'Gower,' we are told, 'rymes the preterite had with bed, leiser with desire, and dore, a door, with the verb dare, in the form dore'; p. 64. Gower does none of these things; he rimes the correct preterite hedde[[47]], which means 'hid,' and which Pauli (regardless of sense) turns into hadde, with the form a-bedde (i. 256). Further, he rimes desir with leiser, according to Pauli (ii. 95); but there is no reason why Gower may not have meant to use the form leisir, since that is the true A.F. form corresponding to O.F. loisir (still in use)[[48]]. Lastly, Gower rimes dore (durə), a door, with dore (durə), the 1st p. pr. subj. of the verb durren, to dare, corresponding to A.S. durre (ii. 96). The fact that the pres. indicative is dar, with a different vowel, has nothing to do with the passage in question. It is the critic, not Gower, who is here at fault; even Gower must have known that dar is monosyllabic, and could not possibly rime with the dissyllabic sb. dore.

Chaucer uses 'the pp. smitted for smitten'; T. v. 1545; p. 65. Not so; smitted and smitten are totally different words.

Chaucer uses 'the form houn for hound'; T. iv. 210; p. 65. What howne means, I do not know; but, as it is dissyllabic, it cannot mean hound; nor has it any connection therewith.

'In HF. 959, the infin. demeine is found riming with seyen'; p. 71. Not so; it rimes with the dative of the infinitive, to seyne (A.S. tō secganne); precisely as to seyne rimes with reyne in F 313. In the face of this quotation, the next remark loses all its point, viz. that 'the suggestive fact about this peculiarity of ryme is that it is not found in the Canterbury Tales'; the answer being, that it is found there. So again, we find to seyne, peyne, Parl. Foules, 78.

Next we read—'if it be contended that the usage is based upon the derivation of one of the forms from the A.S. gerundial

ending -anne, it is enough to reply that its occurrence in these cases is not borne out by the poet's practice elsewhere'; p. 71. Of course, it is not enough; for we cannot divorce Chaucer's language from the general usage of Middle-English, in which very few forms of this character had survived. Even if it were enough, the assertion that there is no other such case happens not to be true; for we often find to done; as in A 3543, 3778, B 770, D 2194, F 334, G 932, I 62.

And again, we find to sene, riming with grene, A 1035. And yet again, to bene, Rom. Rose, 1265. It is impossible to respect arguments which derive all their apparent force from the principle of heaping one mistake upon another.

[§ 47]. It is tedious to reply to special pleading of this kind. Thus, at p. 72, I am quoted, correctly, as objecting to the false rime in R. Rose, 1981, where the acc. pl. feet is made to pair with the infinitive lete. And we are told that 'the force of this example is altogether impaired by the fact that in the Man of Lawes Tale (B 1104) the same plural rimes with the infin. mete.' So far from impairing my argument, the 'fact' strengthens it immensely; for, in that passage, we have no longer to do with the acc. feet, but with the dative plural in the phrase to fet-e, answering to the A.S. phrase to fōtum, which just makes all the difference. Correctly, it should be to fōte; but the ē was, by this time, so strongly associated with the plural use, that to fēte took its place.

We see that the e was sounded, because there is a third riming word, in the phrase in the strete. Stratmann's Dictionary duly notes this very passage. It is, however, true that Chaucer is not always consistent about this; he has under fete, riming with swete, Book of the Duchess, 399; in a strete, riming with on my fete, HF. 1049; but in the Cant. Tales, we find at his feet, A 2047; al about hir feet, A 2075; unto his beddes feet, A 4213. The one thing which he does not do is to use fete in the accusative, which is precisely what the author of Fragment B of the Romaunt does; unless, as is more likely, he drops the -e of the infin. lete, which Chaucer invariably keeps (at any rate when final). We can easily understand the suppression of a final e; but it is difficult to understand why a writer should invent one.

Once more, when I argue that the rime of entente with the adj. present in R. Rose, 5869, does not accord with Chaucer's usage,