Chapter 3

The various allusions to the story of Havelok already cited naturally lead us to consider the question as to what date we should refer such circumstances of the story as may have some foundation in truth, or such circumstances as may have originated the story. I do not look upon this as altogether a hopeless or profitless inquiry, for it seems to me that a theory may be constructed which will readily and easily fit in with most of the statements of our authorities. In the first place, to place Havelok’s father in the time of Alfred, as is done by Peter de Langtoft and his translators, is absurd, and evidently due to the confusion between the names of Gunter and Godrum or Guthrum. Wemay even adduce Langtoft’s evidence against himself, as he alludes to Grimsby as being the boundary of Egbert’s kingdom; and indeed, the mere fact of its being a British lay points to a time before the establishment of the Heptarchy. As already suggested in § 16, some of the authorities point to the sixth century. But the evidence of the French poem and of Gaimar points still more steadily to a similar early date. There we find Gunter appearing as the enemy, not of Alfred, but of Arthur. The French prose chronicle of the Brute places Adelbright and Edelfi after the death of Constantine, and it is clear that there is some close connection between the British lay of Havelok and the British Chronicle. TheGodrichof the English version is theAlsiof the French poem, theEdelsiof Gaimar, theAdelfrid29orEdelfridof the Eulogium Historiarum, theElfroiof Wace, theÆluricof Laȝamon, theÆthelfrithwho succeeded to the throne of NorthumbriaA.D.593, according to the Saxon Chronicle. TheAthelwoldof the English version is theAdelbrictof Gaimar, theEkenbrightof the French poem, theAthelbertof the Eulogium Historiarum, theAldebarof Wace, and theÆthelbertof Laȝamon, i.e. no other than the celebratedÆthelberhtof Kent, who was baptized by St AugustineA.D.596, according to the Saxon Chronicle. This is the right clue to thenames, from which, when once obtained, the rest follows easily. The variations between the English and French versions are very great, and it is clear that each poet proceeded much as poets are accustomed to do. Taking a legend as the general guide or thread of a narrative, it is the simplest and easiest plan to dress it up after one’s own fashion, and to draw upon the materials that are supplied by thegeneral surroundingsof the story. I feel confident that the narrators of the Lay of Havelok must have used materials not much unlike those used by Laȝamon, and a mere comparison of the French and English lays with Laȝamon will amply suffice to elucidate this. Æluric is first mentioned at p. 195 of vol. iii. of Laȝamon, as edited by Sir F. Madden; if we allow ourselves a margin on both sides of this, we may find many things akin to the lay of Havelokbetween pages 150 and 282 of that volume, as I will now shew. The character of the good king Athelwold is taken from that of Æthelberht of Kent, and his love of justice may remind us of the ancient collection of laws which are still extant as having been made by that king. His extensive rule, such as is also attributed to Godrich and Havelok, may point to the title ofBretwalda, which Æthelberht so long coveted, and at last obtained. Our poet, in describing Birkabeyn, repeats this character so exactly, and makes the circumstances of the deaths of Athelwold and Birkabeyn so similar, that they are almost indistinguishable; a fault which he doubles by repeating the character of Godrich in describing that of Godard. Both of these answer to Laȝamon’s Æluric, who was “the wickedest of all kings” (Laȝ. iii. 195). So far, perhaps, the connection of the various stories is not very evident, but I will now mention an obvious coincidence. The quarrel and reconciliation between Athelbert and Edelfrid, as told in the Eulogium Historiarum, &c., exactly answers to the quarrel and reconciliation between Cadwan and Æluric as told in Laȝamon (vol. iii. p. 205); where Cadwan has come forward in place of Æthelbert, who has by this time dropped out of Laȝamon’s narrative. Again, the Gunter or Gurmond who was Havelok’s father reminds us of the Gurmund of Laȝamon (p. 156), who is curiously described as king of Africa; but the name is Danish. The character of Grim is fairly paralleled by that of Brian, who makes sea-voyages, and goes about as a merchant (Laȝamon, iii. 232). In several respects Havelok may have been drawn from Cadwalan, whose gallant attempts to gain the king of Northumberland are recorded in Laȝamon (iii. 216-254); his opponent being Edwin, who has replaced Ethelfrid as Laȝamon’s narrative proceeds. At last he overthrows him and slays him in the great battle of Heathfield or Hatfield, which took place, according to the Saxon Chronicle,A.D.633. This great battle resembles the decisive one between Havelok and Godrich. As Cadwalan was well supported by his liegeman Penda (Laȝamon, iii. 251), so was Havelok by Ubbe. Again, Cadwalan marries Helen, whom he found at—þan castle of Deoureon þere sæ oure;(Laȝamon, iii. 250),which reminds us of Havelok’s wife Goldborough, who was imprisoned at—doureþat standeth on þe seis oure;(l. 320).The very name Helen, though not the name of Havelok’s wife, was that of his mother, who was killed by the pirates. For the connection between Laȝamon’s Helen and pirates, see Sir F. Madden’s note, vol. iii. p. 428. There is a most curious contradiction in the English lay about Havelok’s religion; in l. 2520 he is a devout Christian, but in l. 2580 Godrich speaks of him as being a cruel pagan. Now it was just about this very time that Paulinus preached in Lindsey, “where the first that believed was a powerful man calledBlecca, with all his followers” (A.S. Chron. ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 21;A.D.627). Havelok, according to some, was buried at Stonehenge; but so was Constantine (Laȝamon, iii. 151). A dearth in mentioned in the English lay (l. 824); cf. Laȝamon, iii. 279. And I may here add another coincidence, of an interesting but certainly of a very circuitous nature. A close examination of the Lay of King Horn shews that there is no real connection between the story therein contained and that of Havelok. Yet there is a connection after a sort. Though by different authors, and in different metre, both lays are found in English in the same MS.; both versions belong to the same date; both are from French versions, written by Englishmen from British sources; and now, if we compare King Horn with the very part of Laȝamon now under consideration, there is at once seen to be a most exact resemblance in one point. The story of the ring given by Horn to Rymenhild (K. Horn, ed. Lumby, ll. 1026-1210) is remarkably like that of the ring whereby Brian is recognized by his sister (Laȝamon, iii. 234-238). But it is hardly worth while to pursue the subject further. It may suffice to suppose that the period of the existence of Havelok and Grim may be referred to the times of Æthelberht of Kent and Æthelfrith and Eadwine of Northumbria.30It is exceedingly probable that Havelok was never more than a chief or a petty prince, andwhether he was a Danish or only a British enemy of the Angles is not of very great importance. If, however, more exact dates be required, they may be found in “The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons,” by Daniel P. Haigh, London, 8vo, 1861, pp. 363-367; where the following dates are suggested. Havelok’s father slain,A.D.487; his expedition to Denmark,A.D.507; his reign in England,A.D.511-531, or a little later. These dates follow a system which is here about 16 years earlier than the dates in the A.S. Chronicle. His results are obtained from totally different considerations. On the whole, let us place Havelok in thesixthcentury, atsomeperiod of his life.§ 24.It is, perhaps, worthy of a passing remark that some of the circumstances in the Lay may have been suggested by the romantic story of Eadwine of Northumbria, who was also born at the close of the sixth century. For he it was who really married thedaughter of Æthelberht, and it was thearchbishop of York, Paulinus, who performed the ceremony. The relation of how Eadwine was persecuted byÆthelfrith, how he fled and was protected by Rædwald, king of the East Angles, how he saw a vision of an angel who promised his restoration to the throne and that his rule should exceed that of his predecessors, how, with the assistance of Rædwald, he overthrew andslew Æthelfrithin a terrible battle beside the river Idle, may be found in Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, bk. II. ch. 9-16.31In the last of these chapters there is again mention ofBlecca, the governor of the city of Lincoln. Sir F. Madden, in his note to l. 45, speaks of the extraordinary proofs of the peaceable state of the country in the reign of Ælfred; but Beda uses similar language in speaking of the reign of Eadwine; and the earlier instance is even more remarkable. “It is reported that there was then such perfect peace in Britain, wheresoever the dominion of King Edwin extended, that, asis still proverbially said, a woman with her new-born babe might walk throughout the island, from sea to sea, without receiving any harm. That king took such care for the good of his nation, that in several places where he had seen clear springs near the highways, he caused stakes to be fixed, with brass dishes hangingat them, for the conveniency of travellers; nor durst any man touch them for any other purpose than that for which they were designed, either through the dread they had of the king, or for the affection which they bore him, &c.”32Readers who are acquainted with the pleasing poem of “Edwin of Deira,” by the late Alexander Smith, will remember his adventures; and it may be noted, as an instance of the manner in which poets alter names at pleasure, that Mr Smith gives to Æthelfrith the name of Ethelbert, to Eadwine’s wife Æthelburh, that of Bertha, and to his father Ælle, that of Egbert. My theory of the Lay of Havelok is then simply this, that I look upon it as the general result of various narratives connected with the history of Northumbria and Lindesey at the close, or possibly the beginning, of the sixth century, gathered round some favourite local (i.e. Lincolnshire) tradition as a nucleus. A similar theory may be true of the Lay of Horn.§ 25.On the names “Curan” and “Havelok.”The French version tells us thatCoaran,Cuaran, orCuheranis the British word for a scullion. This etymology has not hitherto been traced, but it may easily have been perfectly true. A glance at Armstrong’s Gaelic Dictionary shews us that the Gaeliccearn(which answers very well to the Old Englishhirne, a corner) has the meaning of acorner, and, secondly, of akitchen; and thatcearnachis an adjective meaningof or belonging to a kitchen. But we may come even nearer than this; for by adding the diminutive ending-anto the Gaeliccocaire, a cook, we see thatCuheranmay really have conveyed the idea ofscullionto a British ear, and this probably further gave rise to the story of Havelok’s degradation. It is a common custom—one which true etymologists must always deplore—to invent a story to account for a derivation; and such a practice is invariably carried out with greater boldness and to a greater extent if the said derivation chances to be false. For it is possible that Curan may be simply the Gaeliccuran, a brave man, and the Irishcuranta, brave. The derivation of Havelok is certainly puzzling.Professor Rask declared it to have no meaning in Danish. It bears, however, a remarkable resemblance to the Old Englishgavelok, which occurs in Weber’sKyng Alisaunder, l. 1620, and which is the A.S.gafeluc, Icel.gaflak, Welshgaflach, a spear, dart, or javelin. This is an appropriate name for a warrior, and possibly reappears in the instance of HughKevelock, earl of Chester (Bp. Percy’s Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, i. 128). It is remarkable that the Gaelic and Irishcorranhas the same sense, that ofa spear, whilstcuran, as above-mentioned, meansa brave man. It is best, perhaps, to stop here; for etymology, when pursued too far, is wont to beguile the pursuer into every possible quagmire of absurdity.§ 26.Description of the MS., &c.The MS. from which the present poem is printed is in the Laudian collection in the Bodleian Library, where its old mark is K 60, and its present one Misc. 108. Being described in the old printed catalogue merely asVitæ Sanctorum, the romance was in consequence for a long time overlooked. The Lives of the Saints occupy a large portion of the volume, and are probably to be ascribed to the authorship of Robert of Gloucester. “These Lives or Festivals,” says Sir F. Madden, “are [here] 61 in number, written in long Alexandrine verse. Then succeed the Sayings of St Bernard and the Visions of St Paul, both in six-line stanzas; theDisputatio inter Corpus et Animam, the English Romance of Havelok, the Romance of Kyng Horn, and some additions in a hand of the 15th century, including the lives of St Blaise, St Cecilia, and St Alexius, and an alliterative poem intitledSomer Soneday, making in all the Contents of the Volume to amount to 70 pieces.” The lays of Havelok and Horn are written out in the same handwriting, of an early date, certainly not later than the end of the thirteenth century. The Havelok begins on fol. 204, and is written in double columns, each column containing 45 lines. A folio is lost between fol. 211 and 212, but no notice of this has been taken in numbering the folios; hence the catchword which should have been found at the bottom of fol. 215b, appears at the bottom of fol. 214b(see l. 2164). The poem terminates at the27th line on fol. 219b, and is immediately followed by Kyng Horn in the same column. The character of the handwriting is bold and square, but the words are very close together. The initial letter of every line is written a little way apart from the rest, as in William of Palerne, and other MSS. Both the long and shorts(ſands) are used. The longsis in general well distinguished fromf, and on this account I have taken the liberty of printing bothessesalike, as my experience in printing the Romans of Partenay proved that the difficulty of avoiding misprints is greater than the gain of representing the difference between them. The chief point of interest is that, as inearlyMSS., the longsis sometimes found at theendof a word, as in “uſ” in l. 22, and “iſ” in l. 23. The following are all the examples of the use of this letter in the first 26 lines; ſo (4), wicteſte (9), ſtede (10), criſt, ſchilde (16), Kriſt, ſo (17), ſo (19), ſchal (21), Kriſt, uſ (22), iſ (23), ſtalworþi (24), ſtalworþeſte (25), ſtede (26). With this exception, the present reprint is a faithful representation of the original; for, as the exact fidelity of a text is of the first importance, I have been careful to compare the proof-sheets with the MS. twice throughout; besides which, the original edition is itself exceedingly correct, and had been re-read by Sir F. Madden with the MS. His list of errata (nearly all of them of minor importance) agreed almost exactly with my own. A great difficulty is caused by the use of the Saxon letterw(ƿ). This letter, the thorn-letter (þ), andy, are all three made very nearly alike. In general, theyis dotted, but the dot is occasionally omitted. Wherever the letter really appears to be aw, I have denoted it by printing thewas an italic letter. The following are, I believe, theonlyexamples of it.Wit-drow = withdrew, l. 502;we, 1058;was, 1129 (cf. “him was ful wa,”Sir Tristr.f. iii. st. 43); berwen, 1426 (written “berwen” in l. 697);wat = known, 1674;we, miswritten forwo = who, 1914; to which perhaps we may addwit, 997. This evidence is interesting as shewing that this letter was then fast going out of use, and I think that we may safely date the final disappearance of this letter from MSS. at about the year 1300. As regards theth, we may remark that at the end of a word both þ andthare used, as in “norþ and suth,”l. 434; sometimesthoccurs in the middle of a word, as “sithen,” l. 1238, which is commonly written “siþen,” as in l. 399. The words þe, þat, þer, &c., are hardly ever written otherwise. But the reader will remark many instances in whichthfinal seems to have the hard sound oft, as inbrouth, 57,nouth, 58,lith, 534,þouth, 1190, &c.; cf. § 27. The lettertis sometimes shortened so as nearly to resemblec, andcis sometimes lengthened intot. The lettersnanduare occasionally alike, but the difference between them is commonly well marked. Theihas a long stroke over it when written next tomorn. On the whole, the writing is very clear and distinct, after a slight acquaintance with it. The poem is marked out into paragraphs by the use of large letters. I have introduced a slight space at the end of each paragraph, to shew this more clearly.§ 27.On the grammatical forms occurring in the poem.The following peculiarities of spelling may be first noted. We frequently findhprefixed to words which it is usual to spell without one. Examples are:holdeforold,heteforete(eat),hetforet(ate),heuereforeuere,HenglisheforEnglishe, &c.; see the Glossary, under the letter H. This enables us to explain some words which at first appear puzzling; thusher=er, ere;hayse=ayse, ease;helde=elde, old age;hore=ore, grace;hende=ende, which in one passage meansend, but in anothera duck. The formshof,hus,hure, forof,us,ureare such as we should hardly have expected to find. On the other hand,his omitted in the wordsauelok,aueden,osed, and inisforhis(l. 2254). These instances, and other examples such as follow, may readily be found by help of the Glossarial Index. Again,dfinal afterlornwas so slightly sounded as to be omitted even in writing. Examples are:lonforlond,helforheld,bihelforbiheld,shelforsheld,golforgold. But a more extraordinary omission is that ofrfinal inthe,neythe,othe,douthe, which does not seem to be satisfactorily explained even by the supposition that the scribe may have omitted the small upward curl which does duty forerso frequently in MSS. For we further find the omission oflfinal, as inmikeformikel,weforwel, and oftfinal, as inbesforbest; from whichinstances we should rather infer some peculiarity of pronunciation rendering final letters indistinct, of which there are numerous examples, asfielforfield, in modern provincial English. Cf.ilforilk, in ll. 818, 1740; andtwelfortwelf. “From the same license,” says Sir F. Madden, “arises the frequent repetition of such rhythm asridenandside, where the finalnseems to have been suppressed in pronunciation. Cf. ll. 29, 254, 957, 1105, 1183, 2098, &c, and hence we perceive how readily the infinitive verbal Saxon termination glided into its subsequent form. The broad pronunciation of the dialect in which the poem was written is also frequently discernible, as inslawen, l. 2676, andknaue, l. 949, which rhyme toRauenandplawe.33So likewise,botheorbetheis, in sound, equivalent torede, ll. 360, 694, 1680.” Other peculiarities will be noticed in discussing the Metre. Observe also the Anglo-Saxonhwfor the modernwh, exemplified byhwo, 368,hwan, 474,hweþer, 294,hwere, 549,hwil, 301; compare alsoqual,qui,quan, meaningwhale,why,when.34The letterw(initial) is the modern provincial’oo, as inwlf,wluine,wman; cf.hw,w, both forms ofhow; andlowerdforlouerd. In particular, we should notice the hard sound oftdenoted bythin the wordswith,rithe,brouth,nouth,ricth,knicth, meaningwhite,right,brought,naught,right,knight; so toodouther, daughter,neth, a net,uth, out,woth, wot,leth, let,lauthe(laught), caught,nither-tale(nighter-tale), night-time.35On the other hand,tstands forthinhauet, 564,seyt, 647,herknet, 1,wit, 100. Whenthanswers to the modern sound, it seems equivalent to A.S. ð rather than to A.S. þ; examples aremouth, 433,oth, 260,loth, 261.Yandgare interchangeable, as inyaf,gaf,youen,gouen;geven occurs fork, as inrang, 2561. In MSS.,eis not uncommonly written bymistake foro; this may perhaps account forhelde, 2472,meste, 233,her, 1924, which should rather beholde, 30,moste, andhor, 235; there is a like confusion ofwerenandworen; and perhapsgrotindeshould begretinde.36The voweluis replaced by the modernouin the wordsprud, 302,suth, 434,but, 1040,hus, 740,spusen, 1123; cf.hwsin l. 1141. Mr Ellis shews, in his Early English Pronunciation, chap. v, that in pure specimens of thethirteenthcentury, there is noouin such words, and in thefourteenthcentury, no simpleu. This furnishes a ready explanation of the otherwise difficultsure, in l. 2005; it is merely the adverb ofsour,sourlybeing used in the sense ofbitterly; tobye it bitterly, orbye it bittre, is a common phrase in Piers Plowman. Other spellings worth notice occur inouerga, 314,stra, 315 (speltstriein l. 998),hawe, 1188,plawe, 950,sal, 628 (commonly speltshal). Note alsoarumforarm,harumforharm,borenforborn, 1878, andkorenforcorn, 1879. There are several instances of words joined together, ashaui, 2002,biddi, 484;shaltu, 2186,wiltu, 905,wenestu, 1787;wilte, 528,thenkeste, 578,shaltou, 1800;thouthe, 790,hauedet,youenet,hauenet;sawe, 338;latus, 1772; where the personal pronounsi,þu,he,it,we,usare added to the verb. Hence, in l. 745, it is very likely thatcallethis written forcallet, i.e. call it; and on the same principle we can explaindones; seeEsin the Glossary. In like mannergoddotis contracted fromGod wot; andþerlfromþe erl.Nouns.As regards the nouns employed, I may remark that the finaleis perhaps always sounded in the oblique cases, and especially in the dative case; as innedè,stedè, &c. (see ll. 86-105),willè, 85,gyuè, 357,blissè, 2187,cricè, 2450; cf. the adjectiveslongè, 2299,wisè, 1713; also the nominativesrosè, 2919,newè, 2974.Frendis a pl. form; cf.hend, which is both a plural (2444) and a dat. sing. (505). In the plural, the finaleis fully pronounced in the adjectivesallè, 2,hardè, 143,starkè, 1015,fremdè, 2277,bleikè470, and in many others; cf. the full formboþen, 2223. Not only does the phrasenone kines, of no kind, occur in ll. 861, 1140, but we find the unusual phraseneuere kines, ofnever a kind, in l. 2691. Among the numerals, we find not onlyþre, butþrinne.Pronouns.The first personal pronoun occurs in many forms in the nominative, asi,y,hi,ich,ic,hic, and evenihc; the oblique cases take the formme. For the second person, we haveþu,þou, in the nominative, and alsotu, when preceded byþat, as in l. 2903. We may notice alsohijsforhis, l. 47;heforthey;sho, 112,scho, 126,sche, 1721, forshe; and, in particular, the dual formunker, of you two, 1882. The most noteworthy possessive pronouns areminè, pl. 1365,þinè, pl. 620;hisorhise, pl.hisè, 34;ure, 606;youres, 2800;hirè, 2918, with which cf. the dat. sing.hirèof the personal pronoun, 85, 300.þisis plural, and meansthese, in l. 1145. As in other old English works,menis frequently an impersonal pronoun, answering to the Frenchon, and is followed by a singular verb; as inmen ringes, 390,men seyt and suereth, 647,men fetes, 2341,men nam, 900,men birþe, 2101,men dos, 2434; cf.folk sau, 2410; but there are a few instances of its use with a plural verb, asmen haueden, 901,men shulen, 747. The former is the more usual construction.Verbs.The infinitives of verbs rarely havey-prefixed; two examples arey-lere, 12,y-se, 334. Nor is the same prefix common before past participles; yet we findi-gret, 163,i-groten, 285, andi-maked, 5, as well asmaked, 23. Infinitives end commonly in-enor-e, asriden, 26,y-lere; also in-n, asdon, 117,leyn, 718; and even in-o, asflo, 612,slo, 1364. The present singular, 3rd person, of the indicative, ends both in-esor-s, and-ethor-th, the former being the more usual. Examples arelonges, 396,leues, 1781,haldes, 1382,fedes, 1693,bes, 1744,comes, 1767,glides, 1851,þarnes, 1913,haues, 1952,etes, 2036,dos, 1913; alsoeteth, 672,haueth, 804,bikenneth, 1269,doth, 1876,liþ, 673. The full form of the 2nd person is-est, aslouest, 1663; but it is commonly cut down to-es, asweldes, 1359,slepes, 1283,haues, 688,etes, 907,getes, 908; cf.dos, 2390,mis-gos, 2707,slos, 2706. The same dropping of thetis observable in the past tense, as inreftes, 2394,feddes and claddes, 2907. Still more curious is the ending intonly, as inþu bi-hetet, 677,þou mait, 689; cf. ll. 852, 1348. In the subjunctive mood the-stdisappears as in Anglo-Saxon,and hence the formsbute þou gonge, 690,þat þu fonge, 856, &c.; cf.bede, 668. In the 3rd person, present tense, of the same mood, we have the-efully pronounced, as inshildè, 16,yeuè, 22,leuè, 334,redè, 687; and in l. 544,wrekenshould undoubtedly bewrekè, since the-enbelongs to the plural, as inmoten, 18. The plural of the indicative present ends in-en, as,we hauen, 2798,ye witen, 2208,þei taken, 1833; or, very rarely, in-eth, asye bringeth, 2425,he(they)strangleth, 2584. Sometimes the final-nis lost, as inwe haue, 2799,ye do, 2418,he(they)brenne, 2583. There is even a trace of the plural in-es, as inhaues, 2581. Thepresenttense has often afuturesignification, as inetes, 907,eteth, 672,getes, 908.Past tense.Of the third person singular and plural of the past tense the following are selected examples.Weak Verbs:hauede, 770,sparedè, 898,yemedè, 975,semedè, 976,sparkëdè, 2144,þankedè, 2189; pl.loueden, 955,leykeden, 954,woundeden, 2429,stareden, 1037,yemede(rather readyemeden), 2277,makeden, 554,sprauleden, 475; alsocalde, 2115,gredde, 2417,herde, 2410,kepte, 879,fedde, 786,ledde, 785,spedde, 756,clapte, 1814,kiste, 1279; pl.herden,brenden, 594,kisten, 2162,ledden, 1246; and, thirdly, of the class which change the vowel,aute, 743,laute, 744,bitauhte, 2212. Compare the past participlesosed, 971,mixed, 2533,parred, 2439,gadred, 2577;reft, 1367,wend, 2138,hyd, 1059;told, 1036,sold, 1638,wrouth=wrout, 1352. There are also at least two past participles in-et, asslenget, 1923,grethet, 2615, to which addweddeth,beddeth, 1127, In l. 2057,knawedseems put forknawen, for the rime’s sake.Strong Verbs: third person singular, past tense,bar, 815,bad, 1415,yaf, orgaf,spak;kam, 766 (speltcham, 1873),nam,kneu,hew, 2729,lep, 1777,let, 2447 (speltleth, 2651),slep, 1280,wex, 281:drou, 705,for, 2943,low, 903,slow, 1807,hof, 2750,stod, 986,tok; 751,wok, 2093; pl.beden, 2774,youen, orgouen;comen, 1017 (speltkeme, 1208),nomen, 2790 (speltneme, 1207),knewen, 2149,lopen, 1896,slepen, 2128;drowen, 1837,foren, 2380,lowen, 1056,slowen, 2414, &c. And secondly, of the class which more usually change the vowel in thepluralof the preterite, we find the singular formsbigan, 1357,barw, 2022,karf, 471,swank, 788,warp, 1061,shon, 2144,clef, 2643,sau, 2409,grop, 1965,drof, 725,shof,892; pl.bigunnen, 1011,sowen, 1055,gripen, 1790,driue, fordriuen, 1966; alsobunden, 2436,scuten, 2431 (speltschoten, 1864,shoten, 1838),leyen, 2132, &c. Compare the past participlesboren, 1878,youenorgouen,cumen, 1436,nomen, 2265 (speltnumen, 2581),laten, 1925,waxen, 302,drawen, 1925,slawen, 2000, which two last becomedrawe,slawein ll. 1802, 1803.We should also observe the past tensesspen, 1819,stirt, 812,fauthforfautorfauht, 1990,citte, 942,bere, 974,kipte, 1050,flow, 2502,plat, 2755; and the past participlesdemdfordemed, 2488,giueforgiuen, 2488,henged, 1429,keft, 2005.Imperative Mood.Examples of the imperative mood singular, 2nd person, areet,sit, 925,nim, 1336,yif, 674; in the plural, the usual ending is-es, as inliþes, 2204,comes, 1798,folwes, 1885,lokes, 2292,bes, 2246, to which set belongslos, 2596,dos, 2592; but there are instances of the ending-ethalso, as incometh, 1885,yeueþ, 911, to which adddoth, 2037,goth, 1780. Indeed both forms occur in one line, as inCometh swiþe, and folwes me(1885). Instead of-ethwe even find-et, as inherknet, 1. These variations afford a good illustration of the unsettled state of the grammar in some parts of England at this period; we need not suppose the scribe to be at fault in all cases where there is a want of uniformity.Of reflexive verbs, we meet withme dremede, 1284,me met, 1285,me þinkes, 2169,him hungrede, 654,him semede, 1652,him stondes, 2983,him rewede, 503. The present participles end most commonly in-inde, asfastinde, 865,grotinde(?gretinde), 1390,lauhwinde, 946,plattinde, 2282,starinde, 508; but we also findgangande, 2283,driuende, 2702. Compare the nounstiþande, 2279,offrende, 1386, which are Norse forms,tíðindi(pl.) being the Icelandic fortidings, andoffrandithe present participle ofoffra, to offer. But the true Icelandic equivalent of the substantivean offeringisoffran, and the old Swedish isoffer; and hence we see at how very early a date the confusion between the noun-ending and the ending of the present participle arose; a confusion which has bewildered many generations of Englishmen. Yet this very poem in other places has-ingas a noun-endingonly, never (that I remember) for the present participle. Examples of it aregreting, 166,dreping, i.e. slaughter, 2684,buttinge,skirming,wrastling,putting,harping,piping,reding; see ll. 2322-2327. Such words are frequently calledverbal nouns, but the term is very likely to mislead. I have found that many suppose it to implypresent participles used as nouns, instead ofnouns of verbal derivation. If such nouns could be called by some new name, such asnouns of action, or by any other title that can be conventionally restricted to signify them, it would, I think, be a gain. Amongst the auxiliary verbs, may be noted the use ofcone, 622, as the subjunctive form ofcanst;we mone, 840, as the subjunctive ofmowen; cf.ye mowen, 11; but especially we should observe the use of the comparatively rare verbsbirþe, it behoves, pt. t.birde, it behoved, andþurte, he need, the latter of which is fully explained in the Glossary to William of Palerne, s.v.þort.The prefixto-is employed inbothsenses, as explained in the same Glossary, s.v.To-. Into-brised,to-deyle, &c., it is equivalent to the Germanzer-and Mœso-Gothicdis-; of itsotherandrareruse, wherein it answers to the Germanzu-and Mœso-Gothicdu-, there is butoneinstance, viz. in the wordto-yede, 765, which signifieswent to; cf. Germ.zugehen, to go to,zugang(A.S.to-gang), access, approach. There are some curious instances of a peculiar syntax, whereby the infinitive mood active partakes of a passive signification, as inhe made him kesten, and in feteres festen, he caused him to be cast in prison (or perhaps, overthrown), and to be fastened in fetters; l. 81. But it is probable that this is to be explained by considering it as a phrase in which we shouldnowsupply the wordmen, and that we may interpret it by “he caused [men] to cast him in prison, and to fasten him with fetters;” for in ll. 1784, 1785, the phrase is repeated in a less ambiguous form. See also l. 86. So also, in ll. 2611, 2612, I considerkeste,late,sette, to be in the infinitive mood. Such a construction is at once understood by comparing it with the Germaner liess ihn binden, he caused him to be bound. In l. 2352, appears the most unusual formilker, which is literallyof each, and hence,apiece; cf.unker, which also is a genitive plural. It will be observed that the verb following is in the plural, the real nominative to it beingþei þre. In l. 2404, the expressionþat þer þrette, “that there threat,” recalls a colloquialismwhich is still common. The wordþrie, 730, is, apparently, the O.E. adverbthrie, thrice;liues, 509, is an adverb ending in-es, originally a genitive case.Þus-gateis, according to Mr Morris, unknown to the Southern dialect; it occurs in ll. 785, 2419, 2586. I may add that Havelok contains as many as five expressions, which seem to refer toproverbscurrent at the time of writing it. See ll. 307, 648, 1338, 1352, 2461.§ 28.On the Metre of Havelok.The poem is written in the familiar rhythm of which I have already spoken elsewhere, viz. at p. xxxvii of the Preface to Mr Morris’s edition of Genesis and Exodus. The metre of Havelok is rather more regular, but many of the remarks there made apply to it. The chief rule is that every line shall contain four accents,37the two principal types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines—(a) For hém | ne yé|dë góld | ne fé, 44;(b) It wás | a kíng | bi á|rë dáwës, 27;and (2) by the seven-syllable and eight-syllable lines—(c) Hérk|net tó | me gó|dë men, 1;(d) Al|lë thát | he mícth|ë fyndë, 42.To one of these four forms every line can be reduced, by the use of that slighter utterance of less important syllables which is so very common in English poetry. It is not the number ofsyllables, but ofaccents, that is essential. Ineveryline throughout the poem there are four accents, with only two or three exceptions,viz. ll. 1112, 1678, &c, which are defective. In a similar manner, we may readily scan any of the lines, as e.g. ll. 2-4;(c) Wi|uës, mayd|nës, and al|lë men(b) Of a ta|lë þat | ich you | wile tellë38(b) Wo-so | ’t wil’ her’ | and þer|to duellë, &c.Here the syllables-nes andinl. 3,of ainl. 4, andit wileinl. 5, are so rapidly pronounced as to occupy only the room of one unaccented syllable in lines of the strict type. However awkward this appears to be in theory, it is very easy in practice, as the reciter readily manages his voice so as to produce the right rhythmical effect; and, indeed, this variation of arrangement is a real improvement, preventing the recitation from becoming monotonous. Those who have a good ear for rhythm will readily understand this, and it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it more at length. But it may be remarked, that the three lines above quoted are rathermore irregular than usual, and that the metre is such as to enable us to fix the instances in which the final-eis pronounced with great accuracy, on which account I shall say more about this presently. I would, however, first enumerate the rimes which seem to be more or less inexact or peculiar, or otherwise instructive.I.Repetitions.Such aremen, men;holden, holde, 29;39erþe, erþe, 739;heren, heren, 1640;nithes, knithes, 2048;youres, youres, 2800. To this class belong alsolonge, londe, 172,heye, heie, 1151, 2544; wherelonge, londeis, however, only an assonance.II.Assonant rimes.Here the rime is in the vowel-sound; the consonantal endings differ. Such arerym, fyn, 21;yeme, quene, 182;shop, hok, 1101 (whereshopis probably corrupt);odrat, bad, 1153;fet, ek, 1303;yer, del, 1333;maked, shaped, 1646;beþe, rede, 1680;riche, chinche, 1763, 2940;feld, swerd, 1824, 2634;seruede, werewed, 1914;wend, gent, 2138;þank, rang, 2560;boþen, ut-drowen, 2658. To the same class belongname,rauen,1397,grauen, name, 2528;slawen, rauen, 2676.Henged, slenget, 1922, should rather be called an imperfect rime.40There is also found the exact opposite to this, viz., an agreement orconsonanceat the end, preceded by an apparent diversity in the vowel; aslonge, gange, 795 (but seelonge, gonge, 843),bidde, stede, 2548,open, drepen, 1782,gres, is, 2698,boþe, rathe, 2936 (but seerathe, bathe, 1335, 2542),fet(longe),gret, 2158; and not unlike these are some instances of loose rimes, asbeþe, rede, 360,knaue, plawe, 949,sawe, hawe(wherehaweis written forhaue), 1187,sawe, wowe, 1962 (but seewowe, lowe, 2078,lowe, sawe, 2142,wawe, lowe, 2470). Observe alsobouth, oft(readvtorut=out?), 883,tun, barun, 1001 (cf.toun, brun, 1750,champiouns, barouns, 1032);plattinde, gangande, 2282, &c.Eir, toþer, 410,harde, crakede, 567, are probably due to mistakes.41III. Rimes which shew that the final-enwas pronounced so slightly as to be nearly equivalent to-e. Examples:holden, holde, 29;gongen, fonge, 855;bringe, ringen, 1105;mouthen, douthe, 1183;riden, side, 1758;wesseylen, to-deyle, 2098;slawen, drawe, 2476. In the same wayhonrimes tolond, 1341, owing to the slight pronunciation of the finald.42IV. Rimes which appear imperfect, but may be perfect.Richeanswers tolike, 132, but the true spelling isrike, answering tosike, 290.Mithe, 196, should probably bemoucte, as in l. 257, and it would thus rime withþoucte.Blinne, 2670, should certainly beblunne; cf. A.S.blinnan, pt. t. s.ic blan, pt. t. pl.we blunnon; and thus it rimes tosunne.Misdede, 993, is clearly an error formisseyde, as appears from the parallel passage in ll. 49, 50; and it then rimes withleyde. So in l. 1736, fordeledreaddeyled, as in l. 2098.Boþe, 430, has no line answering to it, and a line may have been lost.Nicth, lict, 575, is a perfect rime.Halde, bolde, 2308, may also be perfect.For-sworenanswers tofor-lorn(pronouncedfor-loren), 1423;bitawtetoauthe(pronouncedaute), 1409;yemede(pronouncedyem-dè) is not an improper rime tofremde, 2276;anonrimes withiohan(if pronouncedionorJohn, as indicated by the spellingionin l. 177), 2562, 2956. Yet in another instance it seems to be two syllables,Jo-han; seewimman, iohan, 1720.43Speche should bespeke, and thus rimes tomeke, 1065.Staredenshould perhaps bestradden, or some such form, rightly riming toladden, 1037. Under this head we may notice some rimes which throw, possibly, some light on the pronunciation. Thus, for the sound ofey, ei, observehayse, preyse, 60;leyke, bleike, 469;laumprei, wei, 771;deyerimes topreye, 168;daytowey, 663;seydtobrayd, 1281; but we also findhey, fri, 1071;hey, sley, 1083,heye, heie, 1151;heye, eie, 2544;leye, heye, 2010;heye, fleye, 2750.Framrimes tosham, 55; yet the latter word is reallyshame, 83;gangeis also speltgonge,halderimes withbolde, 2308. The pronunciation ofware,were, orwore, seems ambiguous; we findsore, wore, 236;wore, more, 258;ware, sare, 400;wore, sore, 414;were, þere, 741;more, þore, 921. For the sound ofe, observesuere, gere, 388;suereth, dereth, 648;eten, geten, 930;yet, fet, 1319;stem, bem, 592;glem, bem, 2122; alsoyeue, liue, 198;liue, gyue, 356;lyue, yeue, 1217;her, ther, 1924;fishere, swere, 2230. For that ofi,observecri, merci, 270;sire, swire, 310;swiþe, vnbliþe, 140;fir, shir, 587;sire, hire, 909;rise, bise, 723;fyr, shir, 915;lye, strie, 997;hey, fri, 1071;for-þi, merci, 2500. For that ofo, observetwo, so, 350;do, so, 713;shon, on, 969;hom, grom, 789;lode, brode, 895;anon, ston, 927;ston, won, 1023;do, sho(shoe), 1137;do, sho(she), 1231;stod, mod, 1702;ilkon, ston, 1842;shon(shoon),ston, 2144;croud, god, 2338;don, bon, 2354;sone(soon),bone, 2504;bole, hole, 2438.44Only in a few of these instances would the words rime in modern standard English. For theouandusounds, observecouþe, mouþe, 112;yow, now, 160;wolde, fulde, 354;yw, nou, 453;bounden, wnden, 545;sowel, couel, 767;low, ynow, 903;sowen, lowe, 957;strout, but, 1039;þou, nou, 1283;doun, tun, 1630;crus, hous, 1966;wounde, grunde, 1978;bowr, tour, 2072;spuse, huse, 2912.Lowe, 1291, 2431, 2471, should rather belawe, as in l. 2767. These hints will probably suffice for the guidance of those who wish to follow up the subject. It is evident that full dependence cannot be placed upon theexactnessof the rimes.§ 29.On the final -e, &c.There can be little doubt that the final-eis, in general, fully pronounced in this poem wherever it is written, with but a very few exceptions; but at the same time it is liable to be elided when followed by a vowel or (sometimes) by the letterh, as is usual in old English poetry. In the following remarks, I shall use an apostrophe to signify thateiswritten, but not pronounced; thus “wil’” signifies that “wile” is the MS. form, but “wil” the apparent pronunciation. I shall use an italiceto signify that theeis elided because followed by a vowel orh, as “cuppe” (l. 14); and in the same way, “riden,” “litel,” &c, signify that the syllables-en,-elare slurred over in a like manner. It will be seen that such syllables are, in general, slurred over when they occur before a vowel orh; under the same circumstances, that is, as the final-e. When I simply write the word in the form “gode” as in the MS., I mean that the-eisfully pronounced; so that “gode” stands for “godë.”The following, then, are instances. I follow the order in Mr Morris’s Introduction to Chaucer’s Prologue, &c. (Clarendon Press Series).(A) In nouns and adjectives (of A.S. origin) the final-erepresents one of the final vowelsa,u,e, and hence is fully sounded even in the nominative case in such instances. Examples; gome (A.S.goma), 7, blome (A.S.bloma), 63, trewe (A.S.treowe), 179, knaue (A.S.cnafa), 308, 450, sone (A.S.sunu), 394.(B) In words of French origin it is sounded as in French verse. Such words are scarce in Havelok. Examples: hayse, 59, beste, 279, mirácle, 500, rose, 2919, curtesye (miswrittencurteyse), 2876, cf. 194, drurye, 195, male, 48, large, 97, noble, 1263.(C) It is a remnant of various grammatical inflexions:—(1)it is a sign of thedativecase in nouns; as, nede, 9, stede, 10, trome, 8, wronge, 72, stede, 142, dede (not elided, because of the cæsura), 167, arke, 222, erþe, 248, lite þrawe, 276. It also sometimes marks the accusative, or the genitive of feminine nouns:accusatives, cuppe, 14, wede, 94, brede, 98, shrede, 99, mede, 102, quiste, 219, sorwe, 238 (cf. sorw’ in l. 240), sone, 308, knaue, 308, sone, 350, wille, 441:genitives, messe, 186, 188, helle, 405.(2) In adjectives it marks—(a) thedefinite formof the adjective; as, þe meste, 233, þe riche (not elided45), 239, te beste, 87, þe hexte [man], 1080, þat wicke, 1158, þat foule, 1158, þe firste, 1333, þe rede, 1397. This rule is most often violated in the case ofdissyllabicsuperlatives; as, þe wictest’, 8, þe fairest, þe strangest, 1081, 1110; cf. 199, 200.(b) thepluralnumber. Examples abound, as, gode, 1, alle, 2, are, 27, yung = yunge, 30, holde, 30, gode, 34, 55, harde, 143, grene, 470, bleike, 470, halte, 543, doumbe, 543, &c.The same use is often extended to possessive pronouns; we find the plurals mine, 385, 514 (but min’, 392), þine, 620, hise, 34, 67, hure, 1231; and even the singulars hire, 84, 85, hure, 338, yure, 171. But the personal pronoun feminine is often hir’, 172, 209; yet see l. 316.(c) thevocativecase, as, dere, 839, 2170; leue, 909.(3) In verbs it marks—(a) the infinitive mood; as, telle, 3, duelle, 4, falle, 39, beye, 53, swere, 254, be-bedde, 421, bere, 549, &c. On this point there cannot be a moment’s doubt, for the form-enis found quite as often, and they rime together, as in 254, 255, cf. 29, 30. But it is well worth remarking that-enis slurred over exactly where-ewould be, with much regularity. Examples are: riden, 10, biginnen, 21, maken, 29, hengen, 43, lurken, 68, crepen, 68, riden, 88, hauen, 270. Other examples are very numerous. But we sometimes find-ennot slurred over, as, drinken, 15; and the same is true even of-e, but such cases are exceptional and rare.(b) the gerund; as, to preyse, 60.(c) the past participle of a strong verb; as, drawe, 1802, slawe, 1803. But these are rare, as they are commonly written drawen, slawen, 2224.(d) the past tense of weak verbs, where the-efollows-ed,-t, or-d. Examples are very numerous; as, louede = lov’de, 30, 35 (not elided), 37, hauede = hav’de, 343; cf. haued = havd’, 336; þurte, 10, durste, 65, refte, 94; dede, 29, sende, 136, seyde, 228, herde, 286. Observe hated = hatede,40.The plurals of these tenses are rarely in-e, generally in-en, as, haueden, 241, deden, 242, sprauleden = spraul’den, 475.(e) the subjunctive or optative mood, or the 3rd person of the imperative mood, which is really the 3rd person of the subjunctive. This rule seems to be carefully observed. Examples are yeue, 22, thaue, 296, yerne, 299, leue, 406, were, 513, wite, 517, &c. So for thefirstperson, as, late, 509, lepe (not elided), 2009, speke, 2079; and for thesecondperson, as, understonde, 1159, fare, 2705, cone, 622, 623.(f) other parts of afewverbs; thus, the 1st person singular present, as, liue, 301, ete, 793, rede, 1660, wille, 388, wherewilleis equivalent towish.(g) present participles: thus, plattínde, 2282, is a half-rime to gangánde. In other places, the author is careful to place them before a vowel, as gretinde, 1390, lauhwinde, 946, starinde, 508, driuende, 2702, fastinde, 865.(4) In adverbs the final-edenotes—(a) an older vowel-ending; as, sone(A.S.sóna), 136, sone, 218,251, yete (A.S.géta, as well asgét), 495, ofte (Swed.ofta, Dan.ofte), 227.(b) an adverb as distinguished from its corresponding adjective, as, yerne, 153, loude, 96, longe, 241, more, 301, softe, 305, heye, 335, swiþe, 455, harde, 639. Hence, in l. 640, we should readneye.(c) an older termination in-enor-an; as, þer-hinne, 322, 709, 712, henne, 843, inne, 855. Cf. A.S.heonan,innan.(d) It is also sounded in the termination-like, as, sikerlike, 422. Hence, in baldelike, 53,boththeeesare sounded; cf. feblelike, 418. When the final-eis slurred over before anhinChaucer,his found commonly to begin the pronounhe, or its cases, the possessive pronounshis,hire, or their cases, a part of the verb tohave, or else the adverbshoworheer. The same rule seems to hold inHavelok. Observe, thateoften forms a syllable in themiddleof a word, as, bondeman, 32, engelondes, 63, pourelike, 322.With regard to the final-en, it is most commonly slurred over before a vowel or thehinheorhaue, not only when it is the termination of the infinitive mood, but inmany other cases. One striking example may suffice:

—þan castle of Deoureon þere sæ oure;

—þan castle of Deoure

on þere sæ oure;

(Laȝamon, iii. 250),

which reminds us of Havelok’s wife Goldborough, who was imprisoned at

—doureþat standeth on þe seis oure;

—doure

þat standeth on þe seis oure;

(l. 320).

The very name Helen, though not the name of Havelok’s wife, was that of his mother, who was killed by the pirates. For the connection between Laȝamon’s Helen and pirates, see Sir F. Madden’s note, vol. iii. p. 428. There is a most curious contradiction in the English lay about Havelok’s religion; in l. 2520 he is a devout Christian, but in l. 2580 Godrich speaks of him as being a cruel pagan. Now it was just about this very time that Paulinus preached in Lindsey, “where the first that believed was a powerful man calledBlecca, with all his followers” (A.S. Chron. ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 21;A.D.627). Havelok, according to some, was buried at Stonehenge; but so was Constantine (Laȝamon, iii. 151). A dearth in mentioned in the English lay (l. 824); cf. Laȝamon, iii. 279. And I may here add another coincidence, of an interesting but certainly of a very circuitous nature. A close examination of the Lay of King Horn shews that there is no real connection between the story therein contained and that of Havelok. Yet there is a connection after a sort. Though by different authors, and in different metre, both lays are found in English in the same MS.; both versions belong to the same date; both are from French versions, written by Englishmen from British sources; and now, if we compare King Horn with the very part of Laȝamon now under consideration, there is at once seen to be a most exact resemblance in one point. The story of the ring given by Horn to Rymenhild (K. Horn, ed. Lumby, ll. 1026-1210) is remarkably like that of the ring whereby Brian is recognized by his sister (Laȝamon, iii. 234-238). But it is hardly worth while to pursue the subject further. It may suffice to suppose that the period of the existence of Havelok and Grim may be referred to the times of Æthelberht of Kent and Æthelfrith and Eadwine of Northumbria.30It is exceedingly probable that Havelok was never more than a chief or a petty prince, andwhether he was a Danish or only a British enemy of the Angles is not of very great importance. If, however, more exact dates be required, they may be found in “The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons,” by Daniel P. Haigh, London, 8vo, 1861, pp. 363-367; where the following dates are suggested. Havelok’s father slain,A.D.487; his expedition to Denmark,A.D.507; his reign in England,A.D.511-531, or a little later. These dates follow a system which is here about 16 years earlier than the dates in the A.S. Chronicle. His results are obtained from totally different considerations. On the whole, let us place Havelok in thesixthcentury, atsomeperiod of his life.

§ 24.It is, perhaps, worthy of a passing remark that some of the circumstances in the Lay may have been suggested by the romantic story of Eadwine of Northumbria, who was also born at the close of the sixth century. For he it was who really married thedaughter of Æthelberht, and it was thearchbishop of York, Paulinus, who performed the ceremony. The relation of how Eadwine was persecuted byÆthelfrith, how he fled and was protected by Rædwald, king of the East Angles, how he saw a vision of an angel who promised his restoration to the throne and that his rule should exceed that of his predecessors, how, with the assistance of Rædwald, he overthrew andslew Æthelfrithin a terrible battle beside the river Idle, may be found in Beda’s Ecclesiastical History, bk. II. ch. 9-16.31In the last of these chapters there is again mention ofBlecca, the governor of the city of Lincoln. Sir F. Madden, in his note to l. 45, speaks of the extraordinary proofs of the peaceable state of the country in the reign of Ælfred; but Beda uses similar language in speaking of the reign of Eadwine; and the earlier instance is even more remarkable. “It is reported that there was then such perfect peace in Britain, wheresoever the dominion of King Edwin extended, that, asis still proverbially said, a woman with her new-born babe might walk throughout the island, from sea to sea, without receiving any harm. That king took such care for the good of his nation, that in several places where he had seen clear springs near the highways, he caused stakes to be fixed, with brass dishes hangingat them, for the conveniency of travellers; nor durst any man touch them for any other purpose than that for which they were designed, either through the dread they had of the king, or for the affection which they bore him, &c.”32Readers who are acquainted with the pleasing poem of “Edwin of Deira,” by the late Alexander Smith, will remember his adventures; and it may be noted, as an instance of the manner in which poets alter names at pleasure, that Mr Smith gives to Æthelfrith the name of Ethelbert, to Eadwine’s wife Æthelburh, that of Bertha, and to his father Ælle, that of Egbert. My theory of the Lay of Havelok is then simply this, that I look upon it as the general result of various narratives connected with the history of Northumbria and Lindesey at the close, or possibly the beginning, of the sixth century, gathered round some favourite local (i.e. Lincolnshire) tradition as a nucleus. A similar theory may be true of the Lay of Horn.

The French version tells us thatCoaran,Cuaran, orCuheranis the British word for a scullion. This etymology has not hitherto been traced, but it may easily have been perfectly true. A glance at Armstrong’s Gaelic Dictionary shews us that the Gaeliccearn(which answers very well to the Old Englishhirne, a corner) has the meaning of acorner, and, secondly, of akitchen; and thatcearnachis an adjective meaningof or belonging to a kitchen. But we may come even nearer than this; for by adding the diminutive ending-anto the Gaeliccocaire, a cook, we see thatCuheranmay really have conveyed the idea ofscullionto a British ear, and this probably further gave rise to the story of Havelok’s degradation. It is a common custom—one which true etymologists must always deplore—to invent a story to account for a derivation; and such a practice is invariably carried out with greater boldness and to a greater extent if the said derivation chances to be false. For it is possible that Curan may be simply the Gaeliccuran, a brave man, and the Irishcuranta, brave. The derivation of Havelok is certainly puzzling.Professor Rask declared it to have no meaning in Danish. It bears, however, a remarkable resemblance to the Old Englishgavelok, which occurs in Weber’sKyng Alisaunder, l. 1620, and which is the A.S.gafeluc, Icel.gaflak, Welshgaflach, a spear, dart, or javelin. This is an appropriate name for a warrior, and possibly reappears in the instance of HughKevelock, earl of Chester (Bp. Percy’s Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, i. 128). It is remarkable that the Gaelic and Irishcorranhas the same sense, that ofa spear, whilstcuran, as above-mentioned, meansa brave man. It is best, perhaps, to stop here; for etymology, when pursued too far, is wont to beguile the pursuer into every possible quagmire of absurdity.

The MS. from which the present poem is printed is in the Laudian collection in the Bodleian Library, where its old mark is K 60, and its present one Misc. 108. Being described in the old printed catalogue merely asVitæ Sanctorum, the romance was in consequence for a long time overlooked. The Lives of the Saints occupy a large portion of the volume, and are probably to be ascribed to the authorship of Robert of Gloucester. “These Lives or Festivals,” says Sir F. Madden, “are [here] 61 in number, written in long Alexandrine verse. Then succeed the Sayings of St Bernard and the Visions of St Paul, both in six-line stanzas; theDisputatio inter Corpus et Animam, the English Romance of Havelok, the Romance of Kyng Horn, and some additions in a hand of the 15th century, including the lives of St Blaise, St Cecilia, and St Alexius, and an alliterative poem intitledSomer Soneday, making in all the Contents of the Volume to amount to 70 pieces.” The lays of Havelok and Horn are written out in the same handwriting, of an early date, certainly not later than the end of the thirteenth century. The Havelok begins on fol. 204, and is written in double columns, each column containing 45 lines. A folio is lost between fol. 211 and 212, but no notice of this has been taken in numbering the folios; hence the catchword which should have been found at the bottom of fol. 215b, appears at the bottom of fol. 214b(see l. 2164). The poem terminates at the27th line on fol. 219b, and is immediately followed by Kyng Horn in the same column. The character of the handwriting is bold and square, but the words are very close together. The initial letter of every line is written a little way apart from the rest, as in William of Palerne, and other MSS. Both the long and shorts(ſands) are used. The longsis in general well distinguished fromf, and on this account I have taken the liberty of printing bothessesalike, as my experience in printing the Romans of Partenay proved that the difficulty of avoiding misprints is greater than the gain of representing the difference between them. The chief point of interest is that, as inearlyMSS., the longsis sometimes found at theendof a word, as in “uſ” in l. 22, and “iſ” in l. 23. The following are all the examples of the use of this letter in the first 26 lines; ſo (4), wicteſte (9), ſtede (10), criſt, ſchilde (16), Kriſt, ſo (17), ſo (19), ſchal (21), Kriſt, uſ (22), iſ (23), ſtalworþi (24), ſtalworþeſte (25), ſtede (26). With this exception, the present reprint is a faithful representation of the original; for, as the exact fidelity of a text is of the first importance, I have been careful to compare the proof-sheets with the MS. twice throughout; besides which, the original edition is itself exceedingly correct, and had been re-read by Sir F. Madden with the MS. His list of errata (nearly all of them of minor importance) agreed almost exactly with my own. A great difficulty is caused by the use of the Saxon letterw(ƿ). This letter, the thorn-letter (þ), andy, are all three made very nearly alike. In general, theyis dotted, but the dot is occasionally omitted. Wherever the letter really appears to be aw, I have denoted it by printing thewas an italic letter. The following are, I believe, theonlyexamples of it.Wit-drow = withdrew, l. 502;we, 1058;was, 1129 (cf. “him was ful wa,”Sir Tristr.f. iii. st. 43); berwen, 1426 (written “berwen” in l. 697);wat = known, 1674;we, miswritten forwo = who, 1914; to which perhaps we may addwit, 997. This evidence is interesting as shewing that this letter was then fast going out of use, and I think that we may safely date the final disappearance of this letter from MSS. at about the year 1300. As regards theth, we may remark that at the end of a word both þ andthare used, as in “norþ and suth,”l. 434; sometimesthoccurs in the middle of a word, as “sithen,” l. 1238, which is commonly written “siþen,” as in l. 399. The words þe, þat, þer, &c., are hardly ever written otherwise. But the reader will remark many instances in whichthfinal seems to have the hard sound oft, as inbrouth, 57,nouth, 58,lith, 534,þouth, 1190, &c.; cf. § 27. The lettertis sometimes shortened so as nearly to resemblec, andcis sometimes lengthened intot. The lettersnanduare occasionally alike, but the difference between them is commonly well marked. Theihas a long stroke over it when written next tomorn. On the whole, the writing is very clear and distinct, after a slight acquaintance with it. The poem is marked out into paragraphs by the use of large letters. I have introduced a slight space at the end of each paragraph, to shew this more clearly.

The following peculiarities of spelling may be first noted. We frequently findhprefixed to words which it is usual to spell without one. Examples are:holdeforold,heteforete(eat),hetforet(ate),heuereforeuere,HenglisheforEnglishe, &c.; see the Glossary, under the letter H. This enables us to explain some words which at first appear puzzling; thusher=er, ere;hayse=ayse, ease;helde=elde, old age;hore=ore, grace;hende=ende, which in one passage meansend, but in anothera duck. The formshof,hus,hure, forof,us,ureare such as we should hardly have expected to find. On the other hand,his omitted in the wordsauelok,aueden,osed, and inisforhis(l. 2254). These instances, and other examples such as follow, may readily be found by help of the Glossarial Index. Again,dfinal afterlornwas so slightly sounded as to be omitted even in writing. Examples are:lonforlond,helforheld,bihelforbiheld,shelforsheld,golforgold. But a more extraordinary omission is that ofrfinal inthe,neythe,othe,douthe, which does not seem to be satisfactorily explained even by the supposition that the scribe may have omitted the small upward curl which does duty forerso frequently in MSS. For we further find the omission oflfinal, as inmikeformikel,weforwel, and oftfinal, as inbesforbest; from whichinstances we should rather infer some peculiarity of pronunciation rendering final letters indistinct, of which there are numerous examples, asfielforfield, in modern provincial English. Cf.ilforilk, in ll. 818, 1740; andtwelfortwelf. “From the same license,” says Sir F. Madden, “arises the frequent repetition of such rhythm asridenandside, where the finalnseems to have been suppressed in pronunciation. Cf. ll. 29, 254, 957, 1105, 1183, 2098, &c, and hence we perceive how readily the infinitive verbal Saxon termination glided into its subsequent form. The broad pronunciation of the dialect in which the poem was written is also frequently discernible, as inslawen, l. 2676, andknaue, l. 949, which rhyme toRauenandplawe.33So likewise,botheorbetheis, in sound, equivalent torede, ll. 360, 694, 1680.” Other peculiarities will be noticed in discussing the Metre. Observe also the Anglo-Saxonhwfor the modernwh, exemplified byhwo, 368,hwan, 474,hweþer, 294,hwere, 549,hwil, 301; compare alsoqual,qui,quan, meaningwhale,why,when.34The letterw(initial) is the modern provincial’oo, as inwlf,wluine,wman; cf.hw,w, both forms ofhow; andlowerdforlouerd. In particular, we should notice the hard sound oftdenoted bythin the wordswith,rithe,brouth,nouth,ricth,knicth, meaningwhite,right,brought,naught,right,knight; so toodouther, daughter,neth, a net,uth, out,woth, wot,leth, let,lauthe(laught), caught,nither-tale(nighter-tale), night-time.35On the other hand,tstands forthinhauet, 564,seyt, 647,herknet, 1,wit, 100. Whenthanswers to the modern sound, it seems equivalent to A.S. ð rather than to A.S. þ; examples aremouth, 433,oth, 260,loth, 261.Yandgare interchangeable, as inyaf,gaf,youen,gouen;geven occurs fork, as inrang, 2561. In MSS.,eis not uncommonly written bymistake foro; this may perhaps account forhelde, 2472,meste, 233,her, 1924, which should rather beholde, 30,moste, andhor, 235; there is a like confusion ofwerenandworen; and perhapsgrotindeshould begretinde.36The voweluis replaced by the modernouin the wordsprud, 302,suth, 434,but, 1040,hus, 740,spusen, 1123; cf.hwsin l. 1141. Mr Ellis shews, in his Early English Pronunciation, chap. v, that in pure specimens of thethirteenthcentury, there is noouin such words, and in thefourteenthcentury, no simpleu. This furnishes a ready explanation of the otherwise difficultsure, in l. 2005; it is merely the adverb ofsour,sourlybeing used in the sense ofbitterly; tobye it bitterly, orbye it bittre, is a common phrase in Piers Plowman. Other spellings worth notice occur inouerga, 314,stra, 315 (speltstriein l. 998),hawe, 1188,plawe, 950,sal, 628 (commonly speltshal). Note alsoarumforarm,harumforharm,borenforborn, 1878, andkorenforcorn, 1879. There are several instances of words joined together, ashaui, 2002,biddi, 484;shaltu, 2186,wiltu, 905,wenestu, 1787;wilte, 528,thenkeste, 578,shaltou, 1800;thouthe, 790,hauedet,youenet,hauenet;sawe, 338;latus, 1772; where the personal pronounsi,þu,he,it,we,usare added to the verb. Hence, in l. 745, it is very likely thatcallethis written forcallet, i.e. call it; and on the same principle we can explaindones; seeEsin the Glossary. In like mannergoddotis contracted fromGod wot; andþerlfromþe erl.

Nouns.As regards the nouns employed, I may remark that the finaleis perhaps always sounded in the oblique cases, and especially in the dative case; as innedè,stedè, &c. (see ll. 86-105),willè, 85,gyuè, 357,blissè, 2187,cricè, 2450; cf. the adjectiveslongè, 2299,wisè, 1713; also the nominativesrosè, 2919,newè, 2974.Frendis a pl. form; cf.hend, which is both a plural (2444) and a dat. sing. (505). In the plural, the finaleis fully pronounced in the adjectivesallè, 2,hardè, 143,starkè, 1015,fremdè, 2277,bleikè470, and in many others; cf. the full formboþen, 2223. Not only does the phrasenone kines, of no kind, occur in ll. 861, 1140, but we find the unusual phraseneuere kines, ofnever a kind, in l. 2691. Among the numerals, we find not onlyþre, butþrinne.

Pronouns.The first personal pronoun occurs in many forms in the nominative, asi,y,hi,ich,ic,hic, and evenihc; the oblique cases take the formme. For the second person, we haveþu,þou, in the nominative, and alsotu, when preceded byþat, as in l. 2903. We may notice alsohijsforhis, l. 47;heforthey;sho, 112,scho, 126,sche, 1721, forshe; and, in particular, the dual formunker, of you two, 1882. The most noteworthy possessive pronouns areminè, pl. 1365,þinè, pl. 620;hisorhise, pl.hisè, 34;ure, 606;youres, 2800;hirè, 2918, with which cf. the dat. sing.hirèof the personal pronoun, 85, 300.þisis plural, and meansthese, in l. 1145. As in other old English works,menis frequently an impersonal pronoun, answering to the Frenchon, and is followed by a singular verb; as inmen ringes, 390,men seyt and suereth, 647,men fetes, 2341,men nam, 900,men birþe, 2101,men dos, 2434; cf.folk sau, 2410; but there are a few instances of its use with a plural verb, asmen haueden, 901,men shulen, 747. The former is the more usual construction.

Verbs.The infinitives of verbs rarely havey-prefixed; two examples arey-lere, 12,y-se, 334. Nor is the same prefix common before past participles; yet we findi-gret, 163,i-groten, 285, andi-maked, 5, as well asmaked, 23. Infinitives end commonly in-enor-e, asriden, 26,y-lere; also in-n, asdon, 117,leyn, 718; and even in-o, asflo, 612,slo, 1364. The present singular, 3rd person, of the indicative, ends both in-esor-s, and-ethor-th, the former being the more usual. Examples arelonges, 396,leues, 1781,haldes, 1382,fedes, 1693,bes, 1744,comes, 1767,glides, 1851,þarnes, 1913,haues, 1952,etes, 2036,dos, 1913; alsoeteth, 672,haueth, 804,bikenneth, 1269,doth, 1876,liþ, 673. The full form of the 2nd person is-est, aslouest, 1663; but it is commonly cut down to-es, asweldes, 1359,slepes, 1283,haues, 688,etes, 907,getes, 908; cf.dos, 2390,mis-gos, 2707,slos, 2706. The same dropping of thetis observable in the past tense, as inreftes, 2394,feddes and claddes, 2907. Still more curious is the ending intonly, as inþu bi-hetet, 677,þou mait, 689; cf. ll. 852, 1348. In the subjunctive mood the-stdisappears as in Anglo-Saxon,and hence the formsbute þou gonge, 690,þat þu fonge, 856, &c.; cf.bede, 668. In the 3rd person, present tense, of the same mood, we have the-efully pronounced, as inshildè, 16,yeuè, 22,leuè, 334,redè, 687; and in l. 544,wrekenshould undoubtedly bewrekè, since the-enbelongs to the plural, as inmoten, 18. The plural of the indicative present ends in-en, as,we hauen, 2798,ye witen, 2208,þei taken, 1833; or, very rarely, in-eth, asye bringeth, 2425,he(they)strangleth, 2584. Sometimes the final-nis lost, as inwe haue, 2799,ye do, 2418,he(they)brenne, 2583. There is even a trace of the plural in-es, as inhaues, 2581. Thepresenttense has often afuturesignification, as inetes, 907,eteth, 672,getes, 908.

Past tense.Of the third person singular and plural of the past tense the following are selected examples.Weak Verbs:hauede, 770,sparedè, 898,yemedè, 975,semedè, 976,sparkëdè, 2144,þankedè, 2189; pl.loueden, 955,leykeden, 954,woundeden, 2429,stareden, 1037,yemede(rather readyemeden), 2277,makeden, 554,sprauleden, 475; alsocalde, 2115,gredde, 2417,herde, 2410,kepte, 879,fedde, 786,ledde, 785,spedde, 756,clapte, 1814,kiste, 1279; pl.herden,brenden, 594,kisten, 2162,ledden, 1246; and, thirdly, of the class which change the vowel,aute, 743,laute, 744,bitauhte, 2212. Compare the past participlesosed, 971,mixed, 2533,parred, 2439,gadred, 2577;reft, 1367,wend, 2138,hyd, 1059;told, 1036,sold, 1638,wrouth=wrout, 1352. There are also at least two past participles in-et, asslenget, 1923,grethet, 2615, to which addweddeth,beddeth, 1127, In l. 2057,knawedseems put forknawen, for the rime’s sake.

Strong Verbs: third person singular, past tense,bar, 815,bad, 1415,yaf, orgaf,spak;kam, 766 (speltcham, 1873),nam,kneu,hew, 2729,lep, 1777,let, 2447 (speltleth, 2651),slep, 1280,wex, 281:drou, 705,for, 2943,low, 903,slow, 1807,hof, 2750,stod, 986,tok; 751,wok, 2093; pl.beden, 2774,youen, orgouen;comen, 1017 (speltkeme, 1208),nomen, 2790 (speltneme, 1207),knewen, 2149,lopen, 1896,slepen, 2128;drowen, 1837,foren, 2380,lowen, 1056,slowen, 2414, &c. And secondly, of the class which more usually change the vowel in thepluralof the preterite, we find the singular formsbigan, 1357,barw, 2022,karf, 471,swank, 788,warp, 1061,shon, 2144,clef, 2643,sau, 2409,grop, 1965,drof, 725,shof,892; pl.bigunnen, 1011,sowen, 1055,gripen, 1790,driue, fordriuen, 1966; alsobunden, 2436,scuten, 2431 (speltschoten, 1864,shoten, 1838),leyen, 2132, &c. Compare the past participlesboren, 1878,youenorgouen,cumen, 1436,nomen, 2265 (speltnumen, 2581),laten, 1925,waxen, 302,drawen, 1925,slawen, 2000, which two last becomedrawe,slawein ll. 1802, 1803.

We should also observe the past tensesspen, 1819,stirt, 812,fauthforfautorfauht, 1990,citte, 942,bere, 974,kipte, 1050,flow, 2502,plat, 2755; and the past participlesdemdfordemed, 2488,giueforgiuen, 2488,henged, 1429,keft, 2005.

Imperative Mood.Examples of the imperative mood singular, 2nd person, areet,sit, 925,nim, 1336,yif, 674; in the plural, the usual ending is-es, as inliþes, 2204,comes, 1798,folwes, 1885,lokes, 2292,bes, 2246, to which set belongslos, 2596,dos, 2592; but there are instances of the ending-ethalso, as incometh, 1885,yeueþ, 911, to which adddoth, 2037,goth, 1780. Indeed both forms occur in one line, as inCometh swiþe, and folwes me(1885). Instead of-ethwe even find-et, as inherknet, 1. These variations afford a good illustration of the unsettled state of the grammar in some parts of England at this period; we need not suppose the scribe to be at fault in all cases where there is a want of uniformity.

Of reflexive verbs, we meet withme dremede, 1284,me met, 1285,me þinkes, 2169,him hungrede, 654,him semede, 1652,him stondes, 2983,him rewede, 503. The present participles end most commonly in-inde, asfastinde, 865,grotinde(?gretinde), 1390,lauhwinde, 946,plattinde, 2282,starinde, 508; but we also findgangande, 2283,driuende, 2702. Compare the nounstiþande, 2279,offrende, 1386, which are Norse forms,tíðindi(pl.) being the Icelandic fortidings, andoffrandithe present participle ofoffra, to offer. But the true Icelandic equivalent of the substantivean offeringisoffran, and the old Swedish isoffer; and hence we see at how very early a date the confusion between the noun-ending and the ending of the present participle arose; a confusion which has bewildered many generations of Englishmen. Yet this very poem in other places has-ingas a noun-endingonly, never (that I remember) for the present participle. Examples of it aregreting, 166,dreping, i.e. slaughter, 2684,buttinge,skirming,wrastling,putting,harping,piping,reding; see ll. 2322-2327. Such words are frequently calledverbal nouns, but the term is very likely to mislead. I have found that many suppose it to implypresent participles used as nouns, instead ofnouns of verbal derivation. If such nouns could be called by some new name, such asnouns of action, or by any other title that can be conventionally restricted to signify them, it would, I think, be a gain. Amongst the auxiliary verbs, may be noted the use ofcone, 622, as the subjunctive form ofcanst;we mone, 840, as the subjunctive ofmowen; cf.ye mowen, 11; but especially we should observe the use of the comparatively rare verbsbirþe, it behoves, pt. t.birde, it behoved, andþurte, he need, the latter of which is fully explained in the Glossary to William of Palerne, s.v.þort.

The prefixto-is employed inbothsenses, as explained in the same Glossary, s.v.To-. Into-brised,to-deyle, &c., it is equivalent to the Germanzer-and Mœso-Gothicdis-; of itsotherandrareruse, wherein it answers to the Germanzu-and Mœso-Gothicdu-, there is butoneinstance, viz. in the wordto-yede, 765, which signifieswent to; cf. Germ.zugehen, to go to,zugang(A.S.to-gang), access, approach. There are some curious instances of a peculiar syntax, whereby the infinitive mood active partakes of a passive signification, as inhe made him kesten, and in feteres festen, he caused him to be cast in prison (or perhaps, overthrown), and to be fastened in fetters; l. 81. But it is probable that this is to be explained by considering it as a phrase in which we shouldnowsupply the wordmen, and that we may interpret it by “he caused [men] to cast him in prison, and to fasten him with fetters;” for in ll. 1784, 1785, the phrase is repeated in a less ambiguous form. See also l. 86. So also, in ll. 2611, 2612, I considerkeste,late,sette, to be in the infinitive mood. Such a construction is at once understood by comparing it with the Germaner liess ihn binden, he caused him to be bound. In l. 2352, appears the most unusual formilker, which is literallyof each, and hence,apiece; cf.unker, which also is a genitive plural. It will be observed that the verb following is in the plural, the real nominative to it beingþei þre. In l. 2404, the expressionþat þer þrette, “that there threat,” recalls a colloquialismwhich is still common. The wordþrie, 730, is, apparently, the O.E. adverbthrie, thrice;liues, 509, is an adverb ending in-es, originally a genitive case.Þus-gateis, according to Mr Morris, unknown to the Southern dialect; it occurs in ll. 785, 2419, 2586. I may add that Havelok contains as many as five expressions, which seem to refer toproverbscurrent at the time of writing it. See ll. 307, 648, 1338, 1352, 2461.

The poem is written in the familiar rhythm of which I have already spoken elsewhere, viz. at p. xxxvii of the Preface to Mr Morris’s edition of Genesis and Exodus. The metre of Havelok is rather more regular, but many of the remarks there made apply to it. The chief rule is that every line shall contain four accents,37the two principal types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines—

(a) For hém | ne yé|dë góld | ne fé, 44;

(b) It wás | a kíng | bi á|rë dáwës, 27;

and (2) by the seven-syllable and eight-syllable lines—

(d) Al|lë thát | he mícth|ë fyndë, 42.

To one of these four forms every line can be reduced, by the use of that slighter utterance of less important syllables which is so very common in English poetry. It is not the number ofsyllables, but ofaccents, that is essential. Ineveryline throughout the poem there are four accents, with only two or three exceptions,viz. ll. 1112, 1678, &c, which are defective. In a similar manner, we may readily scan any of the lines, as e.g. ll. 2-4;

(b) Of a ta|lë þat | ich you | wile tellë38

(b) Wo-so | ’t wil’ her’ | and þer|to duellë, &c.

Here the syllables-nes andinl. 3,of ainl. 4, andit wileinl. 5, are so rapidly pronounced as to occupy only the room of one unaccented syllable in lines of the strict type. However awkward this appears to be in theory, it is very easy in practice, as the reciter readily manages his voice so as to produce the right rhythmical effect; and, indeed, this variation of arrangement is a real improvement, preventing the recitation from becoming monotonous. Those who have a good ear for rhythm will readily understand this, and it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it more at length. But it may be remarked, that the three lines above quoted are rathermore irregular than usual, and that the metre is such as to enable us to fix the instances in which the final-eis pronounced with great accuracy, on which account I shall say more about this presently. I would, however, first enumerate the rimes which seem to be more or less inexact or peculiar, or otherwise instructive.

I.Repetitions.Such aremen, men;holden, holde, 29;39erþe, erþe, 739;heren, heren, 1640;nithes, knithes, 2048;youres, youres, 2800. To this class belong alsolonge, londe, 172,heye, heie, 1151, 2544; wherelonge, londeis, however, only an assonance.

II.Assonant rimes.Here the rime is in the vowel-sound; the consonantal endings differ. Such arerym, fyn, 21;yeme, quene, 182;shop, hok, 1101 (whereshopis probably corrupt);odrat, bad, 1153;fet, ek, 1303;yer, del, 1333;maked, shaped, 1646;beþe, rede, 1680;riche, chinche, 1763, 2940;feld, swerd, 1824, 2634;seruede, werewed, 1914;wend, gent, 2138;þank, rang, 2560;boþen, ut-drowen, 2658. To the same class belongname,rauen,1397,grauen, name, 2528;slawen, rauen, 2676.Henged, slenget, 1922, should rather be called an imperfect rime.40There is also found the exact opposite to this, viz., an agreement orconsonanceat the end, preceded by an apparent diversity in the vowel; aslonge, gange, 795 (but seelonge, gonge, 843),bidde, stede, 2548,open, drepen, 1782,gres, is, 2698,boþe, rathe, 2936 (but seerathe, bathe, 1335, 2542),fet(longe),gret, 2158; and not unlike these are some instances of loose rimes, asbeþe, rede, 360,knaue, plawe, 949,sawe, hawe(wherehaweis written forhaue), 1187,sawe, wowe, 1962 (but seewowe, lowe, 2078,lowe, sawe, 2142,wawe, lowe, 2470). Observe alsobouth, oft(readvtorut=out?), 883,tun, barun, 1001 (cf.toun, brun, 1750,champiouns, barouns, 1032);plattinde, gangande, 2282, &c.Eir, toþer, 410,harde, crakede, 567, are probably due to mistakes.41

III. Rimes which shew that the final-enwas pronounced so slightly as to be nearly equivalent to-e. Examples:holden, holde, 29;gongen, fonge, 855;bringe, ringen, 1105;mouthen, douthe, 1183;riden, side, 1758;wesseylen, to-deyle, 2098;slawen, drawe, 2476. In the same wayhonrimes tolond, 1341, owing to the slight pronunciation of the finald.42

IV. Rimes which appear imperfect, but may be perfect.Richeanswers tolike, 132, but the true spelling isrike, answering tosike, 290.Mithe, 196, should probably bemoucte, as in l. 257, and it would thus rime withþoucte.Blinne, 2670, should certainly beblunne; cf. A.S.blinnan, pt. t. s.ic blan, pt. t. pl.we blunnon; and thus it rimes tosunne.Misdede, 993, is clearly an error formisseyde, as appears from the parallel passage in ll. 49, 50; and it then rimes withleyde. So in l. 1736, fordeledreaddeyled, as in l. 2098.Boþe, 430, has no line answering to it, and a line may have been lost.Nicth, lict, 575, is a perfect rime.Halde, bolde, 2308, may also be perfect.For-sworenanswers tofor-lorn(pronouncedfor-loren), 1423;bitawtetoauthe(pronouncedaute), 1409;yemede(pronouncedyem-dè) is not an improper rime tofremde, 2276;anonrimes withiohan(if pronouncedionorJohn, as indicated by the spellingionin l. 177), 2562, 2956. Yet in another instance it seems to be two syllables,Jo-han; seewimman, iohan, 1720.43Speche should bespeke, and thus rimes tomeke, 1065.Staredenshould perhaps bestradden, or some such form, rightly riming toladden, 1037. Under this head we may notice some rimes which throw, possibly, some light on the pronunciation. Thus, for the sound ofey, ei, observehayse, preyse, 60;leyke, bleike, 469;laumprei, wei, 771;deyerimes topreye, 168;daytowey, 663;seydtobrayd, 1281; but we also findhey, fri, 1071;hey, sley, 1083,heye, heie, 1151;heye, eie, 2544;leye, heye, 2010;heye, fleye, 2750.Framrimes tosham, 55; yet the latter word is reallyshame, 83;gangeis also speltgonge,halderimes withbolde, 2308. The pronunciation ofware,were, orwore, seems ambiguous; we findsore, wore, 236;wore, more, 258;ware, sare, 400;wore, sore, 414;were, þere, 741;more, þore, 921. For the sound ofe, observesuere, gere, 388;suereth, dereth, 648;eten, geten, 930;yet, fet, 1319;stem, bem, 592;glem, bem, 2122; alsoyeue, liue, 198;liue, gyue, 356;lyue, yeue, 1217;her, ther, 1924;fishere, swere, 2230. For that ofi,observecri, merci, 270;sire, swire, 310;swiþe, vnbliþe, 140;fir, shir, 587;sire, hire, 909;rise, bise, 723;fyr, shir, 915;lye, strie, 997;hey, fri, 1071;for-þi, merci, 2500. For that ofo, observetwo, so, 350;do, so, 713;shon, on, 969;hom, grom, 789;lode, brode, 895;anon, ston, 927;ston, won, 1023;do, sho(shoe), 1137;do, sho(she), 1231;stod, mod, 1702;ilkon, ston, 1842;shon(shoon),ston, 2144;croud, god, 2338;don, bon, 2354;sone(soon),bone, 2504;bole, hole, 2438.44Only in a few of these instances would the words rime in modern standard English. For theouandusounds, observecouþe, mouþe, 112;yow, now, 160;wolde, fulde, 354;yw, nou, 453;bounden, wnden, 545;sowel, couel, 767;low, ynow, 903;sowen, lowe, 957;strout, but, 1039;þou, nou, 1283;doun, tun, 1630;crus, hous, 1966;wounde, grunde, 1978;bowr, tour, 2072;spuse, huse, 2912.Lowe, 1291, 2431, 2471, should rather belawe, as in l. 2767. These hints will probably suffice for the guidance of those who wish to follow up the subject. It is evident that full dependence cannot be placed upon theexactnessof the rimes.

There can be little doubt that the final-eis, in general, fully pronounced in this poem wherever it is written, with but a very few exceptions; but at the same time it is liable to be elided when followed by a vowel or (sometimes) by the letterh, as is usual in old English poetry. In the following remarks, I shall use an apostrophe to signify thateiswritten, but not pronounced; thus “wil’” signifies that “wile” is the MS. form, but “wil” the apparent pronunciation. I shall use an italiceto signify that theeis elided because followed by a vowel orh, as “cuppe” (l. 14); and in the same way, “riden,” “litel,” &c, signify that the syllables-en,-elare slurred over in a like manner. It will be seen that such syllables are, in general, slurred over when they occur before a vowel orh; under the same circumstances, that is, as the final-e. When I simply write the word in the form “gode” as in the MS., I mean that the-eisfully pronounced; so that “gode” stands for “godë.”

The following, then, are instances. I follow the order in Mr Morris’s Introduction to Chaucer’s Prologue, &c. (Clarendon Press Series).

(A) In nouns and adjectives (of A.S. origin) the final-erepresents one of the final vowelsa,u,e, and hence is fully sounded even in the nominative case in such instances. Examples; gome (A.S.goma), 7, blome (A.S.bloma), 63, trewe (A.S.treowe), 179, knaue (A.S.cnafa), 308, 450, sone (A.S.sunu), 394.

(B) In words of French origin it is sounded as in French verse. Such words are scarce in Havelok. Examples: hayse, 59, beste, 279, mirácle, 500, rose, 2919, curtesye (miswrittencurteyse), 2876, cf. 194, drurye, 195, male, 48, large, 97, noble, 1263.

(1)it is a sign of thedativecase in nouns; as, nede, 9, stede, 10, trome, 8, wronge, 72, stede, 142, dede (not elided, because of the cæsura), 167, arke, 222, erþe, 248, lite þrawe, 276. It also sometimes marks the accusative, or the genitive of feminine nouns:accusatives, cuppe, 14, wede, 94, brede, 98, shrede, 99, mede, 102, quiste, 219, sorwe, 238 (cf. sorw’ in l. 240), sone, 308, knaue, 308, sone, 350, wille, 441:genitives, messe, 186, 188, helle, 405.

(2) In adjectives it marks—

(a) thedefinite formof the adjective; as, þe meste, 233, þe riche (not elided45), 239, te beste, 87, þe hexte [man], 1080, þat wicke, 1158, þat foule, 1158, þe firste, 1333, þe rede, 1397. This rule is most often violated in the case ofdissyllabicsuperlatives; as, þe wictest’, 8, þe fairest, þe strangest, 1081, 1110; cf. 199, 200.

(b) thepluralnumber. Examples abound, as, gode, 1, alle, 2, are, 27, yung = yunge, 30, holde, 30, gode, 34, 55, harde, 143, grene, 470, bleike, 470, halte, 543, doumbe, 543, &c.

The same use is often extended to possessive pronouns; we find the plurals mine, 385, 514 (but min’, 392), þine, 620, hise, 34, 67, hure, 1231; and even the singulars hire, 84, 85, hure, 338, yure, 171. But the personal pronoun feminine is often hir’, 172, 209; yet see l. 316.

(3) In verbs it marks—

(a) the infinitive mood; as, telle, 3, duelle, 4, falle, 39, beye, 53, swere, 254, be-bedde, 421, bere, 549, &c. On this point there cannot be a moment’s doubt, for the form-enis found quite as often, and they rime together, as in 254, 255, cf. 29, 30. But it is well worth remarking that-enis slurred over exactly where-ewould be, with much regularity. Examples are: riden, 10, biginnen, 21, maken, 29, hengen, 43, lurken, 68, crepen, 68, riden, 88, hauen, 270. Other examples are very numerous. But we sometimes find-ennot slurred over, as, drinken, 15; and the same is true even of-e, but such cases are exceptional and rare.

(b) the gerund; as, to preyse, 60.

(c) the past participle of a strong verb; as, drawe, 1802, slawe, 1803. But these are rare, as they are commonly written drawen, slawen, 2224.

(d) the past tense of weak verbs, where the-efollows-ed,-t, or-d. Examples are very numerous; as, louede = lov’de, 30, 35 (not elided), 37, hauede = hav’de, 343; cf. haued = havd’, 336; þurte, 10, durste, 65, refte, 94; dede, 29, sende, 136, seyde, 228, herde, 286. Observe hated = hatede,40.The plurals of these tenses are rarely in-e, generally in-en, as, haueden, 241, deden, 242, sprauleden = spraul’den, 475.

(e) the subjunctive or optative mood, or the 3rd person of the imperative mood, which is really the 3rd person of the subjunctive. This rule seems to be carefully observed. Examples are yeue, 22, thaue, 296, yerne, 299, leue, 406, were, 513, wite, 517, &c. So for thefirstperson, as, late, 509, lepe (not elided), 2009, speke, 2079; and for thesecondperson, as, understonde, 1159, fare, 2705, cone, 622, 623.

(f) other parts of afewverbs; thus, the 1st person singular present, as, liue, 301, ete, 793, rede, 1660, wille, 388, wherewilleis equivalent towish.

(g) present participles: thus, plattínde, 2282, is a half-rime to gangánde. In other places, the author is careful to place them before a vowel, as gretinde, 1390, lauhwinde, 946, starinde, 508, driuende, 2702, fastinde, 865.

(4) In adverbs the final-edenotes—

(a) an older vowel-ending; as, sone(A.S.sóna), 136, sone, 218,251, yete (A.S.géta, as well asgét), 495, ofte (Swed.ofta, Dan.ofte), 227.

(b) an adverb as distinguished from its corresponding adjective, as, yerne, 153, loude, 96, longe, 241, more, 301, softe, 305, heye, 335, swiþe, 455, harde, 639. Hence, in l. 640, we should readneye.

(d) It is also sounded in the termination-like, as, sikerlike, 422. Hence, in baldelike, 53,boththeeesare sounded; cf. feblelike, 418. When the final-eis slurred over before anhinChaucer,his found commonly to begin the pronounhe, or its cases, the possessive pronounshis,hire, or their cases, a part of the verb tohave, or else the adverbshoworheer. The same rule seems to hold inHavelok. Observe, thateoften forms a syllable in themiddleof a word, as, bondeman, 32, engelondes, 63, pourelike, 322.

With regard to the final-en, it is most commonly slurred over before a vowel or thehinheorhaue, not only when it is the termination of the infinitive mood, but inmany other cases. One striking example may suffice:

Back to Index Next