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.
The following are examples of _-ede_ preterites (in one
instance _-ide_): ‘I _wisshide_ after deth,’ i. 120, ‘he
_passede_ ate laste,’ 142, ‘he hem _stoppede_ alle faste,’ 522,
‘And _warnede_ alle his officiers,’ 2506, ‘Mi ladi _lovede_,
and I it wiste,’ ii. 502, ‘he _axede_ hem anon,’ 1248, ‘he
_rounede_ in thin Ere,’ 1944, ‘Bot he hire _lovede_, er he
wente,’ 2027, ‘Thogh that he _lovede_ ten or tuelve,’ 2063,
‘_Supplantede_ the worthi knyht,’ 2453, ‘Sche _pourede_ oute,’
iii. 679, so also iii. 1631, 2556, iv. 468, 825, 842, 934,
1340, 1345, 1444, ‘Lo, thus sche _deiede_ a wofull Maide,’
iv. 1593, ‘it _likede_ ek to wende,’ 2150, ‘_Controeveden_ be
sondri wise,’ 2454, ‘_Translateden._ And otherwise,’ 2660,
‘And _foundeden_ the grete Rome,’ v. 904, ‘He _feignede_ him,’
928, ‘And _clepede_ him,’ 951, ‘He _percede_ the harde roche,’
1678, ‘Thei _faileden_, whan Crist was bore,’ 1697, ‘Thei
_passeden_ the toun,’ 2182, ‘Alle othre _passede_ of his hond,’
3258, ‘_Welcomede_ him,’ 3373, ‘_walkede_ up and doun’ (pl.),
3833, ‘_axede_ him,’ 5129, so also 5774, 6132, 6791, 6887,
‘_oppressede_ al the nacion’ (pl.), vi. 568, ‘That _loveden_
longe er I was bore,’ 882, ‘he _usede_ ay,’ 1207, ‘_exilede_
out of londe,’ 2348, ‘_Enformeden_,’ vii. 1495, ‘_Devoureden_,’
3346, ‘_Ensamplede_ hem’ (pl.), 4441, ‘_Restorede_ hem,’ 4445,
so also 4632, 4986, 4992, 4998, &c., ‘_Eschuieden_ to make
assay,’ viii. 373, ‘With love _wrastlede_ and was overcome,’
2240.
This list of examples, which is fairly complete up to v. 1970, will
sufficiently show the manner in which _-ede_ preterites are used. In
more than three-fourths of the instances quoted the _-e_ is subject
to elision, and of those that remain nine are examples of the plural
with _-eden_ termination, and three only of the ending _-ede_, viz. ii.
2063, ‘Thogh that he lovede ten or tuelve,’ ii. 2453, ‘Supplantede the
worthi knyht,’ and v. 1678, ‘He percede the harde roche,’ of which the
first is really a case of syncope, ‘lov’de,’ as also ii. 502 (cp. vi.
882) and iv. 1593, whereas in ii. 2027 ‘lovede’ occurs unsyncopated but
with _-e_ elided. It will be noted that in the plural the form _-eden_
is used regularly when the syllables are to be fully pronounced, though
_-ede_ can be used for the sake of elision.
The _-ed_ form of preterite is less frequent than the other, and I am
not aware of any clear example of its employment before a consonant or
in rhyme. We have, for example, ‘And _used_ it,’ i. 342, ‘Sche _cleped_
him,’ i. 1535 (‘_humbled_ him,’ i. 2065, is probably a participle, ‘to
have humbled himself’), ‘_pryded_ I me,’ i. 2372, ‘ne _feigned_ I,’
ii. 2061, ‘the goddes ... Comanded him,’ iii. 2140 f., ‘Thei _cleped_
him,’ v. 876, cp. 1057, &c. In iii. 1759, ‘The Gregois _torned_ fro
the siege,’ we have most probably a participle, ‘were torned.’ We may
observe that the _-ed_ form stands also in the plural.
