Then my account I well may give, And in the stocks _avouch it_." Upon this Mr. White has the following note:-- "'The sow-skin bowget':--i.e. budget; the change of orthography being made for the sake of the rhyme; about which our early writers, contrary to the received opinion, were very particular. Even Ben Jonson, scholar and grammarian as he was, did not hesitate to make radical changes in orthography to obtain a perfect, in place of an imperfect rhyme. The fact is important in the history of our language." (Vol. V. pp. 398-9.) Readers of our older literature are familiar with what the early writers of treatises on poetry say upon this subject, concerning which, under the head of _licentia poetica_, they give some rather minute directions. But we think Mr. White's expression "_radical_ changes" a little strong. The insurmountable difficulty, however, in the way of forming a decided judgment, is plain at the first glance. You have not, as Dr. Kitchener would say, caught your hare; you have no standard. _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes_? How shall you determine how your first word is pronounced? and which of two rhyming words shall dominate the other? In the present instance how do we know that _avouch_ was sounded as it is now? Its being from the French would lead us to doubt it. And how do we know that _bowget_ was not pronounced _boodget_, as it would be, according to Mr. White, if spelt _budget_? Bishop Hall makes _fool_ rhyme with _cowl_. That _ou_ was sometimes pronounced _oo_ is certain. Gill (of whom _infra_) says that the _Boreales_ pronounced _wound, waund_, and _gown, gaun_ or _geaun_.