Chapter 6 of 21 · 3998 words · ~20 min read

Part 6

Of reflexive verbs, we meet with _me dremede_, 1284, _me met_, 1285, _me þinkes_, 2169, _him hungrede_, 654, _him semede_, 1652, _him stondes_, 2983, _him rewede_, 503. The present participles end most commonly in _-inde_, as _fastinde_, 865, _grotinde_ (? _gretinde_), 1390, _lauhwinde_, 946, _plattinde_, 2282, _starinde_, 508; but we also find _gangande_, 2283, _driuende_, 2702. Compare the nouns _tiþande_, 2279, _offrende_, 1386, which are Norse forms, _tíðindi_ (pl.) being the Icelandic for _tidings_, and _offrandi_ the present participle of _offra_, to offer. But the true Icelandic equivalent of the substantive _an offering_ is _offran_, and the old Swedish is _offer_; and hence we see at how very early a date the confusion between the noun-ending and the ending of the present participle arose; a confusion which has bewildered many generations of Englishmen. Yet this very poem in other places has _-ing_ as a noun-ending _only_, never (that I remember) for the present participle. Examples of it are _greting_, 166, _dreping_, i.e. slaughter, 2684, _buttinge_, _skirming_, _wrastling_, _putting_, _harping_, _piping_, _reding_; see ll. 2322-2327. Such words are frequently called _verbal nouns_, but the term is very likely to mislead. I have found that many suppose it to imply _present participles used as nouns_, instead of _nouns of verbal derivation_. If such nouns could be called by some new name, such as _nouns of action_, or by any other title that can be conventionally restricted to signify them, it would, I think, be a gain. Amongst the auxiliary verbs, may be noted the use of _cone_, 622, as the subjunctive form of _canst_; _we mone_, 840, as the subjunctive of _mowen_; cf. _ye mowen_, 11; but especially we should observe the use of the comparatively rare verbs _birþe_, it behoves, pt. t. _birde_, it behoved, and _þurte_, he need, the latter of which is fully explained in the Glossary to William of Palerne, s.v. _þort_.

The prefix _to-_ is employed in _both_ senses, as explained in the same Glossary, s.v. _To-_. In _to-brised_, _to-deyle_, &c., it is equivalent to the German _zer-_ and Mœso-Gothic _dis-_; of its _other_ and _rarer_ use, wherein it answers to the German _zu-_ and Mœso-Gothic _du-_, there is but _one_ instance, viz. in the word _to-yede_, 765, which signifies _went to_; cf. Germ. _zugehen_, to go to, _zugang_ (A.S. _to-gang_), access, approach. There are some curious instances of a peculiar syntax, whereby the infinitive mood active partakes of a passive signification, as in _he made him kesten, and in feteres festen_, he caused him to be cast in prison (_or perhaps_, overthrown), and to be fastened in fetters; l. 81. But it is probable that this is to be explained by considering it as a phrase in which we should _now_ supply the word _men_, and that we may interpret it by “he caused [men] to cast him in prison, and to fasten him with fetters;” for in ll. 1784, 1785, the phrase is repeated in a less ambiguous form. See also l. 86. So also, in ll. 2611, 2612, I consider _keste_, _late_, _sette_, to be in the infinitive mood. Such a construction is at once understood by comparing it with the German _er liess ihn binden_, he caused him to be bound. In l. 2352, appears the most unusual form _ilker_, which is literally _of each_, and hence, _apiece_; cf. _unker_, which also is a genitive plural. It will be observed that the verb following is in the plural, the real nominative to it being _þei þre_. In l. 2404, the expression _þat þer þrette_, “that there threat,” recalls a colloquialism which is still common. The word _þrie_, 730, is, apparently, the O.E. adverb _thrie_, thrice; _liues_, 509, is an adverb ending in _-es_, originally a genitive case. _Þus-gate_ is, according to Mr Morris, unknown to the Southern dialect; it occurs in ll. 785, 2419, 2586. I may add that Havelok contains as many as five expressions, which seem to refer to _proverbs_ current at the time of writing it. See ll. 307, 648, 1338, 1352, 2461.

