Chapter VII: Introduction (6)

O. E. =e=. When we are dealing with so careful a rhymer as Gower, we need hardly remark upon the absolute distinction made between _ę̄_ derived from O. E. _ĕ_ and _ẹ̄_ of whatever origin. The case of _skiereþ_ : _hiereþ_, cited by Fahrenberg as an instance of the opposite, cannot be regarded as a real exception, in view of the uncertain derivation of _skiere_. His other cases of supposed _ę_ : _ẹ_ are instances of the pret. pl. _spieke_ (_speke_), from _sprǣcon_, as _spieke_ : _beseke_, ii. 959, _sieke_ : _spieke_, ii. 1455. One is doubtful, viz. _seke_ : _mispeke_, ii. 2007, where _mispeke_ may be pret. subjunctive; and besides these, _undergete_ : _flete_, ii. 1133 f. is irregular.

There is, however, also a well-marked distinction between new-lengthened _ę̄_ in words like _trede_, _stede_, _bere_, _spere_, &c., _forȝete_, _gete_, _begete_ (inf. and partic.), _mete_ (subst.), &c., and _ę̄_ from _ǣ_ or _ēa_, the distinction being due presumably to imperfect lengthening. With the first class rank also words in which _e_ is derived from O. E. _y_ in open syllables, as _lere_ (loss) from O. E. _lyre_, _stere_ (stir) from _styrian_, _dede_ (pret.) from _dyde_, and also _e_ in _answere_.

Thus we find the following quite distinct sets of rhymes:
_bede_, _forbede_ (past participles), _bede_ (subst.), _dede_
(pret. = did), _stede_ (stead), _trede_, forming one class
and rhyming together, while they are kept entirely apart from
_threde_, _drede_, _dede_ (= dead), _rede_, pl. adj. (= red),
which have _ę̄_ from _ēa_ or _ǣ_. On the other hand, _bede_
the pret. plur. of _bidde_ (from _bǣdon_) rhymes with _dede_
(dead), e.g. i. 2047.

So also _answere_, _bere_ (subst.), _bere_ (verb inf.),
_forbere_, _dere_ (destroy), _lere_ (loss), _stere_ (stir),
_bestere_, _swere_ (verb), _tere_ (verb), _were_ (wear),
_were_ (defend), form one class of rhyme-words as against
_ere_, _fere_ (fear), _there_, _were_ (from _wǣron_), &c. But
_eere_ (verb) from _erian_ rhymes with _there_, v. 819 f., and
_scheres_ with _teres_, v. 5691. The case of _bere_ rhyming
with _were_ (from _wǣron_), i. 2795 f., vii. 1795 f., is not an
exception to the rule, being the preterite plural, from _bǣron_.

Another group is _chele_, _fele_ (many), _hele_ (cover),
_stele_, _wele_, as against _hele_ (heal), _dele_, &c.: but we
find _hele_ (_hǣlo_) : _hele_ (_helan_), iii. 2755 f.

Again we have _ete_, _gete_ (inf. and partic.), _begete_,
_forȝete_, _mete_ (meat), _sete_ (past partic.), kept apart
from _grete_ (great), _bete_ (beaten), _strete_, _tete_, _lete_
(_lǣtan_), _swete_ (verb, = sweat), _threte_, _whete_, &c.
It may be noted that _beȝete_ (subst.) belongs to the class
_grete_, _bete_, &c.

There is every reason to suppose that the same distinction
would hold with other endings, in the case of which no
sufficient rhyme-test is forthcoming, as _breke_, _speke_
(inf.), _wreke_ (inf. and past partic.), which have no other
words with _ę̄_ with which they could be rhymed, _eke_, _seke_,
_meke_, &c., all having _ẹ̄_.

On the whole we may say that this distinction is very carefully kept in Gower’s rhymes, and must certainly indicate a difference of pronunciation.

The adverb _wel_, also written _wiel_, has a double sound, as in Chaucer, either _ę̄_ or _ẹ̄_, rhyming with _del_ (_diel_), _stiel_, _whiel_, &c., and also with _naturel_, _Daniel_, and the substantive _wel_ for _wele_.

_eg_ forms _ei_, which is often interchangeable with _ai_, as _seie_, _leie_, _weie_, _aȝein_.

O. E. =i=. There is nothing in Gower’s rhymes to lend support to the theory that _i_ from O. E. _ĭ_ in open syllables (i.e. before a single consonant followed by a vowel), as in the past participles _write_, _drive_, _schrive_, and the infinitives _ȝive_, _wite_, is of doubtful quantity. The past participle and plural preterite _write_ have _ĭ_ and rhyme with _wite_ (know), while the infinitive _wryte_ rhymes with _wyte_ (blame), verb and substantive: the infinitives _live_, _ȝive_, _forȝive_ and the participles _drive_, _ȝive_, _schrive_, &c. rhyme among themselves and not with _schryve_ (inf.), _alyve_, _fyve_: the short vowel words _wile_ (verb), _skile_, _bile_ are separate from _wyle_ (subst.), _whyle_, _ile_, &c. This would not be worth mentioning but for ten Brink’s argument (_Chaucers Sprache_, §§ 35, 325), based on the very smallest positive evidence.

_hire_ (_hir_) is used regularly for the personal and possessive pronoun of the third person sing. fem. (= her), and never _here_, as is Chaucer’s usage in rhyme.

_cherche_ is Gower’s regular form from _cirice_, but _chirche_ is common in the orthography of the _Praise of Peace_, e.g. 197, 210, 225, &c., beside _cherche_, 232, 254.

O. E. =o=. _wolde_, _scholde_, _golde_, _molde_ rhyme with _tolde_, _holde_, _colde_, &c., but in open syllables a distinction is observed (as in the case of _e_) between new-lengthened _ǭ_ and _ǭ_ from O. E. _ā_, so that _tofore_, _before_, _therfore_, _score_ and the participles _bore_, _forbore_, _lore_, _schore_, _swore_ are kept separate in rhyme from such words as _hore_, _more_, _lore_ (subst.), _ore_, _rore_, _sore_, to which later group should be added _More_ (Moor), and the Romance verb _restore_[S]. This distinction seems to be recognized by Chaucer, cp. _Troilus_, v. 22-26, but with a good many exceptions, as _Legend of Good Women_, 452 f., 550 f., 1516 f., _Cant. Tales_, A 1541 f., 3237 f., &c., chiefly, but not exclusively, in the case of _more_. Gower is very much stricter and allows very few exceptions (_overmore_ : _tofore_, i. 3361 f., _nomore_ : _therfore_, vii. 3279* f., _more_ : _therfore_, vii. 3869 f., _more_ : _fore_, viii. 991 f.), which must be regarded as imperfect rhymes. Considering the frequency with which words of these two classes occur in rhyme, it is remarkable that the distinction should be so well kept.

We may note that _bowe_ (subst.) from _boga_ rhymes with words like _knowe_, in which _ow_ is from _āw_.

O. E. =u=. In some words _o_ and _u_ interchange, as _begonne begunne_, _conne cunne_, _coppe cuppe_, _dronkeschipe drunkeschipe_, _further forther_, _ronne (over)runne_, _sonne sunne_, _thurgh thorgh(soght)_, _tonge tunge_, _tonne tunne_, &c., but we have without variation, _bole_, _hunger_, _note_ (nut), _some_, _under_, _wonder_, &c. The regular rhyme _under_ : _wonder_ is enough to show that the sound was the same.

_love_, _above_ rhyme together and not with any other word. (For the rhyme at v. 7047 f., see under =ō=.)

_sone_ (from _sunu_), _wone_ (custom), _astone_, rhyme only with one another: in the rhyme _wones_ : _ones_, which occurs iv. 2217 f., viii. 611 f., we have to do of course with a different word.

_dore_ (_door_) rhymes with _spore_ and _dore_ (subjunctive of _dar_), _bole_ with _wole_ (verb).

