Chapter II: Preface

The following poems are taken from a well known manuscript in the Cottonian collection, marked Nero A. x, which also contains, in the same handwriting and dialect, a metrical romance,[1] wherein the adventures of Sir Gawayne with the “Knight in Green,” are most ably and interestingly described.

Unfortunately nothing can be affirmed with any certainty concerning the authorship of these most valuable and interesting compositions. The editor of “Syr Gawayn and the Green Knight” considers that Huchowne, a supposed[2] Scotch _maker_ of the fourteenth century, has the best claims to be recognised as the author, inasmuch as he is specially referred to by Wyntown as the writer of the _Gret gest of Arthure_ and the _Awntyre of Gawayne_.

I do not think that any certain conclusions are to be drawn from the Scotch historian’s assertion. It is well known that more versifiers than one during the fourteenth century attempted romance composition in the English language, having for their theme the knightly deeds of Arthur or Sir Gawayne. These they compiled from French originals, from which they selected the most striking incidents and those best suited to an Englishman’s taste for the marvellous. We are not surprised, then, at finding so many romance poems treating of the exploits of the same hero, and laying claim to be considered as original productions. In Scotland, Huchowne’s works might no doubt have been regarded as the standard romances of the period, but that they were the only English _gests_ is indeed very doubtful.

The Early English alliterative romance, entitled the _Morte Arthure_, published from a manuscript in Lincoln Cathedral by Mr. Halliwell,[3] is considered by Sir F. Madden to be the veritable _gest of Arthure_ composed by Huchowne. An examination of this romance does not lead me to the same conclusion, unless Huchowne was a Midland man, for the poem is not written in the old Scotch dialect,[4] but seems to have been originally composed in one of the Northumbrian dialects spoken _South_ of the Tweed.[5]

The manuscript from which Mr. Halliwell has taken his text is not the original copy, nor even a literal transcript of it. It exhibits certain orthographical and grammatical peculiarities unknown to the Northumbrian dialect which have been introduced by a Midland transcriber, who has here and there taken the liberty to adapt the original text to the dialect of his own locality, probably that one of the North Midland counties, where many of the Northumbrian forms of speech would be intelligible.[6]

A comparison of the Arthurian romance with the following poems throws no light whatever upon the authorship of the poems. The dialect of the two works is altogether different, although many of the terms employed are common to both, being well known over the whole of the North of England. The grammatical forms (the best test we can have) in the poems are quite distinct from those in the _Morte Arthure_, and of course go far to prove that they do not proceed from the pen of the same writer.

The Editor of “Syr Gawayn and the Green Knight” acknowledges that the poems in the present volume, as now preserved to us in the manuscript, are not in the Scottish dialect, but he says “there is sufficient internal evidence of their being _Northern_,[7] although the manuscript containing them appears to have been written by a scribe of the Midland counties, which will account for the introduction of forms differing from those used by writers beyond the Tweed.”

Now, with regard to this subsequent transcription of the poems from the Scotch into a Midland dialect,--it cannot be said to be improbable, for we have abundant instances of the multiplication of copies by scribes of different localities, so that we are not surprised at finding the works of some of our popular Early English writers appearing in two or three forms; but, on the other hand, a comparison of the original copy with the _adapted transcriptions_, or even the reading of a transcribed copy, always shows how the author’s productions have suffered by the change. Poetical works, especially those with final rhymes, of course undergo the greatest amount of transformation and depreciation. The changes incident upon the kind of transcription referred to are truly surprising, and most perplexing to those who make the subject of Early English _dialects_ a matter of investigation.

But, in the present poems, the uniformity and consistency of the grammatical forms is so entire, that there is indeed no internal evidence of subsequent transcription into any other dialect than that in which they were originally written. However, the dialect and grammatical peculiarities will be considered hereafter.

Again, in the course of transcription into another dialect, any literary merit that the author’s copy may have originally possessed would certainly be destroyed. But the poems before us are evidently the work of a man of birth and education; the productions of a true poet, and of one who had acquired a perfect mastery over that form of the English tongue spoken in his own immediate locality during the earlier part of the fourteenth century. Leaving out of consideration their great philological worth, they possess an intrinsic value of their own as literary compositions, very different from anything to be found in the works of Robert of Gloucester, Manning, and many other Early English authors, which are very important as philological records, but in the light of poetical productions, cannot be said to hold a very distinguished place in English literature. The poems in the present volume contain many passages which, as Sir F. Madden truly remarks, will bear comparison with any similar ones in the works of Douglas or Spenser.

I conclude, therefore, that these poems were not transcribed from the Scotch dialect into any other, but were written in their own West-Midland speech in which we now have them.

Mr. Donaldson, who is now editing for the Early English Text Society the Troy Book, translated from Guido di Colonna, puts forward a plea for Huchowne as its author, to whom he would also assign the _Morte Arthure_ (ed. Perry) and the Pistel of Sweet Susan.[8] But Mr. Donaldson seems to have been misled by the similarity of vocabulary, which is not at all a safe criterion in judging of works written in a Northumbrian, West or East Midland speech. The dialect, I venture to think, is a far safer test. A careful examination of the Troy Book compels me to differ in toto from Mr. Donaldson, and, instead of assigning the Troy Book to a Scotchman, say that it cannot even be claimed, in its present form, by any Northumbrian south of the Tweed; moreover, it presents no appearance of having been tampered with by one unacquainted with the dialect, though it has perhaps been slightly modernised in the course of transcription.

The work is evidently a genuine West-Midland production,[9] having most of the peculiarities of vocabulary and inflexions that are found in these _Alliterative Poems_.[10] I feel greatly inclined to claim this English Troy Book as the production of the author of the _Alliterative Poems_; for, leaving out identical and by no means common expressions, we find the same power of description,[11] and the same tendency to inculcate moral and religious truths on all occasions where an opportunity presents itself.[12] Without dwelling upon this topic, which properly falls to the Editor of the Troy Book, it may not be out of place to ask the reader to compare the following description of a storm from the Troy Book, with that selected from the present volume on pp. 14 and 18.

A TEMPEST ON ÞE SEE.

There a tempest _hom_ toke on þe torres hegh:--
A _rak_ and a royde wynde rose in _hor_ saile,
A myst & a _merkenes_ was mervell to se;
With a _routond_ rayn ruthe to be-holde,
Thonr{et}[13] full _throly_ with a thicke haile;
With a leuenyng light as a _low_ fyre,
Blas{et} all the brode see as it bren wold.
The flode with a felle cours flow{et} on hepis,
Rose uppon rockes as any _ranke_ hylles.
So wode were the waghes & þe wilde _ythes_,
All was like to be lost þat no lond hade
The ship ay shot furth o þe _shire waghes_,
As qwo clymbe at a clyffe, or a clent[14] hille.
Eft _dump_ in the depe as all drowne wolde.
Was no _stightlyng_ with stere ne no stithe ropes,
Ne no sayle, þat might serue for _unsound_ wedur.
But all the buernes in the bote, as _hom_ best liked,
Besoght unto sainttes & to sere goddes; (p. 65)

A STORME ON THE SE.

All the company enclin{et} cair{yn} to ship;
Cach{yn} in cables, knyt up _hor_ ancres,
Sesit vp _hor_ sailes in a sad hast;
_Richet_ þere rapes, rapit unto see.
Hokit out of hauyn, all the hepe somyn,
_Hade bir at hor bake_, blawen to þe depe;
Sail{yn} forthe _soberly_, somyn but a while,
Noght fyftene forlong fairly to the end.
. . . . . . . . . . .
When sodenly the softe aire _unsoberly_ rose;
The cloudis overcast, _claterrit_ aboute;
Wyndes full wodely _walt_ up the ythes;
Wex _merke_ as the mydnighte mystes full thicke:
Thunret in the _thestur throly_ with all;
With a _launchant laite_ lightonyd the water;
And a _ropand_ rayne _raiked_ fro the heuyn.
The storme was full stithe with mony stout windes,
Hit _walt_ up the wilde se vppon wan hilles.
The ffolke was so ferd, that _on flete_ were,
All drede for to drowne with dryft of the se;
And in perell were put all the proude kynges. --(p. 150.)

[Footnote 1: Edited by Sir Frederic Madden for the Bannatyne Club,
under the title of “Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyȝt,” and by me for
the Early English Text Soc., 1865.]

[Footnote 2: Wyntown nowhere asserts that Huchowne is a
Scotchman.]

[Footnote 3: Edited for E. E. T. Soc. by Rev. G. G. Perry, M.A.]

[Footnote 4: This is evident from the following particulars:--

I. In old Scotch manuscripts we find the guttural _gh_ (or ȝ)
represented by _ch_; thus, _aght_, _laght_, _saght_, _wight_, are
the English forms which, in the Scotch orthography, become _aucht_
(owed), _laucht_ (seized), _saucht_ (peace), _wicht_ (active). It
is the former orthography, however, that prevails in the Morte
Arthure.

