The Lay of Havelok the Dane Part 3

aeluric is first mentioned at p. 195 of vol. iii. of La?amon, 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 Havelok between pages 150 and 282 of that volume, as I will now shew. The character of the good king Athelwold is taken from that of aethelberht 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 G.o.drich and Havelok, may point to the t.i.tle of _Bretwalda_, which aethelberht so long coveted, and at last obtained. Our poet, in describing Birkabeyn, repeats this character so exactly, and makes the circ.u.mstances of the deaths of Athelwold and Birkabeyn so similar, that they are almost indistinguishable; a fault which he doubles by repeating the character of G.o.drich in describing that of G.o.dard. Both of these answer to La?amon's aeluric, who was "the wickedest of all kings" (La?. 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 aeluric as told in La?amon (vol. iii. p. 205); where Cadwan has come forward in place of aethelbert, who has by this time dropped out of La?amon's narrative.

Again, the Gunter or Gurmond who was Havelok's father reminds us of the Gurmund of La?amon (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 (La?amon, iii. 232). In several respects Havelok may have been drawn from Cadwalan, whose gallant attempts to gain the king of Northumberland are recorded in La?amon (iii. 216-254); his opponent being Edwin, who has replaced Ethelfrid as La?amon'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 G.o.drich. As Cadwalan was well supported by his liegeman Penda (La?amon, iii. 251), so was Havelok by Ubbe. Again, Cadwalan marries Helen, whom he found at

--an castle of Deoure on ere sae oure; (La?amon, iii. 250),

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

--doure at standeth on e 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 La?amon'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 G.o.drich 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 called _Blecca_, 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 (La?amon, iii. 151). A dearth in mentioned in the English lay (l. 824); cf. La?amon, 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 La?amon 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 (La?amon, 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 aethelberht of Kent and aethelfrith and Eadwine of Northumbria.[30] It is exceedingly probable that Havelok was never more than a chief or a petty prince, and whether 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 the _sixth_ century, at _some_ period of his life.

[Footnote 29: Hence, by confusion, the placing of Havelok's father in the time of _aelfred_.]

[Footnote 30: Or, as I should prefer to say, earlier than those times. The two kings spoken of in the Lay may have had names somewhat similar to these, which may have been replaced by the more familiar names here mentioned.]

-- 24. It is, perhaps, worthy of a pa.s.sing remark that some of the circ.u.mstances 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 the _daughter of aethelberht_, and it was the _archbishop of York_, Paulinus, who performed the ceremony. The relation of how Eadwine was persecuted by _aethelfrith_, how he fled and was protected by Raedwald, 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 a.s.sistance of Raedwald, he overthrew and _slew aethelfrith_ in a terrible battle beside the river Idle, may be found in Beda's Ecclesiastical History, bk. II. ch. 9-16.[31] In the last of these chapters there is again mention of _Blecca, 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 aelfred; 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, as _is 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 bra.s.s dishes hanging at 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."[32] Readers 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 aethelfrith the name of Ethelbert, to Eadwine's wife aethelburh, that of Bertha, and to his father aelle, 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.

[Footnote 31: Cf. Lappenberg's History of England, tr. by Thorpe, vol. i. pp. 145-154.]

[Footnote 32: See the same statement in Fabyan's Chronicles, p. 112; ed. Ellis, 1811.]

-- 25. ON THE NAMES "CURAN" AND "HAVELOK."

The French version tells us that _Coaran_, _Cuaran_, or _Cuheran_ is 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 Gaelic _cearn_ (which answers very well to the Old English _hirne_, a corner) has the meaning of a _corner_, and, secondly, of a _kitchen_; and that _cearnach_ is an adjective meaning _of or belonging to a kitchen_. But we may come even nearer than this; for by adding the diminutive ending _-an_ to the Gaelic _cocaire_, a cook, we see that _Cuheran_ may really have conveyed the idea of _scullion_ to 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 Gaelic _curan_, a brave man, and the Irish _curanta_, 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 English _gavelok_, which occurs in Weber's _Kyng Alisaunder_, l. 1620, and which is the A.S. _gafeluc_, Icel. _gaflak_, Welsh _gaflach_, a spear, dart, or javelin. This is an appropriate name for a warrior, and possibly reappears in the instance of Hugh _Kevelock_, earl of Chester (Bp. Percy's Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, i. 128). It is remarkable that the Gaelic and Irish _corran_ has the same sense, that of _a spear_, whilst _curan_, as above-mentioned, means _a 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 as _Vitae 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; the _Disputatio 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 int.i.tled _Somer 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. 215 _b_, appears at the bottom of fol. 214 _b_ (see l. 2164). The poem terminates at the 27th line on fol. 219 _b_, 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 short _s_ (? _and_ s) are used. The long _s_ is in general well distinguished from _f_, and on this account I have taken the liberty of printing both _esses_ alike, 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 in _early_ MSS., the long _s_ is sometimes found at the _end_ of a word, as in "u?" in l. 22, and "i?" in l. 23. The following are all the examples of the use of this letter in the first 26 lines; ?o (4), wicte?te (9), ?tede (10), cri?t, ?childe (16), Kri?t, ?o (17), ?o (19), ?chal (21), Kri?t, u? (22), i? (23), ?talwori (24), ?talwore?te (25), ?tede (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 letter _w_ (?). This letter, the thorn-letter (), and _y_, are all three made very nearly alike. In general, the _y_ is dotted, but the dot is occasionally omitted. Wherever the letter really appears to be a _w_, I have denoted it by printing the _w_ as an italic letter. The following are, I believe, the _only_ examples of it.