O. E. =y=. This is usually represented by _e_ (except before _h_, _gh_), e.g. _abegge_, _berie_, _berthe_, _besy_, _bregge_, _dede_ (did), _evel_, _felle_ (also _fille_), _felthe_, _ferst_, _fest_, _hell_ (also _hill_, _hull_), _ken_ (also _kin_), _kende_ (usually _kinde_), _kesse_ (also _kisse_), _knette_, _krepel_, _lere_, _lest_ (listen), _lest_ (= pleases, also _list_), _mende_ (also _minde_), _merie_, _merthe_, _pet_ (also _pitt_, _put_), _scherte_, _schetten_, _senne_ (also _sinne_), _stere_ (stir), _thenke_ (from _þyncan_), _werche_ (also _worche_), _werse_ (also _worse_): to these must be added _hedde_, _hed_, pret. and past partic. of _hyde_, in which original _ȳ_ was shortened (also _hidde_, _hid_). On the other hand, we have _gilt_ (also _gult_), _gultif_, _lifte_ (sky), _stinten_ (not _stenten_), _thinne_ (not _thenne_), _thurste_, _wierdes_. Gower does not use the forms _birthe_, _bisy_, _dide_ (did), _mirie_, _mirthe_, _stire_.

The results obtained for certain words from rhymes by Fahrenberg[T] are rather misleading. For example, he suggests the conclusion that _fille_ (subst.) and _fulfille_ are used with _i_ only, but of the nineteen instances which he quotes, all but two are in rhyme with _wille_, a natural combination (at least for _fulfille_), and one which has determined the form in most cases. Apart from this, both _felle_ (subst.) and _fulfelle_ are found (_felle_ in rhyme, iii. 2609).

Again, _senne_ is much more common than would appear from the rhymes. Fahrenberg can quote only one instance in rhyme, as against twenty-nine of _sinne_, but this is certainly due to the greater frequency of the words (such as _beginne_, _winne_, &c.), which give rhymes to _sinne_. The word occurs seven times in the Prologue, once it is in rhyme, _Sinne_ : _inne_, and of the other six instances five are of _senne_ and one only of _sinne_. On the other hand, _hell_ (from _hyll_) alone appears in rhyme, but _hill_ or _hull_ are commoner forms in use.

The mistakes tell both ways, but on the whole the conclusion that _i_ is much commoner than _e_ in these words is seriously incorrect.

For the use in rhyme of the words of this class with open tone syllable, as _stere_, _lere_ (from _lyre_), see under =e=.

(2) O. E. LONG VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS.

O. E. =ā=. The _ǭ_ of _hom_ rhymes, as in Chaucer, with the _ọ̄_ of the preterites _com_, _nom_, and also _fom_ with _nom_, v. 4007. These must be regarded as imperfect rhymes, due to the want of strictly correct rhyme-words. Gower has regularly _most_ (O. E. _māst_) and but once in rhyme _mest_ (O. E. _mǣst_), _lest_ : _althermest_, i. 3101 f.: also regularly _oght_, _noght_, and _oghte_ (verb), but _tawht_ : _awht_, i. 2770, and _aghte_ : _betaghte_, viii. 747.

O. E. =ǣ=. This, when representing West-Germanic _ā_, Gothic _ē_, appeared as _ē_ in the Old Anglian and Kentish dialects, and might naturally be expected to be sometimes close _e_ in the language of Chaucer and Gower. It is well known that Chaucer uses many of the words which have this vowel in a variable manner.

The same is true to some extent also in words where the original _ǣ_ corresponds to Germanic _ai_, and in which we find Old Kentish _ē_. Of these _leden_, _clene_, _menen_, _leeren_ appear in Chaucer sometimes with _ẹ̄_ (and _evere_, _nevere_ always). For these and some other cases see ten Brink, _Chaucers Sprache_, § 25.

When we compare Chaucer’s usage with that which we find in our author, we find what our former experience has prepared us to expect, viz. a greater strictness and regularity of usage in Gower. The examples of fluctuation between the two sounds are comparatively few.

Taking first the words in which _ē_ is from _ǣ_ corresponding
to West-Germanic _ā_, we find the following with _ę̄_:

_bede_ (pret. pl.), from _bǣdon_, (_dede_ : _bede_, i. 2047 f.).

_breth_ (: _deth_, i. 119, 2127, &c.).

_fere_, ‘fear,’ (: _ere_, i. 462, ii. 46).

_her_, ‘hair,’ (_heres_ : _teres_, i. 2999).

_lete_, from _lǣtan_, (: _grete_, i. 3365, &c.).

_lewed_ (: _thewed_, i. 274, _beschrewed_, iii. 479).

_sete_, pret. pl., (_sete_ : _grete_, iv. 1309), but _siete_
(not in rhyme), v. 3339.

_strete_ (: _grete_, i. 938, _bete_, i. 1156).

_there_ (: _ere_, i. 499, 558, &c.), but also _there_ : _swere_
(neck), iv. 859, and _hiere_ (adv.) : _there_, _Praise of
Peace_, 178.

_were_, from _wǣron_, (: _ere_, Prol. 235, i. 2808, &c.), but
also _ẹ̄_ in a few instances, as _hiere_ (verb) : _were_, i.
2741 f., _hiere_ (adv.): _were_, v. 747 f.

_where_ (e.g. _elleswhere_ : _eere_, Prol. 9), but _here_
(adv.): _elleswhere_, v. 361 f.

The substantive and verb _red_, _rede_ rhyme about equally with
_ẹ̄_ and _ę̄_, the latter cases being almost all with _ded_,
_dede_ (dead, sing. and pl.), as i. 1446, iv. 1940, 1960, &c. On
the other hand, _rede_ : _hiede_, i. 447 f., _rede_ : _spede_, i.
1293 f., ii. 103 f., &c., _red_ : _sped_, iii. 1991 f.

The following words of this class have as a rule _ẹ̄_:

_cheke_ (_chieke_) (: _mieke_, v. 2471, _eke_, v. 3019).

_dede_, ‘deed,’ (: _fede_, Prol. 465, _mede_, i. 1553, &c.,
_spede_, i. 2653, &c., _ȝede_, ii. 855, _forbiede_, iii. 1122),
but _dede_ (dead) : _dede_, i. 1037 f.

_drede_ (: _nede_, i. 1987, 2240[U], : _spede_, iv.
629, : _hiede_, iv. 1448, &c.), but _dede_ (dead) : _drede_,
ii. 3405 f., _drede_ : _rede_ (from _rēad_), iv. 185 f.

_leche_ (: _seche_, ii. 3220, _beseche_, iii. 413).

_meete_, ‘dream,’ (: _meete_, from _mētan_, iii. 51).

_mete_ (_unmete_), adj. (: _mete_, from _mētan_, ii. 458, iii.
1100).

_slep_, _slepe_, subst. and verb, (_kepe_ : _slepe_, Prol. 309
f., 475 f., _slep_ : _kep_, i. 155, &c.), but _slep_ : _hep_
(_hēap_), iv. 3007 f.

_speche_ (_spieche_) (: _seche_, Prol. 174, _beseche_, i. 1986).

_spieke_ (_speke_), from _sprǣcon_, pret. pl. (: _beseke_, ii.
959, _sieke_, ii. 1456).

_thred_ (: _sped_, i. 1419).

_ȝer_, _ȝere_, (_ȝere_ : _stiere_, ii. 2379, _ȝer_ : _hier_,
iii. 129, _ȝeeres_ : _pleiefieres_, iv. 481), with no instances
apparently of _ę̄_.

If we take now the words in which _ē_ is from _ǣ_ corresponding
to Germanic _ai_, we obtain the following results.

With _ę̄_:

_er_ (: _ner_, ii. 2285).

_geth_ (: _deth_, ii. 1804, 2616, &c.).

_lene_, ‘lend,’ (: _bene_, v. 4407).

_leve_, ‘remain,’ (: _bereve_, Prol. 412).

_se_ (_see_), ‘sea,’ (: _stree_, iii. 86, iv. 1715, _sle_, iv.
1664), but _be_ : _se_, iv. 1625 f., _me_ : _see_, viii. 1723 f.