II. We miss the Scotch use of (1) _-is_ or _-ys_, for _-es_ or
_-s_, in the plural number, and of possessive cases of nouns, and
in the person endings of the present tense indicative mood of
verbs; (2) _-it_ or _-yt_, for _-ed_ or _-d_, in the preterites or
passive participles of regular verbs.

III. There is a total absence of the well-known Scotch forms
_begouth_ (began), _sa_ (so), _sic_ (such), _throuch_, _thorow_
(through). Instead of these _bigan_, _so_, _syche_, _thrughe_
(_thurgh_) are employed. See Preface to Hampole’s Pricke of
Conscience, pp. vii, viii.]

[Footnote 5: This is shown by the frequent employment of _-es_ as
the person ending of the verb in the present tense, plural number.
The corresponding Southern verbal inflexion _-eth_ _never_ occurs;
while the Midland _-en_ is only occasionally met with in the third
person plural present, and has been introduced by a later copyist.
There are other characteristics, such as the predominance of words
containing the A.S. long _a_; as _hame_ (home), _stane_ (stone),
_thra_ (bold), _walde_ (would), etc.; the frequent use of _thir_
(these), _tha_ (the, those), etc.]

[Footnote 6: The peculiarities referred to do not appear to be
owing to the copyist of the Lincoln manuscript (Robert de
Thornton, a native of Oswaldkirk in Yorkshire), who, being a
Northumbrian, would probably have restored the original readings.
The non-Northumbrian forms in the Morte Arthure are-- 1. The
change of _a_ into _o_, as _bolde_ for _balde_, _bote_ for _bate_,
_one_ for _ane_, _honde_ for _hande_, _londe_ for _lande_;
2. _they_, _theyre_, _them_, _theym_, for _thay_, _thaire_,
_tham_; 3. _gayliche_, _kindliche_, _semlyche_, etc., for _gayly_,
_kindly_, _seemly_, etc. (the termination _lich_, _liche_, was
wholly unknown to the Northumbrian dialect, being represented by
_ly_ or _like_); 4. _churle_, _churche_, _iche_, _mache_, _myche_,
_syche_, _wyrche_, etc., for _carle_, _kirke_, _ilk_, _make_,
_mykelle_, _swilk_, _wyrk_, etc.; 5. infinitives in _-en_, as
_drenschen_, _schewenne_, _wacchenne_, etc.; 6. the use of _eke_,
_thos_, for _als_ (_alswa_), _thas_; 7. the employment of _aye_
for _egg_. The former word _never_ occurs in any pure Northumbrian
work, while the latter is seldom met with in any Southern
production.]

[Footnote 7: The poems are _Northern_ in contradistinction to
_Southern_, but they are not Northern or Northumbrian in
contradistinction to _Midland_.]

[Footnote 8: Printed by Mr. D. Laing in his “Inedited Pieces,”
from a MS. of Mr. Heber’s. Other copies are in the Vernon MS., and
Cotton Calig. A. ii.; the latter imperfect.]

[Footnote 9: Other specimens of this dialect will doubtless turn
up. Mr. Brock has found a MS. in British Museum (Harl. 3909) with
most of the peculiarities pointed out by me in the preface to the
present work, and I believe that this dialect was probably a
flourishing one in the 13th century. See O.E. Homilies, p. li.]

[Footnote 10: (1) _en_ as the inflexion of the pres. tense pl.,
indic. mood of verbs; (2) _s_ in the second and third pers. sing.
of verbs; (3) _ho_ = she; (4) _hit_ = its; (5) _tow_ = two;
(6) _deȝter_ = daughters, etc.]

[Footnote 11: See p. 36, ll. 1052-1066; p. 37, ll. 1074-1089; pp.
161-162, ll. 4956-4975.]

[Footnote 12: See pp. 25, 26 (Jason’s unfaithfulness); pp. 74, 75,
ll. 2241-2255; p. 75, ll. 2256-2263; p. 69, ll. 2267-2081; p. 158,
ll. 4839-4850; p. 189, ll. 4881-4885; p. 165, ll. 5078-5086, etc.]

[Footnote 13: In the Harl. MS. 3909, nearly all the p. part. and
preterites end in _-et_ (_-ut_ and _-et_ occur in Romances ed. by
Robson).]

[Footnote 14: This seems to furnish an etymology for _Clent_
Hills, Worcestershire--_brent_ is the term employed in
Alliterative.]

The poems in the present volume, three in number, seem to have been written for the purpose of enforcing, by line upon line and precept upon precept, Resignation to the will of God; Purity of life as manifested in thought, word, and deed; Obedience to the Divine command; and Patience under affliction.

In the first poem, entitled by me “_The Pearl_”, the author evidently gives expression to his own sorrow for the loss of his infant child, a girl of two years old, whom he describes as a

Perle plesaunte to prynces paye
_Pearl pleasant to princes’ pleasure,_
To clanly clos in golde so clere
_Most neatly set in gold so clear._

Of her death he says:

Allas! I leste hyr in on erbere
_Alas! I lost her in an arbour,_
Þurȝ gresse to grounde hit fro me yot
_Through grass to ground it from me got._ --(p. 1.)

The writer then represents himself as visiting his child’s grave (or arbour) in the “high season of August,” and giving way to his grief (p. 2). He falls asleep, and in a dream is carried toward a forest, where he saw rich rocks gleaming gloriously, hill sides decked with crystal cliffs, and trees the leaves of which were as burnished silver. The gravel under his feet was “precious pearls of orient,” and birds “of flaming hues” flew about in company, whose notes were far sweeter than those of the cytole or gittern (guitar) (p. 3). The dreamer arrives at the bank of a stream, which flows over stones (shining like stars in the welkin on a winter’s night) and pebbles of emeralds, sapphires, or other precious gems, so

Þat all the loȝe lemed of lyȝt
_That all the deep gleamed of light,_
So dere watȝ hit adubbement
_So dear was its adornment._ --(p. 4.)

Following the course of the stream, he perceives on the opposite side a crystal cliff, from which was reflected many a “royal ray” (p. 5).

At þe fote þer-of þer sete a faunt
_At the foot thereof there sat a child,_
A mayden of menske, ful debonere
_A maiden of honour, full debonnair;_
Blysnande whyt watȝ hyr bleaunt
_Glistening white was her robe,_
(I knew hyr wel, I hade sen hyr ere)
_(I knew her well, I had seen her before)_
At glysnande golde þat man con schore
_As shining gold that man did purify,_
So schon þat schene an-vnder schore
_So shone that sheen (bright one) on the opposite shore;_
On lenghe I loked to hyr þere
_Long I looked to her there,_
Þe lenger I knew hyr more & more
_The longer I knew her, more and more._ --(pp. 6, 7.)

The maiden rises, and, proceeding along the bank of the stream, approaches him. He tells her that he has done nothing but mourn for the loss of his Pearl, and has been indeed a “joyless jeweller” (p. 8). However, now that he has found his Pearl, he declares that he is no longer sorrowful, but would be a “joyful jeweller” were he allowed to cross the stream (p. 8). The maiden blames her father for his rash speech, tells him that his Pearl is not lost, and that he cannot pass the stream till after death (p. 10). The dreamer is in great grief; he does not, he says, care what may happen if he is again to lose his Pearl. The maiden advises him to bear his loss patiently, and to abide God’s doom (p. 11). She describes to him her blissful state in heaven, where she reigns as a queen (p. 12). She explains to him that Mary is the Empress of Heaven, and all others kings and queens (p. 13). The parable of the labourers in the vineyard[15] (pp. 15-18) is then rehearsed at length, to prove that “innocents” are admitted to the same privileges as are enjoyed by those who have lived longer upon the earth (p. 18). The maiden then speaks to her father of Christ and his one hundred and forty thousand brides (p. 24), and describes their blissful state (p. 26). She points out to him the heavenly Jerusalem, which was “all of bright burnished gold, gleaming like glass” (p. 29). Then the dreamer beholds a procession of virgins going to salute the Lamb, among whom he perceives his “little queen” (p. 33). On attempting to cross the stream to follow her, he is aroused from his dream (p. 35), laments his rash curiosity in seeking to know so much of God’s mysteries, and declares that man ever desires more happiness than he has any right to expect (p. 35).

[Footnote 15: Matthew, chapter xx.]

The second poem, entitled “_Cleanness_,” is a collection of Biblical stories, in which the writer endeavours to enforce Purity of Life, by showing how greatly God is displeased at every kind of impurity, and how sudden and severe is the punishment which falls upon the sinner for every violation of the Divine law.

After commending cleanness and its “fair forms,” the author relates (I.) The Parable of the Marriage Feast (p. 39); (II.) the Fall of the Angels (p. 43); (III.) The wickedness of the antediluvian world (p. 44),

He watȝ famed for fre þat feȝt loued best
_He was famous as free that fight loved best,_
& ay þe bigest in bale þe best watȝ halden
_And ever the biggest in sin the best was held;_ (p. 45.)

