouZ hem alle adoun. (King of Tars 646-651)
‘He cried out, “O gods ! Will you not help me in my need ? May the devil
burn each one of you !” He took a staff with great heat and started to beat
his gods and drew them all down.’
The use of hot heorte in Seinte Margarete seems to be the continuation of the
Old English use of hatheort. There are no indications in the context of the
attestation that point to a novel or special conceptualization. The use of hete in
Poema Morale is most probably externally motivated : the anger of God shows
itself in the heat of the hellfire. It parallels the typically biblical use in which
God’s anger manifests itself by fire sweeping the land of the sinful. In King of
Tars, the conceptualization ANGER AS HEAT is only found in the Auchinleck
manuscript, not in the later manuscripts which had been considerably anglicized,
a process in which French loan-words were replaced by more usual English
expressions. In those texts, grete hete was replaced by herte grete, an ANGER AS
SWELLING-conceptualization. Without telling us anything about how to interpret
the conceptualization, this replacement indicates that the HEAT-conceptualization
may have been considered a typically Romance conceptualization or was at least
felt to be more awkward than the SWELLING-conceptualization.
Several of the c1400 attestations are found in contexts in which also the
ANGER AS FIRE-conceptualization features and the heat or burning is located in
the heart.
(636) To the whiche thing Achilles anon, Hoot in his ire and furious also,
Brennynge ful hote for anger and for wo, Assentid is with a dispitous
chere; (Troy Book 3.4018-4021)
‘To this Achilles, hot in his anger and furious, burning hotly for anger and
grief, immediately agreed, with a scornful face.’
(637) So hatZ anger onhit his hert, he calleZ A prayer to þe hyZe prynce, for
pyne, on þys wyse: (Patience 411-412)
‘Such anger struck hot to his heart that he cried In his pain a prayer to the
high Prince, in these words:’ (Stone 1970:132)
(638) A prince moot been of condicioun Pitous, and his angyr refreyne and ire,
Lest an unavysid commocioun Him chaufe so and sette his herte on fyre,
That him to venge as blyve he desyre, And fulfille it in dede. Him owith
knowe, and qwenche that fyry lowe. Aristotle amonestith wondir faste, In
his book which to Alisaundre he wroot, If he wolde have his regne endure
and laste, That for noon ire he nevere be so hoot Blood of man shede.
(Regiment of Princes 3102-3112)
‘A prince must be of piteous disposition and control his anger lest rash
commotion so chafes him and sets his heart on fire that he wants to take
238
revenge and fulfils this wish in deeds. He ought to understand this and
quench that fire. Aristotle admonishes very firmly in his book that he
wrote for Alexander, that if he wants his reign to endure, he should never
be so hot with anger as to shed a man’s blood.’
(639) With-Inne oure herte, with so brennyng hate, Þe feruent hete and þe
gredy Ire Fro day to day so settiþ vs a-fire, (Troy Book 2.5298-5300)
‘Within our hearts, with such burning hate, the fervent heat and greedy
anger from day to day sets us on fire’
(640) But Priam þanne, in a sodeyn hete, Wiþ-oute abood, of chere and face
pale, Of rancour gan interrupte his tale; For he attempre myZte nat his
herte, So fretingly þe tresoun made hym smerte. (Troy Book 4.48064810)
‘But then, in a sudden heat, without delay, Priamus with a pale face with
rancour interrupted his tale because he could not temper his heart, so
grievously did the treachery make him ache.’
Of all the attestations of the ANGER AS HEAT-conceptualization c1500, none
show contextual references to elements that might indicate embodiment. So, on
the whole, the most abstract HEAT-conceptualization shows very few elements
that point to embodiment or underlying physiological folk models. The only
indications are that the emotion is located in the heart in the Old English
expression hatheort and in the expressions used c1400.
Let us now turn to the more concrete ANGER AS FIRE conceptualization. In
the Old English attestations, there are no explicit indications that ANGER AS FIRE
might be an embodied conceptualization. The conceptualization is used in the
constructions x burns with anger or x’s anger burns, as shown in examples (641)
and (642). These are rather abstract constructions and there are no references in
the context that point to an internal process. The motivation behind this
conceptualization may well have been the conceptual similarity between ANGER
and (an external) burning fire, which may be put out or stirred up and harm the
one stirring it up. As discussed in the previous section, this conceptualization is
typically found in religious texts of Latin origin. It may well have been used in
those texts as a conventionalized way of expressing the concept.
(641) Ond suaðeah nu, ðeah se lareow ðis eall smealice & openlice gecyðe, ne
forstent hit him noht, ne him nohte ðon ma ne beoð forlætna his agna
synna, buton he sie onæled mid ryhtwislicum andan wið his hieremonna
scylda. (CP 21.163.18)
‘And although the teacher makes all this clearly and openly known, it is
of no avail to him, and he can do nothing in order that his own sins be
ended, unless he be incensed with righteous anger against his follower’s
faults.’
(642) For þæm þonne his yrre byð onæled, þonne beoð eadige, þa þe nu on hine
getrywað. (PPs (prose) 2.13)
239
‘For when his anger is incensed, than shall be blessed who now trust in
him.’
The latter example is one of the typical examples of the use of the FIREconceptualization in psalm texts. As explained in the previous section, there is a
metonymical connection in the psalm texts between God’s anger and his
punishment through fire, a use which clearly has nothing to do with physiology.
The very few attestations found c1200 show to be very similar to those of the
Old English period. ANGER AS FIRE is used once in Seinte Margarete and once
in Ancrene Wisse. Both Seinte Margarete and Ancrene Wisse are religious texts,
for which a correlation with Latin cannot be ruled out as Seinte Margarete is said
to be based on a Latin saint’s life and Ancrene Wisse has borrowed from Ailred
of Rievaulx’s De vita eremitica. There are no indications of an underlying
physiological model.
(643) We witen ha beoð iwrahte to stihen to þet stude þet we of feollen; ant us
þuncheð hokerlich and swiðe hofles þrof, swa þet teone ontent us, ant we
iwurðeð wode þurh þe grome þet us gromeð aa wið þe gode — for þet is
ure cunde, þet I þe schulde kennen: beon sorhful ant sari for euch monnes
selhðe, gomenin hwen he gulteð, ne neauer mare ne beo gleade bute of
uuel ane. (Seinte Margarete p.72 18-23)
‘We know they are created to ascend to that place that we ourselves fell
from; and because that injury infuriates us so, this seems to us shameful
and most unfair, and we are driven wild by the anger that we always feel
against the good — for that is our nature, which I must reveal to you : to
be full of regret when a man does well, rejoice when he sins, and never to
be glad of anything but evil.’ (Millet & Wogan-Browne (1992:73))
(644) Gostlich; as of prude. & of onde. & of wreððe. wreððe; is þe inre
uondunge. auh þet is þe uttre uondunge; þet kundleð wreððe. also as of
Ziscunge. (Ancrene Wisse (ed.Day) p.86 15-17)
‘spiritual in the case of pride, envy, and anger, — anger is the inner
temptation and the outer temptation is that which kindles anger — and
also of covetousness.’
In the c1300 corpus, there are two attestations in which there are contextual
elements that may point to a more embodied nature of the conceptualization. In
example (645), there are references to gnashing of teeth and bursting, which can
both be interpreted as bodily reactions of the angry persons. This may indicate
that kindle can be interpreted in the same way in that attestation.
(645) Steuen tifted him al bun, And þan bigan a gret sarmun, And þar he
puruaid, witvten au, Þat fals it was, all þair onsau. For first to loue godd
he began Of moyses, þat dughti man, And siþen spak he o þair lagh, Þat
þai it cuth noght seluen knau. Bot quen he had þam tald þe soth Þai bigan
to gnast wit toth, Þair thoght þam brast for tene, Eth es to kindel þat es
kene. (Cursor Mundi 19425-19435)
240
‘Stephen made himself ready and began a great sermon and proved,
without fear, that it was false, their accusation. To praise god he first told
of Moses, that brave man, and subsequently he spoke of their law, that
they could not know themselves. But when he had told them the truth,
they began to gnash their teeth. They thought that they would burst for
anger. It is easy to kindle what is eager.’
In example (646), the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE is used in a context
that refers to a mental or physical disturbance (mengen). For the first time, the
process of burning is explicitly located in the mind (mans mede).
(646) O suernes cums care to strang And þat vnmetele lastand lang For tinsel o
þis werlds gode, Þat man vmquile wexus wode, Þat he gain godd wil
seluen striue, And quilum dos him-self o liue; And in mining of his
mistime He wites wend and waris his time, And sua he mengges him wit
ire, Þat brennes mans mede als fire; (Cursor Mundi 27762-27771)
‘Of sloth comes care that is too strong and lasts excessively long for loss
of this world’s goods, that man sometimes becomes mad so that he
himself will fight against god and sometimes kill himself, and in
remembering his misfortune he reproaches his fate and curses his time
and thus he disturbs his mind with anger, which burns man’s spirit like
fire.’
C1400, there are more indications of embodiment, even though at one point
Chaucer has his parson compare ANGER to an external fire :
“For certes, richt so as fir is moore mighty to destroyen erthely
thynges than any oother element, right so Ire is myghty to
destroyen alle spiritueel thynges. Loke how that fyr of smale
gledes, that been almost dede under asshen, wollen quike agayn
whan they been touched with brimstoon; right so Ire wol evermo
quiken agayn, whan it is touched by the pryde that is covered in
mannes herte. [Certainly, just as fire is more capable of destroying
earthly things than any other element, anger is capable of
destroying all spiritual things. Look how a fire of slightly burning
coals, that is almost quenched under ashes, will flare up again
when touched with brimstone; in the very same way will anger
flare up again when touched by the pride that is covered in man’s
heart.]” (The Canterbury Tales – The Parson’s Tale 546-547)
But as explained in the previous section, this imagery is borrowed from the
Latin source text. The fact that the conceptualization was borrowed indicates
that it made sense to Chaucer, but it is not clear whether he would have used it
spontaneously.
By contrast, there are indications that in general the
conceptualization has become more embodied. First of all, there is the use of
inwardly in example (647), which occurs but once, and the explicit location of
241
the burning in the heart, like in example (648). The burning is linked with the
heart in 9 of the 47 attestations of the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE.
(647) For þinges two, in his mortal Ire, Inwardly setten hym a-fyre : (Troy
Book 4.441-442)
‘Because two things, in his mortal anger, set him on fire internally.’
(648) A prince moot been of condicioun Pitous, and his angyr refreyne and ire,
Lest an unavysid commocioun Him chaufe so and sette his herte on fyre,
That him to venge as blyve he desyre, And fulfille it in dede. (Regiment of
Princes 3102-3107)
‘A prince must be of piteous disposition and control his anger lest rash
commotion so chafes him and sets his heart on fire that he wants to take
revenge and fulfils this wish in deeds.’
The data also show that burning anger is not only located in the heart, but that
it is also used with references to humoral elements : examples (649) to (653)
show associations between the burning and melancholy, blood (which is said to
be unnatural, i.e. corrupted by the overproduction of one of the humours) and
with the stomach.
(649) His knyghtly hert so inly was totorn Of mortal ire. And as he rood toforn,
Brennynge ful hote in his malencolye, (Troy Book 3.753-755)
‘His chivalrous heart was so much torn apart by mortal anger that he rode
ahead, burning hot in melancholy.’
(650) And Pirrus so, in a cruel Ire, With malencolye newe sette a-fyre, Smot
Glaucoun so, or þat he toke hede, Amonge þe pres þat he fil doun ded.
(Troy Book 4.4223-4226)
‘And Pyrrhus, in a fierce fit of anger, was again so set afire with
melancholy, struck Glaucus so that, even though he took heed, he fell
down dead among the crowd.’
(651) For he ne wolde ageyn his fader strive, Albe that he felte his herte rive Of
malencolie, and of hertly ire, And of disdeyn newe sette afire. So
inwardly sterid was his blod That like a tigre or a lyoun wood That wer
deprived newly of his praye, Right so firde he al that ilke day, Or liche a
bore that his tusshes whette, While the Grekis and thei of Troye mette,
Furiously walkynge up and doun. (Troy Book 3.5132-5143)
‘He did not want to fight against his father although he felt his heart break
with melancholy and heartfelt anger and with scorn newly set on fire. His
blood was so stirred within him that he walked about that day, while the
Greeks and Trojans fought, like a tiger or a mad lion that had just been
deprived of its prey, or like a wild boar that sharpens its tusks, walking
furiously up and down.’
(652) Brennyng ire of unkynde blood, Fraternal Hate depe sett the rote, Save
only deth that ther nas no bote, Assuryd othes at the fyn untrewe: (Siege
of Thebes 1.868-871)
242
‘Burning anger caused by unnatural blood, fraternal hate, deeply set root
so that there was no remedy but death only, sworn oaths not to be kept in
the end.’
(653) Forsothe Eliphat Themanytes answeride, and seide, Whether a wise man
schal answere, as spekynge ayens the wynd, and schal fille his stomac
with brennyng, that is, ire? (Wycliffe’s Bible Job 15.1-2)
‘Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered, “Would a wise man answer,
speaking against the wind, and would he fill his stomach with burning,
that is, anger ? ” ’
These examples suggest that the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE has
become associated with the humoral doctrine c1400. There is one major
restriction on the data : all these attestations but one (example (653)) come from
Lydgate’s texts, especially Troy Book. Consequently, one needs to beware not to
overgeneralize.
Of the 23 attestations of ANGER AS FIRE in the c1500 corpus, only 4 contain
contextual elements that point to embodied interpretations. Examples (654) to
(656) locate the burning feeling in the heart, while example (657) locates it in the
mind, but also points to the heart and the stomach as body parts that are involved
in the process of anger.
