PREFACE.

PREFACE.I.—DESCRIPTION OF THE MS., ETC.A formeredition of the present poem was printed for the Maitland Club, in 1839, and edited by Joseph Stevenson, Esq. It has saved me all trouble of transcription, but by no means, I am sorry to say, that of correction. Those who possess the older edition will readily perceive that it differs from the present one very frequently indeed, and that the variations are often such as considerably to affect the sense. Many of the errors in it (such ascasualtyeeforcasualytee,grone, forgone,reprentforrepent) are clearly typographical, but there are others which would incline me to believe that the transcription was too hastily executed; several passages being quite meaningless. Near the conclusion of Mr Stevenson’s preface we read: “The pieces which have been selected for the present volume1are printed with such errors of transcription as have crept into them by the carelessness of the scribe;” a statement which certainly implies that there was no intention on his part of departing from the original. Yet that he sometimes unconsciously did so to such an extent as considerably to alter (or destroy) the sense, the reader may readily judge from a few examples:—LINE.EDITION OF 1839.TRUE READING OF THE MS.26.fatil (fatal),fatit (fated).285.unarmyt (unarmed),enarmyt (fully armed).682.can here,cam nere.700.rendit (rent),vondit (wounded).764.refuse (refusal?),reprefe (defeat).861.felith (feeleth),ſetith (setteth).1054.vyt,rycht.1084.speiris,spuris.1455.cumyng (coming),cunyng (skill).1621.he war,be war (beware).1641.promyß,punyß (punish).2010.ane desyne,medysyne.2092.born,lorn (lost).2114.havin,harm.2142.Hymene (!),hyme (him).2219.such,furth (forth).2245.al so y-vroght,al foly vroght.2279.chichingis (!),thithingis (tidings).2446.love,lore (teaching). Etc.Several omissions also occur, as,e.g., of the word “off” inl. 7, of the word “tressore” inl. 1715, and of four whole lines at a time in two instances; viz., lines1191-4, and2877-80. It will be found, in fact, that the former text can seldom be safely quoted for the purposes of philology; and I cannot but think Mr Stevenson’s claim of being accurate to be especially unfortunate; and the more so, because the genuine text is much simpler and more intelligible than the one which he has given.The original MS. is to be found in the Cambridge University Library, marked Kk. 1. 5. It formerly formed part of a thick volume, labelled “Tracts;” but these are now being separated, for greater convenience, into several volumes. The MS. of “Lancelot” has little to do with any of the rest as regards its subject, but several other pieces are in the same hand-writing; and, at the end of one of them, anabstract of Solomon’s proverbs, occur the words, “Expliciunt Dicta Salamonis, per manum V. de F.”2This hand-writing, though close, is very regular, and my own impression certainly is that the scribe has almost always succeeded in preserving the sense of the poem, though there is much confusion in the dialectal forms, as will be shewn presently.The present text is as close a fac-simile of the MS. as can be represented by printed letters, every peculiarity being preserved as far as practicable, even including the use ofyforþ(orth); so that the reader must remember thatyowinl. 94stands forthow, andyisinl. 160forthis, and so on; but this ought not to cause much difficulty. The sole points of difference are the following:1. In the MS. the headings “Prologue,” “Book I.” etc., do not occur.2. The lines do not always begin (in the MS.) with a capital letter.3. The lettersitalicizedare (in the MS.) represented by signs of contraction. One source of difficulty is the flourish over a word, usedsometimesas a contraction formorn. I have expanded this flourish as anmornwherever such letter is manifestly required; but it also occurs where it is best to attach to it no value. In such instances, the flourish occurs most frequently over the last word in a line, and (except very rarely) only over words which have anmornin them. It would thus seem that their presence is due to the fact of the scribe wanting employment for his pen after the line had been written, and that the flourish therefore appears over certain words, not so much because theniswantingin them, as because it isthere already. Such words have a special attraction for the wandering pen. Still, in order that the readermay know wherever such flourishes occur, they have all been noted down; thus, inl. 46, the stroke over thenin “greñ” means that a long flourish occurs drawn over the whole word, and the reader who wishes to expand this word into “grene” or “grenn” may easily do it for himself, though he should observe that the most usual form of the word is simply “gren,” as in lines1000,1305.In a few nouns ending in-l, the plural is indicated by a stroke drawn through the doubled letter; as inperillis,sadillis, etc.; and even the wordellis(else) is thus abbreviated.4. I am responsible for all hyphens, and letters and words between square brackets; thus, “with-outen” is in the MS. “with outen;” and “knych[t]ly” is written “knychly.” Whenever a line begins with a capital letter included between two brackets, the original has a blank space left, evidently intended for an illuminated letter. Wherever illuminated letters actually occur in the MS., they are denoted in this edition by large capitals.5. We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisteds(ſ and s). These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe any law for their use. The letter “ß” has been adopted as closely resembling a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of doubles, and is not unlike the “sz” used in modern German hand-writing. It may be conveniently denoted bysswhen the type “ß” is not to be had, and is sometimes so represented in the “Notes.”6. The MS. is, of course, not punctuated. The punctuation in the present edition is mostly new; and many passages, which in the former edition were meaningless, have thus been rendered easily intelligible. I am also responsible for the headings of the pages, the abstract at the sides of them, the numbering of the folios in the margin, the notes, and the glossary; which I hope may be found useful. The greatestcare has been taken to make the text accurate, the proof-sheets having been compared with the MS.three timesthroughout.3II.—DESCRIPTION OF THE POEM.The poem itself is a loose paraphrase of not quite fourteen folios of the first of the three volumes of the French Romance of Lancelot du Lac, if we refer to it as reprinted at Paris in 1513, in three volumes, thin folio, double-columned.4The English poet has set aside the French Prologue, and written a new one of his own, and has afterwards translated and amplified that portion of the Romance which narrates the invasion of Arthur’s territory by “le roy de oultre les marches, nomme galehault” (in the EnglishGaliot), and the defeat of the said king by Arthur and his allies.The Prologue (lines1-334) tells how the author undertook to write a romance to please his lady-love; and how, after deciding to take as his subject the story of Lancelot as told in the French Romance, yet finding himself unequal to a close translation of the whole of it, he determined to give a paraphraseof a portion of it only. After giving us a brief summary of the earlier part by the simple process of telling us what he willnotrelate, he proposes to begin the story at the point where Lancelot has been made prisoner by the lady of Melyhalt, and to take as his subject the wars between Arthur and Galiot, and the distinction which Lancelot won in them; and afterwards to tell how Lancelot made peace between these two kings, and was consequently rewarded by Venus, who“makith hyme his ladice grace to have” (l. 311).The latter part of the poem, it may be observed, has not come down to us. The author then concludes his Prologue by beseeching to have the support of a very celebrated poet, whose name he will not mention, but will only say that“Ye fresch enditing of his laiting toungOut throuch yis world so wid is yroung,” etc.5(l. 328.)The first Book introduces us to King Arthur at Carlisle.6The king is visited by dreams, which he imagines to forebode misfortune; he therefore convokes all his clerks, and inquires of them the meaning of the dreams, proposing to hang them in the event of their refusal. Thus strongly urged, they tell him that those on whom he most relies will fail him at his need; and when he further inquires if this evil fate can be averted, they answer him very obscurely that it can only be remedied by help of the water-lion, the leech, and the flower; a reply which the king evidently regards as unsatisfactory. Soon after an aged knight, fully armed, enters the palace, with a message from King Galiot, requiring him to give “tribute and rent.” Arthur at once refuses, somewhat to the astonishment of the knight, who is amazed at his hardihood. Next arrives a message from the lady of Melyhalt, informing Arthur of theactual presence of Galiot’s army. We are then momentarily introduced to Lancelot, who is pining miserably in the lady’s custody. Next follows a description of Galiot’s army, at sight of the approach of which King Arthur and his “niece,” Sir Gawain, confer as to the best means of resistance. In the ensuing battle Sir Gawain greatly distinguishes himself, but is at last severely wounded. Sir Lancelot, coming to hear of Sir Gawain’s deeds, craves leave of the lady to be allowed to take part in the next conflict, who grants him his boon on condition that he promise to return to his prison. She then provides for him a red courser, and a complete suit of red armour, in which guise he appears at the second