(IV.) The destruction of mankind by the Flood. When all were safely stowed in the ark,

Thenne sone com þe seuenþe day, when samned wern alle
_Then soon came the seventh day when assembled were all,_
& alle woned in þe whichche þe wylde & þe tame.
_And all abode in the ark (hutch), the wild and the tame._
Þen bolned þe abyme & bonkeȝ con ryse
_Then swelled the abyss and banks did rise,_
Waltes out vch walle-heued, in ful wode stremeȝ
_Bursts out each well-head in full wild streams,_
Watȝ no brymme þat abod vnbrosten bylyue
_There was no brim (stream) that abode unburst by then,_
Þe mukel lauande loghe to þe lyfte rered
_The much (great) flowing deep (loch) to the loft (sky) reared._
Mony clustered clowde clef alle in clowteȝ
_Many a clustering cloud cleft all in clouts (pieces),_
To-rent vch a rayn-ryfte & rusched to þe vrþe
_Rent was each a rain-rift and rushed to the earth;_
Fon neuer in forty dayeȝ, & þen þe flod ryses
_Failed never in forty days, and then the flood rises,_
Ouer-walteȝ vche a wod and þe wyde feldeȝ
_Over-flows each wood and the wide fields;_
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water wylger ay wax, woneȝ þat stryede
_Water wildly ever waxed, abodes that destroyed,_
Hurled in-to vch hous, hent þat þer dowelled
_Hurled into each house, seized those that there dwelt._
Fyrst feng to þe flyȝt alle þat fle myȝt
_First took to flight all that flee might,_
Vuche burde with her barne þe byggyng þay leueȝ
_Each bride (woman) with her bairn their abode they leave,_
& bowed to þe hyȝ bonk þer brentest hit wern
_And hied to the high bank where highest it were,_
& heterly to þe hyȝe hilleȝ þay [h]aled on faste
_And hastily to the high hills they rushed on fast;_
Bot al watȝ nedleȝ her note, for neuer cowþe stynt
_But all was needless their device, for never could stop_
Þe roȝe raynande ryg [&] þe raykande waweȝ
_The rough raining shower and the rushing waves,_
Er vch boþom watȝ brurd-ful to þe bonkeȝ eggeȝ
_Ere each bottom (valley) was brim-ful to the banks’ edges,_
& vche a dale so depe þat demmed at þe brynkeȝ
_And each dale so deep that dammed at the brinks._ --(pp. 47, 48).

The ark is described as “heaved on high with hurling streams.”

Kest to kyþeȝ vncouþe þe clowdeȝ ful nere
_Cast to kingdoms uncouth the clouds ful near,_
Hit waltered on the wylde flod, went as hit lyste
_It tossed on the wild flood, went as it list,_
Drof vpon þe depe dam, in daunger hit semed
_It drove upon the deep dam, in danger it seemed,_
With-outen mast, oþer myke, oþer myry bawe-lyne
_Without mast, or mike,[16] or merry bow-line,_
Kable, oþer capstan to clyppe to her ankreȝ
_Cable or capstan to clip to their anchors,_
Hurrok, oþer hande-helme hasped on roþer
_Oar or hand-helm hooked on rudder,_
Oþer any sweande sayl to seche after hauen
_Or any swinging sail to seek after haven,_
Bot flote forthe with þe flyt of þe felle wyndeȝ
_But floated forth with the force of the fell winds._
Wheder-warde so þe water wafte, hit rebounde
_Whither-ward so (as) the water waft, it rebounded,_
Ofte hit roled on-rounde & rered on ende
_Oft it rolled around and reared on end,_
Nyf our lorde hade ben her lodeȝ-mon hem had lumpen harde
_Had our Lord not been their (pilot) leader hardship had befallen
them._ --(p. 49.)

(V.) The Visit of Three Angels to Abraham (p. 54).

(VI.) The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (pp. 64, 65), including a description of the Dead Sea, the tarn (lake) of traitors (p. 66).

(VII.) The invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (p. 71), and the captivity of Judah (p. 74).

The following is a paraphrase of the fourth and fifth verses in the twenty-fifth chapter of the second book of Kings.[17]

Þenne þe kyng of þe kyth a counsayl hym takes
_Then the king of the kingdom a counsel him takes,_
Wyth þe best of his burnes, a blench for to make
_With the best of his men a device for to make;_
Þay stel out on a stylle nyȝt er any steuen rysed
_They stole out on a still night ere any sound arose,_
& harde hurles þurȝ þe oste, er enmies hit wyste
_And hard hurled through the host, ere enemies it wist,_
Bot er þay at-wappe ne moȝt þe wach wyth oute
_But ere they could escape the watch without,_
Hiȝe skelt watȝ þe askry þe skewes an-vnder
_High scattered was the cry, the skies there under,_
Loude alarom vpon launde lulted was þenne
_Loud alarm upon land sounded was then;_
Ryche, ruþed of her rest, ran to here wedes,
_Rich (men) roused from their rest, ran to their weeds,_
Hard hattes þay hent & on hors lepes
_Kettle hats they seized, and on horse leap;_
Cler claryoun crak cryed on-lofte
_Clear clarion’s crack cried aloft._
By þat watȝ alle on a hepe hurlande swyþee
_By that (time) was all on a heap, hurling fast,_
Folȝande þat oþer flote, & fonde hem bilyue
_Following that other fleet (host), and found them soon,_
Ouer-tok hem, as tyd,[18] tult hem of sadeles
_Over-took them in a trice, tilted them off saddles,_
Tyl vche prynce hade his per put to þe grounde
_Till each prince had his peer put to the ground;_
& þer watȝ þe kyng kaȝt wyth calde prynces
_And there was the king caught with crafty princes,_
& alle hise gentyle for-iusted on Ierico playnes
_And all his nobles vanquished on Jericho’s plains._ --(pp. 71, 72.)

(VIII.) Belshazzar’s impious feast (pp. 76-80), and the handwriting upon the wall (pp. 80, 81).

In þe palays pryncipale vpon þe playn wowe
_In the palace principal upon the plain wall,_
In contrary of þe candelstik þat clerest hit schyned
_Opposite to the candlestick that clearest there shone._
Þer apered a paume, with poyntel in fyngres
_There appeared a palm with a pointel in its fingers,_
Þat watȝ grysly & gret, & grymly he wrytes
_That was grisly and great, and grimly it writes,_
None oþer forme bot a fust faylaynde þe wryst
_None other form but a fist failing the wrist_
Pared on þe parget, purtrayed lettres
_Pared on the plaister, pourtrayed letters._
When þat bolde Baltaȝar blusched to þat neue
_When that bold Belshazzar looked to that fist,_
Such a dasande drede dusched to his hert
_Such a dazzling dread dashed to his heart._
Þat al falewed his face & fayled þe chere
_That all paled his face and failed the cheer;_
Þe stronge strok of þe stonde strayned his ioyntes
_The strong stroke of the blow strained his joints,_
His cnes cachcheȝ to close & cluchches his hommes
_His knees catch to close, and he clutches his hams,_
& he with plat-tyng his paumes displayes his lers[19]
_And he with striking his palms displays his fears,_
& romyes as a rad ryth þat roreȝ for drede
_And howls as a frightened hound that roars for dread,_
Ay biholdand þe honde til hit hade al grauen,
_Ever beholding the hand till it had all graven,_
& rasped on þe roȝ woȝe runisch saueȝ
_And rasped on the rough wall uncouth saws (words)._

(IX.) The story of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and its punishment (pp. 84, 85), and the interpretation of the handwriting by Daniel (p. 86).

(X.) The invasion of Babylon by the Medes (pp. 87, 88).

Baltaȝar in his bed watȝ beten to deþe
_Belshazzar in his bed was beaten to death,_
Þat boþe his blood & his brayn blende on þe cloþes
_That both his blood and his brains blended on the clothes;_
Þe kyng in his cortyn watȝ kaȝt by þe heles
_The king in his curtain was caught by the heels,_
Feryed out bi þe fete & fowle dispysed
_Ferried out by the feet and foully despised;_
Þat watȝ so doȝty þat day & drank of þe vessayl
_He that was so doughty that day and drank of the vessels,_
Now is a dogge also dere þat in a dych lygges
_Now is as dear (valuable) as a dog that in a ditch lies._ --(p. 88.)

[Footnote 16: See Glossary.]

[Footnote 17: “4. And the city was broken up, and all the men of
war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which
is by the king’s garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city
round about:) and the king went the way toward the plain.

“5. And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and
overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were
scattered from him.”]

[Footnote 18: Immediately.]

[Footnote 19: ? feres.]

The third poem, entitled “_Patience_,” is a paraphrase of the book of Jonah. The writer prefaces it with a few remarks of his own in order to show that “patience is a noble point though it displease oft.”