(654) The barons and knyghtes thenne of a right gode wyll, wythout answer nor
replye makyng, in grete hast and wythout delaye, enflamed wyth yre &
of cordyal wrath, for loue of their lord, that the sarrasyns wolde doo
deye thus pyteously so shamefull a deth And also for the loue of their
lady that they had full dere went & armed hem self, and hastely in grete
nombre of folke, all a fote, lepte at a posterne out of the towne (Caxton,
Blanchardyn and Eglantine p.189 l.31 - p.190 l.7)
‘Then the truly well-disposed barons and knights, without answering,
went and armed themselves, enflamed with heartfelt anger for love of
their lord whom the Saracens pitifully wanted to put to such a shameful
death and for love of their lady whom they held in high esteem, and
quickly a great number of people, all on foot, left the town through a
secret passage.’
(655) She dyde nothynge but for to mocke and scorne This true louer whiche
was for loue forlorne But whan he knewe the poynt of the case The fyry
angre dyde his herte enbrace (Hawes, The Passetyme of Pleasure
p.138)
‘She did but mock and scorn this true lover, who was lost for love, but
when he knew the point of the case, fiery anger embraced his heart.’
(656) Now, likewise as in such folk as are full of young warm lusty blood and
other humours exciting the flesh to filthy voluptuous living, the devil
useth to make those things his instruments in tempting them and
provoking them thereunto; and where he findeth some folk full of hot
blood and choler he maketh those humours his instruments to set their
243
heart on fire in wrath and fierce furious anger, so where he findeth
some folk which through some dull melancholious humours are naturally
disposed to fear, he casteth sometime such a fearful imagination in their
mind, that without help of God they can never cast it out of their heart.
(More, A Dialogue of Comfort p.275)
‘Now, in people who are full of young, warm, lustful blood and other
humours that excite the flesh to a filthy, voluptuous way of life, the devil
turns these things into instruments for tempting them and provoking them
to those sins, and where he finds people full of hot blood and choler, he
turns those humours into instruments to set their hearts on fire in fierce,
furious anger. Likewise, where he finds people who because of dull,
melancholic humours are naturally disposed to fear, he sometimes casts
such a fearful imagination in their minds that they can never cast it out of
their hearts without the help of God.’
(657) A couetous herte by game is kept in fere And styrred to yre euer whan it
can nat wyn Whiche yre vnto the stomake doth great dere Besyenge the
mynde pryuely within The wyt thus troublyd of wysdome is but thyn And
so the more that wrath doth hym inflame The more backwarde and
lewdly goeth his game (Barclay, the Ship of Fools 2 p.71)
‘A greedy heart is kept in fear by games and is stirred to anger whenever
it cannot win, which anger greatly harms the stomach and secretly
occupies the mind within. The spirit that is troubled in this way has little
wisdom and the more that anger inflames it, the worse the game goes.’
Especially by referring to the stomach, example (657) hints at the humoral
doctrine. The link between this doctrine and the conceptualization ANGER AS
FIRE is explicitly pointed out in example (656), in which not only the choleric
humour, but also the sanguine and melancholic humours are said to cause certain
temperaments and emotions.
It is not because the other texts do not refer explicitly to the humoral doctrine
in their descriptions of anger that they are not indirectly influenced by it. The
FIRE-conceptualization is not only used by More, but also by Caxton, Tyndale,
Elyot, Barclay, Skelton, Hawes and Medwall. While it is not immediately clear
for what reasons Caxton chose this conceptualization, Tyndale may have adopted
the conceptualization because it was typical of religious texts. But Elyot,
Barclay and Skelton mention Galen in their texts, while Hawes and Medwall use
descriptions that clearly reflect the humoral doctrine.43
As discussed in section 3.7.1, fervent refers both to burning and to boiling in
its literal uses, so that it may express both the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE
and ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER when used figuratively.
When we look at the contexts in which fervent is used to refer to ANGER,
however, we find no contextual references that refer to boiling. But 3 of the 9
attestations of fervent, all from Lydgate’s texts, show contextual references to
244
burning. It is therefore more likely that we should interpret fervent as an
instance of the conceptualization ANGER AS FIRE.
(658) And after that, this Pollux in certeyn, Of verray angre and of fervent ire,
Agein Troyens with rancour set afire, That al attonis he uppon hem set;
(Troy Book 1.4234-4237)
‘After that, truly, Pollux because of true and fervent anger was with
rancour inflamed against the Trojans and suddenly attacked them.’
(659) Whan Tydeus saugh the fervent ire Of the kyng with angre set afire,
(Siege of Thebes 2.2035-2036)
‘When Tydeus saw the fervent anger of the king, who was inflamed with
anger’
(660) To whom Achille, feruent in his Ire, As he þat was of rancour set a-fyre,
Answerde ageyn : “what list þe so to praye For hym þat nolde of pride our
wyl obeye, (Troy Book 2.7317-7320)
‘to whom Achilles, fervent in his anger, like one who was inflamed with
rancour, answered, “why do you pray for him who through pride would
not obey our will” ’
None of the contexts in which fervent is used, however, provide us with
information on whether the conceptualization underlying it may have been
interpreted as embodied.
In brief, also for the FIRE-conceptualization, the elements that point to
embodiment are scarce, albeit more frequent than for the ANGER AS HEATconceptualization. But when they do occur, they can be linked with the humoral
doctrine.
Unlike the conceptualizations ANGER AS HEAT and ANGER AS FIRE, ANGER AS
THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER is extremely scarcely attested in the corpus
at large. It occurs once in the c1200 corpus, in an attestation of wallen and 4
times in the c1400 corpus, in attestations of hot blood and boilen. As discussed
in 3.5.1, the earliest example of the conceptualization ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A
FLUID IN A CONTAINER is part of a larger explanation of why blood is the symbol
of sin.
“Blood symbolizes sin, for as someone who is bleeding is
grotesque and horrible to the eye of men, so is the sinner in the
eyes of God. Further, blood cannot be properly tested before it has
cooled. And so it is with sin. While the heart is boiling with rage,
there is no true judgement, or while desire towards any sin is hot,
you cannot then judge rightly of its nature, or of its consequences.
But let the desire pass, and you will be glad. Let the heat cool, as
people do when they are about to test blood, and then you will
rightly judge the sin which had seemed attractive to you, to be
hateful and unclean; you will see the evil which would have come
of it, if you had committed it while the heat lasted, to be so great,
245
that you will judge yourself mad to have considered it. This is true
of every sin, and is the reason why sin is represented by blood; but
particularly anger.” (Day 1957:53–54)
As this elaborate explanation is given, it is hardly likely that it was a very
common and widely used conceptualization. Moreover, it is used in the context
of the medical practice of testing the blood. Medieval medicine was based on
the humoral doctrine, which may have provided the basis for associating anger
with hot blood, blood which has been heated by the overproduction of choler.
There is another passage in Ancrene Wisse that clearly shows that the author was
familiar with the humoral doctrine :
“Have you not heard tell of the three holy men ? One of them used
to resort to hot spices on account of his cold stomach, and he was
more delicate in matters of food and drink than the other two, even
though they were ill. They paid no attention to what they ate or
drank, as to whether it was wholesome or unwholesome, but
always accepted whatever God provided for them, without
examining it. They did not attach great importance to ginger, or
zedoary, or gillyflower cloves. (…) If a man is ill and he has
something to hand which will do him good, he may, of course,
make use of it, but to be so solicitous about such things, especially
if one is a religious, is not pleasing to God. God and His disciples
speak of the art of healing the soul, Hippocrates and Galen of the
healing of the body.” (Salu 1955:163-164)
The author clearly knows about the causes of diseases (cold stomach) and the
dietary cures, prescribing food with the opposite characteristics (hot spices,
namely ginger, zedoary or gillyflower cloves). He even mentions the two
founding fathers, as it were, of the humoral doctrine, namely Hippocrates and
Galen.
The element of hot blood is also to be found in the c1400 corpus :44
(661) The Amiral was so woode Ne might he nought cele his hoot bloode. He
bade the children fast be bound And in to the fire slong. (Floris and
Blauncheflur Ms Trentham 994-997)
‘The Admiral was so furious that he could not cool his hot blood. He
ordered the children to be bound and cast into the fire.’
(662) Than were they to me so looth I thought to have slain hem booth, I was so
wroth and so woode; Yit I withdrough min hoot bloode Till I have sende
after you, by assent, To wreke me with jugement. (Floris and
Blauncheflur Ms Trentham 934-939)
‘Then they were to me so loathsome that I would have killed both of
them. I was so angry and furious. Yet, I withdrew my hot blood until I
had sent for you, with your approval, to take revenge through judgement.’
246
Similarly, one of the attestations of boilen locates this boiling in the heart,
pointing to a physiological interpretation of the conceptualization.
(663) ffawnus herd his sone wele, how he be-gan to cry, And rose vp tho anoon, & to hym dide hiZe; And had for-Zete no thing’, þat Rame had Iseyde; ffor he boillid so his hert, he was nat wel apayde. (The Tale of
Beryn 1235-1238)
‘Faunus heard his son lament and how he began to cry, and immediately
rose up and urged him and he had forgotten nothing that Rame had said,
for his heart boiled so, he was not pleased.’
(664) Til Merioun with thre thousand knyghtes Armed in stele rounde aboute
hym alle Is sodeynly upon Hector falle, The dede cors of Patroclus to
save, That his purpos Hector may nat have At liberté the riche kyng to
spoille, Whiche caused hym in anger for to boille. To whom the kyng
callid Merion, Irous and wood, seide among echon: (Troy Book 3.812820)
‘Then Merion with three thousand knights armed in steel around him
suddenly attacked Hector to save the dead body of Patrocles, so that
Hector would not freely fulfil his purpose to spoil the rich king, which
caused him to boil for anger, and to him king Merion, angry and furious,
said among all :’
Chaucer provides a clue as to where these conceptualizations come from. He
explicitly refers to Aristotle as the source of this conceptualization :
“Ire, after the Philosophre, is the fervent blood of man yquyked in
his herte, thurgh which he wole harm to hym that he hateth. For
certes, the herte of man, by eschawfynge and moevynge of his
blood, wexeth so trouble that he is out of alle juggement of resoun.
[Anger, according to the philosopher, is the fervent blood of man
stirred in his heart, because of which he wishes harm to him whom
he hates. Certainly, man’s heart is so troubled by the heating and
moving of his blood that he is without reasonable judgement.]”
(The Canterbury Tales – The Parson’s Tale 535-536)
His reference to Aristotle presents this conceptualization as part of classical
culture and hence as based on the ancient physiological model, i.e. the humoral
doctrine.45
Unlike ANGER AS FIRE, ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER is
very scarcely attested and it is not mainly found in biblical texts. The references
to the heart and the blood show it to be an embodied conceptualization and it is
in keeping with the humoral doctrine. That it finds its origin in the humoral
doctrine is suggested by the first occurrence, in which the medical context is
extremely prominent and elaborated, presenting it as a non-intuitive
conceptualization. It is also telling that it again shows up in the c1400 corpus, in
247
which the influence of the humoral doctrine also appears in the use of the
conceptualization ANGER AS BODY FLUIDS.
What the data suggest is a gradual association of the HEAT-conceptualizations
with a physiological model which is a cultural element, namely the humoral
doctrine. This association, however, is not always lexicalized, so that there is
less hard evidence in the lexical field than one would expect to find on the basis
of what we know about the impact of the humoral doctrine in medieval culture.
This evolution will, however, culminate in Shakespeare’s systematically and
explicitly situating the concept of ANGER, and the HEAT-conceptualization,
within the framework of the humoral doctrine. When he refers to ANGER, he
frequently uses the expression choler and also the different HEATconceptualizations are associated with this humour, as is shown in examples
(665) (ANGER AS HEAT), (666) (ANGER AS FIRE) and (667) (ANGER AS THE HEAT
OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER).
(665) Put him to choler straight: he hath been used
Ever to conquer, and to have his worth
Of contradiction: being once chafed, he cannot
Be rein’d again to temperance; (Coriolanus, Act 3, Scene 3, 25-28)
(666) Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be ruled by me;
Let’s purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision;
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed;
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed. (Richard II, Act 1, Scene 1,
152-157)
(667) Speak, Winchester, for boiling choler chokes
The hollow passage of my poison’d voice,
By sight of these our baleful enemies. (Henry VI, Part I, Act 5, Scene 4,
120-122)
That full knowledge of the humoral doctrine as a physiological folk model
underlies Shakespeare’s lexical and conceptual choice is proved by its
associations with bloodletting (example (668)) and dietary measures (example
(669)).
(668) France, I am burn’d up with inflaming wrath;
A rage whose heat hath this condition,
That nothing can allay, nothing but blood,
The blood, and dearest-valued blood, of France. (King John, Act 3, Scene
1, 266-269)
(669) I tell thee, Kate, ’twas burnt and dried away;
And I expressly am forbid to touch it,
For it engenders choler, planteth anger;
And better ’twere that both of us did fast,
248
Since, of ourselves, ourselves are choleric,
Than feed it with such over-roasted flesh. (The Taming of the Shrew, Act
4, Scene 1,157-162)
Shakespeare’s use of the HEAT-conceptualization and the humoral doctrine
proves to have realized much more of the lexical potential of a system that was
emerging but was being underused between 1200 and 1500.
4.6.4 Conclusion
The quantitative analysis of the HEAT-conceptualization has revealed that its
frequency of occurrence is not considerable and not constant throughout the
history of English. In some periods, it is extremely scarcely attested. There is
also a considerable difference in frequency of occurrence between the different
variants of this conceptualization : while ANGER AS HEAT and ANGER AS FIRE are
found throughout the different periods, ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER occurs only sporadically.
The use of this conceptualization as a whole, but especially ANGER AS FIRE,
seems to be highly influenced by the Latin (and to a lesser extent Romance)
source texts.
This explains the high frequency of occurrence of the
conceptualization between 850 and 950. A comparison between the translations
and the Latin source texts for that period had already revealed that hatheort was
a standard translation of Latin furor and that over 76% of all the attestations of
the FIRE-conceptualization were borrowed from Latin.
The HEATconceptualization can be linked with Latin (and Romance) source texts from
850-950 onwards up to c1400.