battle, and is the “head and comfort of the field;” the queen and Sir Gawain beholding his exploits from a tower. The result of the battle convinces Galiot that Arthur is not strong enough at present to resist him sufficiently, and that he thus runs the risk of a too easy, and therefore dishonourable, conquest; for which excellent reason he grants Arthur a twelvemonth’s truce, with a promise to return again in increased force at the expiration of that period. Sir Lancelot returns to Melyhalt according to promise, and the lady is well pleased at hearing the reports of his famous deeds, and visits him when asleep, out of curiosity to observe his appearance after the fight.In the Second Book the story makes but little progress, nearly the whole of it being occupied by a long lecture or sermon delivered to Arthur by a “master,” named Amytans, on the duties of a king; the chief one being that a king should give presents to everybody—a duty which is insisted on with laborious tediousness. Lines1320-2130are almost entirely occupied with this subject, and will be found to be the driest part of the whole narrative. In the course of his lecture, Amytans explains at great length the obscure prophecy mentioned above, shewing that by the water-lion is meant God the Father, by the leech God the Son, and by the flower the VirginMary. Though the outline of a similar lecture exists in the old French text, there would seem to be a special reason for the length to which it is here expanded. Some lines certainly seem to hint at events passing in Scotland at the time when the poem was composed. Thus, “kings may be excused when of tender age” (l. 1658); but when they come to years of discretion should punish those that have wrested the law. Again we find (l. 1920) strong warnings against flatterers, concluding (l. 1940) with the expression,“Wo to the realme that havith sich o chans!”Such hints may remind us of the long minorities of James II. and James III.; and, whilst speaking on this subject, I may note a somewhat remarkable coincidence. When King Arthur, as related in Book I., asks the meaning of his dream, he is told that it signifies that “they in whom he most trusts will fail him” (l. 499); and he afterwards laments (l. 1151) how his “men fail him at need.” Now when we read that a story is current of a prophetess having told James III. that he was destined to “fall by the hands of his own kindred,”7and that that monarch was in the habit of consultingastrologers8(comparel. 432) as to the dangers that threatened him, it seems quite possible that the poem was really composed about the year 1478; and this supposition is consistent with the fact that the hand-writing of the present MS. copy belongs to the very end of the fifteenth century.Towards the end of the Second Book, we learn that the twelvemonth’s truce draws near its end, and that Sir Lancelot again obtains permission from the lady to be present in the approaching combat, choosing this time to be arrayed in “armys al of blak” (l. 2426).In the Third Book Galiot returns to the fight with a host thrice as large as his former one. As before, Gawain distinguishes himself in the first encounter, but is at length so “evil wounded” that he was “the worse thereof evermore” (l. 2706). In the second combat, the black knight utterly eclipses the red knight, and the last thousand (extant) lines of the poem are almost wholly occupied with a description of his wonderful prowess. At the point where the extant portion of the poem ceases, the author would appear to be just warming with his subject, and to be preparing for greater efforts.In continuance of the outline of the story, I may add that the French text9informs us how, after being several times remounted by Galiot, and finding himself with every fresh horse quite as fresh as he was at the beginning of the battle, the black knight attempted, as evening fell, to make his way back to Melyhalt secretly. Galiot, however, having determined not to lose sight of him, follows and confronts him, and earnestly requests his company to supper, and that he will lodge in his tent that night. After a little hesitation, Lancelot accepts the invitation, and Galiot entertains him with the utmost respect and flattery, providing for him a most excellent supper and a bed larger than any of the rest. Lancelot, though naturally somewhat wearied, passes a rather restless night, and talks a good deal in his sleep. Next day Galiot prays him to stay longer, and he consents on condition that a boon may be granted him, which is immediately acceded to without further question. He then requests Galiot to submit himself to Arthur, and to confess himself vanquished, a demand which so amazes that chieftain that he at first refuses, yet succeeds in persuading Lancelot to remain with him a little longer. The day after, preparations are made for another battle, on which occasion Lancelot wears Galiot’s armour, and is at first mistaken for him, till Sir Gawain’s acute vision detects that the armourreally encases the black knight. As Lancelot now fights on Galiot’s side, it may easily be imagined how utter and complete is the defeat of Arthur’s army, which was before victorious owing to his aid only; and we are told that Arthur is ready to kill himself out of pure grief and chagrin, whilst Sir Gawain swoons so repeatedly, for the same reason, as to cause the most serious fears to be entertained for his life. At this sorrowful juncture Lancelot again claims his boon of Galiot, who, in the very moment of victory, determines at last to grant it, and most humbly sues for mercy at the hands of Arthur, to that king’s most intense astonishment. By this very unexpected turn of affairs, the scene of dolour is changed to one of unalloyed joy, and peace is immediately agreed upon, to the satisfaction of all but some true-bred warriors, who preferred a battle to a peace under all circumstances. Not long after, Galiot discovers Lancelot with eyes red and swollen with much weeping, and endeavours to ascertain the reason of his grief, but with small success. After endeavouring to comfort Lancelot as much as possible, Galiot goes to visit King Arthur, and a rather long conference takes place between them as they stand at Sir Gawain’s bedside, the queen being also present. In the course of it, Galiot asks Arthur what price he would pay to have the black knight’s perpetual friendship; to which Arthur replies, he would gladly share with him half of everything that he possessed, saving only Queen Guinevere. The question is then put to Gawain, who replies that, if only his health might be restored, he would wish to be the most beautiful woman in the world, so as to be always beloved by the knight. Next it is put to Guinevere, who remarks that Sir Gawain has anticipated all that a lady could possibly wish, an answer which is received with much laughter. Lastly, Arthur puts the question to Galiot himself, who declares that he would willingly, for the black knight’s sake, suffer that all his honour should be turned into shame, whereat Sir Gawain allows himselfto be outbidden. The queen then obtains a brief private conference with Galiot, and prays him to obtain for her an interview with the black knight, who promises to do what he can to that end. He accordingly sounds the black knight upon the subject, and, finding him entirely of the same mind, does all he can to promote their acquaintance, and is at last only too successful; and at this point we may suppose the Scottish Romance to have stopped, if indeed it was ever completed. For some account of the Romance of Lancelot, I may refer the reader to Professor Morley’s English Writers, vol. i., pp. 568-570, and 573; to “Les Romans de la Table Ronde,” par M. Paulin Paris; and to the Prefaces to the “Seynt Graal,” edited by Mr Furnivall for the Roxburghe Club, 1861, and “La Queste del Saint Graal,” also edited by the same for the same club in 1864. In the last-named volume short specimens are given from thirteen MSS. at Paris, ten of which contain the Romance of Lancelot. There are also manuscript copies of it in the British Museum, viz., MSS. Harl. 6341 and 6342, Lansdowne 757, and MS. Addit. 10293.III.—THE DIALECT OF THE POEM.In coming to discuss the dialect, we find everywhere traces of considerable confusion; but it is not at all easy to assign a satisfactory reason for this.10Certain errors of transcription soon shew that the scribe had before his eyes an older copy, which he mis-read. Thus, inl. 433, we find “set,” where the older copy must have had “fet,” and which he must have mis-read as “ſet;” and again, in lines2865,2883, he has, by a similar confusion between “f” and “ſ,” written “firſt” instead of “fift.” It is most probable that the older copy waswritten in the Lowland Scottish dialect (the whole tone of the poem going to prove this), as shewn by the use ofchforgh, as inbrichtforbright, (unless this be wholly due to the scribe); by the occurrence of plurals in-is, of verbal preterites and passive participles in-it, and of words peculiarly Scottish, such assyne(afterwards),anerly(only),laif(remainder),oft-syss(oft-times), etc. Moreover, the Northernris clearly indicated by the occurrence of such dissyllables asgar-t,2777,lar-g,2845,fir-st,2958,3075; with which compare the significant spellingsharrmful,1945, andfurrde,2583. But, on the other hand, it would appear as if either the author or the copyist had no great regard for pure dialect, and continually introduces Southern and Midland forms, mixing them together in an indiscriminate and very unusual manner. We find, for example, in line1765,“Beithlarg and iffisfrely of thi thing,”the Scottish formiffis(give) and the Southernbeithin close conjunction; and