Among weak preterites from originally strong verbs we may notice
_abreide_, _crepte_ (but past participle _crope_), _foghte_, _fledde_,
_schotte_, _slepte_ (also _slep_, with past participle _slepe_),
_smette_ (beside _smot_), _wepte_. The pret. _satte_ in vii. 2282, ‘He
satte him thanne doun,’ seems to arise from confusion of _sat_ and
_sette_.
=Imperative.= The _Confessio Amantis_ is peculiarly rich in
imperatives. Beside the regular imperative singular forms, e.g. _ared_,
_besech_, _behold_, _ches_, _com_, _do_, _forsak_, _griet_, _help_,
_hier_, _hyd_, _kep_, _lef_, _ly_, _lei_, _lest_, _lep_, _prei_, _put_,
_say_, _schrif_, _spek_, _tak_, _tell_, _thenk_, _understond_, _ȝif_,
&c., the MSS. give us also _hyde_, iii. 1502, _seie_, vii. 4084,
_speke_, vii. 5422, _take_, iv. 2674, v. 6429, _thenke_, iii. 1083,
but not in such positions as to affect the metre. The forms _axe_,
_herkne_, _loke_, _wite_ are regular, but _lok_ also occurs (i. 1703,
v. 1220).
In some instances the short form of imperative seems to be used as
3rd pers., e.g. ‘hold clos the ston,’ v. 3573, for ‘let him hold,’
‘tak in his minde,’ viii. 1128, for ‘let him take,’ cp. viii. 1420.
The singular and plural forms are often used without distinction,
as v. 2333 ff., ‘_Ches_ ... and _witeth_ ... _ches_ and _tak_ ...
_goth_ ... _taketh_,’ v. 3986, ‘So _help_ me nou, I you beseche,’
with ‘_Helpeth_,’ just above, several persons being addressed, and so
‘_taketh_ hiede And _kep_ conseil,’ viii. 1509 f., to one person. In
the interchange of speech between the Confessor and the Lover, while
sometimes the distinction is preserved, the Confessor saying _tak_,
_tell_, _understond_, and the Lover _telleth_, _axeth_ (e.g. i. 1395,
1875), at other times the Lover says _lest_, _say_, _tell_, _lef_, &c.
(i. 1942, 1972, ii. 2074, iii. 841, &c.)[AA].
=Present Participle.= The form of the present participle is the most
characteristic part of Gower’s verb inflexion as compared (for example)
with Chaucer’s. Chaucer seems regularly to have used the form in
_-inge_ (often with apocope _-ing_): Gower uses ordinarily the form
_-ende_, and normally with the accent thrown on the termination, as i.
204, ‘To me _spekende_ thus began,’ 236, ‘Whos Prest I am _touchende_
of love,’ 428, ‘_Stondende_ as Stones hiere and there,’ 633, ‘So
that _semende_ of liht thei werke,’ 1379 f., ‘That for I se no sped
_comende_,... _compleignende_,’ 1682, ‘_Hangende_ doun unto the chin.’
Sometimes the same form is used with accent on the preceding syllable,
and in this case the _-e_ is systematically elided, e.g. Prol. 11, ‘In
tyme _comende_ after this,’ 259, ‘_Belongende_ unto the presthode,’
i. 296, ‘As _touchende_ of my wittes fyve’ (cp. 334, 742), 3025, ‘And
_wailende_ in his bestly stevene.’
In a relatively small number of instances the form _-inge_ occurs
either in rhyme, as i. 524, ‘So whan thei comen forth seilinge,’ in
rhyme with ‘singe,’ i. 1710, ‘And liveth, as who seith, _deyinge_,’ in
rhyme with ‘likynge’ (subst.), or with the accent thrown back, as i.
115, ‘_Wisshinge_ and _wepinge_ al myn one,’ v. 518, ‘_Abidinge_ in
hir compaignie,’ vi. 717, ‘I mai go _fastinge_ everemo’; rarely out of
rhyme and with accent, as i. 2721, ‘Mi fader, as _touchinge_ of al.’