Contextual references that indicate that the conceptualization may have been
embodied, in other words that they may have been part of physiological theories,
are extremely scarce in the Old English and early Middle English period. The
most frequent lexical item showing this conceptualization, hatheort, even proves
to have been part of a whole set of Old English words ending in heort, in which
the additional reference to the heart is not to be considered a reference to a
physiological model.
After two periods of being very scarcely attested, the HEAT-conceptualization
becomes more current c1400. Especially the ANGER AS FIRE-conceptualization is
used. In this period, the fire is often explicitly located in the heart and especially
Lydgate presents the fire as a result of the overabundance of certain humours.
This indicates that by that time, the HEAT-conceptualization may well have
become more embodied through its association with the humoral doctrine.
It is probably not a matter of sheer coincidence that also the
conceptualization ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER, which is
extremely scarce, is found c1400, a period in which the influence of the humoral
doctrine makes itself felt. Whenever this exceptional conceptualization occurs, it
is found in contexts that link it with the humoral doctrine. C1400 the attestations
249
do not present the conceptualization in abstract terms, referring to steaming or
internal pressure being built up, but they explicitly refer to the blood and the
heart. This shows that it was a conceptualization based on a physiological
theory, which in that period automatically meant some version of the humoral
doctrine. The first attestation of ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER, in the c1200 corpus, moreover, is part of an elaborate metaphor that
refers to a clearly medical context in a text which also explicitly refers to Galen
and his humoral doctrine.
C1500 most of the attestations of ANGER AS FIRE come from authors who are
familiar with the humoral doctrine and explicitly refer to it in their texts. This
points to a continuation of the incorporation of the FIRE-conceptualization into a
more physiological model, which will eventually lead to Shakespeare’s abundant
use of physiological conceptualizations of ANGER.
4.7 CONCLUSION
The analyses in this chapter have been intended as tests for two main tendencies
in metaphor research within present-day cognitive linguistics: the emphasis on
the ubiquity of metaphor and on the embodied basis of those conceptualizations.
They have shown that both tendencies need correction.
First of all, special conceptualizations are less frequently used than literal
references in the lexical and conceptual field of ANGER throughout the period
studied, and only a small part of that set of conceptualizations consists of
metaphorical ones. These results challenge the prevailing idea of the
omnipresence of metaphors.
Secondly, the whole lexical and conceptual field of ANGER proves to have
been influenced by Romance languages (Latin in Old English and mainly French
in Middle and Early Modern English), which promotes the use of lexical items
and conceptualizations borrowed from those Romance languages. One of the
conceptualizations that proved of Romance origin is the HEAT-conceptualization.
Throughout the Old and Middle English periods, this conceptualization is only to
be found in texts of Romance origin and, when they could be compared, the
conceptualizations of the English texts and the Romance sources revealed strong
correlations. The role of culture, which has mostly been disregarded in metaphor
research, is further borne out by the fact that almost none of the HEATconceptualizations in the corpus show signs of embodiment. When they do, they
can be linked with the humoral doctrine, from which also the conceptualization
ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER originates. This link between
the humoral doctrine and the HEAT-conceptualization questions the claim that the
HEAT-conceptualization is directly based on human physiology as the humoral
doctrine is a cultural model, not an instinctive folk theory.
250
NOTES
1
2
3
4
5
6
This point was also raised by Vervaeke & Kennedy (1996).
As mentioned earlier, the boundary between metonymy and metaphor is not always
clear and both may interact (see section 2.2.1)
Both interpretations may make sense at the same time. Bartsch (2002:71) notes that
“there are cases of transfer of expressions in which it is not clear whether we should
classify them as metaphors or as metonymies. For example the use of temperature
words for characterising colours, or for characterising people”.
For all the conceptualizations for which a metonymical link with the humoral doctrine
can be postulated as an alternative to metaphorical conceptualizations, there is no
chronological evidence in favour of one interpretation. If we found those expressions
to refer to ANGER before referring to elements of the humoral doctrine, it would be
less likely that the relation is a metonymical one. By contrast, a chronology in which
the expressions referred to the humoral doctrine before referring to ANGER would
point in the direction of metonymy. What we find, however, is that the references to
the humoral doctrine are quite late (c1400) and co-occur with the references to ANGER.
The metaphorical interpretation is the most obvious one from the point of view of
present-day users. As Sweetser (1990:29) explains : “I would regard such uses of
bitter and sweet as metaphorical: the anger is unpleasant to our emotions in a way
analogous to that in which a bitter taste displeases our tastebuds”.
The relatively high share of metonymy and the low share of metaphor is in keeping
with the findings of Goossens (1998), who found more metonymic use of muþ and
mouth(e) in Ælfric’s and Chaucer’s texts and more metaphorical use in Shakespeare’s
texts and in contemporary English.
Other “external” elements that may be taken into consideration are syntax and dialect,
but neither of them seems to have played a role in the introduction of anger. The first
sporadic uses of angren c1200 and c1300 are verbs. However, there does not seem to
have been an urgent need for new verbal lexical elements for lack of other verbs : the
most frequently used expression, wrath, was used as a noun, adjective, adverb and
verb c1200, c1300 and c1400. Moreover, when anger becomes more frequent c1400,
only 1 out of 10 of its forms are verbal ones. As to dialect, both c1200 and c1300
angren features in texts of (North)East-Midland origin. Also c1400 it is used
significantly more frequently in texts of Northern and (North)East-Midland origin in
comparison with the rest of the corpus. It is highly unlikely, however, that its
increased use c1400 is due to this origin. First of all, the overall part of the Northern
and (North)East-Midland texts drops from 69.95% c1300 to 20.89% c1400, so that it
is not increasing influence of those dialects that may have stimulated the use of anger.
Secondly, although anger is used more frequently than other expressions in Northern
and (North)East-Midland texts, 58.10% of its uses are of Southeast-Midland origin, so
that it does not present itself as a typically Northern or (North)East-Midland
expression. Its spread over the different dialects is quite in keeping with that of the
whole corpus.
251
7
Diller considers there to be two homonyms anger : anger1, which has the modern
meaning of anger, and anger2, which has the meaning ‘despair, sorrow, need’. In this
dissertation, like in most dictionaries, these are considered two different meanings of
one lexeme, the second being earlier than the first. Stearns (1986:188) suggests
similar sociological changes as the reason for the introduction of new words, such as
tantrum, between 1650 and 1800. Of course, this is only one of the many possible
reasons behind lexical change (for an overview of possible reasons, see Grzega 2004).
8 The originality of Diller’s analysis does not lie in the analysis of the rank of the
experiencer, but in that of the offended value. In their research into Old English, the
rank of the experiencers had been included in Tetzlaff’s earlier semantic analysis and
has been included in Fabiszak’s more recent study. While Tetzlaff (1954:102) claims
that “schon in der Bibel werden die gleichen Termini benutzt, wenn der ‘Zorn’ der
Menschen als Verfehlung gebrandmarkt wird und wenn der ‘Zorn’ Gottes und seiner
rechtschaffenen Männer (rihtwisra manna) und Propheten als geheiligt dargestellt
wird. So wird es fast unmöglich, an der Worten selbst den Bedeutungsunterschied zu
sehen [Already in the Bible, the same words are used when the anger of people is
labelled as a sin as when the anger of God and his righteous men (rihtwisra manna)
and prophets is shown as holy. Thus it is impossible to distinguish the difference in
meaning by the words themselves]”, Fabiszak claims that “the experiencers of anger
are usually those in power” (Fabiszak 2002:268) and that “common people do not
seem to experience it” (Fabiszak 2002:267). A similar idea is to be found in (Kay
2000:60), when she claims that wrath is typically used with reference to gods.
9 The introduction of the word anger is mentioned without any further explanation in,
among others, Serjeantson (1935:85), Geipel (1971:65), Baugh & Cable (1978:100),
Berndt (1982:65) and Burnley (1992:421). Because anger is a Scandinavian loan, the
element of prestige, often invoked to explain the introduction of Romance loans (see,
among others, Lohmander (1981:111), Berndt (1982:49), Stockwell & Minkova
(2002:36), Blake (1992:523) and Burnley (1992:30)) is of no use.
10 Had ire not been excluded from this study, the results of the semantic analysis would
most probably have been less clear-cut. The reason why Diller does not include ire in
his analyses, although “often ire seems to be synonymous with anger and wrath”, is
that “its position as one of the cardinal sins makes it of course stand out (…) it is the
disposition from which the states of mind and behaviours of wrath and anger arise”
(Diller 1994:226). As table (19) shows, however, ire does not exclusively refer to the
cardinal sin or dispositions, nor are such references absent from anger and wrath.
11 Also Kleiber (1978:47) mentions problems in determining this semantic factor. He
distinguishes between “blessure d’amour-propre” [offended self-love] and all other
values, but concludes that “Dans de nombreuses situations pourtant (…), nous ne
pouvons nous prononcer sur la “qualité de la cause” [in numerous cases, however, we
cannot judge the “nature of the cause”]”.
12 Stearns (1986:188) suggests similar sociological changes as the reason for the
introduction of new words, such as tantrum, between 1650 and 1800. Socio-cultural
changes have also been suggested for other fields than that of ANGER. The bestknown example is that of Trier (1973) and a similar claim is also to be found in
Oksaar (1958:507), Ducháček (1981:238), Kronenfeld & Rundblad (2003:73-74),
252
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Strauss (1985:575). The “hypothesis that changes in world-view lead to changes in
language is the overarching theme” of Tissari’s research (Tissari 2003:3). Of course,
this is only one of the many possible reasons behind lexical change (for an overview
of possible reasons, see Grzega 2004).
(http://www.psych.edu/preacher/chisq/chisq.htm, consulted 20 August 2006) : “Use of
the chi-square tests is inappropriate if any expected frequency is below 1 or if the
expected frequency is less than 5 in more than 20% of your cells. In the 2 x 2 case of
the chi-square test of independence, expected frequencies less than 5 are usually
considered acceptable if Yates’ correction is employed.” See also Butler (1985:113126).
Some of the figures are too low to give reliable results in the χ2-test. The p-value
given has been calculated using the Fisher Exact Test, a test designed for sets with
low figures.
Multivariate statistical analyses, which simultaneously take into account several
factors may be able to shed more light on which factors best explain the use of anger
in contrast with its synonyms. Taking into consideration that the absolute number of
anger-attestations is relatively low, this is not self-evident.
With χ2 = 0.212 and p = 0.6452, the distinction source Latin vs. original proves not
significant for the items ire and belgan a850, but the difference is significant between
950 and1050 (χ2 = 28.128 and p = 7.8 e-7).
The comparison between the expressions used in the Latin source texts and those of
the English translations between 950 and 1050 is not discussed in this section for the
following two reasons. In the texts dating between 950 and 1050, the influence of the
Latin sources on the English lexical items is revealed by comparing the lexical
material of texts translated from Latin and original ones, a comparison which cannot
be made for the texts written between 850 and 950. Moreover, the comparison was
made for 374 (i.e. 84.42%) of the 443 translated attestations between 950 and 1050
and the figures proved very similar to those of the period discussed here.
The texts included in the comparison are PPs, PPs (prose), CPHead, CP, CP (Cotton),
Or 1 to 6, GD 1 (C), GDPref 2 (C), GD 2 (C), GDPref and 3 (C), GDPref and 4 (C),
GDPref 1 (C), GDHead 1 (H), GD 1 (H), Bede 1 to 5, Lch I (Herb), PsGlA (Kuhn)
and BoGl (Hale).
The correlation per conceptualization is not merely the average of the correlations per
item. It has been calculated using the absolute figures of all the items expressing the
conceptualization. Consequently, those that are frequently used play a more
prominent part in the calculation than sporadic items, and the figures for the
correlation per conceptualization are automatically weighted ones.
Harris (2001:68) points out that there was a close link between the fields of ANGER
and AFFLICTION in Latin : “After ira, iracundia, indignatio and less common words,
for instance the Ciceronian stomachari, Latin speakers had to turn to terms such as
dolor which were on the edge of the semantic field of anger though often associated
with it.”
There has been some discussion as to the origin of many of the loans discussed in this
section. Apart from so-called mots savants (see Ellenberger (1974)), it is often not
clear whether they are borrowed from French or Latin. In this dissertation, the term
253
22
23
24
25
26
27
Romance is used as a cover term in order to bypass discussions about possible
mislabelling of the origin as French. It covers the categories that other studies have
labelled “French” and “Latin/French” (Dekeyser (1986), Coleman (1995)).
In a study that seems to be independent of all the studies into the Romance influence
on English mentioned in this section, Lutz (2002:161-162) reaches the same
conclusion, namely that “it is obvious that Henry Sweet’s tripartite periodization of
English, which is based on the degree of morphological reduction, cannot be applied
to the lexical development of the language. For the lexicon, we need a separate,
bipartite periodization distinguishing Anglo-Saxon (comprising Old and Early Middle
English) from English (comprising all later stages), which reflects the lexical and
cultural facts. (…) the English we are familiar with is basically a creation of the late
thirteenth to fifteenth centuries when the French-speaking ruling classes of England
gradually switched to the language of those they governed and, in the course of that
process, imported their superstratal lexicon in large quantities”. The latter part of this
claim is based on the traditional assumption that the vernacular of the ruling classes in
medieval England was French. Rothwell (1975), however, convincingly argues that
French was the vernacular of only the very small circle of people immediately
surrounding the king. The vast majority of the ruling classes had English as their
vernacular and had learnt to speak two languages of culture, i.e. Latin and French
(with the latter gradually replacing the former).
Mersand (1939) presents an elaborate study of Chaucer’s Romance vocabulary and
concludes that about half of Chaucer’s vocabulary is of Romance origin, and Blake
(1992:529) notes that writing in Chaucerian style meant “replacing the vocabulary
which was traditional and linked to alliteration by a courtly vocabulary which was
made up of words of Latin or French origin”.