[Footnote 33: “Cf. K. Horn, 1005, where _haue_ rhymes with plawe.” --M. Mr A. J. Ellis would consider _slawen_, _knaue_, &c., as assonances-- “Do not think of the pronunciation of modern _drawen_. Read _sla-wen_, _kna-ue_, an assonance. _Beþe_ does _not_ rhyme to _reden_; it is only an assonance.” --Ellis. On the other hand, we find the spellings _rathe_, _rothe_ instead of _rede_ in ll. 1335 and 2817.]

[Footnote 34: “_Qual_ = _quhal_, the aspirate being omitted; and _quhal_ = _whal_.” --Ellis.]

[Footnote 35: The use of _th_ for _t_ is not uncommon. In the _Romans of Partenay_, we have _thown_, _thaken_, _thouchyng_, &c., for _town_, _taken_, _touching_; see Preface, p. xvi. In the copy of Piers Plowman in MS. Camb. Univ. Lib. Dd l. 17, I have observed several similar examples. Cf. Eng. _tea_, Ital. _tè_, Span. _té_, with Fr. _thé_, Swed. _the_, G. Du. Dan. _thee_.]

[Footnote 36: “Is _e_ for _o_ a mistake, or may it be compared with _preue_ for _prove_, &c.?” --Ellis. I would observe that _greting_ is the spelling of the _substantive_ in l. 166.]

§ 28. ON THE METRE OF HAVELOK.

The poem is written in the familiar rhythm of which I have already spoken elsewhere, viz. at p. xxxvii of the Preface to Mr Morris’s edition of Genesis and Exodus. The metre of Havelok is rather more regular, but many of the remarks there made apply to it. The chief rule is that every line shall contain four accents,[37] the two principal types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines--

and (2) by the seven-syllable and eight-syllable lines--

To one of these four forms every line can be reduced, by the use of that slighter utterance of less important syllables which is so very common in English poetry. It is not the number of _syllables_, but of _accents_, that is essential. In _every_ line throughout the poem there are four accents, with only two or three exceptions, viz. ll. 1112, 1678, &c, which are defective. In a similar manner, we may readily scan any of the lines, as e.g. ll. 2-4;

Here the syllables _-nes and_ in l. 3, _of a_ in l. 4, and _it wile_ in l. 5, are so rapidly pronounced as to occupy only the room of one unaccented syllable in lines of the strict type. However awkward this appears to be in theory, it is very easy in practice, as the reciter readily manages his voice so as to produce the right rhythmical effect; and, indeed, this variation of arrangement is a real improvement, preventing the recitation from becoming monotonous. Those who have a good ear for rhythm will readily understand this, and it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it more at length. But it may be remarked, that the three lines above quoted are rather _more irregular than usual_, and that the metre is such as to enable us to fix the instances in which the final _-e_ is pronounced with great accuracy, on which account I shall say more about this presently. I would, however, first enumerate the rimes which seem to be more or less inexact or peculiar, or otherwise instructive.

I. _Repetitions._ Such are _men, men_; _holden, holde_, 29;[39] _erþe, erþe_, 739; _heren, heren_, 1640; _nithes, knithes_, 2048; _youres, youres_, 2800. To this class belong also _longe, londe_, 172, _heye, heie_, 1151, 2544; where _longe, londe_ is, however, only an assonance.

II. _Assonant rimes._ Here the rime is in the vowel-sound; the consonantal endings differ. Such are _rym, fyn_, 21; _yeme, quene_, 182; _shop, hok_, 1101 (where _shop_ is probably corrupt); _odrat, bad_, 1153; _fet, ek_, 1303; _yer, del_, 1333; _maked, shaped_, 1646; _beþe, rede_, 1680; _riche, chinche_, 1763, 2940; _feld, swerd_, 1824, 2634; _seruede, werewed_, 1914; _wend, gent_, 2138; _þank, rang_, 2560; _boþen, ut-drowen_, 2658. To the same class belong _name_, _rauen_, 1397, _grauen, name_, 2528; _slawen, rauen_, 2676. _Henged, slenget_, 1922, should rather be called an imperfect rime.[40] There is also found the exact opposite to this, viz., an agreement or _consonance_ at the end, preceded by an apparent diversity in the vowel; as _longe, gange_, 795 (but see _longe, gonge_, 843), _bidde, stede_, 2548, _open, drepen_, 1782, _gres, is_, 2698, _boþe, rathe_, 2936 (but see _rathe, bathe_, 1335, 2542), _fet_ (long _e_), _gret_, 2158; and not unlike these are some instances of loose rimes, as _beþe, rede_, 360, _knaue, plawe_, 949, _sawe, hawe_ (where _hawe_ is written for _haue_), 1187, _sawe, wowe_, 1962 (but see _wowe, lowe_, 2078, _lowe, sawe_, 2142, _wawe, lowe_, 2470). Observe also _bouth, oft_ (read _vt_ or _ut_ = _out_?), 883, _tun, barun_, 1001 (cf. _toun, brun_, 1750, _champiouns, barouns_, 1032); _plattinde, gangande_, 2282, &c. _Eir, toþer_, 410, _harde, crakede_, 567, are probably due to mistakes.[41]

