the reply is made (p. 72) that entent rimes with the pp. shent in the Man of Lawes Tale (B 930). But it is clear that Chaucer here has entente as usual, and rimes it with the form shent-e, which is the pp. treated as a plural adjective; as in several other places.
Next (on p. 72), Gower is rated for riming the prep. for with the pp. forlore; Gower, C.A. ii. 239. But Gower's phrase is 'that thou art comen fore'; and I suspect that he knew the language of his own time. The fore may answer to the A.S. fore, on account of (Grein, i. 320); or, more probably, that ... fore was taken as the equivalent of therfore, which constantly takes the final e, as in Chaucer, E 1141.
On p. 72, again, it is said that, in F 1273, Chaucer rimes the pt. t. broght-e with nought, i.e. he uses the incorrect form broght. This charge, for once, is quite true, and it is as well to say at once, that Chaucer's rimes are not quite immaculate; but his sins of this description are not, after all, very numerous, and not by any means so numerous as Prof. Lounsbury, for the purpose of his argument, would have us believe. The only right method is to make out a fair list, without straining to make it much worse than it should be.
[§ 48]. In his Studies, vol. i. pp. 402-5, Prof. Lounsbury makes another attack upon the unfortunate poet's rimes. Many of his instances are wrong; so much so, that four of Chaucer's supposed errors and two of Gower's are admitted to be no errors in vol. iii. 453. It would have been well if all the rest of the charges had been withdrawn at the same time. I here draw attention to them accordingly.
'In Parl. Foules, 121, the preterite broughte rymes with the pp. wrought.' Answer; the rimes are: broght-e, y-wroght-e, thoght-e; the form y-wroghte occurs in the phrase 'with lettres large y-wroghte,' where y-wroghte is treated as a plural adjective; and there is no error at all.
'In Troilus, i. 463, the pp. fled rymes with the preterite bredde.' As before, the phrase is: 'Alle othere dredes weren from him fledde.' Here fledde is treated as a plural adjective, and there is no error at all. One would have thought that Chaucer knew something of the language of his time.
'In Troilus, ii. 1079, the pp. excused [rimes] with the preterite accusede.' But the preterite of accusen was accused; the addition
of the full suffix -ede is rare, and chiefly confined to monosyllabic roots.
'In Troil. iv. 1422, the pp. sprad [rimes] with the preterite hadde' The line ends, 'with herte and eres spradde'; where spradde is treated as a plural adjective. No error.
'In Troil. v. 1758, the preterite mette [rimes] with the pp. whet.' It is the same story; the phrase is 'hir speres weren whette.' No error.