chaucer had there for euer byn condempned, had yt not byn that his woorkes had byn counted but fables. [Sidenote: Reasons why the Pilgrime’s Tale should be Chaucer’s.] Whereunto yf yo{u} will replye, that their colde not be any suche pilgrymes tale, because Chaucer in his prologues makethe not mentione of anye suche persoune, whiche he wolde haue doune yf yt had byn so: for after that he had recyted the knighte, the squyer, the squiers yeomane, the prioresse, her noone, and her thre prests, the monke, the fryer, the marchant, the clerke of Oxenforde, seriante at the lawe, franckleyne, haberdassher, goldsmythe, webbe, dyer and tapyster, cooke, shypmane, Doctor of physecke, wyfe of Bathe, p{ar}soune and plowmane, he sayeth at the end of the plowmans prologue, There was also a Reue, and a Millere A sumpneure, and a Pardoner A manciple and my selfe there was no mo. All whiche make xxx persons with Chaucer: wherefore yf there had byn anye moore, he wolde also haue recyted them in those verses, whereunto I answere, that in the prologes he lefte oute some of those w{hic}he tolde their tales; as the chanons yomane, because he came after that they were passed out of theyre Inne, and did overtake them, as in lyke sorte this pilgrime did or mighte doo, and so afterwardes be one of their companye, as was that chanons yeomane, althoughe Chaucer talke no moore of this pilgrime in his prologe then he doothe of the chanons yeomane; whiche I dobte not wolde fullye appere, yf the pilgrimes prologe and tale mighte be restored to his former light they being nowe looste, as manye other of Chaucers tales were before that, as I am induced to thinke by manye reasons.