'Gower,' we are told, 'rymes the preterite _had_ with _bed_, _leiser_ with _desire_, and _dore_, a door, with the verb _dare_, in the form _dore_'; p. 64. Gower does none of these things; he rimes the correct preterite _hedde_[47], which means 'hid,' and which Pauli (regardless of sense) turns into _hadde_, with the form _a-bedde_ (i. 256). Further, he rimes _desir_ with _leiser_, according to Pauli (ii. 95); but there is no reason why Gower may not have meant to use the form _leisir_, since that is the true A.F. form corresponding to O.F. _loisir_ (still in use)[48]. Lastly, Gower rimes _dore_ (dur[*e]), a door, with _dore_ (dur[*e]), the 1st p. pr. subj. of the verb _durren_, to dare, corresponding to A.S. _durre_ (ii. 96). The fact that the pres. indicative is _dar_, with a different vowel, has nothing to do with the passage in question. It is the critic, not Gower, who is here at fault; even Gower must have known that _dar_ is monosyllabic, and could not possibly rime with the dissyllabic sb. _dore_. Chaucer uses 'the pp. _smitted_ for _smitten_'; T. v. 1545; p. 65. Not so; _smitted_ and _smitten_ are totally different words. Chaucer uses 'the form _houn_ for _hound_'; T. iv. 210; p. 65. What _howne_ means, I do not know; but, as it is dissyllabic, it cannot mean _hound_; nor has it any connection therewith. 'In HF. 959, the infin. _demeine_ is found riming with _seyen_'; p. 71. Not so; it rimes with the dative of the infinitive, _to seyne_ (A.S. _t[=o] secganne_); precisely as _to seyne_ rimes with _reyne_ in F 313. In the face of this quotation, the next remark loses all its point, viz. that 'the suggestive fact about this peculiarity of ryme is that it is not found in the Canterbury Tales'; the answer being, that it _is_ found there. So again, we find _to seyne_, _peyne_, Parl. Foules, 78. Next we read--'if it be contended that the usage is based upon the derivation of one of the forms from the A.S. gerundial ending _-anne_, it is enough to reply that its occurrence in these cases is not borne out by the poet's practice elsewhere'; p. 71. Of course, it is _not_ enough; for we cannot divorce Chaucer's language from the general usage of Middle-English, in which very few forms of this character had survived. Even if it _were_ enough, the assertion that there is no other such case happens not to be true; for we often find _to done_; as in A 3543, 3778, B 770, D 2194, F 334, G 932, I 62. And again, we find _to sene_, riming with _grene_, A 1035. And yet again, _to bene_, Rom. Rose, 1265. It is impossible to respect arguments which derive all their apparent force from the principle of heaping one mistake upon another.