The final _e_ is never lost in writing, but when the accent is thrown
back it is always elided.
=Past Participle.= The _-id_ termination of weak past participles is
very rarely found in the Fairfax MS., except in the concluding passage,
which is copied in a different hand from the rest. It occurs commonly
in the _Praise of Peace_. Examples found elsewhere in F are _weddid_,
iv. 650, _medlid_, iv. 1475.
From _setten_ besides the regular past participle _set_ there appears
the form _sete_ twice in rhyme, vii. 2864, _forȝete_ : _sete_, and
viii. 244, _misgete_ (past partic.): _upsete_. This seems to be formed
after the analogy of _gete_. On the other hand we have _ferd_, i. 445,
&c., but also _fare(n)_, iii. 2692, v. 3797, &c. The past participle
of _se_ is _sen_, _sein_, _seie_, but most commonly _sene_. In a few
instances a final _e_ is given by the MSS. in weak past participles,
e.g. _herde_ for _herd_, v. 4231, _schope_ for _schop_, v. 4278,
_sette_ for _set_, vi. 10, _wiste_ for _wist_, viii. 37.
The cases of weak past participles with plural inflexion (e.g. Prol.
300, i. 3246, iv. 2343, v. 6789) have already been mentioned in dealing
with adjectives.
There is hardly any use of the prefix _y-_ (_i-_), but we have _ybore_,
ii. 499.
vi. DIALECT. Gower’s language is undoubtedly in the main the English
of the Court, and not a provincial dialect. Making allowance for the
influences of literary culture and for a rather marked conservatism
in orthography and grammatical inflexions, we can see that it agrees
on the whole with the London speech of the time, as evidenced by the
contemporary documents referred to by Prof. Morsbach. At the same time
its tendencies are Southern rather than Midland, and he seems to have
used Kentish forms rather more freely than Chaucer. This is shown
especially (1) in the more extensive use of the forms in which _e_
stands for O. E. _y̆_, as _senne_, _kesse_, _pet_, _hell_, &c.; (2) in
the frequent employment of _ie_, both in French and English words, to
represent _ẹ̄_, a practice which can hardly be without connexion with
the Kentish _cliene_, _diepe_, _diere_, _hier_, _hield_, _niede_, &c.;
(3) in the use of _-ende_ as the normal termination of the present
participle. (The _Ayenbite_ regularly has _-inde_.) Probably also
the preference shown by Gower for the close sound of _ē_, from O. E.
_ǣ_, may be to some extent due to Kentish influence. Other points of
resemblance between the language of Gower and that of the _Ayenbite_
(for example) are the free use of syncopated forms in the 3rd pers.
sing. of verbs and the regular employment of _ous_ for _us_.
vii. METRE, &c. The smoothness and regularity of Gower’s metre has
been to some extent recognized. Dr. Schipper in _Englische Metrik_,
vol. i. p. 279, remarks upon the skill with which the writer, while
preserving the syllabic rule, makes his verse flow always so smoothly
without doing violence to the natural accentuation of the words,
and giving throughout the effect of an accent verse, not one which
is formed by counting syllables. Judging by the extracts printed in
Morris and Skeat’s _Specimens_ (which are taken from MS. Harl. 3869,
and therefore give practically the text of Fairfax 3), he observes
that the five principal licences which he has noted generally in the
English verse of the period are almost entirely absent from Gower’s
octosyllabics, and in particular that he neither omits the first
unaccented syllable, as Chaucer so often does (e.g. ‘Be it rouned, red
or songe,’ _Hous of Fame_, ii. 214, ‘Any lettres for to rede,’ iii. 51,
‘Of this hill that northward lay,’ iii. 62), nor displaces the natural
accent (as ‘Of Decembre the tenthe day,’ _Hous of Fame_, i. 111,
‘Jupiter considereth wel this,’ ii. 134, ‘Rounede everych in otheres
ere,’ iii. 954), nor slurs over syllables.