_ȝe_ (_ȝee_), ‘yea,’ (: _slee_, iii. 262, 2068, _stree_, iii.
668).

(_stre_, _slee_, have no _ẹ̄_ rhymes, so we have no reason to
suppose, as in the case of Chaucer, that final _ē_ has a close
sound.)

With _ẹ̄_:

_areche_, from _ārǣcan_, (: _beseche_, ii. 666).

_clene_ (: _sene_, ii. 3461).

_del_ (_diel_), _somdiel_, &c. (: _whiel_, Prol. 137, _stiel_,
Prol. 612, 828).

_evere_, _nevere_, (: _levere_, Prol. 38, ii. 5, ii. 2417, &c.).

_-hede_ (_-hiede_) as a suffix: _hiede_ : _godhiede_, Prol.
497 f., cp. i. 1211 f., 1719 f., v. 595 f., viii. 95 f.,
_mede_ : _wommanhiede_, iii. 1607 f., _wommanhiede_ : _fiede_,
vi. 695 f., _maidenhede_ : _spede_, vii. 5145 f., viii. 1419 f.,
and so on, but once _ę̄_, _Maidenhede_ : _rede_ (from _rēad_), v.
5987.

_hete_, subst. and verb, ‘heat,’ (: _swete_, ‘sweet,’ ii. 2740,
vi. 249), but _hete_ : _tobete_, iii. 121 f., _hete_ : _bete_,
viii. 1195 f.

_lede_ (: _hiede_, v. 156, : _fede_, vii. 2336*), but _dede_
(dead) : _lede_, ii. 2779 f.

_lere_ (_liere_), from _lǣran_, (: _hiere_, verb, i. 454, iii.
2204, v. 2029, _diere_, viii. 1462, _hiere_ (adv.), viii. 1497,
_unliered_ : _stiered_, Prol. 233 f.).

_mene_ (_meene_), verb, (: _sene_, ii. 2830, iv. 1645, _wene_,
i. 1937, &c., _grene_, i. 777, &c., _tene_, iii. 771, _queene_,
iv. 786).

_sprede_ (_spriede_) (: _fede_, i. 2824, _spede_, ii. 504,
_spredeth_ : _nedeth_, v. 7679 f., _feedeth_, vi. 895 f.), but
_sprede_ : _hede_ (head), vii. 845 f.

_teche_ (: _beseche_, i. 590, 2260, iii. 132).

The above are the results arrived at by examination of the rhymes with vowels of undoubted quality; i.e. _ę̄_ from O. E. _ēa_, and _ẹ̄_ from O. E. _ē_, _ēo_, _īe_. In addition to this, an investigation has been made of the rhyming of these words among themselves and with words of Romance origin, in the process of which some additional words with _ē_ from _ǣ_, as _dele_, _hele_, _swete_, ‘sweat,’ _wete_, are brought in. This cannot here be given in full, but it may be said that in almost all points it confirms the results arrived at above. A few words, however, to which an open vowel is assigned above, rhyme with other words from _ǣ_ which almost certainly have _ẹ̄_, and therefore must be set as having unstable pronunciation. Thus, in spite of the rhyme _lene_ (lend) : _bene_ mentioned above, we have _lene_ : _mene_ (both verb and subst.) and _lene_ : _clene_, and though _fere_ rhymes more than once with _ere_, we have _lered_ : _afered_ and _unlered_ : _afered_, which suggest that the close sound was possible.

On the whole we may set down the following as the result of our examination.

With open vowel: of the _ǣ_ (_ē_) class, _bede_, pret. pl., _breth_, _her_ (pl. _heres_), _lete_, _lewed_, _strete_: of the _ā_ = _ai_ class, _er_, _geth_, _leve_ (remain), _ȝee_ (yea).

With close vowel: of the former class, _leche_, _meete_ (dream), _mete_ (fit), _slepe_, _speche_, _speke_, pret. pl., _thred_, _wete_, _wreche_, _ȝer_, and with one exception only in each case _dede_, _slep_: of the latter class, _areche_, _clene_, _del_, _evere_, _lere_, _mene_, _nevere_, _teche_, and with one exception in each case, _-hede_ (_-hiede_), _lede_, _sprede_.

With unstable vowel: from _ǣ_ (_ē_), _drede_, _eve_, _fere_ (fear), _red_ (subst.), _rede_, _there_, _were_, _where_: from _ǣ_ = _ai_, _hete_, _lene_, _see_ (sea).

The conclusions to which we are led are, first that in Gower’s usage there is less instability of vowel-sound in these words than in Chaucer, the number of words with unstable vowel being smaller and the variations even in their case more exceptional; secondly that Gower’s language has a strongly pronounced leaning towards _ẹ̄_; and finally that this tendency is quite as much visible in the words of the _ǣ_ = _ai_ class as in the others.

O. E. =ēa=. The substantive _believe_ has _ẹ̄_ by influence of the verb.

There is no use apparently of _nę̄de_ from _nēad_ or of _ȝę̄r_ from _gēar_, and _ek_, _eke_, seems invariably to have _ẹ̄_.

From _ēage_, _flēah_, _hēah_, _nēah_ we have _yhe_, _flyh_, _hih_, _nyh_.

There seems no reason to suppose that _stre_, _sle_ had _ẹ̄_, as has been concluded for Chaucer’s language because of such rhymes as _sle_ : _he_, _stre_ : _she_, _stree_ : _we_, see ten Brink, _Chaucers Sprache_, §23.

It has already been shown that _see_ (sea), which we have supposed to have unstable vowel quality, very seldom rhymes with words having _ẹ̄_, notwithstanding the frequent opportunity for such rhymes, and _ȝee_, ‘yea,’ never. It may be questioned whether the rule laid down by ten Brink for Chaucer is a sound one, and whether Chaucer’s practice does not really depend simply upon the larger supply of rhymes in _ẹ̄_, such as _he_, _she_, _me_, _thee_, _be_, _se_ (verb), _tre_, _three_, &c. It is at least possible that the difference here between Gower and Chaucer arises from the fact that the latter was less strict in his rhymes, and certainly the later developments of _sle_, _see_, _stre_, _ȝee_ supply no confirmation of the idea that they had _ẹ̄_ regularly in Chaucer’s language.

O. E. =ēo=. By the side of _sek_ (_siek_) there is occasionally _sik_.

The form _fil_, _fille_ for _fell_, _felle_, pret. sing. and pl. from _falle_, are not used by Gower. He rhymes _fell_ (_fēoll_) : _hell_ (_hyll_) and _felle_, pret. pl.: _felle_ (_fyllan_).

The personal pronoun _ȝow_ (_ȝou_) from _ēow_ rhymes with _thou_, _now_, &c.

O. E. =ī=. Fahrenberg’s instances of _ī_ : _ē_, i. 177 f. and iii. 413 f., are both founded on mistakes.

O. E. =ū=. The personal pronoun from O. E. _ūs_ is always written _ous_, but rhymes in some instances with _-us_ in Latin names, e.g. _Tricolonius_ : _ous_, _Tereüs_ : _ous_.

_būtan_ is shortened to _bot_, not _but_. It occurs also as a dissyllable in the form _bote_.

O. E. =ȳ=. The only example of _ȳ_ as _ē_ is _fer_ from _fȳr_, which occurs in rhyme with _ȝer_, iii. 694, (elsewhere _fyr_). Chaucer has _fere_, dat., rhyming with _here_, adv., _Troilus_, iii. 978, and also _afere_ in rhyme with _stere_, ‘stir,’ _Troilus_, i. 229.

The cases of _hedde_, _hed_, pret. and past participle (from _hȳdan_), are examples of shortened _ȳ_ passing naturally to _e_, and so also _fest_ from _fȳst_, _felthe_ from _fȳlþe_, _threste_ from _þrȳsta_.

From _ȳg_ in _drȳge_ we have _dreie_, but also _drye_.