we find no less than six or seven forms of the plural of the past tense of the verb “to be;” as, for example,war(3136),veir(818),ware(825),waren(3301),veryng(2971),waryng(443), etc. If we could suppose that the scribe was not himself a Scotchman, we might in some measure account for such a result; but the supposition is altogether untenable, as the peculiar character of the handwriting (resembling that found, not in English, but inFrenchMSS.) decides it to be certainly Scottish; as is also evident from the occurrence, in the same hand-writing, of a Scotticised version of Chaucer’s “Flee from the press.”The best that can be done is to collect a few instances of peculiarities.1. The broad Northumbrian formsa,ane,baith,fra,ga,haill,hame,knaw,law,sa,wat, although occasionally retained, are also at times changed intoo,one,boith,fro,go,holl,hom,know,low,so, andwot. Thus, at the end ofl. 3246, we findhaill, which could not have been altered without destroying the rime; but inl. 3078, we find it changed, in the middle of the line, intoholl. Inl. 3406, we findsa, but only three lines further on we findsotwice.So, too, we not only findtane(taken),gais(goes), but also the formstoneandgoß. See lines1071,1073.2. The true plural form of the verb is shewn by lines203,204,“Of quhois fame and worschipful dedisClerkis into diuerß bukisredis,”where alteration would have ruined the rime utterly; and the same termination (-is) is correctly used in the imperative mood, as,——“ſogiffisws delay” (l. 463);“And of thi wordisbeistrew and stable” (l. 1671);but the termination-ithis continually finding its way into the poem, even as early as in the fourth line,“Uprisitharly in his fyre chare;”and in the imperative mood also, as,“Remembrithnow it stondith one the poynt” (l. 797).The most singular point of all, however, is this—that, not content with changing-isinto-ithin the 3rd person singular, the scribe has done the same even in the 2nd person, thus producing words which belong to no pure example of any distinct dialect. Observe the following lines:—“O woful wrech, thatlevisin to were!To schew the thus the god of loue me sent,That of thi seruice no thing is content,For in his court yhoue [= thou]lewithin disspar,And vilfullysustenisal thi care,Andschapithno thinge of thine awn remede,Botclepithay andcryithapone dede,” etc. (ll. 84-90).Herelevisis altered intolewith, not only unnecessarily, but quite wrongly. For similar mistakes, seell. 1019,1369,1384,2203. For examples of correct usage, seell. 1024,1337,1796,2200,2201.3. But the terminations which are used in the most confused manner of all are-en,-yne, and-ingor-yng. Thus we find the non-Scottish infinitives,telen(494),makine(191); the constant substitution of-ingfor-andin the present participle;11a confusion between the past participial ending-ine(more correctly-yn), and the present ending-and, thus producing such forms asthinkine(34), andbesichyne(418); and also a confusion between-ingand the past participial ending-en, asfundyngforfunden(465),fallyngforfallen(1217,1322,3267),swellyngforswollen(1222), andhaldingforhalden(2259). We even find-ingin the infinitive mood, as inawysing(424),viting(to know,410),smyting(1326),warnnyng(1035),passing(2148),ſchewing(2736), etc.; and, lastly, it occurs in the plural of the indicative present, instead of the Midland-en; as inpassing(1166),biding(2670), andlevyng(3304).12It may safely be concluded, however, that the frequent occurrence of non-Scottish infinitives must not be attributed to the copyist, since they are probably due rather to the author; for in such a line as“Of his desir to viting the sentens” (l. 410),the termination-ingis required to complete the rhythm of the line.In the same way we must account for the presence of the prefixi-, as in the line“Quharwith that al the gardinge was I-clede” (l. 50).This prefix never occurs in vernacular Scottish; but we may readily suppose that this and other numerous Southern forms of words are due (as in Gawain Douglas and Lyndesay) to the author’s familiarity with Chaucer’s poems, as evinced by the similarity of the rhythm to Chaucer’s, and by the close resemblance of several passages. Compare, for instance, the first seventy lines of the Prologue with the opening passages of “The Flower and the Leaf,” and “The Complaint of the Black Knight;” and see notes toll. 432,1608. Indeed, this seems to be the only satisfactory way of accounting for the various peculiarities with which the poem abounds.Mr J. A. H. Murray, in his remarks printed in the preface to Mr Lumby’s edition of “Early Scottish Verse,” comes to a similar conclusion, and I here quote his words for the reader’s convenience and information. “There is no reason, however, to suspect the scribe ofwilfullyaltering his original; indeed, the reverse appears manifest, from the fact that the ‘Craft of Deyng’ has not been assimilated in orthography to ‘Ratis Raving,’ but distinctly retains its more archaic character; while in ‘Sir Lancelot,’ edited by Mr Skeat for the Early English Text Society, from the handwriting of the same scribe, we have a language in its continual Anglicisms quite distinct from that of the pieces contained in this volume, of which the Scotch is as pure and unmixed as that of the contemporary Acts of Parliament. With regard to the remarkable transformation which the dialect has undergone in Sir Lancelot, there seems reason, therefore, to suppose that it was not due to the copyist of the present MS., but to a previous writer, if not to the author himself, who perhaps affectedsouthernism, as was done a century later by Lyndesay and Knox, and other adherents of the English party in the Reformation movement. The Southern forms are certainly often shown by the rhyme to be original, and such a form astonefortane= taken, is more likely to have been that of a Northerner trying to writeSouthern, than of a Southern scribe, who knew that no such word existed in his dialect. The same may be said of thethin the second person singular. A Scotch writer, who observed that Chaucer saidhe liveth, where he himself saidhe lyves, might be excused for supposing that he would also have saidthou livethfor the Northernthow lyves; but we can hardly fancy a Southern copyist making the blunder.”4. We find not only the Northumbrian formssallandsuld, but alsoshall,shalt, andshuld.5. As regards pronouns, we find the Scottishscho(she) inl. 1169; but the usual form issche. We find, too, not only the broad formsthai,thair,thaim, but alsothei(sometimesthe),ther, andthem. As examples of forms of the relative pronoun, we may quotewho,quho,whois,quhois(whose),quhom,qwhome(whom),quhat,qwhat(what), andwhilk,quhilk,quhich,quich,wich(which).Wichis used instead ofwho(l. 387), and we also findthe wich, orthe wich that, similarly employed. The nominativewhodoes not perhaps occur as asimplerelative, but has the force ofwhoso, orhe who, ase.g., inl. 1102; or else it is used interrogatively, as inl. 1172.6. Many other peculiarities occur, which it were tedious to discuss fully. It may suffice, perhaps, to note briefly these following. We find both the soft soundch, as inwich,sich, and the hard soundk, as inwhilk,reke(reach),streke(stretch), etc.; which are the true Northern forms.Mois used as well asmore.Thooccurs fortheninl. 3184; and fortheinl. 247.Atoccurs as well asthat;atteas well asat the,627,1055.The short formsma(make),ta(take),sent(sendeth),stant(standeth), are sometimes found; the two former being Northumbrian.Hasis used twice as apluralverb (ll. 481,496).13Ȝha(yes) occurs inl. 2843; but we also meet withȝhis, oryis; with reference to which Mr Morris writes:— “The latter term was not much in favour with the people of the North. Even nowyessounds offensive to a Lancashire man. ‘Hoo cou’d naw opp’n hur meawth t’ seyeigh(yea) ornow(no); boh simpurt on sediss; th’ dickons iss hur on him too. —Tim Bobbin.’” In fact, the distinction betweenȝhaandȝhis, which I have pointed out inWilliam of Palerne(Glossary, s.v.ȝis), viz., thatȝhamerely assents, whilstȝhisshews that the speaker has an opinion of his own, is in this poem observed. Thus, inl. 2843,ȝha= “yes, I admit that I do;” but inl. 514,yis= “yes, but you had better do so;” inl. 1397,ȝhis= “yes, indeed I will;” and inl. 3406,ȝis= “yes, but I cannot accept your answer.”14The true distinction betweenthouandye(William of Palerne, Pref. p. xli) is also generally observed. Thus the Green Bird, in the Prologue, considers the poet to be a fool, and calls himthou; but the clerks, in addressing Arthur (l. 498) politely sayye. And again, Amytans, when rebuking Arthur, frequently calls himthou, without any ceremony. Cf.ll. 659,908,921,2839, &c.As regards the vocabulary, we find that some Northumbrian terms have been employed, but others thrown aside. Thus, while we find the Northumbrian wordsthir(these),traist(trust),newis(neives, fists),radour(fear), etc., we do not, on the other hand, meet with the usual Scottish wordmirk, but observe it to be supplanted bydirk(l. 2471). So, again,ekeis used in the sense ofalso, instead of being a verb, as more usual in Northern works. We may note, too, the occurrence offromeas well asfra, and the Scottish formthyne-furth(thenceforth) inl. 2196.The spelling is very various. We find even four forms of one word, ascusynace,cusynece,cusynes,cwsynes; and, as examples of eccentric spelling, may be quotedqsquyaris(squires,l. 3204), whilst inl. 3221we findsqwar.Both in the marginal abstract and in the notes I have chiefly aimed at removing minor difficulties by explaining sentences of which the construction is peculiar, and words which are disguised by the spelling. For the explanation of more uncommon words, recourse should be had to the Glossarial Index.