To say that Gower never indulges in any of these licences would be an
exaggeration. Some displacement of the natural accent may be found
occasionally, even apart from the case of those French words whose
accent was unsettled, but it is present in a very slight degree, and
the rhythm produced does not at all resemble that of the lines cited
above from Chaucer: e.g. i. 2296, ‘Wher that he wolde make his chace,’
2348, ‘Under the grene thei begrave,’ 2551, ‘“Drink with thi fader,
Dame,” he seide.’ Such as it is, this licence is nearly confined to
the first foot of the verse, and is not so much a displacement of the
natural accent of the words as a trochaic commencement, after the
fashion which has established itself as an admitted variety in the
English iambic. We may, however, read long passages of the _Confessio
Amantis_ without finding any line in which the accent is displaced even
to this extent.
Again, as to slurring of syllables, this no doubt takes place, but on
regular principles and with certain words or combinations only. There
are hardly more than three or four lines in the whole of the _Confessio
Amantis_ where a superfluous syllable stands unaccounted for in the
body of the verse, as for example,
iv. 1131, ‘Som time in chambre, som time in halle,’
v. 447, ‘Of Jelousie, bot what it is,’
v. 2914, ‘And thus ful ofte aboute the hals,’
v. 5011, ‘It was fantosme, bot yit he herde.’
The writer seems to have no need of any licences. The narrative
flows on in natural language, and in sentences and periods which are
apparently not much affected by the exigencies of metre or rhyme, and
yet the verse is always smooth and the rhyme never fails to be correct.
If this is not evidence of the highest style of art, it shows at least
very considerable skill.
In Gower’s five-accent line, as exhibited in the Supplication of viii.
2217-2300 and in the poem _In Praise of Peace_, Schipper finds less
smoothness of metre, ‘owing perhaps to the greater unfamiliarity and
difficulty of the stanza and verse’ (_Englische Metrik_, i. 483 ff.).
His examples, however, are not conclusive on this point. Some of the
lines cited owe their irregularity to corruptions of text, and others
prove to be quite regularly in accordance with Gower’s usual metrical
principles.
For instance, in viii. 2220 the true text is
‘That wher so that I reste or I travaile,’
which is a metrically perfect line. Again, in the _Praise of Peace_, l.
79,
‘And to the heven it ledeth ek the weie,’
it is impossible, according to Gower’s usage, that ‘heven’ should stand
as a dissyllable. He wrote always ‘hevene,’ and the penultimate was
syncopated. So also ‘levere’ in l. 340, ‘evere,’ l. 376. Hence there is
no ‘epic caesura’ in any of these cases. Nor again in l. 164, ‘Crist
is the heved,’ can ‘heved’ be taken as a dissyllable in the verse: it
is always metrically equivalent to ‘hed.’ The only fair instance of a
superfluous syllable at the caesura is in l. 66,
‘For of bataile the final ende is pees.’
It seems that the trochee occurs more commonly here than in the short
line. Such examples as Schipper quotes, occurring at the beginning of
the line,
‘Axe of thi god, so schalt thou noght be werned,’
‘Pes is the chief of al the worldes welthe,’
are of the same character as those which we find in the octosyllabics.
Perhaps, however, a difference is afforded by the more frequent
occurrence of the same licence in other parts of the verse, as,
‘So that undir his swerd it myht obeie,’ 39.
The rhyming on words like ‘manhode,’ ‘axinge,’ &c., is in accordance
with the poet’s general usage.
On the whole, the combination of the syllabic and the accentual
system is effected in the five-accent line of these stanzas almost as
completely as in the short couplet; and in his command of the measure,
in the variety of his caesura, and the ease with which he passes
without pause from line to line and rounds off the stanza with the
matter, the author shows himself to be as fully master of his craft
upon this ground as in the more familiar measure of the _Confessio
Amantis_.
