§ 57. For it is well known that such a word as _sweetly_ (96) was trisyllabic, as _swet-e-ly_, in Chaucer; C. T., A 221. Similarly, our authoress has _trewly_ for _trew-e-ly_[26], 130; _richly_ for _rich-e-ly_, 169; _woodbind_ for _wod-e-bind-e_, 485. Similar is _ointments_ for _oin-e-ments_, 409. And, moreover, our authoress differs from Chaucer as to other points of grammar. Thus she has _Forshronk_ as a strong pp., 358, which ought to be _forshronk-en_ or _forshronk-e_. Still more marked is her use of _rood_ as the _plural_ of the past tense, 449, 454, where Chaucer has _rid-en_; and her use of _began_ as a plural, 385, where Chaucer has _bigonn-e_. Can these things be explained away also? If so, there is more to be said. § 58. All the above examples have been made out, without so much as looking at the rimes. But the rimes are much harder to explain away, where they differ from Chaucer's. Here are a few specimens. _Pas-se_ rimes with _was_, 27; so it must have been cut down to _pas_! Similarly, _hew-e_ has become _hew_; for it rimes with _grew_, sing., 32. _Sight-e_ has become _sight_, to rime with _wight_, 37. _Brought_ should rather be _brought-e_, but it rimes with _wrought_, 48. Similar difficulties occur in _peyn_ (for _peyn-e_), r. w. _seyn_ (62); _syd'_ for _syd-e_, r. w. _espy'd_ for _espy-ed_, 72; _eet_, r. w. _sweet_ for _swet-e_, 90; _not'_ for _not-e_, r. w. _sot_, 99; _busily_, r. w. _aspy'_ for _aspy-e_, 106; _trewly_, r. w. _armony'_ for _armony-e_, 130; _orient_ (_oriant_?), r. w. _want_ for _want-e_, 148; _person_ for _person-e_, r. w. _everichon_, 167. It is tedious to go on; let the critic finish the list, if he knows how to do it. If not, let him be humble. For there is more to come. § 59. Besides the grammar, there is yet the pronunciation to be considered; and here comes in the greatest difficulty of all. For, in ll. 86-89, we have the unusual rime of _tree_ and _be_ with _pretily_. This so staggered Dr. Morris, that he was induced to print the last word as _pretile_; which raises the difficulty without explaining it. For the explanation, the reader should consult the excellent dissertation by Dr. Curtis on The Romance of Clariodus (Halle, 1894), p. 56, § 187. He remarks that a rime of this character gives evidence of the transition of M.E. long close _e_ to (Italian) long _i_ [as in the change from A.S. _m[=e]_ to mod. E. _me_], and adds: 'this change became general in the fifteenth century, but had begun in some dialects at an earlier date.' Its occurrence in the present poem is a strong indication that it is later than the year 1400, and effectually disposes of any supposed connection with Midland poems of the fourteenth century. Both poems are remarkably free from classical allusions and from references to such medieval authors as are freely quoted by Chaucer. There is nothing to shew that the authoress was acquainted with Latin, though she knew French, especially the French of songs and mottoes.