Earlier studies had quantified the share of the foreign words in the whole lexicon as
used by one or several authors in one or more texts (see Aertsen (1992), Mersand
(1939) and the earlier studies referred to by Mersand (1939:21-36)). Unlike the
onomasiological approach, these studies do not run the risk of introducing a semantic
bias, but their research may well be that of one or more idiolects.
Although Dekeyser (1986) does not refer to them, there are earlier studies that have
taken token frequencies into consideration. Scheler (1977:11) discusses the difference
between type frequency counts and token frequency counts and refers to such
approaches since Herdan (1960). Also Berndt (1982:70-71) points out that there is a
difference between type frequency counts and token frequency counts, but puts that
down to the native origin of frequently used word categories like articles, pronouns,
prepositions, etc. The earliest references to these approaches seems to be much earlier,
however. Mersand (1939:22) mentions how in 1859 Marsh and Trent already drew
the attention to this difference.
Similar results are found by Skaffari (2002:509), who compares the type ratio and the
token ratio of loans in the earliest Middle English section (1150-1250) of the Helsinki
Corpus. While the type ratio of the French loans is almost twice as high as that of the
Scandinavian loans, their token ratio proves to be only slightly higher.
A similar assumption is made by Coleman (1995:117) : “a usage is considered to be
current at all times between the first and last dates recorded in the OED”.
254
28 As the origin of Middle English ire is ambiguous (see 3.6.1), it has not been counted
as a Romance loan in the type frequency counts nor in the token frequency counts. In
this table and table (46), all attestations of all expressions are taken into account,
including those of infrequently and inconsistently occurring expressions and
conceptualizations.
29 As all Romance loans c1300 are new, the weighted frequencies are the same as the
unweighted ones.
30 This does not imply the claim that there should be contextual references to
physiological models or embodied elements for a conceptualization to be embodied.
In diachronic research, however, such contextual clues are the only indications that
we can use to find out more about the way to interpret the conceptualizations.
31 It should be noted that for most of the periods under discussion Latin texts were
almost exclusively religious ones. It is therefore virtually impossible to say what
Latin influence is at play whenever we see correlations with Latin : are
conceptualizations borrowed from the Latin texts themselves or rather from wider
practices in religious texts, are they transparent and motivated or rather
conventionalized views and phrasings that are kept in use solely by tradition ?
Although the answers to those questions play an essential role in the interpretation of
the influences described in this dissertation, they cannot be answered by this research
project. This is background information that can only be provided by a thorough
study of the conceptual field of ANGER in classical Latin and the way in which it was
passed on or adapted in medieval Latin texts.
32 The Vulgate uses the forms indignabitur furor, irascitur furor and iratus est furor,
while the Greek bible uses the nouns θυμος and όργη and the corresponding verbs.
33 Charteris-Black (2004:214-217) studied the FIRE metaphors in the modern English
bible. He notes : “fire metaphors only occurred in the Old Testament sample.
Although not quite as common as other lexical fields these constitute a very important
metaphor domain in the Bible involving metaphoric uses of words such as fire, kindle,
flame and spark. We should first note that a much lower proportion of occurrences of
fire are metaphoric as compared with those of light; fire occurs 379 times in the Bible
and in many of these it is not possible to be sure that there is any domain shift. For
example, it seems that fire was often used in religious practice for making offerings
and sacrifices to God; it was also commonly used in warfare, as the prototypical way
of exacting revenge on a defeated opponent is to burn their land and property. The
typical use of fire in a metaphoric context is as a form of punishment by God for
misdemeanour” (Charteris-Black 2004:214). Unlike Charteris-Black, we consider
these forms of punishment to be metonyms rather than metaphors as the reference is
to real fire coming over the sinners and their land. The fire and God’s anger co-occur
in reality; there is no metaphorical shift of domain.
34 http://www.bartleby.com/211/1108.html and http://www.bartleby.com/211/1109.html
(consulted 30 December 2005)
35 The Cambridge History of English and American Literature (1907–21) mentions
several sources used by the writer of Cursor Mundi. “His most important authority
was the Historia Scholastica of Peter Comestor; but he used many others, among
which may be mentioned Wace’s Fête de la Conception Notre Dame, Grosseteste’s
255
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Château d’Amour, the apocryphal gospels, a south English poem on the assumption of
the Virgin ascribed to Edmund Rich, Adso’s Libellus de Antichristo, the Elucidarium
of Honorius of Autun, Isidore of Seville and the Golden Legend of Jacobus a
Voragine.” (http://www.bartleby.com/211/1606.html, consulted 10 May 2005). It
also mentions William of Wadington’s Manuel des Pechiez as the source text of
Handling Synne (http://www.bartleby.com/211/1607.html, consulted 2 August 2006).
For information on the source text of King of Tars, see the introduction in Perryman
(1980).
See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/Teams/troyint.htm on the origin of Troy
Book (consulted 2 August 2006)
For Siege of Thebes, Edwards (2001) states that “Lydgate’s source lies, however, not
in Statius but in the vernacular tradition of redacting classical texts. For Lydgate’s
poem, the two most important prose redactions of Le Roman de Thèbes are the Roman
de Edipus and the Hystoire de Thebes. Modern scholars regard the Roman de Edipus,
perhaps in a version somewhat different from the extant text, as Lydgate’s prime
source.”
(http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/Teams/thebint.htm, consulted 2
August 2006). For the three Latin sources that Hoccleve used for his Regiment of
Princes, see http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/Teams/hoccint.htm (consulted 2
August 2006)
For a discussion of the heart and mood compounds in Old English, see also Geeraerts
& Gevaert (in press).
A small group of compounds in which heort is used metaphorically itself, like
ungeheort ‘no-hearted, cowardly’ or oferheortness ‘over-heartedness, strong feeling’,
have been left out of consideration as they show a different syntactic make-up and a
completely different conceptualization pattern.
Niemeier (1997) adopts a similar analysis in discussing expressions like lightheartedness, to have a warm heart as evidence of “the folk model of the heart as
being the site of emotions” (Niemeier 1997:98) and light and warm as metonymic
references to feelings of being without worries or feelings of sympathy.
For a study on the meaning of mod and some synonyms, see Kiricsi (2004).
The same pattern is to be found in Old Icelandic.
As noted before, this claim does not reject the embodiment theory in its widest sense.
The fact that emotions are located in the heart and the mind is also a form of
embodiment, but not the kind of embodiment envisaged in the strict, original
embodiment theory presented in Lakoff (1987), as it is not based on objective
physiological processes. It is generally accepted that emotions are conceptualized as
being located in the body, only “the choice of the vital organ which is thought to be
the seat of emotion (…) may vary a good deal between cultures” (Sweetser 1990:45).
Sharifian, Dirven, Yu & Niemeier (in press) distinguish between abdomino-centrism,
in which emotions are located in the abdomen region, cardiocentrism, which locate
emotions in the region of the heart, and cerebrocentrism, which locate them in the
brain region. They also remark that “it should be stressed that physiological
motivation does not seem to play a major role in conceptualisations of internal body
organs, otherwise there would be many more similarities across different languages
and cultures”.
256
43 Barclay’s reference is “Suche folys disdayne theyr myndes to enclyne / Unto the
doctryne of bokes of Auycen / Of ypocras and parfyte galyen” (The Ship of Fools 1
p.262). Elyot’s references are to be found in The Boke named the Governour pp.40,
59, 91 and 232. Skelton’s reference is to be found in Complete Poems p.390. Hawes
describes youth as follows : “Youth is alwaye of the course ryght lyght / Hote and
moyst and full of lustynes / Moost of the ayre it is ruled by ryght / And her
complexyon hath chefe intres / Vpon sanguyn the ayres holsomnes / She is not yet in
all aboue .xviii. yere / Of tendre age to pleasure most dere / Golde or syluer in ony
maner of wyse / For sanguyne youthe it is all contrary / So for to coueyte for it doth
aryse / Onely engendred vpon the malencoly / Whiche is drye colde and also erthely /
In whiche the golde is truly nutryfyde / Ferre frome the ayre so clerely puryfyde” (The
Passetyme of Pleasure 1863-1876). He also describes the planets : “No erthly thynge
may haue lyfe and go / But by the planettes that moue to and fro / Whan that god sette
them in operacyon / He gaue them vertu in dyuers facyon / Some hote and moyst and
some colde and dry / Some hote and drye moyst and colde / Thus euery one hath
vertues sundry / As is made mencyon in the bokes olde / They shewe theyr power and
werke many a folde / Man vpon them hath his dysposycyon / By the naturate power of
constellacyon” (The Passetyme of Pleasure 2895-2905). Medwall, finally, refers to
the diets and cures prescribed by the humoral doctrine : “Who so lyveth here, be he
yong or old, / He must suffer both fervent cold and hete / And be out of temperaunce
oft tyme in hys dyet” (Plays Nature l.446-448) and “But do as I shall tell the and have
no drede, / And for to gyve the medycyns most accordyng / Ayens thy sores, do by
my rede: / Loke what dysease ys hote and brennyng, / Take ever suche a medycyn as
ys cold in werkyng, / So that the contrary in all maner of wyse / Must hele hys
contrary, as physyk doth devyse” (Plays Nature l.1059-1065).
44 Lumby & MacKnight (1962:xlii) state that the Trentham MS is “a relatively late one
(about 1440)” and that the scribe “seems to have changed verses to make them fit his
later dialect” (Lumby & MacKnight (1962:xl). As the expressions hot blood do not
occur in the earlier manuscripts, we must assume that they reflect the linguistic
choices of the scribe, not of an older source text.
45 It is generally assumed that Chaucer did not read Aristotle’s Greek texts but was
familiar with his views through references to them in Latin texts. The Riverside
Chaucer mentions the Latin manuals Summa de poenitentia or Summa casuum
poenitentiae and Summa vitiorum as the main sources of The Parson’s Tale (Benson
1988:956). Petersen (1973:49) shows that this image and explanation is not borrowed
from the Latin source texts. On Chaucer’s use of the expression fervent in this
example, it is noted that it “has cognates in the medieval Latin translations of Aristotle
as well as in Seneca” (Benson 1988:960).
257
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to reconstruct the lexical field of ANGER, and hence its
conceptual field, from Old to Early Modern English. On the basis of this
reconstruction, possible traces of cultural influences on the HEATconceptualizations and the whole lexical and conceptual field of ANGER can be
studied.
The reconstruction of lexical fields is never without a number of
methodological problems. There is the problem that the further one goes back in
time the greater the interpretation problems become as one can only rely on
one’s intuition to a very limited extent. Although this is a drawback, it can also
stimulate the researcher to take a very careful approach and to look for more
objective elements rather than relying on one’s intuition. In an onomasiological
research project like this one, it is always difficult to draw the boundaries
between the lexical field that is being studied and the adjacent fields and there is
a need for techniques that can be applied to distinguish between the different
meanings of lexical items that are ambiguous and belong to several fields. These
problems were solved by checking every attestation against the prototypical
scenario of ANGER and by looking in the context for synonyms and syntactic
clues that point to the meaning ‘anger’.
The study has shown that it is certainly possible to reconstruct the Old,
Middle and Early Modern English lexical fields of ANGER. A considerable
number of attestations of ANGER-expressions were recorded both in Old English
(1,529 attestations) and in Middle and Early Modern English (3,977 attestations).
Although not every period is equally well covered and problems of data scarcity
have to be reckoned with from time to time, there are enough attestations to get a
good idea of what the lexical field must have been like.
Starting from the assumption that there are always one or more expressions
that show no special conceptualization but refer to ANGER literally, a number of
expressions were eventually considered literal expressions. The data show an
evolution from irre and belgan as literal expressions in Old English, with belgan
disappearing, ire declining and wrath becoming the main literal expression in
Middle English, to anger becoming a much used alternative to wrath in Early
Modern English. However small this group of expressions may be, they
represent the majority of the attestations. This result sheds new light on the
claim of omnipresence of metaphor made by many researchers of conceptual
metaphors : the majority of the lexical choices in the corpus are literal ones.
259
Within the group of lexical items that do reveal a special conceptualization,
making up about 37% of the whole corpus, the majority prove to be either
hyperonymical or metonymical. In the most optimistic scenario, possibly
metaphorical conceptualizations take up only 23.44% of the expressions showing
conceptualizations, amounting to 8.79% of the whole corpus. Again, this
questions the claim that ANGER-metaphors are abundant.
Table (53) presents a graphical representation of the main conceptualizations
found from a850 to c1500. It shows that many conceptualizations are used
throughout that period, but that their frequency of use varies considerably, so
that each subcorpus reveals a different configuration. These differences and
evolutions can only be studied in corpus-based research which takes token
frequencies into account. Such an approach, however, is rare in the field of
diachronic metaphor research.
45,00
40,00
other
35,00
swelling
bitterness
30,00
strong emotion
pride
25,00
motion
fierceness
20,00
affliction
unhappiness
15,00
insanity
body fluids
10,00
heat
5,00
0,00
a850
850-950
950-1050
1200
1300
1400
1500
table (53) : evolution of conceptualizations a850-c1500
This dissertation has focused on possible cultural influences that are at play
in this apparently constantly changing lexical and conceptual field. Four such
cultural elements have been studied : socio-cultural changes as a driving force
behind the introduction of anger, influence from Latin in Old English, influence
from Romance languages in Middle and Early Modern English, and possible
physiological theories underlying the use of the HEAT-conceptualization.
We have first of all tried to find out whether the collected data corroborate
Diller’s (1994) proposal that anger was introduced in the lexical field to denote
the emotion of socially lower-ranked experiencers whose private values are
offended and who react in a non-violent way. Although the semantic feature
“private offended value” was very cautiously attributed to attestations in this
study, which may have blurred certain tendencies, the results seem to corroborate
260
Diller’s analysis. More than the alternative expressions, anger tends to show the
semantic features suggested by Diller. Besides semantic factors, this study has
also taken stylistic factors into account. Although many newly introduced
expressions are used in rhyming and/or alliterating position, we have found that
most expressions used for rhyme and alliteration are older ones. Consequently,
the innovative force of rhyme and alliteration should not be exaggerated. In any
case, they did not play a role in the introduction of anger. By contrast, the nonRomance and perhaps also the non-religious character of anger may have played
a role.