The following extract contains a description of the sea-storm which overtook Jonah:--

Anon out of þe norþ est þe noys bigynes
_Anon out of the north east the noise begins,_
When boþe breþes[20] con blowe vpon blo watteres
_When both breezes did blow upon blue waters:_
Roȝ rakkes þer ros with rudnyng an-vnder
_Rough clouds there arose with lightning there under,_
Þe see souȝed ful sore, gret selly to here
_The sea sobbed full sore, great marvel to hear;_
Þe wyndes on þe wonne water so wrastel togeder,
_The winds on the wan water so wrestle together,_
Þat þe wawes ful wode waltered so hiȝe
_That the waves full wild rolled so high,_
& efte busched to þe abyme þat breed fyssches
_And again bent to the abyss that bred fishes;_
Durst nowhere for roȝ arest at þe bothem.
_Durst it nowhere for roughness rest at the bottom._
When þe breth & þe brok & þe bote metten
_When the breeze and the brook and the boat met,_
Hit watȝ a ioyles gyn þat Ionas watȝ inne
_It was a joyless engine that Jonah was in,_
For hit reled on round vpon þe roȝe yþes
_For it reeled around upon the rough waves._
Þe bur ber to hit baft þat braste alle her gere
_The bore (wave) bear to it abaft that burst all her gear,_
Þen hurled on a hepe þe helme & þe sterne
_Then hurled on a heap the helm and the stern,_
Furste to murte[21] mony rop & þe mast after
_First marred[21] many a rope and the mast after._
Þe sayl sweyed on þe see, þenne suppe bihoued
_The sail swung on the sea, then sup behoved_
Þe coge of þe colde water, & þenne þe cry ryses
_The boat of the cold water, and then the cry rises;_
Ȝet coruen þay þe cordes & kest al þer-oute
_Yet cut they the cords and cast all there-out._
Mony ladde þer forth-lep to laue & to kest
_Many a lad there forth leapt to lave and to cast,_
Scopen out þe scaþel water, þat fayn scape wolde
_To scoop out the scathful water that fain escape would;_
For be monnes lode neuer so luþer, þe lyf is ay swete
_For be man’s lot never so bad, the life is aye sweet._ --(p. 93.)

The writer, in concluding the story of Jonah, exhorts his readers to be “patient in pain and in joy.”

For he þat is to rakel to renden his cloþeȝ,
Mot efte sitte with more vn-sounde to sewe hem togeder.
_For he that is too rash to rend his clothes,
Must afterwards sit with more unsound (worse ones)
to sew them together._ (p. 104.)

[Footnote 20: Eurus and Aquilo.]

[Footnote 21: ? = to-marte.]

This brief outline of the poems, together with the short extracts from them, will, it is hoped, give the reader stomach to digest the whole. It is true that they contain many “uncouth” terms; but this will be their highest merit with the student of language, as is shown, by Dr. Guest’s testimony, that they are “for several reasons curious, and especially so to the philologist.”[22] To those readers who do not appreciate the importance of such a very large addition to the vocabulary of our Early Language as is made by these treatises, let Sir Frederic Madden’s opinion of their literary merit suffice. That distinguished editor says, of the author’s “poetical talent, the pieces contained in the MS. afford unquestionable proofs; and the description of the change of the seasons, the bitter aspect of winter, the tempest which preceded the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sea storm occasioned by the wickedness of Jonas, _are equal to any similar passages_ in Douglas or Spenser.”[23] Moreover, as to the hardness of the language--inasmuch as the subject matter of the poem will be familiar to all who may take up the present volume, the difficulty on the word-point will not be such as to deter the reader from understanding and appreciating the production of an old English poet, who--though his very name, unfortunately, has yet to be discovered--may claim to stand in the foremost rank of England’s early bards.

The Editor of the present volume has endeavoured to do justice to his author by giving the text, with some few exceptions, as it stands in the manuscript.[24] The contractions of the scribe have been expanded and printed in italics, a plan which he hopes to see adopted in every future edition of an early English author.

The Glossary has been compiled not only for the benefit of the reader, but for the convenience of those who are studying the older forms of our language, and who know how valuable a mere index of words and references sometimes proves.

In conclusion, I take the present opportunity of acknowledging the kind assistance of Sir Frederic Madden and E. A. Bond, Esq., of the British Museum, who, on every occasion, were most ready to render me any help in deciphering the manuscript, in parts almost illegible, from which the poems in the present volume are printed.

[Footnote 22: History of English Rhythms, vol. i. p. 159.]

[Footnote 23: Syr Gawayn, ed. Madden, p. 302.]

[Footnote 24: Wherever the Text has been altered, the reading of
the MS. will be found in a foot-note.]

REMARKS UPON THE DIALECT AND GRAMMAR.

Higden, writing about the year A.D. 1350, affirms, distinctly, the existence of three different forms of speech or dialects, namely, Southern, Midland, and Northern;[25] or, as they are sometimes designated, West-Saxon, Mercian, and Northumbrian. Garnett objects to Higden’s classification, and considers it certain “that there were in his (Higden’s) time, and probably long before, five distinctly marked forms, which may be classed as follows:-- 1. Southern or standard English, which in the fourteenth century was perhaps best spoken in Kent and Surrey by the body of the inhabitants. 2. Western English, of which traces may be found from Hampshire to Devonshire, and northward as far as the Avon. 3. Mercian, vestiges of which appear in Shropshire, Staffordshire, and South and West Derbyshire, becoming distinctly marked in Cheshire, and still more so in South Lancashire. 4. Anglian, of which there are three sub-divisions--the East Anglian of Norfolk and Suffolk; the Middle Anglian of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and East Derbyshire; and the North Anglian of the West Riding of Yorkshire--spoken most purely in the central part of the mountainous district of Craven. 5. Northumbrian,” spoken throughout the Lowlands of Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and nearly the whole of Yorkshire.

Garnett’s division is based upon peculiarities of pronunciation, which will be found well marked in the _modern_ provincial dialects, and not upon any essential differences of inflexion that are to be found in our Early English manuscripts.[26]

The distinction between Southern and Western English was not at all required, as the Kentish Ayenbite of Inwyt (A.D. 1340) exhibits most of the peculiarities that mark the Chronicles of Robert of Gloucester (Cottonian MS. Calig. A. xi.) as a Southern (or West-Saxon) production. The Anglian of Norfolk, Lincolnshire, and Nottinghamshire may be referred to one group with the Mercian of Lancashire, as varieties of the Midland dialect.

A careful examination of our early literature leads us to adopt Higden’s classification as not only a convenient but a correct one.

There is, perhaps, no better test for distinguishing these dialects from one another than the verbal inflexions of the plural number in the present tense, indicative mood.

To state this test in the briefest manner, we may say that the Southern dialect employs _-eth_, the Midland _-en_, and the Northumbrian _-es_ as the inflexion for all persons of the plural present indicative:[27]--

Southern. Midland. Northern.

1st pers. Hop-_eth_. Hop-_en_. Hop-_es_. (we) hope.
2nd „ Hop-_eth_. Hop-_en_. Hop-_es_. (ye) hope.
3rd „ Hop-_eth_. Hop-_en_. Hop-_es_. (they) hope.

It is the constant and systematic employment of these inflexions, and not their occasional use that must be taken as the criterion of dialectical varieties.

In a pure specimen of the Southern dialect, we never find the Northumbrian _-es_. We do occasionally meet with the Midland _-en_, but only in those works written in localities where, from their geographical position, Southern and Midland forms would be intelligible.[28] We might look in vain for the Southern plural _-eth_ in a pure Northumbrian production, but might be more successful in finding the Midland _-en_ in the third person plural; as, “thay _arn_” for “they _ar_”, or “thay _er_.”

In a work composed in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, or Lancashire, we should be sure to find the occasional use of the Northumbrian plural _-es_.[29]

The inflexions of the verb in the singular are of value in enabling us to discriminate between the several varieties of the Midland dialect.[30] The Southern and Midland idioms (with the exception of the West-Midland of Lancashire, Cheshire, etc.) conjugated the verb in the singular present indicative, as follows:--

1st pers. hope (I) hope.
2nd „ hop-_est_ (thou) hopest.
3rd „ hop-_eth_ (he) hopes.

The West-Midland, corresponding to Garnett’s Mercian, instead of _-est_ and _-eth_ employs the inflexions that are so common in the so-called Northumbrian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries:--

1st pers. hope (I) hope.
2nd „ hop-_es_ (thou) hopest.
3rd „ hop-_es_ (he) hopes.

The Northumbrian dialect takes _-es_ in all three persons; but mostly drops it in the first person.

The peasantry of Cheshire and Lancashire still preserve the verbal inflexions which prevailed in the fourteenth century, and conjugate their verbs in the present indicative according to the following model:--

Singular. Plural.
1st pers. hope hopen.
2nd „ hopes hopen.
3rd „ hopes hopen.

