'In the Legend, 786, the preterite heryede rymes with the pp. beryed.' As the usual preterite was heryed (hér-y-ed-e being too cumbrous and almost unpronounceable), there is no error.
'In the Legend, 2384, the pp. served [rimes] with the preterite deservede' But the preterite was deserved. The full ending -ede was seldom added to roots of more than one syllable, least of all when the verb happened to be of French origin. By ignoring the habits of the language of Chaucer's time, such objections might have been largely multiplied; it is surprising to find that so few have been noted.
'In the Knightes Tale, A 2343, the preterite signifyede rymes with the pp. cried.' However, the preterite was signifyed.
'In the Man of Lawes Tale, B 559, the preterite mette rymes with the pp. yshet; [in B 435] the pp. converted with the preterite astertede; [in B 547] the pp. exiled with the preterite bigilede; and [in B 1115] the pp. ymet with the infin. lette and the preterite sette.' All the charges against Chaucer break down. The pp. yshet is properly yshette, plural. The preterite of asterten is asterted. The preterite of bigilen is bigiled. And the pp. ymet should be ymette, plural. A critic who imagines that such cumbrous preterites as astertede and bigilede were in common use, should be asked to read Middle-English authors till he meets with a few examples of them.
'In the Clerkes Tale, E 498, the preterite amevede rimes with the pp. agreved.' But the preterite was ameved.
'In the Somnours Tale, D 1833, the pp. amended rymes with the preterite defendede.' But the preterite was defended. Similarly, the preterites redressede, tariede, espyede, cryede, eylede, sewede are conjured up to put Chaucer in the wrong; an argument which requires no serious refutation. So far was Chaucer from using the form espyede that, whenever he desires to vary from the form espyed, he naturally uses the form espyde, as in G 1230. Our
ancestors were but human; they did not mind saying either espyed or espyde; but espy-e-de was a little too much.
'In the Compl. of Mars, 65, the preterite com rymes with the pp. overcome; but as in this instance, there is a possibility that com may be deemed a relic of the ancient subj. usage, and therefore entitled to a final e, the example will not be insisted upon at this point.' This seems to suggest, as an alternative, that come may be the preterite subjunctive; however it is neither the preterite nor the preterite subjunctive, but simply the present subjunctive, being perfectly correct. The line is: 'That dwell'th in solitud-e til she come,' i.e. that dwells [present tense] in solitude till she may come. The preterite subj. cōme would have a long close o, and could not possibly rime (in Chaucer) with the short u in overcome (aoverkumə).
It is objected to Legend, 1391, that the insertion of hath causes 'the adj. goode, of the definite declension, to be shorn of its final e in pronunciation.' The line is: 'As shal the good-man that therfor hath payed,' where good-man is a compound word, occurring in Matt. xxiv. 43, and elsewhere; and it is interesting to find that Chaucer even uses good men in the vocative plural, instead of good-e men, as a familiar form of address; B 4630. If, as seems to be proposed, we remove the word hath, and read good-e, we get: 'As shal the good-e man that therfor payed'; which rimes just as well as before, payed being an admissible form of the preterite, as well as payde. But then the epithet goode becomes comparatively otiose.
In the Legend, 1696, it is maintained that wroghte is a past participle. It is surely a preterite, the word they, i.e. the besiegers, being understood. This is a little forced, but it cannot be helped. To take it as a pp. gives no sense; for it then becomes, 'the siege lay full long, and (was) little wrought.' To 'work a siege' would be a harsh expression. If, on the other hand, we are to understand was before wrought, we may just as well understand they. It is quite as easy.