A formeredition of the present poem was printed for the Maitland Club, in 1839, and edited by Joseph Stevenson, Esq. It has saved me all trouble of transcription, but by no means, I am sorry to say, that of correction. Those who possess the older edition will readily perceive that it differs from the present one very frequently indeed, and that the variations are often such as considerably to affect the sense. Many of the errors in it (such ascasualtyeeforcasualytee,grone, forgone,reprentforrepent) are clearly typographical, but there are others which would incline me to believe that the transcription was too hastily executed; several passages being quite meaningless. Near the conclusion of Mr Stevenson’s preface we read: “The pieces which have been selected for the present volume1are printed with such errors of transcription as have crept into them by the carelessness of the scribe;” a statement which certainly implies that there was no intention on his part of departing from the original. Yet that he sometimes unconsciously did so to such an extent as considerably to alter (or destroy) the sense, the reader may readily judge from a few examples:—

Several omissions also occur, as,e.g., of the word “off” inl. 7, of the word “tressore” inl. 1715, and of four whole lines at a time in two instances; viz., lines1191-4, and2877-80. It will be found, in fact, that the former text can seldom be safely quoted for the purposes of philology; and I cannot but think Mr Stevenson’s claim of being accurate to be especially unfortunate; and the more so, because the genuine text is much simpler and more intelligible than the one which he has given.