III. Rimes which shew that the final _-en_ was pronounced so slightly as to be nearly equivalent to _-e_. Examples: _holden, holde_, 29; _gongen, fonge_, 855; _bringe, ringen_, 1105; _mouthen, douthe_, 1183; _riden, side_, 1758; _wesseylen, to-deyle_, 2098; _slawen, drawe_, 2476. In the same way _hon_ rimes to _lond_, 1341, owing to the slight pronunciation of the final _d_.[42]

IV. Rimes which appear imperfect, but may be perfect. _Riche_ answers to _like_, 132, but the true spelling is _rike_, answering to _sike_, 290. _Mithe_, 196, should probably be _moucte_, as in l. 257, and it would thus rime with _þoucte_. _Blinne_, 2670, should certainly be _blunne_; cf. A.S. _blinnan_, pt. t. s. _ic blan_, pt. t. pl. _we blunnon_; and thus it rimes to _sunne_. _Misdede_, 993, is clearly an error for _misseyde_, as appears from the parallel passage in ll. 49, 50; and it then rimes with _leyde_. So in l. 1736, for _deled_ read _deyled_, as in l. 2098. _Boþe_, 430, has no line answering to it, and a line may have been lost. _Nicth, lict_, 575, is a perfect rime. _Halde, bolde_, 2308, may also be perfect. _For-sworen_ answers to _for-lorn_ (pronounced _for-loren_), 1423; _bitawte_ to _authe_ (pronounced _aute_), 1409; _yemede_ (pronounced _yem-dè_) is not an improper rime to _fremde_, 2276; _anon_ rimes with _iohan_ (if pronounced _ion_ or _John_, as indicated by the spelling _ion_ in l. 177), 2562, 2956. Yet in another instance it seems to be two syllables, _Jo-han_; see _wimman, iohan_, 1720.[43] Speche should be _speke_, and thus rimes to _meke_, 1065. _Stareden_ should perhaps be _stradden_, or some such form, rightly riming to _ladden_, 1037. Under this head we may notice some rimes which throw, possibly, some light on the pronunciation. Thus, for the sound of _ey, ei_, observe _hayse, preyse_, 60; _leyke, bleike_, 469; _laumprei, wei_, 771; _deye_ rimes to _preye_, 168; _day_ to _wey_, 663; _seyd_ to _brayd_, 1281; but we also find _hey, fri_, 1071; _hey, sley_, 1083, _heye, heie_, 1151; _heye, eie_, 2544; _leye, heye_, 2010; _heye, fleye_, 2750. _Fram_ rimes to _sham_, 55; yet the latter word is really _shame_, 83; _gange_ is also spelt _gonge_, _halde_ rimes with _bolde_, 2308. The pronunciation of _ware_, _were_, or _wore_, seems ambiguous; we find _sore, wore_, 236; _wore, more_, 258; _ware, sare_, 400; _wore, sore_, 414; _were, þere_, 741; _more, þore_, 921. For the sound of _e_, observe _suere, gere_, 388; _suereth, dereth_, 648; _eten, geten_, 930; _yet, fet_, 1319; _stem, bem_, 592; _glem, bem_, 2122; also _yeue, liue_, 198; _liue, gyue_, 356; _lyue, yeue_, 1217; _her, ther_, 1924; _fishere, swere_, 2230. For that of _i_, observe _cri, merci_, 270; _sire, swire_, 310; _swiþe, vnbliþe_, 140; _fir, shir_, 587; _sire, hire_, 909; _rise, bise_, 723; _fyr, shir_, 915; _lye, strie_, 997; _hey, fri_, 1071; _for-þi, merci_, 2500. For that of _o_, observe _two, so_, 350; _do, so_, 713; _shon, on_, 969; _hom, grom_, 789; _lode, brode_, 895; _anon, ston_, 927; _ston, won_, 1023; _do, sho_ (shoe), 1137; _do, sho_ (she), 1231; _stod, mod_, 1702; _ilkon, ston_, 1842; _shon_ (shoon), _ston_, 2144; _croud, god_, 2338; _don, bon_, 2354; _sone_ (soon), _bone_, 2504; _bole, hole_, 2438.[44] Only in a few of these instances would the words rime in modern standard English. For the _ou_ and _u_ sounds, observe _couþe, mouþe_, 112; _yow, now_, 160; _wolde, fulde_, 354; _yw, nou_, 453; _bounden, wnden_, 545; _sowel, couel_, 767; _low, ynow_, 903; _sowen, lowe_, 957; _strout, but_, 1039; _þou, nou_, 1283; _doun, tun_, 1630; _crus, hous_, 1966; _wounde, grunde_, 1978; _bowr, tour_, 2072; _spuse, huse_, 2912. _Lowe_, 1291, 2431, 2471, should rather be _lawe_, as in l. 2767. These hints will probably suffice for the guidance of those who wish to follow up the subject. It is evident that full dependence cannot be placed upon the _exactness_ of the rimes.