Very often, however, anger also co-occurs with other features and the
alternative expressions express the features suggested as characteristic of anger,
so that it is a matter of tendencies rather than clear-cut profiles. Additionally, the
analysis presented here has shown that a number of factors tend to co-occur.
Consequently, disentangling the factors that may have played a role in the
introduction of anger may not be as simple as Diller (1994) suggests. The rather
low absolute figure of anger-attestations c1400 is an additional obstacle to
thorough statistical analyses and also the degree of overlap between the corpora
used for this study and that used by Diller must be taken into account. All these
elements call for cautious interpretation of the data.
What the data certainly have made clear is that anger was not introduced to
fill a lexical gap. Also the c1300 corpus contains references to low-ranked
experiencers, private offended values and non-violent reactions. These were
referred to by means of the expressions ire and wra/oth, so that there was no
lexical gap, strictly speaking. Neither ire nor wra/oth was limited to (non-)
Romance or (non-)religious registers, so that there was no “stylistic” lexical gap
either.
Next, this dissertation investigated the influence of two major foreign
languages on English : Latin in the Old English period and what was called
Romance (i.e. French, Anglo-Norman, Latin or French, etc.) in Middle and Early
Modern English. Quite a number of earlier studies were devoted to quantifying
this influence, proposing very different ways of collecting data and quantifying
the foreign elements. By applying the different methods of quantification to one
and the same set of data, namely our corpus of ANGER-expressions, this study has
shown that the results of those quantifications all yield very different results.
Contrary to what the earlier studies often claim, the different methods quantify
different aspects of the foreign influence : they quantify the foreign influence on
the lexical innovation, on the lexicon as a whole, or on the language use. Which
analyses can be done very much depends on the data collection. As it is the only
approach that can take all aspects into account, the best option is corpus-based
research. To make the painstaking data collection feasible, the lexicon could be
analysed lexical field by lexical field.
In focusing on token-level, this study has mainly been concerned with the
foreign influence on the language use, rather than its influence on lexical
261
innovation or the lexicon as a whole. Contrasting the word frequencies in texts
translated from Latin, texts based on Latin sources and original texts revealed
that a number of lexical elements and conceptualizations were typically found in
texts of Latin origin, while others were typically found in non-Latin texts. This
correlation was borne out by comparing the English words and their Latin
equivalents. The data suggest that the conceptualizations HEAT, STRONG
EMOTION, AFFLICTION and MOTION (and possibly also PRIDE, INSANITY and
HEAVINESS) correlate with texts of Latin origin. Strikingly, it is mainly those
conceptualizations that also show a high use of Romance loans in Middle and
Early Modern English. Most probably, it is by being picked up by Romance
loans that those conceptualizations survive and thrive. The only truly important
non-Latin conceptualization that is propagated by Romance loans is ANGER AS
But then this is a very important evolution because this
UNHAPPINESS.
conceptualization has become the most frequently used one c1500 and the
frequency of occurrence of its main representative, displease, indicates that it
may well be on its way to becoming one of the standard expressions for ANGER.
The reconstruction of the lexical and conceptual fields of ANGER has also
shed some light on how the ANGER AS HEAT-conceptualization was used from
Old English up to 1500 and on its relation to the humoral doctrine. The
quantitative analysis of the corpus data showed that the ANGER AS HEATconceptualization is not very frequently attested on the whole. It is only between
850 and 950 that it takes up a relatively considerable part of the lexical and
conceptual field. The frequencies of occurrence of its variants (ANGER AS HEAT,
ANGER AS FIRE and ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER) also vary
considerably : while ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER is
extremely scarcely attested and occurs only c1200 and c1400, ANGER AS HEAT
and ANGER AS FIRE occur more or less throughout the period. The use of these
conceptualizations shows a correlation with the Latin (in Old English) and the
Romance (in Middle English) origins of the texts. As all those texts are religious
ones in Old English, it is impossible to determine whether this conceptualization
is typical of texts of Latin origin or of religious texts. This is especially the case
for ANGER AS FIRE, which often features in psalmic texts in Old English.
The qualitative study of the attestations of the ANGER AS HEAT and ANGER AS
FIRE-conceptualizations showed that up to c1400 there are almost no indications
in the context which point to an embodied interpretation of these
conceptualizations. As of c1400, the conceptualizations appear more often, the
references to embodied interpretations are more frequent and are consistent with
the humoral doctrine, which starts to make its influence felt in the lexical and
conceptual field of ANGER in the use of terms related to body fluids. The
humoral doctrine was also found to be clearly linked with the ANGER AS THE
HEAT OF A FLUID IN A CONTAINER-conceptualization when it first appears c1200
and to be consistent with it in the later attestations c1400. These data
corroborate the claims of Aitchison (1992), Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) and
262
Fernando (1996) that the present-day HEAT-conceptualizations are remnants of
the humoral doctrine. The data suggest that, even though ANGER AS HEAT and
ANGER AS FIRE existed before the humoral doctrine became a mainstream
physiological theory, they got intertwined with it at a certain moment and derive
their embodied nature from it, while ANGER AS THE HEAT OF A FLUID IN A
CONTAINER found its origin directly in the humoral doctrine.
All the results of this study show that the lexical and conceptual field of
ANGER is to a large extent influenced and determined by cultural elements. The
results seriously challenge the claim that HEAT-conceptualizations are based on
human physiology and are therefore universal. In the largest part of the history
of English, the use of this conceptualization is a matter of culture, not nature.
Even if HEAT-conceptualizations should prove to be based on physiological
experiences nowadays, this had better be presented as a stage in the evolution of
the conceptualization, not as a universal and eternal principle.
263
Bibliographical references
INDEX
General
Dictionaries
Translations of corpus texts
Corpus texts c1200
Corpus texts c1300
Corpus texts c1400
Corpus texts c1500
265
280
281
282
283
284
287
GENERAL
Aertsen, H. 1988. “Word field semantics and historical lexicography”. Folia
Linguistica Historica 9(2):33-57.
Aertsen, H. 1992. “Chaucer’s Boece: a syntactic and lexical analysis”. In
Rissanen, M. et al. (eds.), History of Englishes: New Methods and
Interpretations in Historical Linguistics 671-687. Berlin/New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Aitchison, J. 1992. “Chains, nets or boxes? The linguistic capture of love, anger
and fear”. In Busse, W.G. (ed.), Anglistentag 1991 Düsseldorf: proceedings
29-39. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Allan, K. 2006. “On groutnolls and nog-heads: A case study of the interaction
between culture and cognition in intelligence metaphors”. In Stefanowitsch,
A. & S.Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and
Metonymy 175-190. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Athanasiadou, A. & E. Tabakowska 1998. Speaking of Emotions :
Conceptualisation and Expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ayoub, L. 1995. “Old English wæta and the Medical Theory of the Humours”.
Journal of English and Germanic Philology 3:332-346.
265
Bartsch, R. 2002. “Generating polysemy: Metaphor and metonymy”. In Dirven,
R. & R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and
Contrast 49-74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bately, J. 2000. “Here comes the judge: A small contribution to the study of
French input into the vocabulary of the law in Middle English”. In
Taavitsainen, I., T. Nevalainen, P. Pahta & M. Rissanen (eds.), Placing
Middle English in Context 255-275. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baugh, A.C. 1935. “The chronology of French loan-words in English”. Modern
Language Notes 50:90-93.
Baugh, A.C. & T. Cable. 1978. A history of the English language (third revised
edition). London/Henley/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Berndt, R. 1982. History of the English Language. Leipzig: VEB.
Blake, N. 1992. “The literary language”. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge
History of the English Language. Volume II (1066-1476) 500-541.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bliss, A.J. 1966. A dictionary of foreign words and phrases in current English.
London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul.
Boers, F. 1996. Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic
Journey along the UP-DOWN and the FRONT-BACK Dimensions.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Boers, F. 1999. “When a bodily source domain becomes prominent: the joy of
counting metaphors in the socio-economic domain”. In Gibbs, R.W. & G.J.
Steen
(eds.),
Metaphor
in
Cognitive
Linguistics
47-56.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boers, F. & M. Demecheleer 1997. “A few metaphorical models in (western)
economic discourse”. In Liebert, W-A., G. Redeker & L. Waugh (eds.),
Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics 115-129.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bonser, W. 1963. The Medical Background of Anglo-Saxon England. London:
The Wellcome Historical Medical Library.
Bourgery, A. 1961. De ira. Paris: Belles Lettres.
266
Boyde, P. 1993. Perception and Passion in Dante’s Comedy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Braswell-Means, L. 1991. “A new look at an old patient: Chaucer’s summoner
and medieval physiognomia”. The Chaucer Review 25:266-275.
Burnley, D. 1992. “Lexis and Semantics”. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge
History of the English Language Volume II (1066-1476) 409-499.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, C. 1985. Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cameron, M.L. 1983. “The sources of medical knowledge in Anglo-Saxon
England”. Anglo-Saxon England 11:135-155.
Charteris-Black, J. 2003. “Speaking With Forked Tongue: A Comparative Study
of Metaphor and Metonymy in English and Malay Phraseology”. Metaphor
and Symbol 18:289-310.
Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chase, T. 1983. A Diachronic Semantic Classification of the English Religious
Lexis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.
Chase, T. 1988. The English Religious Lexis. Queenston, Ontario: Edwin Mellen
Press.
Coleman, J. 1992. An Historical Study of the Semantic Fields of LOVE, SEX and
MARRIAGE from Old English to the Present Day. Ph.D. thesis, University of
London.
Coleman, J. 1995. “The chronology of French and Latin loan words in English”.
Transactions of the Philological Society 93(2):95-124.
Coleman, J. 1999. Love, Sex, and Marriage: a Historical Thesaurus.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Crossgrove, W.C. 1995. “Medicine in the Twelve Books on Rural Practices of
Petrus de Crescentiis”. In Schleissner, M.R. (ed.), Manuscript Sources of
Medieval Medicine: a Book of Essays 81-103. New York: Garland.
267
Cruse, A. 2000. Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culpeper, J. & P. Clapham 1996. “The borrowing of Classical and Romance
words into English: a study based on the electronic Oxford English
Dictionary”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1(2):199-218.
Curry, W.C. 1960. Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Cuyckens, H. 1999a. “Grammaticalization in the English prepositions ‘to’ and
‘for’ ”. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Cognitive perspectives on
language 151-161. Frankfurt: Lang.
Davies, W. 1998. “Anger and the Celtic Saint”. In Rosenwein, B. (ed.), Anger’s
Past: the Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages 191-202. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Deignan, A. 1997. “Metaphors of Desire”. In Harvey, K. & C. Shalom (eds.),
Language and Desire 21-42. London: Routledge.
Deignan, A. 2003. “Metaphorical Expressions and Culture: An Indirect Link”.
Metaphor and Symbol 18:255-271.
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Dekeyser, X. 1986. “Romance loans in Middle English: a re-assessment”. In
Kastovsky, D. & A. Szwedek (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and
Geographical Boundariesi Vol.1, 253-265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dekeyser, X. 1990. “The Prepositions With, Mid and Again(st) in Old and
Middle English: A Case-study of Historical Lexical Semantics”. In Geeraerts,
D. (ed.), Diachronic Semantics 35-48. Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles.
Dekeyser, X. 1991. “Romance Loans in Late Middle English : a Case Study”. In
Granger, S. (ed.), Perspectives on the English Lexicon: A Tribute to Jacques
van Roeyx 153-162. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut de linguistiques.
Dekeyser, X. 1994. “The multal quantifiers much/many and their analogues: a
historical lexico-semantic analysis”. Leuvense Bijdragen 83:289-299.
268
Dekeyser, X. 1995. “Travel, journey and voyage: An exploration into the realm
of Middle English lexico-semantics”. Nowele 25:127-136.
Dekeyser, X. 1996. “Loss of Prototypical Meanings in the History of English
Semantics or Semantic Redeployment”. Leuvense Bijdragen 85:283-291.
Dekeyser, X. 1998. “Alway(s) and Algate(s) in Middle and Early Modern
English: From Space to Time and Beyond”. Leuvense Bijdragen 87:37-45.
Dekeyser, X. & L. Pauwels 1990. “The demise of the Old English heritage and
lexical innovation in Middle English: Two intertwined developments”.
Leuvense Bijdragen 79:1-23.
Diller, H-J. 1994. “Emotions in the English lexicon: A historical study of a
lexical field”. In Fernandez, F., M. Fuster & J.J. Calvo (eds.), English
Historical Linguistics 1992 219-234. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
DiPaolo Healey, A. & R.L. Venezky 1980. A Microfiche Concordance to Old
English: The List of Texts and Index of Editions. Toronto: University of
Toronto.
Dirven, R. & R. Pörings (eds.) 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison
and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Duháček, O. 1981. “L’étude diachronique des champs conceptuels: Le champ de
la beauté en français des XIIe-XXe siècles”. Folia Linguistica Historica
2(2):237-249.
Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
Ekman, P., R.W. Levenson & W.V. Friesen 1983. “Autonomic Nervous System
Activity Distinguishes Among Emotions”. Science 221:1208-1210.
Ellenberger, B. 1974. “On Middle English Mots Savants”. Studia Neophilologica
46:142-150.
Emanatian, M. 1995. “Metaphor and the Expression of Emotion: The Value of
Cross-Cultural Perspectives”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10:163-182.
Evans, V. & M. Green 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
269
Fabiszak, M. 1999. “A semantic analysis of emotion terms in Old English”.
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 34:133-146.
Fabiszak, M. 2002. “A semantic analysis of FEAR, GRIEF and ANGER words in
Old English”. In Díaz Vera, J.E. (ed.), A Changing World of Words. Studies
in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics 255-275.
Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Fernando, C. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, A. 1989. “Aspects of Historical Lexicology”. In Fries, U. & M. Heusser
(eds.), Meaning and Beyond 71-91. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Fritz, J.-M. 1993. “La théorie humorale comme moyen de penser le monde:
Limites et contradictions du système”. In Boutet, D. & L. Harf-Lancner
(eds.), Ecriture et modes de pensée au Moyen Age (VIIIe-WVe siècles) 13-26.
Paris: Ecole normale supérieure.
Geeraerts, D. 1989. Wat er in een woord zit. Facetten van de lexicale semantiek.
Leuven: Peeters.
Geeraerts, D. 1992. “Specialisation and reinterpretation in idioms”. In Everaert,
M., E.-J. van der Linden, A. Schenk and R. Schreuder (eds.), Proceedings of
Idioms 39-52. Tilburg: Instituut voor Taal- en Kennistechnologie.
Geeraerts, D. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon.
Geeraerts, D. & C. Gevaert (in press). “Hearts and (angry) minds in Old
English”. In Sharifian, F., R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (eds.),
Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages.
To be published by Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. & S. Grondelaers 1995. “Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions
and metaphorical patterns”. In Taylor, J.R. & R.E. MacLaury (eds.),
Language and the cognitive construal of the world 153-179. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., S. Grondelaers & D. Speelman 1999. Convergentie en divergentie
in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
Geipel, J. 1971. The Viking Legacy: The Scandinavian influence on the English
and Gaelic languages. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.
270
Gevaert, C. 1994. Prismatische breking bij idiomen. Het prismatische
betekenismodel in de diachrone studie van reïnterpretatieprocessen bij
idiomen. MA thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Gevaert, C. 2005. “The ANGER AS HEAT question: Detecting cultural influence on
the conceptualization of ANGER through diachronic corpus analysis”. In
Delbecque, N., J. van der Auwera & D. Geeraerts (eds.), Perspectives on
Variation. Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative 195-208. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R.W. 1999. “Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the
cultural world”. In Gibbs, R.W. & G.J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive
Linguistics 145-166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Godden, M.R. 1985. “Anglo-Saxons on the mind”. In Lapidge, M. & H. Gneuss
(eds.), Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goossens, L. 1988. “Muþ, Mouth(e), Mouth Denoting Linguistic Action:
Aspects of the Development of a Radial Category”. Acta Linguistica
Hungarica 38(1-4): 61-81
Goossens, L. 1990. “Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy
in expressions for linguistic action”. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 323–340.
Goossens, L. 1998. “Meaning extension and text type”. English Studies 2: 120143.
Goossens, L. et al. 1995. By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and
Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grzega, J. 2004. “A Qualitative and Quantitative Representation of the Forces
for Lexemic Change in the History of English.” Onomasiology Online 5:1555.
Györi, G. 1998. “Cultural variation in the conceptualisation of emotions. A
historical study”. In Athanasiadou, A. & E. Tabakowska (eds.), Speaking of
Emotions : Conceptualisation and Expression 99-124. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Harris, W.V. 2001. Restraining Rage : The Ideology of Anger Control in
Classical Antiquity. Cambridge (Mass.)/London: Harvard University Press.
271
Herdan, G. 1960. Type-Token Mathematics : a Textbook of Mathematical
Linguistics. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.
Hopper, P.J. & E.C. Traugott 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ingersoll, S.M. 1978. Intensive and Restrictive Modification in Old English.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Jaisser, A. 1990. “DeLIVERing an Introduction to Psycho-collocations with
SIAB in White Hmong”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13:159-178.
Jespersen, O. 1905. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Jordan, R. 1974. Handbook of Middle English Grammar : Phonology. The
Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Kail, A.C. 1986. The Medical Mind of Shakespeare. Balgowla: Williams &
Wilkins.
Kay, C.J. 2000. “Historical Semantics and Historical Lexicography: will the
twain ever meet?”. In Coleman, J. & C. Kay (eds.), Lexicology, Semantics
and Lexicography 53-68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kiricsi, A. 2004. “From Mod to Minde - Report from a Semantic Battlefield”. In
Dubs, K. E. (ed.), What does it mean ? 217-239. Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter
Catholic University.
Kittay, E.F. 1987. Metaphor : Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. New
York : Oxford University Press.
Kleiber, G. 1978. Le mot “Ire” en ancien français. Paris: Klincksieck.
Kleparski, G.A. 1990. Semantic Change in English: A Study of Evaluative
Developments in the Domain of HUMANS. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw
Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
Kleparski, G.A. 1997. Theory and Practice of Historical Semantics: The Case of
Middle English and Early Modern English Synonyms of GIRL/YOUNG
WOMAN. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu
Lubelskiego.
272
Kleparski, G.A. 2004. “CDs, petticoats, skirts, Ankas, Tamaras and Sheilas: the
metonymical rise of lexical categories related to the conceptual category
female human being”. In Kay, C.J. & J.J. Smith (eds.), Categorization in the
history of English 71-84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Klibansky, R., E. Panofsky & F. Saxl 1964. Saturn and Melancholy. London:
Nelson.
Koivisto-Alanko, P. 2000. Abstract Words in Abstract Worlds: Directionality
and Prototypical Structure in the Semantic Change in English Nouns of
Cognition. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Koszul, A. 1937. “Note sur la courbe des emprunts de l’anglais au français”.
Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de Strasbourg 15:79-82.
Kövecses, Z. 1986. Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to
the structure of concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. 1988. The language of love: the semantics of passion in
conversational English. Lewisburg (Pa.): Bucknell University Press.
Kövecses, Z. 1995a. “Language and emotion concepts”. In Russel, J.A. et al.
(eds.), Everday conceptions of emotion : an introduction to the psychology,
anthropology and linguistics of emotion 3-15. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kövecses, Z. 1995b. “Metaphor and the folk understanding of anger”. In Russell,
J.A. et al. (eds.), Everday conceptions of emotion : an introduction to the
psychology, anthropology and linguistics of emotion 49-71. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Kövecses, Z. 1995c. “Anger: Its language, conceptualization, and physiology in
the light of cross-cultural evidence”. In Taylor, J.R. & R.E. MacLaury (eds.),
Language and the cognitive construal of the world 181-196. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. 1998. “Are there any emotion-specific metaphors?”. In
Athanasiadou, A. & E. Tabakowska (eds.), Speaking of Emotions :
Conceptualisation and Expression 127-151. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion : Language, Culture, and Body in
Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
273
Kövecses, Z. 2002. Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kronenfeld, D. & G. Rundblad 2003. “The semantic structure and lexical fields:
Variation and change”. In Eckardt, R., K. von Heusinger & C. Schwarze
(eds.), Words in Time. Diachronic semantics from different points of view 67114. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kytö, M. 1996. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English
Texts. http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/HC/INDEX.HTM (consulted 7
August 2005)
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lehrer, A. 1974. Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam/London:
North-Holland.
Lehrer, A. 1993. “Semantic Fields and Frames: Are They Alternatives?”. In
Lutzeier, P.R. (ed.), Studies in Lexical Field Theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Leisi, E. 1973. Praxis der englischen Semantik. Heidelberg: Winter.
Levenson, R.W., P. Ekman & W.V. Friesen 1990. “Voluntary Facial Action
Generates Emotion-Specific Autonomic Nervous System Activity”.
Psychophysiology 27:363-384.
Levenson, R.W., P. Ekman, K. Heider & W.V. Friesen 1992. “Emotion and
Autonomic Nervous System Activity in the Minangkabau of West Sumatra”.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62:972-988.
Lohmander, I. 1981. Old and Middle English Words for ‘disgrace’ and
‘dishonour’. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Lutz, A. 2002. “When did English begin?” In Fanego, T. & E. Seoane (eds.),
Sounds, Words, Texts and Change 145-171. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
274
Maalej, Z. 2004. “Figurative Language in Anger Expressions in Tunisian Arabic:
An Extended View of Embodiment”. Metaphor and Symbol 19:51-75.
Matisoff, J.A. 1986. “Hearts and minds in Southeast Asian languages and
English: an essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psychocollocations”. Cahier de Linguistique Asie Orientale 15:5-57.
Matsuki, K. 1995. “Metaphors of anger in Japanese”. In Taylor, J.R. & R.E.
MacLaury (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world 139151. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mikołajczuk, A. 1998. “The metonymic and metaphorical conceptualisation of
anger in Polish”. In Athanasiadou, A. & E. Tabakowska (eds.), Speaking of
Emotions : Conceptualisation and Expression 153-190. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Mikołajczuk, A. 2004. “Anger in Polish and English: a semantic comparison
with some historical context”. In Kay, C.J. & J.J. Smith (eds.),
Categorization in the history of English 159-178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Mendez-Naya, B. 2003. “On Intensifiers and Grammaticalization: The Case of
Swiþe”. English Studies 84(4):372-391.
Mersand, J. 1939. Chaucer’s Romance Vocabulary. New York: The Comet
Press.
Molina, C. 2000. Give Sorrow Words. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Complutense,
Madrid.
Molina, C. 2005. “On the role of semasiological profiles in merger
discontinuations”. In Delbecque, N., J. van der Auwera & D. Geeraerts
(eds.), Perspectives on Variation. Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative
177-193. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mossé, F. 1943. “On the chronology of French loan-word in English”. English
Studies 25:33-40.
Nagucka, R. 2000. “The spatial and temporal meanings of before in Middle
English”. In Taavitsainen, I., T. Nevalainen, P. Pahta & M. Rissanen (eds.),
Placing Middle English in Context 329-337. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
275
Neushaefer, M. 1903. Die Verwendung der Adjectiva im Heliand, dargestellt an
einigen ausgewählten Gruppen. Halle a.S.: Karras.
Niemeier, S. 1997. “To have one’s heart in the right place - metaphorical and
metonymic evidence for the folk model of the heart as the site of emotions in
English”. In Smieja, B. & M. Tasch (eds.), Human Contact through
Language and Linguistics 87-106. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/New
York/Paris/Wien : Peter Lang.
Oey, E.M. 1990. “ “Psycho-Collocations” in Malay: A Southeast Asian Areal
Feature”. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13:141-158.
Ogura, M. 2002. “Words of EMOTION in Old and Middle English”. In Díaz Vera,
J.E. (ed.), A Changing World of Words : Studies in English Historical
Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics 484-499. Amsterdam/New York:
Rodopi.
Oksaar, E. 1958. Semantische Studien im Sinnbereich der Schnelligkeit.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Onians, R.B. 1951. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind,
the Soul, the World, Time and Fate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pauwels, P. “Levels of Metaphorization. The Case of Put”. In Goossens, L. et al.
1995. By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a
Cognitive Perspective 125-158. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Peña Cervel, S. 2001. “A Cognitive Approach to the Role of Body Parts in the
Conceptualization of Emotion Metaphors”. EPOS 17: 245-260.
Pennanen, E.V. 1971. On the introduction of French loan-words into English.
Tampere: Tampereon yliopisto.
Peters, H. 2004. “The vocabulary of pain”. In Kay, C.J. & J.J. Smith (eds.),
Categorization in the history of English 193-220. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Petersen, K.O. 1973. The sources of the Parson’s Tale. New York: AMS Press.
Phillips, M.J. 1985. Heart, mind, and soul in Old English: A semantic study.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois.
276
Quinn, N. 1991. “The Cultural Basis of Metaphor”. In Fernandez, J.W. (ed.),
Metaphor. The theory of Tropes in Anthropology 56-93. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Ripa, C. 1976. Iconologia. New York/London: Garland.
Rissanen, M. 1999. “On the adverbialization of RATHER: Surfing for historical
data”. In Hasselgård, H. & S. Oksefjell (eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in
Honour of Stig Johansson 49-59. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Rissanen, M. 2000. “Paths of loan-word grammaticalisation: The case of
according to”. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & N. Ritt (eds.), Words: Structure,
Meaning, Function. A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky 249-262. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rissanen, M. 2002. “ “Without except(ing) unless...”: On the grammaticalisation
of expressions indicating exception in English”. In Lentz, K. & R. Möhlig
(eds.), Of Dyuersitie & Chaunge of Langage: Essays Presented to Manfred
Görlach on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday 77–87. Heidelberg: C. Winter
Universitätsverlag.
Rissanen, M. 2003. “On the development and grammaticalisation of borrowed
conditional subordinators in Middle English”. Studies in Medieval English
Language and Literature 18: 1-19.
Rissanen, M., M. Kytö & K. Heikkonen 1997. Grammaticalization at Work:
Studies of Long-Term Developments in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rissanen, M. & T. Nevalainen 2002. “ Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the
development and grammaticalization of English downtoners”. Language
Sciences 24: 359–380.
Roberts, J. 2000. “Robbares and reuares þat ryche men despoilen: Some
competing forms”. In Taavitsainen, I., T. Nevalainen, P. Pahta & M.
Rissanen (eds.), Placing Middle English in Context 235-253. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Romano, M. 1999. “Anger in Old English”. Selim 9: 45-56.
Rothwell, W. 1975. “The role of French in thirteenth-century England”. Bulletin
of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 58:455-466.
277
Schäfer, J. 1980. Documentation in the O.E.D.: Shakespeare and Nashe as Test
Cases. Oxford: Clarendon.
Scheler, M. 1977. Der englische Wortschatz. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Schmid, H.-J. 1993. “Cottage and Co : Can the theory of word-fields do the
job?”. In Lutzeier, P.R. (ed.), Studies in Lexical Field Theory 107-120.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Serjeantson, M. 1935. A History of Foreign Words in English. London:
Routledge & Kegan.
Sharafian, F., R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (in press). “Culture and
Language: Looking for the Mind inside the Body”. In Sharifian, F., R.
Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (eds.), Conceptualizations of internal body
organs across cultures and languages. To be published by Mouton de
Gruyter.