The original MS. is to be found in the Cambridge University Library, marked Kk. 1. 5. It formerly formed part of a thick volume, labelled “Tracts;” but these are now being separated, for greater convenience, into several volumes. The MS. of “Lancelot” has little to do with any of the rest as regards its subject, but several other pieces are in the same hand-writing; and, at the end of one of them, anabstract of Solomon’s proverbs, occur the words, “Expliciunt Dicta Salamonis, per manum V. de F.”2This hand-writing, though close, is very regular, and my own impression certainly is that the scribe has almost always succeeded in preserving the sense of the poem, though there is much confusion in the dialectal forms, as will be shewn presently.

The present text is as close a fac-simile of the MS. as can be represented by printed letters, every peculiarity being preserved as far as practicable, even including the use ofyforþ(orth); so that the reader must remember thatyowinl. 94stands forthow, andyisinl. 160forthis, and so on; but this ought not to cause much difficulty. The sole points of difference are the following:

1. In the MS. the headings “Prologue,” “Book I.” etc., do not occur.

2. The lines do not always begin (in the MS.) with a capital letter.

3. The lettersitalicizedare (in the MS.) represented by signs of contraction. One source of difficulty is the flourish over a word, usedsometimesas a contraction formorn. I have expanded this flourish as anmornwherever such letter is manifestly required; but it also occurs where it is best to attach to it no value. In such instances, the flourish occurs most frequently over the last word in a line, and (except very rarely) only over words which have anmornin them. It would thus seem that their presence is due to the fact of the scribe wanting employment for his pen after the line had been written, and that the flourish therefore appears over certain words, not so much because theniswantingin them, as because it isthere already. Such words have a special attraction for the wandering pen. Still, in order that the readermay know wherever such flourishes occur, they have all been noted down; thus, inl. 46, the stroke over thenin “greñ” means that a long flourish occurs drawn over the whole word, and the reader who wishes to expand this word into “grene” or “grenn” may easily do it for himself, though he should observe that the most usual form of the word is simply “gren,” as in lines1000,1305.

In a few nouns ending in-l, the plural is indicated by a stroke drawn through the doubled letter; as inperillis,sadillis, etc.; and even the wordellis(else) is thus abbreviated.

4. I am responsible for all hyphens, and letters and words between square brackets; thus, “with-outen” is in the MS. “with outen;” and “knych[t]ly” is written “knychly.” Whenever a line begins with a capital letter included between two brackets, the original has a blank space left, evidently intended for an illuminated letter. Wherever illuminated letters actually occur in the MS., they are denoted in this edition by large capitals.

5. We find, in the MS., both the long and the twisteds(ſ and s). These have been noted down as they occur, though I do not observe any law for their use. The letter “ß” has been adopted as closely resembling a symbol in the MS., which apparently has the force of doubles, and is not unlike the “sz” used in modern German hand-writing. It may be conveniently denoted bysswhen the type “ß” is not to be had, and is sometimes so represented in the “Notes.”

6. The MS. is, of course, not punctuated. The punctuation in the present edition is mostly new; and many passages, which in the former edition were meaningless, have thus been rendered easily intelligible. I am also responsible for the headings of the pages, the abstract at the sides of them, the numbering of the folios in the margin, the notes, and the glossary; which I hope may be found useful. The greatestcare has been taken to make the text accurate, the proof-sheets having been compared with the MS.three timesthroughout.3

The poem itself is a loose paraphrase of not quite fourteen folios of the first of the three volumes of the French Romance of Lancelot du Lac, if we refer to it as reprinted at Paris in 1513, in three volumes, thin folio, double-columned.4The English poet has set aside the French Prologue, and written a new one of his own, and has afterwards translated and amplified that portion of the Romance which narrates the invasion of Arthur’s territory by “le roy de oultre les marches, nomme galehault” (in the EnglishGaliot), and the defeat of the said king by Arthur and his allies.

The Prologue (lines1-334) tells how the author undertook to write a romance to please his lady-love; and how, after deciding to take as his subject the story of Lancelot as told in the French Romance, yet finding himself unequal to a close translation of the whole of it, he determined to give a paraphraseof a portion of it only. After giving us a brief summary of the earlier part by the simple process of telling us what he willnotrelate, he proposes to begin the story at the point where Lancelot has been made prisoner by the lady of Melyhalt, and to take as his subject the wars between Arthur and Galiot, and the distinction which Lancelot won in them; and afterwards to tell how Lancelot made peace between these two kings, and was consequently rewarded by Venus, who

“makith hyme his ladice grace to have” (l. 311).

The latter part of the poem, it may be observed, has not come down to us. The author then concludes his Prologue by beseeching to have the support of a very celebrated poet, whose name he will not mention, but will only say that

“Ye fresch enditing of his laiting toungOut throuch yis world so wid is yroung,” etc.5(l. 328.)

“Ye fresch enditing of his laiting toung

Out throuch yis world so wid is yroung,” etc.5(l. 328.)