_W_it-drow = withdrew, l. 502; _w_e, 1058; _w_as, 1129 (cf. "him was ful wa," _Sir Tristr._ f. iii. st. 43); ber_w_en, 1426 (written "berwen" in l. 697); _w_at = known, 1674; _w_e, miswritten for _w_o = who, 1914; to which perhaps we may add _w_it, 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 the _th_, we may remark that at the end of a word both and _th_ are used, as in "nor and suth," l. 434; sometimes _th_ occurs in the middle of a word, as "sithen," l. 1238, which is commonly written "sien," as in l. 399. The words e, at, er, &c., are hardly ever written otherwise. But the reader will remark many instances in which _th_ final seems to have the hard sound of _t_, as in _brouth_, 57, _nouth_, 58, _lith_, 534, _outh_, 1190, &c.; cf. -- 27.

The letter _t_ is sometimes shortened so as nearly to resemble _c_, and _c_ is sometimes lengthened into _t_. The letters _n_ and _u_ are occasionally alike, but the difference between them is commonly well marked. The _i_ has a long stroke over it when written next to _m_ or _n_. 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 s.p.a.ce 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 find _h_ prefixed to words which it is usual to spell without one. Examples are: _holde_ for _old_, _hete_ for _ete_ (eat), _het_ for _et_ (ate), _heuere_ for _euere_, _Henglishe_ for _Englishe_, &c.; see the Glossary, under the letter H. This enables us to explain some words which at first appear puzzling; thus _her_ = _er_, ere; _hayse_ = _ayse_, ease; _helde_ = _elde_, old age; _h.o.r.e_ = _ore_, grace; _hende_ = _ende_, which in one pa.s.sage means _end_, but in another _a duck_. The forms _hof_, _hus_, _hure_, for _of_, _us_, _ure_ are such as we should hardly have expected to find. On the other hand, _h_ is omitted in the words _auelok_, _aueden_, _osed_, and in _is_ for _his_ (l. 2254). These instances, and other examples such as follow, may readily be found by help of the Glossarial Index. Again, _d_ final after _l_ or _n_ was so slightly sounded as to be omitted even in writing. Examples are: _lon_ for _lond_, _hel_ for _held_, _bihel_ for _biheld_, _shel_ for _sheld_, _gol_ for _gold_. But a more extraordinary omission is that of _r_ final in _the_, _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 for _er_ so frequently in MSS. For we further find the omission of _l_ final, as in _mike_ for _mikel_, _we_ for _wel_, and of _t_ final, as in _bes_ for _best_; from which instances we should rather infer some peculiarity of p.r.o.nunciation rendering final letters indistinct, of which there are numerous examples, as _fiel_ for _field_, in modern provincial English.