Inasmuch as the poems in the present volume exhibit the systematic use of these forms, we cannot but believe that they were originally composed in one of those counties where these verbal inflexions were well known and extensively used. We have to choose between several localities, but if we assign the poems to Lancashire we are enabled to account for the large number of Norse terms employed. It is true that the ancient examples of the Lancashire dialect contained in Mr. Robson’s Metrical Romances,[31] the Boke of Curtasye,[32] and Liber Cure Cocorum,[33] present us with much broader forms, as _-us_ for _-es_ in the plural number and possessive case of nouns, _-un_ for _-en_ in the plural present indicative mood, in passive participles of irregular (or strong) verbs, _-ud_ (_-ut_) for _-ed_ in the past tense and passive participle of regular (or weak) verbs, and the pronominal forms _hor_ (their), _hom_ (them), for _her_ and _hem_.[34]

These forms are evidence of a broad pronunciation which, at the present time, is said to be a characteristic of the northwestern division of Lancashire, but I think that there is good evidence for asserting that this strong provincialism was not confined, formerly, to the West-Midland dialect, much less to a division of any particular county. We find traces of it in Audelay’s Poems (Shropshire), the Romance of William and the Werwolf,[35] and even in the Wickliffite version of the Scriptures.

Formerly, being influenced by these broad forms, I was led to select Cheshire or Staffordshire as the probable locality where the poems were written; but I do not, now, think that either of these counties ever employed a vocabulary containing so many Norse terms as are to be found in the Lancashire dialect. But although we may not be able to fix, with certainty, upon any one county in particular, the fact of the present poems being composed in the West-Midland dialect cannot be denied. Much may be said in favour of their Lancashire origin, and there are one or two points of resemblance between our poems, the Lancashire Romances, and Liber Cure Cocorum, that deserve especial notice.

I. In Sir Amadace,[36] lxviii. 9, there occurs the curious form _miȝtus_ = _miȝtes_ = _mightst_.[37] As it appears only once throughout the Romances we might conclude that it is an error of the scribe for _miȝtest_, but when we find in the poems before us not only _myȝteȝ_ = _myȝtes_ (mightst), but _woldeȝ_ = _woldes_ (wouldst), _coutheȝ_ = _couthes_ (couldst), _dippteȝ_ (dippedest), _travayledeȝ_ (travelledst), etc., we are bound to consider _miȝtus_ as a genuine form.[38] In no other Early English works of the fourteenth century have I been able to find this peculiarity. It is very common in _the Wohunge of Ure Lauerd_ (xiiith cent.). See O.E. Homilies, p. 51. The Northumbrian dialect at this period rejected the inflexion in the second person preterite singular, of regular verbs,[39] and in our poems we find the _-es_ often dropped, so that we get two conjugations, which may be called the inflected and the uninflected form.

Inflected. Uninflected.
1st pers. hopede hoped (I) hoped.
2nd „ hoped_es_ hoped (thou) hopedest.
3rd „ hopede hoped (he) hoped.

Originally the inflected form may have prevailed over the whole of the North of England, but have gradually become confined to the West-Midland dialect.

II. The next point of resemblance is the use of the verb SCHIN or SCHUN = schal = shall. It is still preserved in the modern dialect of Lancashire in combination with the adverb _not_, as schunnot[40] = shall not. The following examples will serve to illustrate the use of this curious form:--

“---- þay _schin_ knawe sone,
Þere is no bounté in burne lyk Baltaȝar þewes.”[41] --(B. l. 1435.)

“& þose þat seme arn & swete _schyn_ se his face.”[42]
--(_Ibid._ l. 1810.)

“Pekokys and pertrikys perboylyd _schyn_ be.”[43]
--(Liber Cure Cocorum, p. 29.)

“For þer bene bestes þat _schyn_ be rost.”[44] --(_Ibid._ p. 34.)

“Alle _schun_ be draȝun, Syr, at þo syde.”[45] --(_Ibid._ p. 35.)

“Seche ferlies _schyn_ falle.”[46]
--(Robson’s Met. Rom. p. 12, l. 4.)

III. Nothing is more common in the present poems than the use of _hit_ as a genitive = its, which is also found in the Lancashire romances.

“Forþy þe derk dede see hit is demed ever more,
For _hit_ dedeȝ of deþe duren þere ȝet.”[47] --(Patience, l. 1021.)

“And, as hit is corsed of kynde & _hit_ coosteȝ als,
Þe clay þat clenges þer-by arn corsyes strong.”[48]
--(_Ibid._ l. 1033.)

“For I wille speke with the sprete,
And of _hit_ woe wille I wete,
Gif that I may _hit_ bales bete.”[49]
--(Robson’s Met. Romances, p. 5, ll. 3, 4.)

The present dialect of Lancashire still retains the uninflected genitive:--

“So I geet up be strike o’ dey, on seet eawt; on went ogreath tilly
welly coom within two mile oth’ teawn; when, os tha dule woud
height, o tit wur stonning ot an ale heawse dur; on me kawve (the
dule bore eawt _it_ een for me) took th’ tit for _it_ mother, on
woud seawk her.”[50] (Tummus and Meary).

Thus much for the dialectical peculiarities of our author. The scanty material at our disposal must be a sufficient excuse for the very meagre outline which is here presented to the reader. As our materials increase, the whole question of Early English dialects will no doubt receive that attention from English philologists which the subject really demands, and editors of old English works will then be enabled to speak with greater confidence as to the language and peculiarities of their authors. Something might surely be done to help the student by a proper classification of our manuscripts both as to date and place of composition. We are sadly in want of unadulterated specimens of the Northumbrian and East-Midland idioms during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. There must surely be some records of these dialects in our university libraries which would well repay editing.[51]

[Footnote 25: Polychronicon R. Higdeni, ap. Gale, p. 210, 211. See
Garnett’s Philological Essays, p. 43, and Specimens of Early
English, p. 338.]

[Footnote 26: It is to be regretted that Garnett did not enter
upon details, and give his readers some tests by which to
distinguish the “five distinctly marked forms.”]

[Footnote 27: In English works of the fourteenth century the _-en_
of the Midland, and the _-es_ of the Northumbrian is frequently
dropped, thus gradually approximating to our modern conjugation.]

[Footnote 28: We are here speaking of works written in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.]

[Footnote 29: Robert of Brunne, in his “Handlyng Synne,” often
employs it instead of _-en_, but only for the sake of the rhyme.]

[Footnote 30: The Midland dialect is a very difficult one to deal
with, as it presents us with no uniform type; and, moreover, works
written in this idiom are marked by Northern or Southern
peculiarities, which have led many of our editors altogether
astray in determining the locality of their composition.]

[Footnote 31: Published by the Camden Society, 1842.]

[Footnote 32: Edited by Mr. Halliwell for the Percy Society.]

[Footnote 33: Edited by me for the Philological Society, 1862.]

[Footnote 34: _-us_ and _-ud_ for _-es_ and _-ed_, as well as
_hom_, _hor_, do occasionally occur in the MS. containing our
poems.]

[Footnote 35: The Romance of William and the Werwolf is written in
the West-Midland dialect as spoken probably in Shropshire.]

[Footnote 36: Robson’s Metrical Romances, p. 54, l. 9.]

[Footnote 37: _Woldus_ = _woldes_ = _wouldst_, appears in
Audelay’s poems (in the Shropshire dialect of the fifteenth
century), p. 32, l. 6.]

[Footnote 38: The so-called Northumbrian records of the ninth and
tenth centuries frequently use _-es_ instead of _-est_, in the 2nd
pers. preterite of regular verbs, _e.g._,

_ðu forcerdes usic on-bec_ = Thou turnedst us hindward.
--(Ps. xliii. 11.)
_ðu saldes usic_ = Thou gavest us. --(Ps. xliii. 12.)
_ðu bi-bohtes folc ðin butan weorðe_ = Thou soldest thy folk
without price. --(Ps. xliii. 12.)
ðu _ge-hiowades_ me & _settes_ ofer me hond ðine = Thou madest me
and settest over me thy hand. --(Ps. cxxxviii. 5.)
ðu _ðreades ða_ ofer-hygdan = Thou hast rebuked the proud.
--(Ps. cxviii. 21.)

Ic ondeto ðe fader drihten heofnes forðon ðu _gedeigeldes_ ðas
ilco from snotrum & hogum & _ædeaudes_ ða ðæm lytlum = I thank
thee, O father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them
unto babes. --(Matt. xi. 25).]

[Footnote 39: Þou _torned_ us hindward. --(Early English Nn.
Psalter, xliii. 11.)

Þou _salde_ þi folk. --(_Ibid._ xliii. 12.)
Þou _meked_ us. --(_Ibid._ xliii. 20.)
Þou _made_ me and set þi hand over me. --(_Ibid._ cxxxviii. 5.)
Þou _snibbed_ proude. --(_Ibid._ cxviii. 21.)]

[Footnote 40: I am informed by a Shropshire friend that it
prevails in his county under the form _shinneh_.

_Win_ = will, in _winnot_, _wunnot_ = will not, is still heard in
the West-Midland districts. It is found in Robson’s Romances and
in Liber Cure Cocorum.]

[Footnote 41: They _shall_ know soon there is no goodness in man
like Belshazzar’s virtues.]

[Footnote 42: And those that seemly are and sweet _shall_ see His
(God’s) face.]

[Footnote 43: Peacocks and partriches parboiled _shall_ be.]

[Footnote 44: For þer are beasts þat _shall_ be roasted.]