O. E. =ō=. Gower, like Chaucer, rhymes the word _do_ (_misdo_, _undo_, &c.), and occasionally _to_ in _therto_, with words that have _ǭ_ derived from _ā_, not only _so_, _also_, _two_, _wo_, but also _tho_, adv. (i. 2609, iii. 683, v. 5331, &c.), _go_, _ago_ (ii. 2483, 3513, iv. 1161, 3465, v. 5173, &c.), _overmo_ (i. 2385), _no_ (v. 4776), _fo_ (iv. 3407). These words also rhyme with proper names, such as _Juno_, _Lichao_, Babio. The other forms of _do_, as _doth_, _don_, rhyme nearly always with _ọ̄_, but once we have _doth_ : _goth_, v. 3967 f., and once _don_ : _anon_, v. 3627 f. The rhyme _soth_ : _goth_ also occurs, v. 1579 f. This latter class of rhyme, as _don_ : _anon_, _don_ : _gon_, _sothe_ : _bothe_, _soth_ : _wroth_, occurs frequently in Chaucer’s earlier work, as the _Book of the Duchess_, but much less so in the later.

These rhymes, like those of _hom_ with _com_, &c., noticed above under _ā_, are to be explained as due to scarcity of exactly corresponding rhyme words. The only exact rhyme for _do_ and _to_ is in fact _schoo_, which is found in Prol. 356, but obviously could not be of frequent occurrence. The explanation given by ten Brink, _Chaucers Sprache_, § 31, and repeated mechanically by others, is that certain words which have _ǭ_ from _ā_, as _wo_, _two_, _so_ (_swā_), may equally have _ọ̄_ upon occasion owing to the influence of _w_. This is shown to be wrong both by the fact that the rhymes in question are, as we have seen, by no means confined to these words, and by the absence of other evidence in the case of _wo_ and _so_ that they ever had a tendency to _ọ̄_. The fact that the rhyme _do_ : _so_ is by far the commonest instance is due simply to the more frequent occasion for using the words.

In the rhyme _glove_ : _love_, v. 7047 f., we have to deal with _ọ̄_, and there can be no question here of _love_ from _lufian_. Both sense and rhyme point to a verb _love_ corresponding to the substantive _lof_ or _love_, mod. _luff_, and signifying the action of bringing a ship’s head up nearer to the wind. The other rhymes used with _glove_ are _behove_, Prol. 357, _prove_, iii. 2153.

We may note that _wowe_ from _wōgian_ rhymes with _bowe_ (_būgan_), which does not fit in with ten Brink’s very questionable theory about the development of _ou_ (_ow_), _Chaucers Sprache_, § 46, Anm.

(3) ROMANCE VOWELS. A few notes only will be added here to what has already been said in the Introduction to Gower’s French Works.

Words with _-oun_ (_-on_) ending, as _condicioun_ (_-on_), _opinioun_ (_-on_), &c., rhyme only among themselves or with _toun_, _doun_, &c. There are no rhymes like Chaucer’s _proporcion_ : _upon_, and it is to be noted especially that the rhyming of proper names in _-on_, as _Salamon_, _Acteon_, &c., with this class of words, which is very common in Chaucer, does not occur in Gower’s English, though we occasionally find it in his French. At the same time the possibility of such rhymes cannot be denied, for we have _toun_ : _Ylioun_, v. 7235 f., and _Lamedon_ : _Jasoun_, v. 7197 f.

Adjectives in _-ous_ do not rhyme with _-us_, as in Chaucer _Aurelius_ : _amorous_, _Theseüs_ : _desirous_.

The terminations _-arie_, _-orie_ are not used at all, but instead of them the French forms _-aire_, _-oire_, as _adversaire_, _contraire_, _necessaire_, _gloire_, _histoire_, _memoire_, _purgatoire_, _victoire_. Latin proper names in _o_ rhyme with _ǭ_, as _Cithero_ (: _also_), _Leo_ (: _also_), _Phito_ (: _tho_), _Juno_ (: _so_, _tho_), &c., but also in several cases with _do_. There seems no sufficient reason to suppose, as ten Brink does, that they regularly had _ọ̄_.

(4) CONSONANTS. The termination _-liche_ (_-lich_) in adjectives and adverbs, which Fahrenberg judging by the rhymes sets down as very uncommon compared with _-ly_, is by far the more usual of the two. It is true that _-ly_ occurs more frequently in rhyme, but that is due chiefly to the greater abundance of rhyme words corresponding to it, e.g. _forthi_, _by_, _cri_, _merci_, _enemy_: we have, however, _redely_ : _properly_, Prol. 947 f. The general rule of usage is this: _-ly_ usually in rhyme (but _besiliche_ : _swiche_, iv. 1235 f.), and before a consonant in cases where the metre requires a single syllable, as i. 2069, ‘Al prively behinde his bak’ (but _frendlich_, viii. 2173), _-liche_ or _-lich_ before a vowel, as i. 373, ‘That ronne besiliche aboute,’ cp. ii. 1695, v. 1247, and _-liche_ of course where two syllables are required, as i. 1035, ‘Was thanne al openliche schewed,’ so ii. 918, iv. 57, and compare also iii. 2065 f.,

‘Unkindely for thou hast wroght,
Unkindeliche it schal be boght.’

But in Prol. 719 we have _only_ before a vowel,

‘Noght al only of thorient,’

though _onliche_ occurs in a similar position, i. 1948, and _onlich_, iii. 42. Again, 911,

‘And sodeinly, er sche it wiste,’

but Prol. 503,

‘Al sodeinliche, er it be wist,’

cp. iv. 921, compared with i. 1336.

The treatment of the O. E. spirant _h_ (= χ) deserves some attention. This occurring before _t_ is recognized as having in M. E. a palatal or a guttural sound, according to the nature of the preceding vowel, but the texts of our period usually give it as _gh_ in both cases. Gower, however, makes a distinction, writing almost regularly _alihte_, _briht_, _dihte_, _fihte_, _flihte_, _kniht_, _liht_, _miht_, _mihte_, _niht_, _riht_, _sihte_, _wiht_, _heihte_, _sleihte_, &c., but _aghte_, _caghte_, _straghte_, _boghte_, _broghte_, _noght_, _oght_, _oghte_, _soghte_. Occasionally however in the first class we find _g_, as rarely _bryghte_, _lighte_, more frequently _heighte_, _sleighte_, and pretty regularly _eighte_; and there are several words in the second which have variants with _h_, but in these cases _w_(_u_) is inserted, as _cawhte_, _strawhte_, _dowhter_ (_douhter_), _owhte_ : otherwise _u_ is generally absent, as we have already seen. The form referred to is commoner with the vowel _a_ than with _o_.

It is hardly necessary to repeat here that _plit_ is a word of Romance origin, and rhymes properly with _delit_, _appetit_, not with _liht_, _niht_, &c., being separate in etymology from O. E. _pliht_.

From the fact that there is no rhyming of _-iht_ with _-it_ either in Gower or Chaucer, we may certainly gather that the sounds were somewhat different; but the fact that Gower does not usually write _gh_ after _i_ indicates, no doubt, that in this case the sound of the spirant was less marked than when preceded by broader vowels.