Cf. _il_ for _ilk_, in ll. 818, 1740; and _twel_ for _twelf_. "From the same license," says Sir F. Madden, "arises the frequent repet.i.tion of such rhythm as _riden_ and _side_, where the final _n_ seems to have been suppressed in p.r.o.nunciation. 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 p.r.o.nunciation of the dialect in which the poem was written is also frequently discernible, as in _slawen_, l. 2676, and _knaue_, l. 949, which rhyme to _Rauen_ and _plawe_.[33] So likewise, _bothe_ or _bethe_ is, in sound, equivalent to _rede_, ll. 360, 694, 1680." Other peculiarities will be noticed in discussing the Metre. Observe also the Anglo-Saxon _hw_ for the modern _wh_, exemplified by _hwo_, 368, _hwan_, 474, _hweer_, 294, _hwere_, 549, _hwil_, 301; compare also _qual_, _qui_, _quan_, meaning _whale_, _why_, _when_.[34] The letter _w_ (initial) is the modern provincial _'oo_, as in _wlf_, _wluine_, _wman_; cf. _hw_, _w_, both forms of _how_; and _lowerd_ for _louerd_. In particular, we should notice the hard sound of _t_ denoted by _th_ in the words _with_, _rithe_, _brouth_, _nouth_, _ricth_, _knicth_, meaning _white_, _right_, _brought_, _naught_, _right_, _knight_; so too _douther_, daughter, _neth_, a net, _uth_, out, _woth_, wot, _leth_, let, _lauthe_ (_laught_), caught, _nither-tale_ (_nighter-tale_), night-time.[35] On the other hand, _t_ stands for _th_ in _hauet_, 564, _seyt_, 647, _herknet_, 1, _wit_, 100. When _th_ answers to the modern sound, it seems equivalent to A.S. rather than to A.S. ; examples are _mouth_, 433, _oth_, 260, _loth_, 261. _Y_ and _g_ are interchangeable, as in _yaf_, _gaf_, _youen_, _gouen_; _g_ even occurs for _k_, as in _rang_, 2561. In MSS., _e_ is not uncommonly written by mistake for _o_; this may perhaps account for _helde_, 2472, _meste_, 233, _her_, 1924, which should rather be _holde_, 30, _moste_, and _hor_, 235; there is a like confusion of _weren_ and _woren_; and perhaps _grotinde_ should be _gretinde_.[36] The vowel _u_ is replaced by the modern _ou_ in the words _prud_, 302, _suth_, 434, _but_, 1040, _hus_, 740, _spusen_, 1123; cf. _hws_ in l. 1141. Mr Ellis shews, in his Early English p.r.o.nunciation, chap. v, that in pure specimens of the _thirteenth_ century, there is no _ou_ in such words, and in the _fourteenth_ century, no simple _u_. This furnishes a ready explanation of the otherwise difficult _sure_, in l. 2005; it is merely the adverb of _sour_, _sourly_ being used in the sense of _bitterly_; to _bye it bitterly_, or _bye it bittre_, is a common phrase in Piers Plowman.

Other spellings worth notice occur in _ouerga_, 314, _stra_, 315 (spelt _strie_ in l. 998), _hawe_, 1188, _plawe_, 950, _sal_, 628 (commonly spelt _shal_). Note also _arum_ for _arm_, _harum_ for _harm_, _boren_ for _born_, 1878, and _koren_ for _corn_, 1879. There are several instances of words joined together, as _haui_, 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 p.r.o.nouns _i_, _u_, _he_, _it_, _we_, _us_ are added to the verb. Hence, in l. 745, it is very likely that _calleth_ is written for _callet_, i.e. call it; and on the same principle we can explain _dones_; see _Es_ in the Glossary.

In like manner _G.o.ddot_ is contracted from _G.o.d wot_; and _erl_ from _e erl_.

_Nouns._ As regards the nouns employed, I may remark that the final _e_ is perhaps always sounded in the oblique cases, and especially in the dative case; as in _nede_, _stede_, &c. (see ll. 86-105), _wille_, 85, _gyue_, 357, _blisse_, 2187, _crice_, 2450; cf. the adjectives _longe_, 2299, _wise_, 1713; also the nominatives _rose_, 2919, _newe_, 2974.

_Frend_ is a pl. form; cf. _hend_, which is both a plural (2444) and a dat. sing. (505). In the plural, the final _e_ is fully p.r.o.nounced in the adjectives _alle_, 2, _harde_, 143, _starke_, 1015, _fremde_, 2277, _bleike_, 470, and in many others; cf. the full form _boen_, 2223. Not only does the phrase _none kines_, of no kind, occur in ll. 861, 1140, but we find the unusual phrase _neuere kines_, of never a kind, in l. 2691. Among the numerals, we find not only _re_, but _rinne_.

_p.r.o.nouns._ The first personal p.r.o.noun occurs in many forms in the nominative, as _i_, _y_, _hi_, _ich_, _ic_, _hic_, and even _ihc_; the oblique cases take the form _me_. For the second person, we have _u_, _ou_, in the nominative, and also _tu_, when preceded by _at_, as in l. 2903. We may notice also _hijs_ for _his_, l. 47; _he_ for _they_; _sho_, 112, _scho_, 126, _sche_, 1721, for _she_; and, in particular, the dual form _unker_, of you two, 1882. The most noteworthy possessive p.r.o.nouns are _mine_, pl. 1365, _ine_, pl. 620; _his_ or _hise_, pl.