Skaffari, J. 2002. “ ‘Touched by an alien tongue’ : Studying lexical borrowings
in the earliest Middle English”. In Díaz Vera, J.E. (ed.), A Changing World of
Words : Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and
Semantics 500-521. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Solomon, R.C. 1984. “Getting Angry. The Jamesian Theory of Emotion in
Anthropology”. In Schweder, R.A. & R.A. Le Vine (eds.), Culture Theory:
Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion 238-254. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Speelman, D. 1997. Abundantia verborum: a computer tool for carrying out
corpus-based linguistic case studies. Ph.D. thesis, K.U.Leuven.
http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/genling/abundant/avdocu.htm (consulted
14 August 2006)
Stearns, P.N. 1986. “Historical Analysis in the Study of Emotion”. Motivation
and Emotion 10:185-193.
Steen, G. & R.W. Gibbs 1999. “Introduction”. In Gibbs, R.W. & G.J. Steen
(eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics 1-8. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A. & S.Th. Gries 2006. Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor
and Metonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
278
Stockwell, R. & D. Minkova 2002. English Words : History and Structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, J. 1985. “The lexicological analysis of older stages of languages”. In
Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical Semantics: Historical Word-Formation 573-582.
Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton.
Strite, V. 1989. Old English Semantic-Field studies. New York/Bern/Frankfurt
am Main/Paris: Lang.
Strubel, A. 1992. Le Roman de la Rose. Paris: Librairie Général Française.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural
aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sylvester, L. 1991. Expectation: A Diachronic Examination of Related Lexis in
the English Language. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
Sylvester, L. 1994. Studies
Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
in
the
lexical
field
of
expectation.
Talbot, C.H. 1967. Medicine in Medieval England. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Tavris, C. 1982. Anger. The Misunderstood Emotion. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory
(2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J.R. & T.G. Mbense 1998. “Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk
about anger”. In Athanasiadou, A. & E. Tabakowska (eds.), Speaking of
Emotions : Conceptualisation and Expression 191-226. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Tetzlaff, G. 1954. Bezeihnungen für die Sieben Todsünden in der altenglischen
Prosa: Ein Beitrag zur Terminologie der altenglischen Kirchensprache.
Ph.D. thesis, Freien Universität Berlin.
Thornton, F.J. 1988. A Classification of the Semantic Field of Good and Evil in
the Vocabulary of English. Ph.D. thesis, Glasgow University.
Tissari, H. 2003. LOVEscapes. Changes in prototypical senses and cognitive
metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
279
Trier, J. 1973. Aufsätze und Vorträge zur Wortfeldtheorie. The Hague/Paris:
Mouton.
Ungerer, F. & H.-J. Schmid 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.
London/New York: Longman.
Vervaeke, J. & J.M. Kennedy 1996. “Metaphors in Language and Thought:
Falsification and Multiple Meanings”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity
11:273-284.
Voigts, L.E. 1995. “Multitudes of Middle English Medical Manuscripts, or the
Englishing of Science and Medicine”. In Schleissner, M.R. (ed.), Manuscript
Sources of Medieval Medicine: a Book of Essays 183-195. New York:
Garland.
Ward, A.W. & W.P. Trent et al. 1907-1921. The Cambridge History of English
and American Literature. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
www.bartleby.com/cambridge (consulted 15 August 2006)
Whitbread, L. 1938. “A medieval English metaphor”. Philological Quarterly
17(4):365-370.
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. “Defining Emotion Concepts”. Cognitive Science 16:539581.
Yu, N. 1995. “Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and
Chinese”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10:59-92.
DICTIONARIES
Bosworth, J. & T. Toller 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Godefroy, F. 1965. Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses
dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle. Vaduz: Kraus Reprint.
Kurath, H. & S.M. Kuhn (eds.) 1952-2001. Middle English Dictionary. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
also available online at : http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/mec/
Murray, J.A.H. et al. (eds) 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. (2nd ed. on
CD-ROM). Oxford: Clarendon.
280
Pokorny, J. 1959-1969. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern:
Francke.
Pokorny, J. & A. Walde 1973. Vergleichendes
indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wörterbuch
der
The Dictionary of Old English A-F on CD-ROM 2003. Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Tobler, A. & E. Lommatzsch 1925-2002. Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch. Berlin:
Weidmann/Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Toller, T. & A. Campbell 1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary : Supplement.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
TRANSLATIONS OF CORPUS TEXTS
Barron, W.R.J. & S.C. Weinberg 1995. Brut or Hystoria Brutonum. London:
Longman.
Bradley, S.A.J. 1982. Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London: Dent.
Day, M. 1957. The English Text of the Ancrene Riwle. London: Oxford
University Press.
Gardner, J. 1971. The alliterative Morte Arthure; The owl and the nightingale,
and five other Middle English poems. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Millet, B. & J. Wogan-Browne 1992. Medieval English Prose for Women :
Selection from the Katherine Group and Ancrene Wisse. Oxford: Clarendon.
Morris, R. 1988. Old English homilies and homiletic treatises (Sawles Warde,
and the Wohunge of Ure Lauerd: Ureisuns of Ure Louerd and of Ure Lefdi,
&c.) of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries from mss. in the British museum,
Lambeth, and Bodleian libraries. New York: Kraus Reprint Millwood.
Salu, M.B. 1955. The Ancrene Riwle. The corpus MS : Ancrene Wisse. London:
Burns and Oates.
Stone, B. 1970. Medieval English Verse. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
281
Tiller, T. 1981. The Vision of Piers Plowman. London: BBC.
Tolkien, J.R.R. 1975. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Pearl and Sir Orfeo.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Wolters, C. 1978. The cloud of unknowing and other works. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
CORPUS TEXTS C1200
Ancrene Wisse
Day, M. 1957. The English Text of the Ancrene Riwle. London: Oxford
University Press.
Tolkien, J.R.R. 1962. Ancrene Wisse: the English text of the Ancrene Riwle.
London: Oxford University Press.
Ancrene Wisse - Seinte Margarete - Hali Meiðhad
Millet, B. & J. Wogan-Browne 1992. Medieval English Prose for Women :
Selection from the Katherine Group and Ancrene Wisse. Oxford: Clarendon.
Brut
Barron, W.R.J. & S.C. Weinberg 1995. Brut or Hystoria Brutonum. London:
Longman.
King Horn
Sands, D.B. 1966. Middle English verse romances. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Ormulum
White, R.M. & R. Holt 1878. The Ormulum. Oxford: Clarendon.
Poema Morale
Morris, R. 1988. Old English homilies and homiletic treatises (Sawles Warde,
and the Wohunge of Ure Lauerd: Ureisuns of Ure Louerd and of Ure Lefdi,
&c.) of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries from mss. in the British museum,
Lambeth, and Bodleian libraries. New York: Kraus Reprint Millwood.
The Owl and the Nightingale
Stanley, E.G. 1972. The owl and the nightingale. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
282
CORPUS TEXTS C1300
* texts marked with an asterisk are available online via the TEAMS- homepage:
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/tmsmenu.htm (last consulted 21 April
2007)
Amis and Amiloun
Foster, E.E. 1997. Amis and Amiloun, Robert of Cisyle, and Sir Amadace.
Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.*
Cursor Mundi
Morris, R. 1961-1966. Cursor Mundi: a Northumbrian poem of the XIVth
century. London: Oxford University Press.
Dame Sirith - The Fox and the Wolf
Dunn, C.W. & E.T. Byrnes 1973. Middle English literature. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
Handling Synne
Sullens, I. 1983. Handlyng Synne. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early
Renaissance Studies.
Harley lyrics
Brook, G.L. 1968. The Harley lyrics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Havelok the Dane - Lay Le Freine - Sir Orfeo - Floris and Blauncheflur
Sands, D.B. 1966. Middle English verse romances. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
King of Tars
Perryman, J. 1980. The King of Tars. Heidelberg: Winter.
Of Arthour and of Merlin
Macrae-Gibson, O.D. 1973. Of Arthour and of Merlin. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sir Amadace
Foster, E.E. 1997. Amis and Amiloun, Robert of Cisyle, and Sir Amadace.
Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.*
Sir Beves of Hamtoun - Sir Beves of Hamtoun Paper Ms Chetham Library
Kölbing, E. 1978. The Romance of Sir Beves of Hamtoun. Millwood: Kraus
Reprint.
283
Sir Degaré
Laskaya, A. & E. Salisbury 1995. The Middle English Breton Lays. Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications.*
Sir Isumbras
Hudson, H. 1996. Four Middle English Romances. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
The Simonie
Dean, J.M. Medieval English Political Writings. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute
Publications.*
The Thrush and the Nightingale
Wilson, R.M. & B. Dickins 1951. Early Middle English texts. Cambridge:
Bowes and Bowes.
CORPUS TEXTS C1400
* texts marked with an asterisk are available online via the TEAMS- homepage:
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/tmsmenu.htm (last consulted 21 April
2007)
Alliterative Morte Arthur
Brock, E. & R. Thornton 1967. Morte Arthur. London: Oxford University Press.
Anelida and Arcite - The Booke of the Duchess - The Parliament of Fowls Boece - Troilus and Criseyde - The Legend of Good Women - The Canterbury
Tales - The Romaunt of the Rose - Minor Poems
Benson, L.D. 1988. The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Athelston - Gamelyn - Sir Launfal
Sands, D.B. 1966. Middle English verse romances. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Confessio Amantis
Macaulay, G.C. 1957. The English Works of John Gower. London: Oxford
University Press.
Emaré - Erle of Tolous - Sir Cleges
Laskaya, A. & E. Salisbury 1995. The Middle English Breton Lays. Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications.*
284
Floris and Blauncheflur Ms Trentham
Lumby, J.R. & G.H. MacKnight. 1962. King Horn; Floris and Blauncheflur;
The Assumption of our Lady. London: Oxford University Press.
Friar Daw’s Reply
Dean, J. 1991. Six Ecclesiastical Satires. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute
Publications.*
Le Morte Arthur
Benson, L.D. 1994. King Arthur's Death: The Middle English Stanzaic Morte
Arthur and Alliterative Morte Arthure. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute
Publications.*
Metrical Paraphrase of the Old Testament - The Pistil of Swete Susan
Peck, A. 1991. Heroic Women of the Old Testament in Middle English Verse.
Kalamazoo: Medieval Insitute Publications.*
Mum and the Sothsegger
Dean, J.M. 2000. Richard the Redeless and Mum and the Sothsegger.
Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.*
Patience
Anderson, J.J. 1972. Patience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Pearl
Gordon, E.V. 1966. Pearl. Oxford: Clarendon.
Piers Plowman - Richard the Redeless
Skeat, W.W. 1965. The Vision of William Concerning Piers the Plowman in
Three Parallel Texts together with Richard the Redeless. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Regiment of Princes
Blyth, C.R. 1999. Thomas Hoccleve: The Regiment of Princes. Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications.*
Siege of Thebes
Edwards, R.R. 2001. John Lydgate: The Siege of Thebes. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
Sir Gawayn and þe Grene KnyZt
Tolkien, J.R.R. & E.V. Gordon 1966. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford:
Clarendon.
285
Sir Tryamour
Hudson, H. 1996. Four Middle English Romances. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
The Avowyng of Arthur
Hahn, T. 1995. Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
The Cloud of Unknowing
Hodgson, P. 1973. The Cloud of Unknowing and the Book of Privy Counselling.
London: Oxford University Press.
The Four Leaves of the Truelove
Fein, S.G. 1998. Moral Love Songs and Laments. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute
Publications.*
The Lanterne of Light
Dean, J.M. 1996. Medieval English Political Writings. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
The Scale of Perfection
Bestul, T.H. 2000. The Scale of Perfection. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute
Publications.*
The Sege of Melayne - The Sowdone of Babylone
Lupack, A. 1990. Three Middle English Charlemagne Romances. Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications.*
The Shewings of Julian of Norwich
Crampton, G.R. 1994. The Shewings of Julian of Norwich. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
The Tale of Beryn
Furnivall, F.J. & W.G. Stone 1981. The Tale of Beryn. New York: Kraus
Reprint.
Troy Book
Edwards, R.R. 1998. John Lydgate Troy Book: Selections. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.*
Bergen, H. 1906-1935. Lydgate's Troy Book. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner & Co.
286
Wycliffe’s Bible
online version of 1395 edition : http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm (last
consulted 21 April 2007)
CORPUS TEXTS C1500
Barclay, Eclogues
White, B. 1960. The Eclogues of Alexander Barclay. London: Oxford University
Press.
Barclay, The Ship of Fools
Barclay, A. 1874. The Ship of Fools. Edinburgh: Paterson.
Caxton, Æsop
Lenaghan, R.T. 1967. Caxton’s Aesop. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University
Press.
Caxton, Blanchardyn and Eglantine
Kellner, L. 1890. Blanchardyn and Eglantine c.1489. London: Trubner.
Caxton, The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye
Caxton, W. 1971. The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyvalrye. New York:
Kraus Reprint.
Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower
Offord M.Y. 1971. The Book of the Knight of the Tower. London : Oxford
University Press.
Caxton, The History of Reynard the Fox
Blake, N.F. 1970. The History of Reynard the Fox. London: Oxford University
Press.
Caxton, The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten Prynce Charles the Grete
Herrtage, S.J. 1967. The Lyfe of the Noble and Crysten Prince Charles the Grete.
London: Oxford University Press.
Cely Papers
Hanham, A. 1975. The Cely Letters : 1472-1488. London: Oxford University
Press.
Cox, The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke
Carpenter, F.I. 1969. The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke. Darby: Folcroft Press.
287
Elyot, The Boke Named The Governour
Lehmberg, S.E. 1975. The Book Named The Governor. London: Dent.
Everyman
Cawley, A.C. 1961. Everyman. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
also available online at : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;
dno=Everyman (last consulted 21 April 2007)
Hawes, The Passetyme of Pleasure
Mead, W.E. 1971. The Pastime Pleasure. New York: Kraus Reprint.
Hawes, Minor Poems
Gluck, F.W. & A.B. Morgan. 1974. The Minor Poems. London: Oxford
University Press.
Medwall, Plays
Nelson, A.H. 1980. The Plays of Henry Medwall. Cambridge: Brewer.