The first Book introduces us to King Arthur at Carlisle.6The king is visited by dreams, which he imagines to forebode misfortune; he therefore convokes all his clerks, and inquires of them the meaning of the dreams, proposing to hang them in the event of their refusal. Thus strongly urged, they tell him that those on whom he most relies will fail him at his need; and when he further inquires if this evil fate can be averted, they answer him very obscurely that it can only be remedied by help of the water-lion, the leech, and the flower; a reply which the king evidently regards as unsatisfactory. Soon after an aged knight, fully armed, enters the palace, with a message from King Galiot, requiring him to give “tribute and rent.” Arthur at once refuses, somewhat to the astonishment of the knight, who is amazed at his hardihood. Next arrives a message from the lady of Melyhalt, informing Arthur of theactual presence of Galiot’s army. We are then momentarily introduced to Lancelot, who is pining miserably in the lady’s custody. Next follows a description of Galiot’s army, at sight of the approach of which King Arthur and his “niece,” Sir Gawain, confer as to the best means of resistance. In the ensuing battle Sir Gawain greatly distinguishes himself, but is at last severely wounded. Sir Lancelot, coming to hear of Sir Gawain’s deeds, craves leave of the lady to be allowed to take part in the next conflict, who grants him his boon on condition that he promise to return to his prison. She then provides for him a red courser, and a complete suit of red armour, in which guise he appears at the second battle, and is the “head and comfort of the field;” the queen and Sir Gawain beholding his exploits from a tower. The result of the battle convinces Galiot that Arthur is not strong enough at present to resist him sufficiently, and that he thus runs the risk of a too easy, and therefore dishonourable, conquest; for which excellent reason he grants Arthur a twelvemonth’s truce, with a promise to return again in increased force at the expiration of that period. Sir Lancelot returns to Melyhalt according to promise, and the lady is well pleased at hearing the reports of his famous deeds, and visits him when asleep, out of curiosity to observe his appearance after the fight.

In the Second Book the story makes but little progress, nearly the whole of it being occupied by a long lecture or sermon delivered to Arthur by a “master,” named Amytans, on the duties of a king; the chief one being that a king should give presents to everybody—a duty which is insisted on with laborious tediousness. Lines1320-2130are almost entirely occupied with this subject, and will be found to be the driest part of the whole narrative. In the course of his lecture, Amytans explains at great length the obscure prophecy mentioned above, shewing that by the water-lion is meant God the Father, by the leech God the Son, and by the flower the VirginMary. Though the outline of a similar lecture exists in the old French text, there would seem to be a special reason for the length to which it is here expanded. Some lines certainly seem to hint at events passing in Scotland at the time when the poem was composed. Thus, “kings may be excused when of tender age” (l. 1658); but when they come to years of discretion should punish those that have wrested the law. Again we find (l. 1920) strong warnings against flatterers, concluding (l. 1940) with the expression,

“Wo to the realme that havith sich o chans!”

Such hints may remind us of the long minorities of James II. and James III.; and, whilst speaking on this subject, I may note a somewhat remarkable coincidence. When King Arthur, as related in Book I., asks the meaning of his dream, he is told that it signifies that “they in whom he most trusts will fail him” (l. 499); and he afterwards laments (l. 1151) how his “men fail him at need.” Now when we read that a story is current of a prophetess having told James III. that he was destined to “fall by the hands of his own kindred,”7and that that monarch was in the habit of consultingastrologers8(comparel. 432) as to the dangers that threatened him, it seems quite possible that the poem was really composed about the year 1478; and this supposition is consistent with the fact that the hand-writing of the present MS. copy belongs to the very end of the fifteenth century.

Towards the end of the Second Book, we learn that the twelvemonth’s truce draws near its end, and that Sir Lancelot again obtains permission from the lady to be present in the approaching combat, choosing this time to be arrayed in “armys al of blak” (l. 2426).

In the Third Book Galiot returns to the fight with a host thrice as large as his former one. As before, Gawain distinguishes himself in the first encounter, but is at length so “evil wounded” that he was “the worse thereof evermore” (l. 2706). In the second combat, the black knight utterly eclipses the red knight, and the last thousand (extant) lines of the poem are almost wholly occupied with a description of his wonderful prowess. At the point where the extant portion of the poem ceases, the author would appear to be just warming with his subject, and to be preparing for greater efforts.

In continuance of the outline of the story, I may add that the French text9informs us how, after being several times remounted by Galiot, and finding himself with every fresh horse quite as fresh as he was at the beginning of the battle, the black knight attempted, as evening fell, to make his way back to Melyhalt secretly. Galiot, however, having determined not to lose sight of him, follows and confronts him, and earnestly requests his company to supper, and that he will lodge in his tent that night. After a little hesitation, Lancelot accepts the invitation, and Galiot entertains him with the utmost respect and flattery, providing for him a most excellent supper and a bed larger than any of the rest. Lancelot, though naturally somewhat wearied, passes a rather restless night, and talks a good deal in his sleep. Next day Galiot prays him to stay longer, and he consents on condition that a boon may be granted him, which is immediately acceded to without further question. He then requests Galiot to submit himself to Arthur, and to confess himself vanquished, a demand which so amazes that chieftain that he at first refuses, yet succeeds in persuading Lancelot to remain with him a little longer. The day after, preparations are made for another battle, on which occasion Lancelot wears Galiot’s armour, and is at first mistaken for him, till Sir Gawain’s acute vision detects that the armourreally encases the black knight. As Lancelot now fights on Galiot’s side, it may easily be imagined how utter and complete is the defeat of Arthur’s army, which was before victorious owing to his aid only; and we are told that Arthur is ready to kill himself out of pure grief and chagrin, whilst Sir Gawain swoons so repeatedly, for the same reason, as to cause the most serious fears to be entertained for his life. At this sorrowful juncture Lancelot again claims his boon of Galiot, who, in the very moment of victory, determines at last to grant it, and most humbly sues for mercy at the hands of Arthur, to that king’s most intense astonishment. By this very unexpected turn of affairs, the scene of dolour is changed to one of unalloyed joy, and peace is immediately agreed upon, to the satisfaction of all but some true-bred warriors, who preferred a battle to a peace under all circumstances. Not long after, Galiot discovers Lancelot with eyes red and swollen with much weeping, and endeavours to ascertain the reason of his grief, but with small success. After endeavouring to comfort Lancelot as much as possible, Galiot goes to visit King Arthur, and a rather long conference takes place between them as they stand at Sir Gawain’s bedside, the queen being also present. In the course of it, Galiot asks Arthur what price he would pay to have the black knight’s perpetual friendship; to which Arthur replies, he would gladly share with him half of everything that he possessed, saving only Queen Guinevere. The question is then put to Gawain, who replies that, if only his health might be restored, he would wish to be the most beautiful woman in the world, so as to be always beloved by the knight. Next it is put to Guinevere, who remarks that Sir Gawain has anticipated all that a lady could possibly wish, an answer which is received with much laughter. Lastly, Arthur puts the question to Galiot himself, who declares that he would willingly, for the black knight’s sake, suffer that all his honour should be turned into shame, whereat Sir Gawain allows himselfto be outbidden. The queen then obtains a brief private conference with Galiot, and prays him to obtain for her an interview with the black knight, who promises to do what he can to that end. He accordingly sounds the black knight upon the subject, and, finding him entirely of the same mind, does all he can to promote their acquaintance, and is at last only too successful; and at this point we may suppose the Scottish Romance to have stopped, if indeed it was ever completed. For some account of the Romance of Lancelot, I may refer the reader to Professor Morley’s English Writers, vol. i., pp. 568-570, and 573; to “Les Romans de la Table Ronde,” par M. Paulin Paris; and to the Prefaces to the “Seynt Graal,” edited by Mr Furnivall for the Roxburghe Club, 1861, and “La Queste del Saint Graal,” also edited by the same for the same club in 1864. In the last-named volume short specimens are given from thirteen MSS. at Paris, ten of which contain the Romance of Lancelot. There are also manuscript copies of it in the British Museum, viz., MSS. Harl. 6341 and 6342, Lansdowne 757, and MS. Addit. 10293.

In coming to discuss the dialect, we find everywhere traces of considerable confusion; but it is not at all easy to assign a satisfactory reason for this.10Certain errors of transcription soon shew that the scribe had before his eyes an older copy, which he mis-read. Thus, inl. 433, we find “set,” where the older copy must have had “fet,” and which he must have mis-read as “ſet;” and again, in lines2865,2883, he has, by a similar confusion between “f” and “ſ,” written “firſt” instead of “fift.” It is most probable that the older copy waswritten in the Lowland Scottish dialect (the whole tone of the poem going to prove this), as shewn by the use ofchforgh, as inbrichtforbright, (unless this be wholly due to the scribe); by the occurrence of plurals in-is, of verbal preterites and passive participles in-it, and of words peculiarly Scottish, such assyne(afterwards),anerly(only),laif(remainder),oft-syss(oft-times), etc. Moreover, the Northernris clearly indicated by the occurrence of such dissyllables asgar-t,2777,lar-g,2845,fir-st,2958,3075; with which compare the significant spellingsharrmful,1945, andfurrde,2583. But, on the other hand, it would appear as if either the author or the copyist had no great regard for pure dialect, and continually introduces Southern and Midland forms, mixing them together in an indiscriminate and very unusual manner. We find, for example, in line1765,

“Beithlarg and iffisfrely of thi thing,”

the Scottish formiffis(give) and the Southernbeithin close conjunction; and we find no less than six or seven forms of the plural of the past tense of the verb “to be;” as, for example,war(3136),veir(818),ware(825),waren(3301),veryng(2971),waryng(443), etc. If we could suppose that the scribe was not himself a Scotchman, we might in some measure account for such a result; but the supposition is altogether untenable, as the peculiar character of the handwriting (resembling that found, not in English, but inFrenchMSS.) decides it to be certainly Scottish; as is also evident from the occurrence, in the same hand-writing, of a Scotticised version of Chaucer’s “Flee from the press.”

The best that can be done is to collect a few instances of peculiarities.

1. The broad Northumbrian formsa,ane,baith,fra,ga,haill,hame,knaw,law,sa,wat, although occasionally retained, are also at times changed intoo,one,boith,fro,go,holl,hom,know,low,so, andwot. Thus, at the end ofl. 3246, we findhaill, which could not have been altered without destroying the rime; but inl. 3078, we find it changed, in the middle of the line, intoholl. Inl. 3406, we findsa, but only three lines further on we findsotwice.

So, too, we not only findtane(taken),gais(goes), but also the formstoneandgoß. See lines1071,1073.

2. The true plural form of the verb is shewn by lines203,204,

“Of quhois fame and worschipful dedisClerkis into diuerß bukisredis,”

“Of quhois fame and worschipful dedis

Clerkis into diuerß bukisredis,”

where alteration would have ruined the rime utterly; and the same termination (-is) is correctly used in the imperative mood, as,

——“ſogiffisws delay” (l. 463);

“And of thi wordisbeistrew and stable” (l. 1671);

but the termination-ithis continually finding its way into the poem, even as early as in the fourth line,

“Uprisitharly in his fyre chare;”

and in the imperative mood also, as,

“Remembrithnow it stondith one the poynt” (l. 797).

The most singular point of all, however, is this—that, not content with changing-isinto-ithin the 3rd person singular, the scribe has done the same even in the 2nd person, thus producing words which belong to no pure example of any distinct dialect. Observe the following lines:—

“O woful wrech, thatlevisin to were!To schew the thus the god of loue me sent,That of thi seruice no thing is content,For in his court yhoue [= thou]lewithin disspar,And vilfullysustenisal thi care,Andschapithno thinge of thine awn remede,Botclepithay andcryithapone dede,” etc. (ll. 84-90).

“O woful wrech, thatlevisin to were!

To schew the thus the god of loue me sent,

That of thi seruice no thing is content,

For in his court yhoue [= thou]lewithin disspar,

And vilfullysustenisal thi care,

Andschapithno thinge of thine awn remede,

Botclepithay andcryithapone dede,” etc. (ll. 84-90).

Herelevisis altered intolewith, not only unnecessarily, but quite wrongly. For similar mistakes, seell. 1019,1369,1384,2203. For examples of correct usage, seell. 1024,1337,1796,2200,2201.

3. But the terminations which are used in the most confused manner of all are-en,-yne, and-ingor-yng. Thus we find the non-Scottish infinitives,telen(494),makine(191); the constant substitution of-ingfor-andin the present participle;11a confusion between the past participial ending-ine(more correctly-yn), and the present ending-and, thus producing such forms asthinkine(34), andbesichyne(418); and also a confusion between-ingand the past participial ending-en, asfundyngforfunden(465),fallyngforfallen(1217,1322,3267),swellyngforswollen(1222), andhaldingforhalden(2259). We even find-ingin the infinitive mood, as inawysing(424),viting(to know,410),smyting(1326),warnnyng(1035),passing(2148),ſchewing(2736), etc.; and, lastly, it occurs in the plural of the indicative present, instead of the Midland-en; as inpassing(1166),biding(2670), andlevyng(3304).12

It may safely be concluded, however, that the frequent occurrence of non-Scottish infinitives must not be attributed to the copyist, since they are probably due rather to the author; for in such a line as

“Of his desir to viting the sentens” (l. 410),

the termination-ingis required to complete the rhythm of the line.

In the same way we must account for the presence of the prefixi-, as in the line

“Quharwith that al the gardinge was I-clede” (l. 50).

This prefix never occurs in vernacular Scottish; but we may readily suppose that this and other numerous Southern forms of words are due (as in Gawain Douglas and Lyndesay) to the author’s familiarity with Chaucer’s poems, as evinced by the similarity of the rhythm to Chaucer’s, and by the close resemblance of several passages. Compare, for instance, the first seventy lines of the Prologue with the opening passages of “The Flower and the Leaf,” and “The Complaint of the Black Knight;” and see notes toll. 432,1608. Indeed, this seems to be the only satisfactory way of accounting for the various peculiarities with which the poem abounds.

Mr J. A. H. Murray, in his remarks printed in the preface to Mr Lumby’s edition of “Early Scottish Verse,” comes to a similar conclusion, and I here quote his words for the reader’s convenience and information. “There is no reason, however, to suspect the scribe ofwilfullyaltering his original; indeed, the reverse appears manifest, from the fact that the ‘Craft of Deyng’ has not been assimilated in orthography to ‘Ratis Raving,’ but distinctly retains its more archaic character; while in ‘Sir Lancelot,’ edited by Mr Skeat for the Early English Text Society, from the handwriting of the same scribe, we have a language in its continual Anglicisms quite distinct from that of the pieces contained in this volume, of which the Scotch is as pure and unmixed as that of the contemporary Acts of Parliament. With regard to the remarkable transformation which the dialect has undergone in Sir Lancelot, there seems reason, therefore, to suppose that it was not due to the copyist of the present MS., but to a previous writer, if not to the author himself, who perhaps affectedsouthernism, as was done a century later by Lyndesay and Knox, and other adherents of the English party in the Reformation movement. The Southern forms are certainly often shown by the rhyme to be original, and such a form astonefortane= taken, is more likely to have been that of a Northerner trying to writeSouthern, than of a Southern scribe, who knew that no such word existed in his dialect. The same may be said of thethin the second person singular. A Scotch writer, who observed that Chaucer saidhe liveth, where he himself saidhe lyves, might be excused for supposing that he would also have saidthou livethfor the Northernthow lyves; but we can hardly fancy a Southern copyist making the blunder.”

4. We find not only the Northumbrian formssallandsuld, but alsoshall,shalt, andshuld.

5. As regards pronouns, we find the Scottishscho(she) inl. 1169; but the usual form issche. We find, too, not only the broad formsthai,thair,thaim, but alsothei(sometimesthe),ther, andthem. As examples of forms of the relative pronoun, we may quotewho,quho,whois,quhois(whose),quhom,qwhome(whom),quhat,qwhat(what), andwhilk,quhilk,quhich,quich,wich(which).Wichis used instead ofwho(l. 387), and we also findthe wich, orthe wich that, similarly employed. The nominativewhodoes not perhaps occur as asimplerelative, but has the force ofwhoso, orhe who, ase.g., inl. 1102; or else it is used interrogatively, as inl. 1172.

6. Many other peculiarities occur, which it were tedious to discuss fully. It may suffice, perhaps, to note briefly these following. We find both the soft soundch, as inwich,sich, and the hard soundk, as inwhilk,reke(reach),streke(stretch), etc.; which are the true Northern forms.

Mois used as well asmore.

Thooccurs fortheninl. 3184; and fortheinl. 247.

Atoccurs as well asthat;atteas well asat the,627,1055.

The short formsma(make),ta(take),sent(sendeth),stant(standeth), are sometimes found; the two former being Northumbrian.

Hasis used twice as apluralverb (ll. 481,496).13

Ȝha(yes) occurs inl. 2843; but we also meet withȝhis, oryis; with reference to which Mr Morris writes:— “The latter term was not much in favour with the people of the North. Even nowyessounds offensive to a Lancashire man. ‘Hoo cou’d naw opp’n hur meawth t’ seyeigh(yea) ornow(no); boh simpurt on sediss; th’ dickons iss hur on him too. —Tim Bobbin.’” In fact, the distinction betweenȝhaandȝhis, which I have pointed out inWilliam of Palerne(Glossary, s.v.ȝis), viz., thatȝhamerely assents, whilstȝhisshews that the speaker has an opinion of his own, is in this poem observed. Thus, inl. 2843,ȝha= “yes, I admit that I do;” but inl. 514,yis= “yes, but you had better do so;” inl. 1397,ȝhis= “yes, indeed I will;” and inl. 3406,ȝis= “yes, but I cannot accept your answer.”14The true distinction betweenthouandye(William of Palerne, Pref. p. xli) is also generally observed. Thus the Green Bird, in the Prologue, considers the poet to be a fool, and calls himthou; but the clerks, in addressing Arthur (l. 498) politely sayye. And again, Amytans, when rebuking Arthur, frequently calls himthou, without any ceremony. Cf.ll. 659,908,921,2839, &c.

As regards the vocabulary, we find that some Northumbrian terms have been employed, but others thrown aside. Thus, while we find the Northumbrian wordsthir(these),traist(trust),newis(neives, fists),radour(fear), etc., we do not, on the other hand, meet with the usual Scottish wordmirk, but observe it to be supplanted bydirk(l. 2471). So, again,ekeis used in the sense ofalso, instead of being a verb, as more usual in Northern works. We may note, too, the occurrence offromeas well asfra, and the Scottish formthyne-furth(thenceforth) inl. 2196.

The spelling is very various. We find even four forms of one word, ascusynace,cusynece,cusynes,cwsynes; and, as examples of eccentric spelling, may be quotedqsquyaris(squires,l. 3204), whilst inl. 3221we findsqwar.

Both in the marginal abstract and in the notes I have chiefly aimed at removing minor difficulties by explaining sentences of which the construction is peculiar, and words which are disguised by the spelling. For the explanation of more uncommon words, recourse should be had to the Glossarial Index.

Back to Index Next