Where O. E. _h_ is a final aspirate, _g_ is not usually written, as _sih_, _hih_, _nih_, _bowh_, _lowh_, _plowh_, _slowh_, _ynowh_, except in the case of _thogh_, but very occasionally we find such forms as _drogh_, _plogh_. In the words which have _w_(_u_) _h_ is often dropped, as in _bowes_, _low_, _slow_ (preterites), _ynow_.

v. INFLEXION.--(1) SUBSTANTIVES. In a certain number of words there is variation in the matter of final _e_: thus we have _drink drinke_, _felawe felawh_ (_fela_), _flyht flyhte_, _half halve_, _help helpe_, _kep kepe_, _lack lacke_, _lyf lyve_, _myn myne_, _queene queen_, _sor sore_, _wel wele_, _will wille_, _wyndou wyndowe_, to which must be added many words with the suffixes _-hede_, _-hode_, _-schipe_, and the termination _-inge_, e.g. _falshed(e)_, _knyhthod(e)_, _manhed(e)_, _felaschip(e)_, _hunting(e)_, _knowleching(e)_, _teching(e)_, _wenyng(e)_. In these latter cases the presence of the _e_ ending is not wholly dependent on the accent, for we have _huntíng_, i. 350, but _húntynge_, iv. 2429, _techyng_ and _techinge_ both equally in rhyme, i. 1592, v. 611, _gládschipe_, i. 3128, _knithód_, v. 2057, _felaschíp_, ii. 1217. Accent however has some influence, and it is hardly conceivable that the final _e_ should count in the metre except where the accent falls on the preceding syllable, so that where the accent is thrown back, we find that the word is regularly followed by a vowel. In the case of the (English) termination _-ere_ the final _e_ is usually written: such words are _beggere_, _forthdrawere_, _hindrere_, _ledere_, _lovere_, _makere_, _repere_, _spekere_, _writere_. This _-e_, however, is either elided or passed over in the metre (as with _janglere_, v. 526), unless an accent falls on the termination, in which case it may be sounded, as vii. 2348, ‘The Sothseiere tho was lief.’

The forms _game_, _gamen_ appear side by side both in singular and plural, as i. 347, vi. 1849, viii. 680.

As regards the oblique cases we note the following genitive forms: _cherche_, _herte_ (also _hertes_), _hevene_, _ladi_, _soule_, _sterre_ (pl.), _wode_ (also _wodes_), to which add _dowhter_ (also _dowhtres_), _fader_ (also _fadres_), _moder_. In the expressions _horse side_, _horse heved_, &c., _horse_ is genitive singular.

The _-e_ termination of the dative appears in a good many prepositional phrases: _to (in) bedde_, _in boke_, _to borwe_, _be (to) bote_, _with (of) childe_, _unto the chinne_ (but _unto the chin_, i. 1682), _be daie_, _to (fro) dethe_ (also _fro deth_), _of dome_, _on (under) fote_ (but _upon the fot_, _at his fot_), _on fyre_, _to (upon) grounde_, _fro (unto) the grounde_ (also _fro the ground_), _on hede_, _at (fro) home_ (also _at hom_), _in (on, upon) honde_, _to (into) honde_, (but ‘bar on _hond_,’ _be the hond_), _on horse_, _to horse_, _to (in, of) house_ (but _in myn hous_), _to (into) londe_, _be (in, over) londe_, _of (out of) londe_, _fro the londe_, (but _of his lond_, &c.), _be lyhte_, _to lyve_, _to manne_, _to mowthe_, _be mowthe_, _be nyhte_ (also _be nyht_, and regularly _at nyht_, _on nyht_, _a nyht_, _to nyht_), _to rede_, _be (to, into, out of) schipe_ (also _to schip_), _to scorne_, _to slepe_ (also _to slep_), _to toune_, _to wedde_, _to wyve_, _to ȝere_, _be ȝere_.

In the plural we have _hors_, _schep_ unchanged, and also with numerals, _mile_, _monthe_, _pound_, _ȝer_ (beside _ȝeres_), _wynter_. The plural of _thing_ is _thinges_, sometimes _thinge_, not _thing_. Mutation plurals, _feet_, _men_, _teeth_, _wommen_. Plurals in _-en_, _brethren_, _children_, _oxen_ (also _oxes_), _ton_, _yhen_.

The forms in _-ere_ have plurals _-ers_, as _janglers_, _kepers_, _lovers_. From _maiden_ we have beside _maidens_ also _maidenes_ (three syllables), iv. 255, which is perhaps the true reading in Chaucer, _Leg. of G. Women_, 722. From _angel_ we have plural _anglis_, iii. 2256, as well as _angles_, and _Nimphis_, v. 6932, but there are few examples of plural in _-is_.

With regard to Romance substantives Gower appears to be stricter than Chaucer in preserving their form. He gives us regularly _beste_ ‘beast,’ _feste_, _requeste_, _tempeste_. We have however _baner_ (also _banere_), _host_, _maner_, _matier_ (beside _manere_, _matiere_), _press_ (beside _presse_), _travaile_, _conseile_ (substantives) very occasionally for _travail_, _conseil_.

Several distinctively feminine forms are used, as _capiteine_, _chamberere_, _citezeine_, _cousine_, _enemie_.

In some cases the Latin inflexion is introduced, as _Tantaly_, _Apollinis_, _Centauri_, _in Cancro_, _Achillem_, _Esionam_, _Phebum_, the two last apparently introduced after the first recension.

(2) ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS. A few adjectives vary as regards final _e_ in the uninflected form, for example _ech eche_, _lich liche_, _low lowe_, _many manye_, _moist moiste_, _old olde_, _other othre_, _such suche_ (?), _trewe trew_, _wommanyssh wommannysshe_.

In comparative forms _-e_ is often dropped, as _fairer_, _further_, _longer_, _rather_, _ȝonger_, but more often written, as _furthere_, _deppere_, _ferre_, _gladdere_, _grettere_, _lengere_, _rathere_. This _-e_, however, is either elided or passed over in the metre (as ii. 503, iv. 1459, vi. 1490, 1525, 2010). Where there is syncope of the penultimate, as after _v_(_u_) in _levere_, the final _e_ counts regularly as a syllable, so that in case of elision the word is reduced to a monosyllable, which never takes place with _rathere_, _furthere_, &c.

When adjectives or adverbs ending in weak _e_ are combined with a suffix or another word, _-e_ is often dropped; thus we have _everemore evermore_, _furthermore_, _joieful joiful_, _hevenely hevenly_, _trewely_ _trewly_ (so also _trewman_), and so on. In such cases a previously syncopated penultimate ceases to be so on loss of the following _e_.

A few cases occur of _-id_ for _-ed_ in adjective endings, as _nakid_ (also _naked_), _wickid wikkid_ (usually _wicked_), also _hundrid_ (usually _hundred_).

The definite form is used pretty regularly in the case of English monosyllabic adjectives, and usually also in monosyllables of French origin. This rule applies (1) to adjectives used after the definite article, a demonstrative pronoun or a possessive; (2) to those employed as vocatives in address; (3) to adjectives in combination with proper names or words used as proper names[V]. Thus we have regularly (1) ‘the _grete_ hert,’ ‘the _stronge_ coffre,’ ‘The _qwike_ body with the _dede_,’ ‘this _proude_ vice,’ ‘this _ȝonge_ lord,’ ‘my _longe_ wo,’ ‘his _lose_ tunge,’ ‘thi _fulle_ mynde,’ ‘whos _rihte_ name,’ &c. (2) ‘O _derke_ ypocrisie,’ ‘O _goode_ fader,’ ‘_lieve_ Sone,’ &c. (3) ‘_grete_ Rome,’ ‘_Blinde_ Avarice,’ ‘_proude_ Envie’ (but ‘_proud_ Envie,’ Prol. 712), ‘_faire_ Eole,’ ‘_stronge_ Sampson,’ ‘_wise_ Tolomeüs,’ &c.

We must note also the inflexions in the following expressions, ‘so _hihe_ a love,’ ii. 2425 (but _hih_, vii. 2413), ‘so _grete_ a wo,’ v. 5737, so _grete_ a lust,’ v. 6452, ‘so _schorte_ a time,’ vii. 5201.

With Romance adjectives we find ‘his _false_ tunge,’ ‘the _pleine_ cas,’ ‘_false_ Nessus,’ &c., and so usually in monosyllables.

In the case of English monosyllables the exceptions are few. ‘His _full_ answere,’ i. 1629, ‘hire _good_ astat,’ i. 2764, ‘here _wrong_ condicion,’ ii. 295, ‘his _slyh_ compas,’ ii. 2341 (but ‘his _slyhe_ cast,’ ii. 2374), ‘the _ferst_ of hem,’ iii. 27, v. 2863, cp. 5944 (usually ‘the _ferste_,’ as i. 580, &c.), ‘my _riht_ hond,’ iii. 300, ‘the _trew_ man,’ iii. 2346, ‘his _hih_ lignage,’ iv. 2064 (due perhaps to the usual phrase ‘of hih lignage’), ‘the _hih_ prouesse,’ v. 6428*, ‘hire _hih_ astat,’ v. 6597, ‘the _gret_ oultrage,’ vii. 3413, ‘hire _freissh_ aray,’ vii. 5000, ‘hire _hol_ entente,’ viii. 1222, cp. viii. 1710, 2968 (but ‘ȝoure _hole_ conseil’).