[Footnote 37: “This _four accents_ I consider to be a wrong way of stating the fact. . . The metre consists of four measures, each generally, not always, of _two_ syllables, the first often _one_ syllable, the others often of _three_ syllables, and each measure has generally more stress on the last than on any other, but the accents or principal stresses in the verse are usually 2, sometimes 3, perhaps never 4.” --A. J. Ellis. I need hardly add that such a statement is more exact, and that I here merely use the word _accent_ in the loose sense it often bears, viz. as denoting the “stress,” more or less heavy, and sometimes imperceptible, which is popularly supposed to belong to the last syllable in a measure. I must request the reader to remember that this present sketch of the metre is very slight and imperfect, and worded in the usual not very correct popular language. For more strict and careful statements the reader is referred to Mr A. J. Ellis’s work on Early English Pronunciation. Until readers have made themselves acquainted with that work, they will readily understand what I _here_ mean by “accents;” afterwards, they can easily adopt a stricter idea of its meaning.]

[Footnote 38: “You cannot scan this line in any way. This method of doing it is quite impossible; it is a mere chopping to make a verse like this. The line is corrupt. Omit _þat_, and you have

Of | a tal’ | ich you | wile telle

or better,

Of | a tal’ | ich wil|e telle.” --Ellis.]

[Footnote 39: The number is that of the _first_ line of the pair.]

[Footnote 40: “You have omitted the curious _harde, krakede_, 567, here; it is only an assonance, not a mistake, I believe.” --Ellis. But see note to l. 567.]

[Footnote 41: “On _i, e_ rhymes, see p. 271, last line and following, of my Chap. IV. The _o, a_ depend on a provincialism, and this applies to _sawe_, _wowe_; _beþe_, _rede_; _knaue_, _plawe_; _sawe_, _hawe_; &c. _Bouth, oft_ is a case of assonance, _bouth_ being _bought_, where properly the _ugh_ is the voiced sound of Scotch _quh_, and easily passes into _f_. The assonance is therefore nearly a rhyme. _Plattinde, gangande_ is probably a scribal error. _Eir, toþer_ is certainly a mistake; read

Swanborow, helfled, his sistres fair.” --Ellis.

We may then perhaps alter _gangande_ to _ganginde_. I do not quite like writing the modern form _fair_ instead of the old plural _fayre_ in order to gain a rime to _eir_. Cf. ll. 1095, 2300, 2538, 2768.]

[Footnote 42: “_Hon, lond_ may arise from a Danism, or from an English custom at that time of not pronouncing _d_ after _n_ in _nd_ final; Danish _Mand_ and German _Mann_ are identical.” --Ellis. I prefer to call it Danish; we English, now at least, often _add_ a _d_, as in _sound_, _gownd_, from _soun_, _gown_.]

[Footnote 43: “_Johan_ is almost _Jon_ in Chaucer, however written, but l. 177 wants a measure; read--

Bi [Jhesu] crist, and bi seint ion.