As regards the treatment of weak syllables in the metre, Gower’s
practice, in accordance with the strict syllabic system which he
adopted, is very different from Chaucer’s. The rules laid down by ten
Brink, _Chaucers Sprache_, § 260, as to the cases in which weak final
_e_ is never counted as a syllable in the verse, except in rhyme,
require some qualification even when applied to Chaucer (for example,
‘sone’ is certainly a dissyllable in _Cant. Tales_, A 1963, _Hous of
Fame_, i. 218), and they are almost wholly inapplicable to Gower,
as we shall see if we examine them. (α) Gower has the forms _hire_,
_oure_, _ȝoure_, all occasionally as dissyllables apart from special
emphasis or rhyme. (β) _these_, _some_, _whiche_ are all sometimes
dissyllables. (γ) The strong participles with short stems as _come_,
_drive_, _write_ as a rule have the final _e_ sounded. (δ) The _-e_ of
the 2nd pers. sing. of the strong preterite may be sounded, e.g. iii.
2629 (but ‘Were thou,’ iv. 600). (ε) The form _made_, both singular and
plural, regularly has _-e_ sounded, _were_ (pret.) usually, and _wite_
sometimes. (ζ) _sone_, _wone_, _schipe_ (dat.), and the French words in
_-ie_ (_ye_), &c., have _-e_ regularly counted in the metre: so also
_beste_, _entente_, _tempeste_. (η) _before_, _tofore_, _there_ are
used in both ways.
Gower’s usage with reference to this matter is as follows:
The personal and possessive pronouns _hire_, _oure_, _ȝoure_,
_here_ and _hise_ (as plural of _his_), written also _hir_,
_our_, &c., are as a rule treated as monosyllables. We have
however ‘Fro _hire_, which was naked al,’ i. 367, ‘And thenke
untoward _hire_ drawe,’ iv. 559, so v. 1178, 2757, vii. 1899,
&c., ‘In _oure_ tyme among ous hiere,’ Prol. 5 (but ‘_Oure_
king hath do this thing amis,’ i. 2062), ‘As ȝe be _ȝoure_
bokes knowe,’ iii. 1087, cp. v. 2951 (but ‘Bot, fader, of
_ȝoure_ lores wise,’ i. 2768). Add to these _alle_ (pl.) before
definite article.
In the following words also the final _e_ is sometimes
suppressed for the verse: _these_ (also _thes_), Prol. 900,
1037, i. 435, ii. 237, &c. (but _thesë_, v. 813, 1127, vii.
1005, &c.): _whiche_ plur. (also _which_), ii. 604, iv. 1496,
&c. (but _whichë_, i. 404, v. 1269, vii. 822, 1256, &c.):
_eche_ (also _ech_), v. 6883, according to F, cp. Prol.
516: _there_ (usually _ther_), viii. 2311, 2689 (but _therë_,
iii. 1233, &c., and often in rhyme): _were_ pret. ind. or
subj. (also _wer_), iii. 1600, iv. 600, 1657, 1689 (but more
usually _werë_, as Prol. 1072, iii. 762, v. 2569, vii. 4458):
_where_ (usually _wher_), v. 4355 (but _wherë_, v. 2720):
_more_ (also _mor_), ii. 26, v. 2239, 6207, vii. 3237 (but
_morë_, Prol. 55*, 640, iv. 2446, vii. 3287, &c.): _before_,
_tofore_ (also _befor_, _tofor_), i. 2054, 2864, iii. 2052
(but _beforë_, Prol. 848, and often in rhyme): _foure_, vii.
2371 (but _fourë_, ii. 1037, iv. 2464): _fare_ (wel), iii.
305, iv. 1378 (but _farëwel_, v. 4218): _sire_, i. 2878, ii.