Among Romance adjectives the want of inflexion is more frequent in proportion to the whole number of instances, e.g. ‘the _vein_ honour,’ Prol. 221, ‘the _fals_ emperour,’ Prol. 739, ‘Hire _clos_ Envie,’ ii. 684, &c.

In the case of adjectives of more than one syllable, whether English or French, the definite form is exceptional. The commonest case is that of superlatives, in which the definite form _-este_ is regularly used when the accent falls on the termination, whether in rhyme or otherwise, as _faireste_, i. 767, v. 7427, _slyheste_, i. 1442, _wiseste_: _myhtieste_, i. 1097 f., _wofulleste_, vii. 5017. Even when the accent is thrown back, the definite inflexion is more usually given than not, as _faireste_, i. 1804, _hoteste_, i. 2492, _treweste_, ii. 1282, _povereste_, iv. 2238, _heyeste_, vii. 935, but sometimes dropped, as ‘the _purest_ Eir,’ Prol. 921, ‘the _ȝongest_ of hem,’ i. 3133, ‘the _lowest_ of hem alle,’ vii. 224: in all cases, however, where the accent is thrown back, the adjective is followed by a word beginning with a vowel, so that the metre is not affected.

Other adjectives of which the termination is capable of accent may take the definite inflexion, when the accent is thrown on the termination, as ‘the _covoitouse_ flaterie,’ ‘this _lecherouse_ pride,’ this _tyrannysshe_ knyht,’ but on the other hand ‘his fals _pitous_ lokynge,’ ‘the _pietous_ Justinian,’ ‘the proude _tyrannyssh_ Romein,’ and cases where the adjective is used as a substantive, ‘the _coveitous_’, ‘This _Envious_,’ ‘_thaverous_,’ &c. We have ‘the _parfite_ medicine,’ iv. 2624 (but ‘the parfit Elixir,’ iv. 2522, with accent thrown back), and ‘O thou _gentile_ Venus,’ viii. 2294; but perhaps _parfite_, _gentile_ are to be regarded as feminine forms, as almost certainly _devolte_, i. 636.

Where the final syllable of the adjective is incapable of accent, there is ordinarily no question of a definite inflexion, except where there is syncope after _v_ (_u_), as in _evele_. Such words are _croked_, _wicked_, _cruel_, _litel_, _middel_, _biter_, _dedly_, _lusti_, _sinful(l)_, _wilful_, _woful(l)_, _wrongful_, and we may note that comparatives in _-ere_ and adjectives in _-liche_ (with accent thrown back) sometimes appear in the truncated form of spelling even where a definite termination is suggested by their position, e.g. ‘hire _ȝonger_ Soster,’ v. 5395, ‘hir _goodlych_ yhe,’ ii. 2026, ‘Ha, thou _ungoodlich_ ypocrite,’ v. 6293, ‘hire _dedlich_ yhe,’ vii. 5089 (_-lich_ in these latter cases to avoid the hiatus of ‘ungoodly ypocrite,’ &c.). As an exceptional instance the form _nakede_ should be observed, ‘his _nakede_ arm,’ iv. 421, given so both by F and S.

The formation of plurals in adjectives and participles used attributively is governed by the same principles. We have ‘_preciouse_ Stones,’ iv. 1354, but ‘the most _principal_’ (pl.), v. 1115. In the expression ‘the chief flodes,’ v. 1112, _chief_ must be considered perhaps as a substantive, like _hed_ in ‘the hed planete.’ Naturally words like _wicked_, _woful_, _lusti_, &c., take no plural inflexion, but we have _manye_ (_manie_) beside _many_ apparently as a plural form, though _manye_ also occurs in the singular, and _enye_ once as plural of _eny_. In the expression ‘som men’ _som_ is without inflexion in the plural, e.g. Prol. 529, iii. 2113, but ‘_somme_ clerkes,’ Prol. 355, ‘_some_ thinges,’ i. 1265.

Adjectives used as predicates or in apposition are to some extent treated according to convenience of metre or rhyme, but in the case of monosyllables there is a decided preference for inflexion. The following are some of the instances: ‘Whan we ben _dede_,’ Prol. 2, ‘hem that weren _goode_,’ 42, ‘my wittes ben to _smale_,’ 81, ‘Ther ben of suche manie _glade_,’ 299, ‘become _grete_,’ 303, ‘ben with mannes senne _wrothe_,’ 920, so _blinde_, i. 774, _smale_, 1145, _glade_, 1151, _hyhe_, _smale_, i. 1678 f., _hore_ and _whyte_, i. 2045, _stronge_, iii. 1112, _dulle_, iv. 947, _whyte_, _fatte_, _grete_, iv. 1310, &c. We have also ‘hise thoghtes _feinte_,’ iv. 118, ‘thinges ... _veine_,’ i. 2689, ‘hise bedes most _devoute_,’ i. 669, ‘in wordes so _coverte_,’ iv. 1606, wher the men ben _coveitouse_, v. 4800.

On the other hand, ‘Of hem that ben so _derk_ withinne,’ i. 1077, ‘Hire chekes ben with teres _wet_,’ i. 1680, ‘Thei wexen _doumb_,’ iv. 345, ‘Here bodies weren _long_ and _smal_,’ iv. 1320, ‘Thei weren _gracious_ and _wys_,’ vii. 1447, ‘thei weren _glad_,’ viii. 881, and so frequently.

The participle used as predicate is ordinarily uninflected, but there are a few examples of a plural form adopted for the rhyme, as _made_, Prol. 300, _ansuerde_, i. 3246, iv. 2343, _hidde_, v. 6789.

The usage of _al_, _alle_ as an adjective is in some ways peculiar, but tolerably consistent. In the singular before an article, a demonstrative pronoun or a possessive, the uninflected form _al_ (occasionally _all_) is used, as ‘al the baronie,’ ‘al the world,’ ‘al his welthe,’ ‘all his proude fare,’ ‘al a mannes strengthe’ (also ‘the Cite all,’ ii. 3473), but before a substantive the form _alle_ (dissyllable)[W], as ‘alle grace,’ ‘alle thing,’ ‘alle untrouthe,’ ‘alle vertu,’ ‘in alle wise,’ ‘in alle haste,’ ‘alle wel,’ ‘alle charite,’ but sometimes before vowels _al_, as ‘al honour,’ i. 879, ‘al Erthe,’ i. 2825, ‘al Envie,’ ii. 168, ‘al untrowthe,’ ii. 1684. In the plural, ‘al the,’ ‘all these,’ ‘alle the,’ &c. (‘alle’ being counted as a monosyllable), and without the article, ‘alle’ (but ‘al othre,’ iv. 1532).

Note also the adverbial expression ‘in _none_ wise,’ cp. ‘_othre_ wise.’ In cases of the combination of a French adjective with a feminine substantive of the same origin the adjective occasionally takes the French feminine form. Instances are as follows: ‘_devolte_ apparantie,’ i. 636, ‘_veine_ gloire,’ i. 2677 ff., ‘vertu _sovereine_,’ ii. 3507, ‘_seinte_ charite,’ iv. 964, ‘herbe _sovereine_,’ vii. 1392, ‘joie _sovereine_,’ viii. 2530, and even as predicate, ‘Dame Avarice is noght _soleine_,’ v. 1971. Possibly also, ‘O thou _divine_ pourveance,’ ii. 3243, ‘the _parfite_ medicine,’ iv. 2624, ‘a _gentile_ ... on,’ v. 2713, and ‘O thou _gentile_ Venus,’ viii. 2294, may be examples of the same usage.

There is one instance of the French plural adjective in _-s_, Prol. 738, evidently introduced for the sake of the rhyme.

