'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. _c[=o]me_ would have a long close _o_, and could not possibly rime (in Chaucer) with the short _u_ in _overcome_ (aoverkum[*e]). 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.