More, A Dialogue of Comfort
Warrington, J. 1970. More’s Utopia; A Dialogue of Comfort. London: Dent.
More, The History of King Richard III
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/r3.html (last consulted 21 April 2007)
Paston Letters
Gairdner, J. 1973. The Paston Letters A.D. 1422-1509. New York: AMS.
Rastell, The Pastyme of People
Geritz, A.J. 1985. The Pastyme of People and A New Boke of Purgatory. New
York: Garland.
Skelton, Complete Poems
Henderson, P. 1964. The complete poems of John Skelton. London: Dent.
Tyndale, New Testament
Cooper, W.R. 2000. The New Testament. London: British Library.
Tyndale, Old Testament
Daniell, D. 1992. Tyndale’s Old Testament. New Haven: Yale University.
Wyatt, Collected Poems - Wyatt, The Quyete of Mynde
288
Muir, K. 1969. Collected Poems of Sir Thomas Wyatt. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Wyatt, Letters
Muir, K. 1963. Life and Letters of Sir Thomas Wyatt. Liverpool: University
Press.
289
Samenvatting
DE GESCHIEDENIS VAN WOEDE.
HET LEXICALE VELD VAN WOEDE VAN HET
OUD- TOT HET VROEGMODERN ENGELS
Deze verhandeling schetst een overzicht van alle uitdrukkingen die werden
gebruikt in Oud-, Middel- en Vroegmodern Engelse teksten (a850-c1500) om te
verwijzen naar het concept WOEDE. De reconstructie van het geheel van deze
uitdrukkingen, het lexicale veld, vormt een basis voor het bestuderen van de
achterliggende naamgevingsmotieven en conceptualisaties.
Het vertrekpunt van dit onderzoek is de stelling van Lakoff (1987) dat de
metafoor WOEDE IS WARMTE, te vinden in uitdrukkingen als to make one’s blood
boil of to kindle one’s ire, alomtegenwoordig is in het hedendaagse Engels en dat
dit een afspiegeling is van de fysiologische processen die mensen ervaren als ze
boos worden (Lakoff 1987:407). Ekman, Levenson & Friesen (1983:1209)
hadden namelijk aangetoond dat de lichaamstemperatuur en bloeddruk dan
stijgen. Gezien de conceptualisatie gebaseerd is op universele fysiologische
processen, stelde Lakoff (1987:407) dat ze te vinden zou zijn doorheen de
geschiedenis en over alle talen heen.
Lakoffs stellingen werden vanuit verschillende hoeken bekritiseerd. Er werd
gewezen op het feit dat conceptualisaties niet rechtstreeks gebaseerd zijn op de
menselijke lichaamservaringen, maar dat de interpretatie van die ervaringen
onvermijdelijk worden beïnvloed door de cultuur waarin men leeft. Binnen de
cognitieve linguïstiek werd Lakoffs stelling vooral gecontesteerd door Geeraerts
& Grondelaers (1995), die stelden dat de huidige WARMTE-metaforen
overblijfsels kunnen zijn van de humorenleer die in de middeleeuwen een grote
invloed had. Deze leer werd uitgedacht door Hippocrates van Kos (5e-4e eeuw
v.C.) en verder uitgewerkt door o.a. Galenus (2e eeuw). De centrale idee is dat
er vier lichaamsvochten (flegma, bloed, gele gal en zwarte gal) in het menselijke
bloed aanwezig zijn en dat een teveel aan één van die humoren niet alleen de
oorzaak is van ziektes maar ook van emoties. Volgens de humorenleer wordt
woede veroorzaakt door te veel gele gal, een lichaamsvocht dat werd beschouwd
als warm en droog en omwille van die kenmerken in verband werd gebracht met
vuur. Woede conceptualiseren in termen van warmte en vuur past dus volledig
in die leer. De humorenleer moet duidelijk niet als intuïtieve volkswijsheid
291
worden beschouwd, maar als een filosofisch systeem dat zich niet beperkte tot de
fysiologische verschijnselen van ziektes en emoties, maar die inbedde in een
geheel van complexe kosmologische relaties. De aandacht die Geeraerts &
Grondelaers (1995) vragen voor de mogelijke invloed van de humorenleer heeft
een ruimere dimensie : ze vragen vooral aandacht voor de intrinsiek historische
dimensie van taal en voor de culturele elementen die lexicale en conceptuele
patronen kunnen beïnvloeden.
Deze verhandeling bestudeert mogelijke invloeden op de WOEDEconceptualisaties in het Engels op basis van de lexicale en conceptuele velden
van WOEDE in het Oud-, Middel- en Vroegmodern Engels. Voor deze
reconstructies werden uitgebreide corpora gebruikt, namelijk het Toronto Corpus
met alle Oudengelse teksten en een zo exhaustief mogelijke verzameling van
teksten daterend rond 1200, 1300, 1400 en 1500. Het feit dat dit onderzoek
volledig gebaseerd is op corpora onderscheidt het van de meeste andere recente
woordveldstudies, die meestal gebaseerd zijn op woordenboeken of thesauri
(Chase 1983, 1988, Thornton 1988, Sylvester 1991, 1994 en Coleman 1992,
1994). Het onderscheidt zich ook van deze studies en van de andere diachrone
studies over cognitieve metaforen (Tissari 2003, Kleparski 1990, 1997, 2004,
Fabiszak 1999, 2002, Romano 1999 en Allan 2006) doordat het puur
onomasiologisch en kwantitatief is van opzet.
Het beoogt dus geen
semasiologische betekenisanalyse van de verschillende WOEDE-uitdrukkingen.
Het gaat wel na welke uitdrukkingen er gebruikt werden om naar WOEDE te
verwijzen en hoe vaak ze werden gebruikt.
De kwantitatieve analyses tonen aan dat er heel wat veranderingen zijn in het
lexicale veld van WOEDE door de eeuwen heen, terwijl het conceptuele veld
weinig verandert, behalve op het niveau van de frequentie van de individuele
conceptualisaties. Nieuwe lexicale elementen reflecteren dus meestal bestaande
conceptualisaties, ook als het gaat om leenwoorden.
De speciale
conceptualisaties worden niet zo vaak gebruikt : het grootste deel van het
lexicale veld wordt ingenomen door uitdrukkingen die letterlijk naar het concept
WOEDE verwijzen, namelijk irre en belgan in het Oudengels, ire en wrathe in het
Middelengels en wrath and anger in het Vroegmodern Engels. Binnen de groep
van niet-letterlijke uitdrukkingen, die gemiddeld ongeveer 37% van het
woordveld innemen, gaat het ook vaak om hyperonymische of metonymische
naamgevingspatronen terwijl metaforen maar ongeveer 23% van de groep
uitmaken. Dit komt neer op ongeveer 9% van het hele woordveld, wat weinig is
gezien het feit dat de cognitieve linguïstiek bijzonder veel aandacht besteedt aan
metaforen en stelt dat ze alomtegenwoordig zijn. De analyses van de WOEDEuitdrukkingen geven aan dat deze stelling zou moeten worden bijgesteld.
De mogelijke culturele invloeden in de lexicale en conceptuele velden van
WOEDE worden onderzocht in vier deelstudies. Ten eerste wordt de hypothese
onderzocht waarin Diller (1994) stelt dat de uitdrukking anger omstreeks 1400
werd gebruikt als antwoord op socio-culturele veranderingen. Volgens deze
292
hypothese zou wrathe de oudere vorm van woede benoemen, namelijk die van
personen met een hoge sociale status, van wie de publieke waardigheid wordt
aangevallen en van wie de status het toelaat op een gewelddadige manier hun
woede te vergelden. Anger zou dan verwijzen naar een nieuwe vorm van woede,
namelijk die van personen uit lagere sociale klassen, van wie persoonlijke
waarden worden aangevallen en die op een minder gewelddadige manier
reageren. Deze semantische kenmerken worden, samen met een aantal
stilistische kenmerken die niet a priori kunnen worden uitgesloten, onderzocht
voor de attestaties van ire, wrathe en anger omstreeks 1300, 1400 en 1500. De
analyses tonen aan dat anger significant vaker wordt gebruikt in niet-Romaanse
en niet-religieuze teksten. Uit semasiologische analyses blijkt anger ook vaker
te verwijzen naar personen uit de lagere sociale klassen, naar situaties waarin
persoonlijke waarden worden aangevallen en naar minder gewelddadige reacties.
Of er persoonlijke dan wel publieke waarden in het spel zijn is heel erg een
kwestie van interpretatie. Die analyses moeten dus met de nodige omzichtigheid
benaderd worden, ook omdat voor die semantische kenmerken het corpus dat
Diller (1994) gebruikte, namelijk alle werken van Chaucer, ook een bijzonder
groot deel uitmaakt van de attestaties die worden gebruikt voor dit onderzoek.
Maar globaal schijnen de semasiologische analyses die van Diller (1994) te
bevestigen. Wanneer echter de cijfers onomasiologisch worden geanalyseerd is
het beeld anders: hoewel de semantische kenmerken die Diller (1994)
suggereerde omstreeks 1400 vaker voorkomen bij anger dan bij ire en wrath,
worden ze toch hoofdzakelijk door de laatste twee uitgedrukt. Bovendien
gebeurde dat ook al rond 1300 en worden die kenmerken juist minder uitgedrukt
rond 1400 dan omstreeks 1300 en 1500. Het is dus weinig waarschijnlijk dat
anger werd geïntroduceerd omdat die semantische kenmerken niet konden
worden uitgedrukt door de bestaande uitdrukkingen en er dus een “lexical gap”
was. Ook stilistisch lijken er geen beperkingen te hebben bestaan op het gebruik
van ire en wrathe zodat anger ook niet om stilistische redenen werd gebruikt.
De hypothese dat het woordveld werd beïnvloed door socio-culturele
veranderingen lijkt dus maar gedeeltelijk te kloppen.
Twee deelstudies onderzoeken een tweede vorm van culturele invloed,
namelijk die van de Romaanse talen. In de Oudengelse periode werden veel
Latijnse werken vertaald terwijl het Middelengels en het Vroegmoderne Engels
een grote toevloed van Romaanse (een verzamelnaam voor Frans, AngloNormandisch, Frans of Latijns, enz.) leenwoorden kenden. In de Oudengelse
corpora werden de frequenties van de verschillende uitdrukkingen en
conceptualisaties vergeleken tussen origineel Engelse teksten, teksten gebaseerd
op Latijnse bronnen en vertalingen uit het Latijn. Daaruit blijkt dat sommige
conceptualisaties typisch zijn voor teksten met een Latijnse oorsprong en niet
voorkomen in origineel Engelse teksten. Deze analyses worden bevestigd door
een vergelijking tussen de uitdrukkingen gebruikt in de Engelse en de Latijnse
teksten. Voor de conceptualisaties WARMTE, STERKE EMOTIE, PIJN, BEWEGING
293
(en wellicht ook TROTS, KRANKZINNIGHEID en ZWAARTE) is de correlatie tussen
beide bijzonder hoog. Dit toont aan dat er een grote invloed geweest is van de
Latijnse bronteksten. Wanneer de Romaanse leenwoorden hun intrede doen in
het Middelengels blijken ze vooral dezelfde conceptualisaties te vertonen,
waardoor hun frequentie voor de tweede keer toeneemt. De enige uitzondering
daarop vormt de ONTEVREDENHEID-conceptualisatie, met als voornaamste
vertegenwoordiger displease. Deze conceptualisatie werd niet gepromoot door
de Latijnse teksten in het Oudengels, maar is voornamelijk toe te schrijven aan
latere Franse leenwoorden. Deze conceptualisatie is bijzonder belangrijk
omstreeks 1500.
Tenslotte wordt de WARMTE-conceptualisatie nader bestudeerd. Uit de
analyse van de invloed van de Latijnse en Romaanse talen bleek al dat deze
globaal niet frequente conceptualisatie een typisch verschijnsel was van teksten
die op Latijnse of Romaanse teksten zijn gebaseerd. De teksten waarin deze
conceptualisatie voorkomt zijn niet enkel Latijnse of Romaanse, maar gedurende
de hele Oud- en Middelengelse periode ook religieuze teksten. Daarom is het
ook mogelijk dat ze aan deze laatste factor moeten worden toegeschreven.
Vooral de VUUR-conceptualisatie zou ook door bijbels gebruik beïnvloed kunnen
zijn. Uit de analyses van de contexten waarin de WARMTE-conceptualisatie
wordt gebruikt blijkt dat er, in tegenstelling tot de WARMTE VAN EEN VLOEISTOF
IN EEN RECIPIENT-conceptualisatie die duidelijk haar oorsprong vindt in de
humorenleer, tot rond 1400 weinig aanwijzingen zijn dat fysiologische
gewaarwordingen aan de basis liggen van de conceptualisatie. Omstreeks 1400
worden de WARMTE-conceptualisaties iets frequenter gebruikt en worden ook de
verwijzingen naar fysiologische processen talrijker. In die periode nemen ook de
uitdrukkingen toe die kunnen worden toegeschreven aan de humorenleer. Er
lijkt dus een beweging aan de gang waarbij de bestaande WARMTEconceptualisaties zich integreren in het systeem van de humorenleer. Het
systeem komt nog niet ten volle tot uiting in het lexicale veld, maar het
taalgebruik van Shakespeare toont alvast dat de WARMTE-conceptualisatie een
integraal deel wordt van een conceptueel systeem gebaseerd op de humorenleer.
De analyses tonen aan dat de culturele invloed op het hele conceptuele veld
van WOEDE, en op de WARMTE-conceptualisatie in het bijzonder, door de eeuwen
heen aanzienlijk is geweest. Dit is een aspect dat door de cognitieve linguïstiek
niet verwaarloosd mag worden. Als uit onderzoek blijkt dat de hedendaagse
WARMTE-conceptualisaties wel een fysiologische basis hebben, dan moet dat in
ieder geval worden weergegeven als één fase in de geschiedenis van die
conceptualisatie en niet als een universeel principe.
294