[Footnote 45: All _shall_ be drawn (have the entrails removed),
Sir, at the side.]

[Footnote 46: Such marvels _shall_ happen.]

[Footnote 47:
Wherefore the dark dead sea it is called ever more.
For _its_ deeds of death endure there yet.]

[Footnote 48:
And as it is cursed of kind and _its_ properties also,
The clay that clings thereby are corrosives strong.]

[Footnote 49:
I will speak with the spirit,
And of _its_ woe will I wit (know),
If that I may _its_ bales (grief) abate.]

[Footnote 50: So I got up by break of day and set out; and went
straight till I well nigh came within two miles of the town, when,
as the devil would have it, a horse was standing at an ale-house
door; and my calf (the devil bore out _its_ eyes for me) took the
horse for _its_ mother, and would suck her.]

[Footnote 51: Three specimens of the East-Midland dialect have
come to light since writing the above. Harl. MS. 3909; Troy Book,
ed. Donaldson, E. E. T. Soc.; The Lay-folks Mass-Book, ed.
Simpson, E. E. T. Soc.]

GRAMMATICAL DETAILS.

I. +Nouns.+

(1) _Number._--The plurals generally end in _-es_ (_eȝ_), _-s_. _Yȝen_ (eyes), _trumpen_ (trumpets), are the only plurals in _-en_ that occur in the poems. In Robson’s Metrical Romances we find _fellun_ (fells, hills,), _dellun_ (dells), and _eyren_ (eggs), in Liber Cure Cocorum. The plurals of _brother_, _child_, _cow_, _doȝter_ (daughter), are _brether_, _childer_, _kuy_, and _deȝter_.

(2) _Gender._--The names of inanimate things are in the neuter gender, as in modern English. The exceptions are _deep_ (fem.), _gladnes_ (fem.), and _wind_ (masc.).

(3) _Case._--The genitive singular (masc. and fem.) ends in _-es_ (_-eȝ_), _-s_, but occasionally the inflexion is dropped; as, “Baltaȝar thewes,” the virtues of Balshazzar.[52] If “_honde_ myȝt,” “_honde_ werk,” “_hellen_ wombe,” are not compounds, we have instances of the final _-e_ (_en_) which formed the genitive case of _feminine_ nouns in the Southern English of the fourteenth century.

In the phrases “_besten_ blod” (blood of beasts), “_blonkken_ bak” (back of horses), “_chyldryn_ fader” (father of children), “_nakeryn_ noyse” (noise of nakers), we have a trace of the genitive plural _-ene_ (A.S. _-ena_).

[Footnote 52: In the romance of “Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyȝt”
we find “_blonk_ (horse) sadele,” “_fox_ felle” (skin). In _blonk_
an _e_ has probably been dropped.]

II. +Adjectives.+

(1) _Number._--The final _e_, as a sign of the plural, is very frequently dropped. _Pover_ (poor), _sturn_ (strong), make the plurals _poveren_ and _sturnen_. In the phrase, “þo syȝteȝ so _quykeȝ_”[53] (those sights so living), the _-eȝ_ (= _-es_) is a mark of the plural, very common in Southern writers of the fourteenth century, and employed as a plural inflexion of the adjective until a very late period in our literature.

The Article exhibits the following forms:

SINGULAR. PLURAL.
Masc. Fem.
The. tho.[54] tho.

_This_ forms the plural _thise_ and _thes_ (_these_). _That_ is always used as a demonstrative, and never as the neuter of the article; its plural is _thos_ (those).[55] The older form, _theos_ = _these_, shows that the _e_ is not a sign of the plural, as many English grammarians have asserted.

(2) _Degrees of Comparison._--The comparative degree ends in _-er_, and the superlative in _-est_.

Adjectives and adverbs terminating in the syllable _-lyche_ form the comparative in _-loker_ and the superlative in _-lokest_; as, positive _uglyche_ (= ugly), comp. _ugloker_, superl. _uglokest_. The long vowel of the positive is often shortened in the comp. and superl., as in the modern English _late_, _latter_, _last_.

Positive. Comparative. Superlative.
Brade (broad), bradder, braddest.
Dere (dear), derrer, derrest.
Lyke (like), lykker, lykkest.
Swete (sweet), swetter, swettest.
Wayke (weak), wakker, wakkest.
Wode (mad), wodder, woddest.

The following irregular forms are occasionally met with:

Positive. Comparative. Superlative.
Fer (far), ferre (fyrre), ferrest.
Heȝe (high), herre, heȝest (hest).
Neȝe (nigh, near) nerre, nerrest (nest).
Sare (sore), sarre, sarrest.
Forme (first), formast.
Mikelle (great), mo most.
Yvel, ill (bad), wers (worre), werst.

_Numerals._--_Twinne_ and _thrinne_ occur for two and three. The ordinal numbers are--

first (fyrste), the forme,
secunde, that other, tother,
thryd, }
thrydde, }
furþe,
fyfþe,
sexte,
sevenþe,
aȝtþe,
nente,
tenþe, }
tyþe. }

The Northumbrian numerals corresponding to _sevenþe_, _aȝtþe_, _nente_, _tenþe_, are _sevend_, _aghtend_, _neghend_, _tend_. The Southern forms end in _-the_, as _sevenþe_, _eiȝteoþe_, _nyþe_, _teoþe_ (_tyþe_).

[Footnote 53: The feminine form is seldom employed.]

[Footnote 54: The Northumbrian plural article is _tha_.]

[Footnote 55: The Northumbrian corresponding form is _thas_.]

III. +Pronouns.+

In the following poems we find the pronoun _ho_, she, still keeping its ground against the Northumbrian _scho_.[56] _Ho_ is identical with the modern Lancashire _hoo_ (or _huh_ as it is sometimes written), which in some parts of England has nearly the same pronunciation as the accusative _her_.

The Northumbrian _thay_ (they) has displaced the older Midland _he_, corresponding to the Southern pronoun _hii_, _hi_ (A.S. _hí_). _Hores_ and _thayreȝ_ (theirs) occasionally occur for _here_.[57] The genitives in _-es_, due no doubt to Scandinavian influence, are very common in Northumbrian writers of the fourteenth century, but are never found in any Southern work of the same period.

_Hit_ is frequently employed as an indefinite pronoun of all genders, and is plural as well as singular. It is, as has been previously shown, uninflected in the genitive or possessive case.

_Me_ in Southern writers is used as an indefinite pronoun of the _third_ person, and represents our _one_, but in the present poems it is of all persons, and seems to be placed in apposition with the subject of the sentence corresponding to our use of myself, thyself, himself, etc.; as,

“_He_ swenges _me_ þys,” etc. = He himself sends this, etc.[58]
“Now sweȝe _me_ þider swyftly” = Now go (thou) thyself thither
swiftly.[59]
“_He_ meteȝ _me_ þis good man” = He himself meets this good man.[60]

Sturzen-Becker (“Some Notes on the leading Grammatical Characteristics of the Principal Early English Dialects, Copenhagen, 1868”) thinks that I have been led astray with regard to this use of _me_, which he says is nothing more than the _dativus ethicus_.

The _me_ in these examples may be merely an expletive, having arisen out of the general use of the dative ethicus, but the context does not satisfy me that it has the force of a dative. Dr. Guest (Proceedings of Philolog. Soc., vol. i. p. 151-153, 1842-1844) has discussed this construction at some length, and he carefully distinguishes the dative of the 1st person from the indeterminate (or indefinite) pronoun _me_ = Fr. one. He says that in Old Frisian the indefinite pronoun has two forms, _min_ and _me_, “the latter of which seems to be always used as a suffix to the verb, as _momme_, one may; _somme_, one should,” etc. The same construction was occasionally used in our own language, and it no doubt gave rise to those curious idioms which are noticed by Pegge in his “Anecdotes of the Eng. Lang.,” p. 217. This writer, whose evidence to a _fact_ we may avail ourselves of, whatever we think of his criticism or his scholarship, quotes the following as forms of speech then prevalent among the Londoners: “and so says _me_ I;” “well what does _me_ I;” “so says _me_ she;” “then away goes _me_ he;” “what does _me_ they?” Here it is obvious that _me_ is the indeterminate pronoun, and represents the _subject_, while the personal pronoun is put in apposition to it, so that “says _me_ I” is equivalent to “_one says, that is I_,”[61]. These idioms are not unknown to our literature.

(1) ‘But as he was by diverse principall young gentlemen, to his no
small glorie, lifted up on horseback, _comes me a page_ of
Amphialus, etc.’ Pembr. Arcad. B. iii.

Other idioms, which have generally been confounded with those last mentioned, have the indeterminate pronoun preceded by a nominative absolute.

(2) ‘_I_, having been acquainted with the smell before, knew it was
Crab, and--_goes me_ to the fellow, who whips the dogs,’ etc. Two
Gent. of Verona, 4. 4.

(3) ‘_He thrusts me_ himself into the company of three or four
gentlemanlike dogs under the Duke’s Table.’ _Ib._ See B. Jons. Ev.
Man in his Humour, 3, 1.