In l. 1720 also the verse is defective; omit _al_, and read--

In denemark nis wimman [non] So fayr so sche, bi _seint_ Johan,

where _seint_ is a dissyllable; see p. 264 of my Early English Pronunciation. _Hey, fri_, 1071, is an error; read _hy_, and see p. 285 of my book. The other instances of _ei_, _ai_ are all regular, the confusion of _ei_, _ai_ being perfect in the thirteenth century. _Shame_, l. 88, is dative, and would prove nothing, but _shame_ in Orrmin is conclusive. Hence in _sham’_, 56, we have an _e_ omitted; compare p. 323 of my book, and the German _Ruh’_.” --Ellis. In other places, the spelling _heye_ occurs, rather than _hy_: see ll. 719, 987, 1071, 1083, 1289, 1685, 2431, 2471, 2544, 2724, 2750, 2945, &c.]

[Footnote 44: “The instances of _o_ are all regular, except _croud, god_, 2338, which is a false rhyme altogether; _ou_ = modern _oo_.” --Ellis.]

§ 29. ON THE FINAL -E, &c.

There can be little doubt that the final _-e_ is, in general, fully pronounced in this poem wherever it is written, with but a very few exceptions; but at the same time it is liable to be elided when followed by a vowel or (sometimes) by the letter _h_, as is usual in old English poetry. In the following remarks, I shall use an apostrophe to signify that _e_ is _written, but not pronounced_; thus “wil’” signifies that “wile” is the MS. form, but “wil” the apparent pronunciation. I shall use an italic _e_ to signify that the _e_ is elided because followed by a vowel or _h_, as “cupp_e_” (l. 14); and in the same way, “rid_en_,” “lit_el_,” &c, signify that the syllables _-en_, _-el_ are slurred over in a like manner. It will be seen that such syllables are, in general, slurred over when they occur before a vowel or _h_; under the same circumstances, that is, as the final _-e_. When I simply write the word in the form “gode” as in the MS., I mean that the _-e_ is _fully pronounced_; so that “gode” stands for “godë.”

The following, then, are instances. I follow the order in Mr Morris’s Introduction to Chaucer’s Prologue, &c. (Clarendon Press Series).

(_A_) In nouns and adjectives (of A.S. origin) the final _-e_ represents one of the final vowels _a_, _u_, _e_, and hence is fully sounded even in the nominative case in such instances. Examples; gome (A.S. _goma_), 7, blome (A.S. _bloma_), 63, trewe (A.S. _treowe_), 179, knaue (A.S. _cnafa_), 308, 450, sone (A.S. _sunu_), 394.

(_B_) In words of French origin it is sounded as in French verse. Such words are scarce in Havelok. Examples: hayse, 59, beste, 279, mirácle, 500, rose, 2919, curtesye (_miswritten_ curteyse), 2876, cf. 194, drurye, 195, male, 48, large, 97, noble, 1263.

(_C_) It is a remnant of various grammatical inflexions:--

(1) it is a sign of the _dative_ case in nouns; as, nede, 9, stede, 10, trome, 8, wronge, 72, stede, 142, dede (not elided, because of the cæsura), 167, arke, 222, erþe, 248, lite þrawe, 276. It also sometimes marks the accusative, or the genitive of feminine nouns: _accusatives_, cupp_e_, 14, wede, 94, brede, 98, shrede, 99, mede, 102, quiste, 219, sorwe, 238 (cf. sorw’ in l. 240), son_e_, 308, knaue, 308, sone, 350, wille, 441: _genitives_, messe, 186, 188, helle, 405.

(2) In adjectives it marks--

(_a_) the _definite form_ of the adjective; as, þe meste, 233, þe riche (not elided[45]), 239, te beste, 87, þe hexte [man], 1080, þat wicke, 1158, þat foule, 1158, þe firste, 1333, þe rede, 1397. This rule is most often violated in the case of _dissyllabic_ superlatives; as, þe wictest’, 8, þe fairest, þe strangest, 1081, 1110; cf. 199, 200.

(_b_) the _plural_ number. Examples abound, as, gode, 1, alle, 2, are, 27, yung = yung_e_, 30, holde, 30, gode, 34, 55, harde, 143, gren_e_, 470, bleike, 470, halte, 543, doumbe, 543, &c.