(3) PRONOUNS. The personal pronoun of the first person is regularly _I_, not _ich_. It is usually written _y_ by the copyist of the last 235 lines of the Fairfax MS. and in the _Praise of Peace_.

The third person sing. fem. is _sche_ (never written _she_), once _scheo_: the oblique case is _hire_, _hir_ (never _here_), and _hire_, though usually equivalent to a monosyllable, sometimes has _-e_ fully sounded, as i. 367, iv. 766, v. 1178.

The third person neuter is _it_, seldom _hit_.

In the first person plural the oblique case is _ous_, not shortened to _us_ in spelling.

The possessives of the first and second persons sing., _min_, _thin_, have no plural inflexion, but the disjunctive form _thyne_ pl. occurs, i. 168. On the other hand _his_, originally an uninflected form, has usually the plural _hise_, but sometimes _his_. The form _hise_ is never a dissyllable.

The feminine possessive, 3rd pers., is _hire_ or _hir_, freely interchanged and metrically equivalent. There is no question of a plural inflexion here, and we find ‘_Hire_ Nase,’ ‘_hire_ browes,’ ‘_hir_ lockes,’ ‘_Hire_ Necke,’ quite indifferently used, i. 1678 ff. The disjunctive is _hire_, v. 6581, and _hires_, v. 6857. The forms _oure_, _ȝoure_ are usual for the possessives of the 1st and 2nd pers. plur., and these are commonly used as monosyllables, e.g. i. 2062, 2768, and interchanged with _our_, _ȝour_; but they are also capable of being reckoned as dissyllables, e.g. Prol. 5, iii. 1087. Here again there is no plural inflexion (‘_ȝour_ wordes,’ iii. 627). The disjunctive _ȝoures_ occurs in i. 1852.

The possessive of the 3rd pers. plur. is _here_, _her_, which is practically never confused in good MSS. with _hire_, _hir_ of the fem. sing.[X] We are fully justified in assuming that for Gower the distinction was absolute.

The ordinary relatives are _which_ and _that_: _who_ is little used as a relative except in the genitive case, _whos_. The plural _whiche_ is usually pronounced as a monosyllable, as ii. 604, iv. 1496, v. 1320, and often loses _-e_ in writing, as Prol. 1016, iv. 1367, 1872, v. 4041, but also sometimes counts as a dissyllable, e.g. i. 404, vii. 1256.

In combination with the definite article the singular form is ‘the which,’ not ‘the whiche,’ as Prol. 71, 975.

(4) VERBS. In the Infinitive and Gerund, apart from the cases of _do_, _go_, _se_, _sle_, &c., few instances occur of the loss of final _e_. The verb _sein_ (_sain_) has _seie_ and also _say_, and beside the regular infinitive _pute_ we have also _put_ in several instances, the next word beginning with a vowel or mute _h_. The cases are as follows: ‘And thoghte put hire in an Ile,’ i. 1578, ‘To put his lif,’ &c., i. 3213, ‘put eny lette,’ ii. 93, and so also ii. 1021, iii. 1166, iv. 756, 2615, v. 273, viii. 892: but also, ‘It oghte _pute_ a man in fere,’ i. 462, ‘To _puten_ Rome in full espeir,’ ii. 1551, ‘Theucer _pute_ out of his regne,’ iii. 2648, &c. In addition to the above there are a few instances of the same in other verbs, as ‘_get_ hire a thank,’ ii. 60, ‘It schal noght wel _mow_ be forsake,’ ii. 1670, ‘_flitt_ his herte aside,’ iv. 214, ‘_let_ it passe,’ viii. 2056. (In vi. 202, ‘If that sche wolde _ȝif_ me leve,’ we ought perhaps to read _ȝive_ with S: cp. i. 1648.)

The gerund ‘to done’ is common, but we do not find either ‘to sene’ or ‘to seine.’

=Present Tense.= In the 1st pers. sing, of the present, apart from such forms as _do_, _go_, &c., and _prai_ beside _preie_ _praie_, there are a few cases of apocope, as in the infinitive: ‘Than cast I,’ iv. 560, ‘let it passe,’ iv. 363, ‘I put me therof in your grace,’ i. 732, ‘I put it al,’ v. 2951, ‘I red thee leve,’ vi. 1359, ‘Nou thenk I,’ vii. 4212. In two of these instances it will be noticed that the following word begins with a consonant.

In the 3rd pers. sing. the syncopated and contracted forms are very much used by Gower. He says regularly _bit_, _ett_, _get_, _put_, _schet_, _set_, _sit_ (2nd pers. _sist_), _smit_, _writ_; _arist_, _bint_, _fint_, _holt_ (_halt_), _lest_, _went_, _wext_; _berth_, _brekth_, _bringth_, _crith_, _drawth_, _drinkth_, _falth_, _farth_, _forsakth_, _leith_, _lyth_, _preith_, _spekth_, _takth_ (or _tath_), _thenkth_, _ȝifth_, and only occasionally _draweth_, _drinketh_, _fareth_, _kepeth_, _sitteth_, _waxeth_, &c. In vi. 59 the best MSS. agree in giving _sterte_ for _stert_, and in viii. 2428 most have _sitte_ for _sit_, but these are probably accidental variations. For the 3rd pers. plural Fahrenberg (p. 404) quotes several supposed instances of _th_ ending. Of these most are expressions like ‘men seith,’ where ‘men’ is used as singular indefinite. One only is valid, viz. vii. 1107, ‘Diverse sterres to him longeth’: cp. vii. 536.

=Preterite.= With regard to the tense formation of Strong Verbs reference may be made to the Glossary, where all the characteristic forms are recorded. We confine ourselves here to a few remarks.

The following instances may be noticed of gradation between the singular and the plural of the preterite: _began_, pl. _begunne begonne_, _gan_, pl. _gonnen_, _ran_, pl. _runne_, _wan_, pl. _wonne_, _bond_, pl. _bounden_, _fond_, pl. _founden_, _song_ (_sang_), pl. _songe sunge_, _sprong_, pl. _spronge sprungen_, _drank_ (_dronk_), pl. _drunke_, _bar_, pl. _bere_ (_beere_), _brak_, pl. _brieken_, _spak_, pl. _spieke_, _sat_, pl. _sete(n) siete(n)_ _seete_, _bad_, pl. _bede_, _lay_ (_lih_), pl. _lihe leie(n)_, _wax_, pl. _woxen_, _wrot_, pl. _write(n)_, _rod_, pl. _riden_, _ches_, pl. _chose_, and among preterite-presents _can_, pl. _conne_, _mai_, pl. _mowe_, _schal_, pl. _schulle schull schol_, _wot_, pl. _wite_.

There are some few instances in F of strong preterites with irregular _-e_ termination in the 1st or 3rd pers. singular, but in no case is this authenticated by metre or rhyme. The following are examples in which F and S are agreed, ‘_schope_ a wile,’ v. 4278, ‘he _bare_ him,’ v. 5236, ‘which _sihe_ his Soster,’ v. 5810, ‘_lete_ come,’ vi. 1186, ‘he tho _toke_ hire in his arm,’ viii. 1732. These are perhaps mistakes, and they have sometimes been corrected in the text on the authority of other MSS.

The 2nd pers. sing. has the _-e_ termination, as _sihe_ (_syhe_), iii. 2629, iv. 599, _were_, iv. 600, _knewe_, vi. 2313, _come_, viii. 2076, but _tok_, i. 2421. The 2nd pers. sing. of the preterite-present _mai_ is regularly _miht_ (_myht_), never ‘mayest.’ Occasionally the best MSS. give it as _mihte_, e.g. i. 2457, vii. 2637, 3819, but there is no metrical confirmation of this form. The preterite plural is very rarely found without _-e_, as v. 3300, 7534, vii. 3574.

Among Weak Verbs those which have the short or syncopated form keep the _-e_ termination almost regularly. Such preterites are, for example, _aspide_, _cride_, _deide_, _leide_, _obeide_, _payde_, _preide_, _seide_, _teide_, _hadde_, _made_, _brende_, _sende_, _answerde_, _ferde_, _herde_, _solde_, _spilde_, _tolde_, _wende_, _betidde_, _dradde_, _fedde_, _fledde_, _hedde_, _gradde_, _ladde_, _radde_, _spedde_, _spradde_, _crepte_, _duelte_, _felte_, _hente_, _kepte_, _kiste_, _lefte_, _lepte_, _loste_, _mente_, _slepte_, _wente_, _wepte_, _alihte_, _caste_, _dihte_, _grette_, _knette_, _kutte_, _laste_, _liste_, _mette_, _plyhte_, _putte_, _schette_, _sette_, _sterte_, _triste_, _arawhte_, _broghte_, _cawhte_, _oghte_, _roghte_, _schryhte_, _soghte_, _strawhte_, _tawhte_, _thoghte_, _wroghte_, _cowthe_, _dorste_, _mihte_, _moste_, _scholde_, _wiste_, _wolde_.

At the same time it must be noted (as in the case of the infinitive) that with some of these forms there is an occasional tendency to drop the _-e_ before a vowel at the beginning of the next word (that is, where elision would take place), and the agreement of the best MSS., especially F and S, makes it certain this was sometimes done by the author. It is impossible to trace any system, but the number of verbs affected is not large, and in nearly every case the instances of this kind of elision-apocope are largely outnumbered by the examples of normal inflexion in the same verb[Y].

The following is a tolerably full list of references for
these preterite forms, which are given in alphabetical order:
‘_Beraft_ hire,’ v. 5647, ‘it _betidd_ upon the cas,’ vii.
4381, ‘Sche _cast_ on me,’ i. 152, ‘_cast_ up hire lok,’ v.
5436, ‘he _cast_ his lok,’ vi. 1035, ‘_dorst_ he,’ ii. 1633,
‘_drad_ him,’ viii. 1368, ‘And _felt_ it’ (subj.), viii. 2165,
‘so _ferd_ I,’ viii. 2445, ‘_had_ herd hem,’ v. 5865, ‘Hir bodi
_hent_ up,’ v. 5702, ‘_herd_ he noght sein,’ iii. 2082, ‘And
_kept_ hire,’ ii. 181, ‘Sche _kept_ al doun,’ v. 1495, ‘he
_kest_ him,’ vi. 1746, ‘And _kist_ him,’ v. 3777, 5592, ‘and
_knet_ it,’ v. 6866, ‘he _kut_ it,’ vii. 4525, ‘what him _list_
he tok,’ iii. 2446, ‘Sche _lost_ al,’ ii. 2290, cp. v. 3465,
‘That _mad_ hem,’ ii. 310, and so also v. 986, 3393, 3822, ‘ne
_myht_ I,’ i. 1280, ‘_miht_ eschuie,’ iii. 1356, and so also
iii. 1440, vii. 4285, ‘_Put_ under,’ Prol. 683, ‘Wan and _put_
under,’ Prol. 718, ‘He _put_ hem into,’ i. 1013, ‘Sche _put_
hire hand,’ i. 1807, and so also ii. 3267, v. 3045, 4088, 5326,
6409, vi. 2062, vii. 4402, viii. 2702, ‘thei _putt_ hem,’ v.
7417, ‘Of ous, that _schold_ ous,’ Prol. 543 (so SF), ‘_schold_
every wys man,’ ii. 578, ‘And _seid_ hir,’ i. 3188, ‘_Seid_
ek,’ v. 4309, ‘And _set_ hire,’ ii. 2220, ‘He _set_ him,’ v.
3691, ‘he _set_ an essamplaire,’ vii. 4262, ‘And _tawht_ hem
so’ (‘tawhte’ S), iii. 176, ‘_told_ him,’ i. 3187, ii. 803,
2865 (‘tolde’ S), vii. 4688, _told_ hem,’ v. 3883, viii. 1555,
‘he _told_ out,’ ii. 884, ‘every man _went_ on his syde,’ v.
7403, ‘And _went_ hem out’ (pl.), v. 7533, ‘sche _wist_ it,’
ii. 2010, ‘thanne _wold_ I,’ i. 183, ‘and _wold_ have,’ v.
4217, ‘I _wold_ stele,’ v. 7137, ‘_wold_ I,’ viii. 2298, to
which we may add ‘_myht_ obeie,’ and ‘_behight_ him’ from the
_Praise of Peace_, 39, 41.

Of these examples it is to be remembered, first that in only
one case, ‘I wold stele,’ v. 7137, does this apocope take
place before a consonant, though in one other instance, v.
5865, the following word begins with an aspirated _h_; and
secondly, that with all these, except perhaps _put_, the full
form of the preterite is that which usually occurs before a
vowel as well as elsewhere. Even in the case of _put_ we have
the form _putte_ frequently when it is subject to elision, as
Prol. 1069, ‘And putte awey malencolie,’ and so ii. 713, 2684,
iv. 399, 1368, &c., as well as regularly before a consonant,
as ‘With strengthe he putte kinges under,’ i. 2797. The form
_putt_ occurs in v. 7417, and in this case the verb is plural.
The only other instances of plurals in the list are Prol. 543
and v. 7533.

With regard to the weak verbs which form preterites with ending _-ede_, the loss of the final _e_ is somewhat more common, but it is usually retained, and sometimes it counts as a syllable in the verse. Where this is not the case, it is either elided in the usual way, or if it be dropped in writing, this is only under the conditions which apply to the verbs mentioned above, namely, before a vowel at the beginning of the succeeding word.

It is, however, noteworthy that the use of these forms, whether in _-ede_ or _-ed_, is decidedly rare, and was avoided by our author even in cases where the _-e_ would have been subject to elision. It is evident that he was always conscious of this ending, even if he did not always write it, and yet he felt that the two weak syllables ought not to have full value in the metre. The result was that he avoided the use of the form generally, so far as it was reasonably possible to do so. The whole number of these preterites in _-ede_, _-ed_ to be found in the _Confessio Amantis_ is surprisingly small, both actually and relatively, that is, taking account of the extent to which the verbs in question are employed in their other tenses. The method pursued is chiefly to substitute in narrative the present tense, or the perfect formed with ‘hath,’ for the 3rd person singular of the preterite, ‘Conforteth’ for ‘Confortede,’ ‘Hath axed’ for ‘axede,’ ‘feigneth’ for ‘feignede,’ and this apparently as a matter of habit and even in cases where a vowel follows. No doubt the use of the present tense in narrative is quite usual apart from this, but the extremely frequent combination of strong or syncopated preterites with the present tenses of verbs of this class seems to me to indicate clearly how the matter stood.

The following are a few of the examples of this: ‘For sche
_tok_ thanne chiere on honde And _clepeth_ him,’ i. 1767
f., ‘The king _comandeth_ ben in pes, And ... _caste_,’
3240 f., ‘_Comendeth_, and _seide_ overmore,’ 3361, ‘he him
_bethoghte_,... And torneth to the banke ayein,’ ii. 167 ff.,
‘for hem _sente_ And _axeth_ hem,’ 613 f., ‘_lay_ ... _clepeth_
oute ... _sterte_,’ 848 ff., ‘Sche _loketh_ and hire yhen
_caste_,’ 1066, ‘This child he loveth kindely ... Bot wel
he _sih_ ... _axeth_ ... _seide_,’ 1381 ff., ‘Sche _preide_
him and _conseileth_ bothe,’ 1457, ‘Which _semeth_ outward
profitable And _was_,’ 2201 f., ‘And he himself that ilke
throwe _Abod_, and _hoveth_ there stille,’ iii. 1232 f., and so
on.

These examples will serve to illustrate a tendency which every reader will observe, when once his attention has been called to it. There are indeed many narrative passages in which nearly all the strong or syncopated verbs are used in the preterite, and all the others in the present, and it is evident that this cannot be accidental[Z].

There are, however, a certain number of instances of the use of weak preterites, indicative or subjunctive, and a few in which the final _e_ (or _-en_) is sounded in the metre.