All the poems here rejected were rejected by Tyrwhitt, with two strange exceptions, viz. nos. 50 and 59, the Virelai and the Court of Love. Of both of these, the language is quite late. The _Virelai_ is interesting from a metrical point of view, because such poems are scarce; the only similar poem that I can call to mind is the _Balet_ (or rather _Virelai_) composed by Lord Rivers during his imprisonment in 1483, and printed by Percy in his Reliques of Ancient English Poetry. Percy says that Lord Rivers copies the _Virelai_ mentioned above, which he assumes to be Chaucer's; but it is quite as likely that the copying was in the other direction, and that Lord Rivers copied some genuine _Virelai_ (either Chaucer's or in French) that is now lost[228]. The final rime of _end_ with _find_, is bad enough; but the supposition that the language is of the 14th century is ridiculous. Still the _Virelai_ is good in its way, though it can hardly be older than 1500, and may be still later. Of all poems that have been falsely ascribed to Chaucer, I know of none more amazing than _The Court of Love_. The language is palpably that of the 16th century, and there are absolutely _no_ examples of the occurrence in it of a final _-e_ that is fully pronounced, and forms a syllable! Yet there are critics who lose their heads over it, and will not give it up. Tyrwhitt says--'I am induced by the internal evidence (!) to consider it as one of Chaucer's genuine productions.' As if the 'internal evidence' of a poem containing no sonant final _-e_ is not enough to condemn it at once. The original MS. copy exists in MS. R. 3. 19 in Trinity College, and the writing is later than 1500. The poem itself has all the smoothness of the Tudor period[229]; it excels the style of Hawes, and would do credit to Sackville. One reference is too interesting to be passed over. In the second stanza, the poet regrets that he has neither the eloquence of Tully, the power of Virgil, nor the 'craft of _Galfride_.' Tyrwhitt explains _Galfride_ as 'Geoffrey of Monmouth,' though it is difficult to understand on what ground he could have been here thought of. Bell's 'Chaucer' explains _Galfride_ as 'Geoffrey of Vinsauf,' which is still more curious; for Geoffrey of Vinsauf is the very _Gaufride_ whom Chaucer holds up to eternal ridicule in the Nonne Prestes Tale (l. 526).