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.
[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.
[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.
[44.] “The instances of o are all regular, except croud, god, 2338, which is a false rhyme altogether; ou = modern oo.” —Ellis.
[45.] Riche being both A.S. and French, has the e even when indefinite; a riche king, 841; a riche man, 373.