Johnson considers the _me_ in examples 2 and 3 to be the oblique case of the first pers. pron., and treats it as “a ludicrous expletive.” It is difficult to say how he would have parsed example 2 on such a hypothesis.

With these instances of the use of _me_ (indef. or reflexive), the reader may compare the following:

(1) “Suche a touche in that tyde, _he_ taȝte (Gauan) hym in tene
And _gurdes me_, Sir Gallerun, evyn grovelonges on grounde.”
(The Anturs of Arther at the Tarnewathelan, p. 22.)

(2) There at the dore he (the Fox) cast _me_ downe hys pack.
Spenser’s Shep. Cal. ed. Morris, p. 460, l. 243.

Cp. _Cut me_, i. Hen. IV. Act 4. Sc. 4; _steps me_, Ib. Act 4, Sc. 3; _comes me, runs me_, Ib. Act 3, Sc. 1.

(3) “Juno enraged, and fretting thus,
_Runs me_ unto one Æolus.” --(Virgile Travestie, 1664.)

The indefinite _me_ = one is not uncommon in Elizabethan writers. Cf. “_touch me_ his hat;” “_touch me_ hir with a pint of sack,” etc.; “and _stop me_ his dice you are a villaine” (Lodge’s Wit’s Miserie).

The following table exhibits the declension of the personal and relative pronouns:--

SINGULAR.
Nom. I, thou, he, ho, hit.
Gen. My, myn, thy, thyn, his, hir, her, hit.
Dat. Me, the, him, hir, her, hit.
Acc. Me, the, him, hir, her, hit.

PLURAL.
Nom. We, ȝe, thay, hit.
Gen. Oure, yor, youre, her (here), hor, hit.
Dat. Vus (= uus), yow, you, hem, hom, hit.
Acc. Vus (= uus), yow, you, hem, hom, hit.

Nom. Who (quo).
Gen. Whose (quos).
Dat. { Whom, Wham } (quom).
Acc. { Whom, Wham } (quom).

[Footnote 56: _Scho_ occurs _once_ in the present poems.]

[Footnote 57: _Yowreȝ_ (yours) sometimes takes the place of
_youre_ in the romance of “Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knyȝt.”]

[Footnote 58: Page 92, l. 108.]

[Footnote 59: Page 91, l. 72.]

[Footnote 60: Syr Gawayn, l. 1932.]

[Footnote 61: I would say that _says me I_ = I myself say. --R. M.]

IV. +Verbs.+

_Infinitive Mood._--The _-en_ of the infinitive is frequently dropped, without even a final _-e_ to mark its omission. Infinitives in _-y_, as _louy_ (love), _schony_ (shun), _spotty_ (spot, defile), _styry_ (stir), _wony_ (dwell), occasionally occur, and probably owe their appearance to the author’s acquaintance with Southern literature.[62]

_Indicative Mood._--The final _e_ often disappears in the first and third persons of the preterite tense, as I _loved_, he _loved_, instead of I _lovede_, he _lovede_.

The _-en_ in the plural of the present and preterite tenses is frequently dropped. The pl. present in _-eȝ_ occasionally occurs.

_Imperative Mood._--The imperative plural ends in _-es_ (_eȝ_), and not in _-eth_ as in the Southern and ordinary Midland dialects.

_Participles._--The active or imperfect participle ends in _-ande_[63] and never in _-ing_.

The participle passive or perfect of regular verbs terminates in _-ed_; of irregular verbs in _-en_. Occasionally we find the _n_ disappearing, as _bigonn-e_, _fund-e_, _runn-e_, _wonn-e_, where perhaps it is represented by the final _-e_.

The prefix _-i_ or _-y_ (A.S. _-ge_) occurs twice only in the poems, in _i-chose_ (chosen), and _i-brad_ (extended); but, while common enough in the Southern and Midland dialects, it seems to be wholly unknown to the Northumbrian speech.

The verb in the West-Midland dialect is conjugated according to the following model:--

I.--+Conjugation of Regular Verbs.+

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.
Singular. Plural.
(I) hope, (We) hopen.
(Thou) hopes, (Ȝe) hopen.
(He) hopes, (Thay) hopen.

PRETERITE TENSE.
(I) hopede[64] (hoped), (We) hopeden.
(Thou) hopedes (hoped), (Ȝe) hopeden.
(He) hopede[64] (hoped), (Thay) hopeden.

IMPERATIVE MOOD.

Hope (thou). Hopes (ȝe).

PARTICIPLES.

Imperfect or Active. Perfect or Passive.
Hopande. Hoped.

II.--+Conjugation of Irregular Verbs.+

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE.

Singular.
(I) kerve, renne, smite, stonde.
(Thou) kerves, rennes, smites, stondes.
(He) kerves, rennes, smites, stondes.

Plural.
(We) kerven, rennen, smiten, stonden.
(Ȝe) „ „ „ „
(Thay) „ „ „ „

PRETERITE TENSE.

Singular.
(I) carf, ran, smot, stod.
(Thou) carve, ranne, smote, stode.
(He) carf, ran, smot, stod.

Very frequently the _e_ in the second person is dropped,[65] as in the Northumbrian dialect, but we never meet with such forms as carves (= carvedest), rannes (= ranst), smotes (= smotest), etc.

Plural.
(We) corven, runnen, smiten, stonden.
(Ȝe) „ „ „ „
(Thay) „ „ „ „

PASSIVE PARTICIPLES.

Corven, runnen, smiten, stonden.

The Northumbrian dialect does not preserve any separate form for the preterite plural, and this distinction is not always observed in the present poems.

+Table of Verbs.+

A.--SIMPLE ORDER.

Present. Preterite. Passive Participle.

Class I.
Hate, hatede, hated.

Class II. (_a_)
Bede (offer), bedde, bed.
Dype (dip), dypte, dypt.
Kythe (show), kydde, kyd.
Lende, lende, lent.
Rende, rende, rent.
Sende, sende, sent.
(_b_)
Clothe, cladde, clad.
Dele (deal), dalte, dalt.
Lede, ladde, lad.
Leve, lafte, laft.
Rede (advise), radde, rad.
Sprede (spread), spradde, sprad.
Swelt (die), swalte, ----
Swette (sweat), swatte, ----
Threte (threaten), thratte, thrat.

Class III.
Byye (buy), boȝte, boȝt
Bringe, broȝte, broȝt.
Cache (catch), caȝte, caȝt.
Lache (seize), laȝte, laȝt.
Reche (reck), roȝte, ----
Reche (reach), raȝte, ----
Selle, solde, sold.
Worche (work), wroȝte, wroȝt.

B.--COMPLEX ORDER.

Present. Preterite. Passive Participle.

+Division I.+
Class I.
Bere (bear), ber, born.
Bete (beat), bet, beten.
Breke (break), brek, broken.
Chese (choose), ches (chos), chosen.
Cleve (cleave), clef, cloven.
Ete (eat), ette (_for_ et), eten.
Forȝete (forget), forȝet, forȝeten.
Frese (freeze), fres, frosen.
Gife (give), gef, given, geven.
Heve (heave), hef, hoven.
Ligge (lie), leȝ, leyen, leȝen.
Lepe (leap), lep, lopen.
Nemme } (take), nem (nam), nomen.
Nimme }
Schere (shear), scher, schorn.
Slepe (sleep), slep, slepen.
Speke (speak), spek, spoken.
Stele (steal), stel, stolen.
Swere (swear), swer, sworen.
Wepe (weep), wep, wopen.
Wreke (avenge), wrek, wroken.

Class II.
Falle, fell, fallen.
Fonge (take), feng, fongen.
Growe, grew, growen.
Hange, honge, heng, hangen, hongen.
Knowe, knawe, knew, knawen, knowen.
Schape (make), schep, schapen.
Walke, welk, walken.
Wasche, wesch, waschen.

Class III.
Drawe, draȝe, droȝ, drawen.
Fare (go), for, faren.
Laȝe (laugh), loȝ, laȝen.
Stande, stonde, stod, standen.
Slaye, slow, slew, slayn.
Take, tok, tane, tone.
Wake, wok, waken.

+Division II.+

Present. Preterite. Passive Participle.

Class I.
Biginne, bigon, bigonnen, bigunnen.
Breste, brast, borst, brusten, bursten.
Climbe, clamb, clomb, clumben.
Drinke, dronk, drank, drunken, dronken.
Finde, fand, fond, funden.
Fiȝte, faȝt, feȝt, foȝten.
Helpe, halp, holpen.
Kerve (cut), carf, corven.
Melte, malt, molten.
Renne (run), ran, runnen.
Ringe, rong, rungen, rongen.
Singe, song, sang, sungen.
Steke, stac, stoken.
Sterve (die), starf, storven.
Werpe (throw), warp, worpen.
Win, wan, won, wonnen, wunnen.
Ȝelde (yield), ȝald, ȝolden.