The same use is often extended to possessive pronouns; we find the plurals mine, 385, 514 (but min’, 392), þine, 620, hise, 34, 67, hure, 1231; and even the singulars hire, 84, 85, hure, 338, yure, 171. But the personal pronoun feminine is often hir’, 172, 209; yet see l. 316.

(_c_) the _vocative_ case, as, dere, 839, 2170; leue, 909.

(3) In verbs it marks--

(_a_) the infinitive mood; as, telle, 3, duelle, 4, falle, 39, bey_e_, 53, swere, 254, be-bedde, 421, ber_e_, 549, &c. On this point there cannot be a moment’s doubt, for the form _-en_ is found quite as often, and they rime together, as in 254, 255, cf. 29, 30. But it is well worth remarking that _-en_ is slurred over exactly where _-e_ would be, with much regularity. Examples are: rid_en_, 10, biginn_en_, 21, mak_en_, 29, heng_en_, 43, lurk_en_, 68, crep_en_, 68, rid_en_, 88, hau_en_, 270. Other examples are very numerous. But we sometimes find _-en_ not slurred over, as, drinken, 15; and the same is true even of _-e_, but such cases are exceptional and rare.

(_b_) the gerund; as, to preyse, 60.

(_c_) the past participle of a strong verb; as, drawe, 1802, slawe, 1803. But these are rare, as they are commonly written drawen, slawen, 2224.

(_d_) the past tense of weak verbs, where the _-e_ follows _-ed_, _-t_, or _-d_. Examples are very numerous; as, louede = lov’de, 30, 35 (not elided), 37, hauede = hav’de, 343; cf. haued = havd’, 336; þurte, 10, durst_e_, 65, reft_e_, 94; dede, 29, sende, 136, seyde, 228, herde, 286. Observe hated = hated_e_, 40. The plurals of these tenses are rarely in _-e_, generally in _-en_, as, haueden, 241, ded_en_, 242, sprauleden = spraul’den, 475.

(_e_) the subjunctive or optative mood, or the 3rd person of the imperative mood, which is really the 3rd person of the subjunctive. This rule seems to be carefully observed. Examples are yeue, 22, thaue, 296, yerne, 299, leue, 406, were, 513, wit_e_, 517, &c. So for the _first_ person, as, lat_e_, 509, lepe (not elided), 2009, spek_e_, 2079; and for the _second_ person, as, understonde, 1159, fare, 2705, cone, 622, 623.

(_f_) other parts of a _few_ verbs; thus, the 1st person singular present, as, liue, 301, ete, 793, rede, 1660, wille, 388, where _wille_ is equivalent to _wish_.

(_g_) present participles: thus, plattínde, 2282, is a half-rime to gangánde. In other places, the author is careful to place them before a vowel, as gretind_e_, 1390, lauhwind_e_, 946, starind_e_, 508, driuend_e_, 2702, fastind_e_, 865.

(4) In adverbs the final _-e_ denotes--

(_a_) an older vowel-ending; as, son_e_ (A.S. _sóna_), 136, sone, 218, 251, yete (A.S. _géta_, as well as _gét_), 495, ofte (Swed. _ofta_, Dan. _ofte_), 227.

(_b_) an adverb as distinguished from its corresponding adjective, as, yerne, 153, loude, 96, longe, 241, more, 301, softe, 305, heye, 335, swiþe, 455, harde, 639. Hence, in l. 640, we should read _neye_.

(_c_) an older termination in _-en_ or _-an_; as, þer-hinne, 322, 709, 712, henne, 843, inne, 855. Cf. A.S. _heonan_, _innan_.

(_d_) It is also sounded in the termination _-like_, as, sikerlike, 422. Hence, in baldelike, 53, _both_ the _ees_ are sounded; cf. feblelike, 418. When the final _-e_ is slurred over before an _h_ in _Chaucer_, _h_ is found commonly to begin the pronoun _he_, or its cases, the possessive pronouns _his_, _hire_, or their cases, a part of the verb to _have_, or else the adverbs _how_ or _heer_. The same rule seems to hold in _Havelok_. Observe, that _e_ often forms a syllable in the _middle_ of a word, as, bondeman, 32, engelondes, 63, pourelik_e_, 322.

With regard to the final _-en_, it is most commonly slurred over before a vowel or the _h_ in _he_ or _haue_, not only when it is the termination of the infinitive mood, but in _many other cases_. One striking example may suffice: