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_.