Class II.
Bide (abide), bod, biden.
Bite, bot, biten.
Drive, drof, driven.
Fine (cease), fon, ----
Glide, glod, gliden.
Ride, rod, riden.
Rise, ros, risen.
Schine, schon, ----
Slide, slod, sliden.
Smite, smot, smiten.
Trine (go), tron, ----

Class III.
Fly, fleȝ, flegh, flaȝ, flowen.
See, seȝ, segh, syȝ, seen.
Stiȝe, steȝe, steȝ ----

+Anomalous Verbs.+

Can, pret. couthe.
Dare, „ dorste.
May, „ miȝte.
Mot, „ moste.
Oȝe (owe), „ oȝte.
Schal, „ scholde, schulde.
Thar, „ thurte.
Wote, „ wiste.
Wille, „ wolde.

_Schal_ (shall) in the second person singular is _schal_ or _schalt_; so, too, we occasionally find _wyl_ for _wylt_.

The present plural of _schal_ is _schul_, _schulen_, or _schyn_.

The verb _to be_ is thus conjugated:--

INDICATIVE MOOD.

PRESENT TENSE. PAST TENSE.

Singular.
(I) am. (I) was, watȝ.
(Thou) art. (Thou) was, watȝ.
(He) is, bes, betȝ. (He) was, watȝ.

Plural.
(We) arn, are, ar. (We) wern, were.
(Ȝe) arn, are, ar. (Ȝe) wern, were.
(Thay) arn, are, ar. (Thay) wern, were.

The verbs _be_, _have_, _wille_, have negative forms; as, _nam_ = am not; _nar_ = are not; _nas_ = was not; _naf_ = have not; _nade_ = had not; _nyl_ = will not.

The following contractions are occasionally met with: _bos_ = behoves; _byhod_ = behoved; _ha_ = have; _ma_ = make; _man_ = make (pl.) _matȝ_ (_mas_) = makes; _ta_ = take; _tatȝ_ (= _tas_) = takes; _tane_, _tone_ = taken.

[Footnote 62: _Schonied_ occurs for _schoned_. No Southern writer
would retain, I think, the _i_ in the preterite.]

[Footnote 63: Garnett asserts that the present participle in
_-ande_ is “a _certain criterion_ of a Northern dialect subsequent
to the thirteenth century.” It is never found in any Southern
writer, but is common to many Midland dialects. Capgrave employs
it frequently in his Chronicles. It is, however, no safe criterion
by itself.]

[Footnote 64: The final _e_ is often dropped.]

[Footnote 65: In _The Wohunge of Ure Lauerd_ the _e_ is constantly
omitted.]

V. +Adverbs.+

The Norse forms _hethen_, _quethen_ (_whethen_),[66] and _thethen_, seem to have been known to the West-Midland dialect as well as the Saxon forms _hence_ (_hennes_, _henne_), _whence_ (_whennes_), _thence_ (_thennes_), etc. The adverbs _in-blande_ (together), _in-lyche_ (alike), _in-mydde_ (amidst), _in-monge_ (amongst), are due, perhaps, to Scandinavian influence.

[Footnote 66: “Syr Gawayn and the Grene Knyȝt.”]

VI. +Prepositions.+

The preposition _from_ never occurs in the following poems; it is replaced by _fro_, _fra_ (Northumbrian), O.N. _frá_.

VII. +Conjunctions.+

The conjunction _if_ takes a negative form; as, _nif_ = if not, unless.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT USED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME.[67]

+Cotton MS. Nero A. x.+ A small quarto volume, consisting of three different MSS. bound together, which originally had no connection with each other. Prefixed is an imperfect list of contents in the hand-writing of James, the Bodley Librarian.

The first portion consists of a panegyrical oration in Latin by Justus de Justis, on John Chedworth, archdeacon of Lincoln, dated at Verona 16th July, 1468. It occupies thirty-six folios, written on vellum, and is the original copy presented by the author.

The second portion is that we are more immediately concerned with. It is described by James as “_Vetus poema Anglicanum, in quo sub insomnii figmento multa ad religionem et mores spectantia explicantur_,” and this account, with some slight changes, is adopted by Smith and Planta, in their catalogues; both of whom assign it to the fifteenth century. It will appear, by what follows, that no less than four distinct poems have been confounded together by these writers.

This portion of the volume extends from fol. 37 to fol. 126, inclusive, and is written by one and the same hand, in a small, sharp, irregular character, which is often, from the paleness of the ink, and the contractions used, difficult to read. There are no titles or rubrics, but the divisions are marked by large initial letters of blue, flourished with red, and several illuminations, coarsely executed, serve by way of illustration, each of which occupies a page.

1. Four of these are prefixed to the first poem. In the first the
Author is represented slumbering in a meadow, by the side of a
streamlet, clad in a long red gown, having falling sleeves, turned
up with white, and a blue hood attached round the neck.

In the second the same person appears, drawn on a larger scale, and
standing by the stream. In the third he occurs nearly in the same
position, with his hands raised, and on the opposite side a lady
dressed in white, in the costume of Richard the Second’s and Henry
the Fourth’s time, buttoned tight up to the neck, with long hanging
sleeves. Her hair is plaited on each side, and on her head is a
crown. In the fourth we see the author kneeling by the water, and
beyond the stream is depicted a castle or palace, on the embattled
wall of which appears the same lady, with her arm extended towards
him.

The poem commences on fol. 39, and consists of one hundred and one twelve-line stanzas,[68] every five of which conclude with the same line, and are connected by the iteration of a leading expression. It concludes on fol. 55b.

2. Then follow two more illuminations; in the first of which Noah
and his family are represented in the ark; in the second the prophet
Daniel expounding the writing on the wall to the affrighted
Belshazzar and his queen. These serve as illustrations to the second
poem, which begins at fol. 57, and is written in long alliterative
lines. It concludes on fol. 82.

3. Two illuminations precede, as before; one of which represents the
sailors throwing the prophet Jonas into the sea, the other depicts
the prophet in the attitude of preaching to the people of Nineveh.
The poem is in the same metre as the last, and commences at fol. 83.

It is occupied wholly with the story of Jonas, as applicable to the praise of meekness and patience; and ends on fol. 90.

4. The Romance intitled _Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knyȝt_ follows,
fol. 91. Prefixed is an illumination of a headless knight on
horseback, carrying his head by its hair in his right hand, and
looking benignly at an odd-eyed bill-man before him; while from a
raised structure above, a king armed with a knife, his queen, an
attendant with a sabre, and another bill-man scowling looks on. Here
and elsewhere the only colours used are green, red, blue, and
yellow. It ends on fol. 124b., and at the conclusion, in a later
hand, is written “Hony soit q̃ mal penc,” which may, perhaps, allude
to the illumination on the opposite page, fol. 125, representing the
stolen interview between the wife of the Grene Knyȝt and Sir
Gawayne. Above the lady’s head is written:

Mi mind is mukel on on, þ{a}t wil me noȝt amende,
Sum time was trewe as ston, & fro schame couþ{e} hir defende.

It does not appear very clearly how these lines apply to the painting. Two additional illuminations follow; in the first of which Gawayne is seen approaching the _Grene Chapel_, whilst his enemy appears above, wielding his huge axe; and in the second Sir Gawayne, fully equipped in armour, is represented in the presence of king Arthur and queen Guenever, after his return to the court.

The third and concluding portion of the Cotton volume extends from fol. 127 to fol. 140b, inclusive, and consists of theological excerpts, in Latin, written in a hand of the end of the thirteenth century. At the conclusion is added _Epitaphium de Ranulfo, abbate Ramesiensi_, who was abbot from the year 1231 to 1253, and who is erroneously called _Ralph_ in the _Monasticon_, vol. ii. p. 548, new ed.

[Footnote 67: Taken with some few alterations from Sir F. Madden’s
“Syr Gawayn.”]

[Footnote 68: A line, however, is missing from the MS. on fol.
55b. See page 15.]

CONTRACTIONS USED IN THE GLOSSARY.

The letters A. B. C. refer severally to the poems, entitled by me, “The Pearl,” “Cleanness,” and “Patience.”

A.S. Anglo-Saxon.
Dan. Danish.
Du. Dutch.
E. English.
O.E. Old English.
Prov.E. Provincial English.
N.Prov.E. } North Provincial English.
N.P.E. }
Fr. French.
O.Fr. Old French.
Prov. Fr. Provincial French.
Fris. Frisian.
G. Doug. Gawin Douglas’s Æneid, published by the
Bannatyne Club, 2 vols.
Ger. German.
Goth. Gothic.
Icel. Icelandic.
Jam. Jamieson’s Scottish Dictionary.
K. Alex. King Alexander, Romance of (Ed. Stevenson).
Met. Hom. Metrical Homilies (Ed. Small).
O.N. Old Norse.
O.S. Old Saxon.
Prompt. Parv. Promptorium Parvulorum (Ed. Way).
Sc. Scotch.
O.Sc. Old Scotch.
S.Sax. Semi-Saxon.
Sw. Swedish.
O.Sw. Old Swedish.
Town. Myst. Townley Mysteries.
T. B. Troy Book (Ed. Donaldson).

Errata (noted by transcriber)