2995 (but _sirë_, v. 3547, 5593): _wite_, ii. 455 (but _witë_,
v. 3150, 3445): _wole_ (also _wol_), v. 2891, 2911, &c.:
_bothe_, ii. 1966, 2154, iv. 2138, &c. (but _bothë_, Prol.
1068, i. 851, &c.): _wolde_ (also _wold_), v. 4413 (usually
_woldë_): _come_, ii. 789, iv. 2826 (but _comë_, pp. iv. 1283,
vi. 1493, vii. 4840, inf. viii. 1362): _some_, pl. subst.,
iii. 2112, v. 2252 (but _somë_, i. 2034 ff.): _have_, Prol.
708, i. 169, 2724, ii. 550, iv. 1600 (but _havë_, ii. 332, iv.
1598): _love_, subst. iv. 930, vi. 1261 (but _lovë_ much more
often, e.g. i. 103, 251, 760, &c.): _tuelve_ (also _tuelf_),
iv. 1983 (but _tuelvë_, vii. 1005): _trewe_ (also _trew_), v.
2877 (but _trewë_, pl., Prol. 184, def., iii. 2228): _mowe_,
inf. (also _mow_), iv. 38: _seie_, inf. and 1st s. pres. iii.
1737, iv. 672, v. 2616, 6428, &c. (but _seië_ often): _preie_,
1st s. pres. (also _prai_), v. 4531 (but _preië_, v. 3230):
_furthere_, _forthere_ (also _further_, _forther_), iii. 81,
885: _lengere_ (also _lenger_), i. 1516, ii. 2602: _rathere_
(also _rather_), ii. 503, vii. 4161, viii. 2141: _janglere_, v.
526: also some isolated cases, as _aboute_, v. 2914, _Take_,
v. 7169, _Minotaure_, v. 5327 (but _Minotaurë_, 5291, &c.),
_Theophile_, viii. 1500.
In iv. 1131, v. 447, 5011, which we have quoted above, the
superfluous syllable in each case may be connected with the
pause in the sentence, as in _Mirour de l’omme_, 10623, ‘L’un
ad franchise, l’autre ad servage.’
Syncope (so far as regards the metre) regularly takes place in
the following: _covere_ (_discovere_, &c.), _delivere_ (but not
_deliverance_, i. 1584, v. 1657), _evene_, _evere_, _fievere_,
_havene_, _hevene_, _levere_, _nevere_, _povere_, _sevene_ (also
_sefne_), _swevene_ (also _swefne_), and some other words of a similar
kind, to which add _heved_, _evel_, _devel_. In these cases a final _e_
is always pronounced unless elided, and in case of elision a word like
_hevene_, _nevere_ is reduced to a monosyllable, as
‘This world which evere is in balance.’
The following also are sometimes syncopated: _lovede_, _loveden_,
ii. 502, vi. 882, but without syncope ii. 2027, _beloved_, i. 1928,
_belovëd_, i. 1920 f., _behovely_, _behovelich_, iii. 1330, v. 4012,
vii. 1949 (but _unbehovëly_, viii. 2884), _leveful_, v. 7053, _Averil_,
vii. 1029, _soverein_, vii. 1776 (but usually three syllables, as Prol.
186, i. 1609, and _sovereinete_, five syllables, i. 1847), _amorous_,
iii. 745 (but usually three syllables, as i. 1414), _fader_, ii. 2387,
cp. _fadre_, ii. 2519 (but ordinarily a dissyllable), _unkendeli_,
ii. 3124 (but _unkindëly_, iii. 2065), _comelieste_, _comelihiede_,
v. 3048, 6734 (but _comëly_, ii. 441), _namely_, viii. 3041, also
_namly_, ii. 47 (but usually three syllables, as Prol. 144, iii.
63), _Termegis_, iv. 2408. We may note, however, that this kind of
syncope is less used by Gower than by Chaucer, and that _chivalerie_,
_chivalerous_, _foreward_, _foretokne_, _loveday_, _pilegrin_,
_surquiderie_, &c., are fully pronounced.