(_a_) and (_b_) mixed: _melody-e_, F. sb., _dy-e_, infin. mood, 675; _espy-e_, gerund, _curtesy-e_, F. sb., 795; _hy-e_, dat. adj., _maistry-e_, 841; _dy-e_, gerund, _flatery-e_, F. sb., 1063; _curtesy-e_, F. sb., _hy-e_, dat. case, pl. adj., 1251; _dy-e_, infin. mood, _remedy-e_, F. sb., 1479. Seventeen examples. (In all, fifty-five examples.) Thus, in more than fifty cases, the Chaucerian habit is maintained, and there is _no_ instance to the contrary. Even the least trained reader may now fairly begin to believe that there is some value in this proposed test, and may see one reason for supposing that fragment A may be genuine. § 16. A still closer examination of other rimes tends to confirm this. There are no Northern forms (as in B), no merely assonant rimes (as in B), nor any false or bad or un-Chaucerian rimes (as in both B and C), except such as can be accounted for. The last remark refers to the fact that the scribe or the printer of Thynne's edition frequently misspells words so as to obscure the rime, whereas they rime perfectly when properly spelt; a fact which tells remarkably in favour of the possible genuineness of the fragment. Thus, at l. 29, Thynne prints _befal_, and at l. 30, _al_. Both forms are wrong; read _befalle_, _alle_. Here Thynne has, however, preserved the rime by making a _double_ mistake; as in several other places. A more important instance is at l. 249, where the Glasgow MS. has _farede_, _herede_, a bad rime; but Thynne correctly has _ferde_, _herde_, as in Chaucer, Cant. Ta. A 1371. So again, at ll. 499, 673, where the Glasgow MS. is right (except in putting _herd_ for _herde_ in l. 673). At l. 505, there is a false rime; but it is clearly due to a misreading, as explained in the notes. A similar difficulty, at l. 1341, is explicable in the same way. § 17. So far, there is no reason why fragment A may not be Chaucer's; and the more closely we examine it, the more probable does this supposition become. Dr. Kaluza has noticed, for instance, that the style of translation in fragment A is distinctly better, clearer, and more accurate than in fragment B. I find also another significant fact, viz. that in my essay written to shew that 'the translation' is not Chaucer's (written at a time when I unfortunately regarded the whole translation as being the work of _one_ writer, a position which is no longer tenable), nearly all my arguments were drawn from certain peculiarities contained in fragments B and C, especially the former. I have therefore nothing, of any consequence, to retract; nor do I even now find that I made any serious mistake.