_hise_, 34; _ure_, 606; _youres_, 2800; _hire_, 2918, with which cf. the dat. sing. _hire_ of the personal p.r.o.noun, 85, 300. _is_ is plural, and means _these_, in l. 1145. As in other old English works, _men_ is frequently an impersonal p.r.o.noun, answering to the French _on_, and is followed by a singular verb; as in _men ringes_, 390, _men seyt and suereth_, 647, _men fetes_, 2341, _men nam_, 900, _men bire_, 2101, _men dos_, 2434; cf. _folk sau_, 2410; but there are a few instances of its use with a plural verb, as _men haueden_, 901, _men shulen_, 747.

The former is the more usual construction.

_Verbs._ The infinitives of verbs rarely have _y-_ prefixed; two examples are _y-lere_, 12, _y-se_, 334. Nor is the same prefix common before past participles; yet we find _i-gret_, 163, _i-groten_, 285, and _i-maked_, 5, as well as _maked_, 23. Infinitives end commonly in _-en_ or _-e_, as _riden_, 26, _y-lere_; also in _-n_, as _don_, 117, _leyn_, 718; and even in _-o_, as _flo_, 612, _slo_, 1364. The present singular, 3rd person, of the indicative, ends both in _-es_ or _-s_, and _-eth_ or _-th_, the former being the more usual. Examples are _longes_, 396, _leues_, 1781, _haldes_, 1382, _fedes_, 1693, _bes_, 1744, _comes_, 1767, _glides_, 1851, _arnes_, 1913, _haues_, 1952, _etes_, 2036, _dos_, 1913; also _eteth_, 672, _haueth_, 804, _bikenneth_, 1269, _doth_, 1876, _li_, 673. The full form of the 2nd person is _-est_, as _louest_, 1663; but it is commonly cut down to _-es_, as _weldes_, 1359, _slepes_, 1283, _haues_, 688, _etes_, 907, _getes_, 908; cf. _dos_, 2390, _mis-gos_, 2707, _slos_, 2706. The same dropping of the _t_ is observable in the past tense, as in _reftes_, 2394, _feddes and claddes_, 2907. Still more curious is the ending in _t_ only, as in _u bi-hetet_, 677, _ou mait_, 689; cf. ll. 852, 1348. In the subjunctive mood the _-st_ disappears as in Anglo-Saxon, and hence the forms _bute ou gonge_, 690, _at u fonge_, 856, &c.; cf. _bede_, 668. In the 3rd person, present tense, of the same mood, we have the _-e_ fully p.r.o.nounced, as in _shilde_, 16, _yeue_, 22, _leue_, 334, _rede_, 687; and in l. 544, _wreken_ should undoubtedly be _wreke_, since the _-en_ belongs to the plural, as in _moten_, 18. The plural of the indicative present ends in _-en_, as, _we hauen_, 2798, _ye witen_, 2208, _ei taken_, 1833; or, very rarely, in _-eth_, as _ye bringeth_, 2425, _he_ (they) _strangleth_, 2584. Sometimes the final _-n_ is lost, as in _we haue_, 2799, _ye do_, 2418, _he_ (they) _brenne_, 2583. There is even a trace of the plural in _-es_, as in _haues_, 2581. The _present_ tense has often a _future_ signification, as in _etes_, 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, _sparede_, 898, _yemede_, 975, _semede_, 976, _sparkede_, 2144, _ankede_, 2189; pl. _loueden_, 955, _leykeden_, 954, _woundeden_, 2429, _stareden_, 1037, _yemede_ (rather read _yemeden_), 2277, _makeden_, 554, _sprauleden_, 475; also _calde_, 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 cla.s.s which change the vowel, _aute_, 743, _laute_, 744, _bitauhte_, 2212. Compare the past participles _osed_, 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_, as _slenget_, 1923, _grethet_, 2615, to which add _weddeth_, _beddeth_, 1127, In l. 2057, _knawed_ seems put for _knawen_, for the rime's sake.

STRONG VERBS: third person singular, past tense, _bar_, 815, _bad_, 1415, _yaf_, or _gaf_, _spak_; _kam_, 766 (spelt _cham_, 1873), _nam_, _kneu_, _hew_, 2729, _lep_, 1777, _let_, 2447 (spelt _leth_, 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_, or _gouen_; _comen_, 1017 (spelt _keme_, 1208), _nomen_, 2790 (spelt _neme_, 1207), _knewen_, 2149, _lopen_, 1896, _slepen_, 2128; _drowen_, 1837, _foren_, 2380, _lowen_, 1056, _slowen_, 2414, &c.

And secondly, of the cla.s.s which more usually change the vowel in the _plural_ of the preterite, we find the singular forms _bigan_, 1357, _barw_, 2022, _karf_, 471, _sw.a.n.k_, 788, _warp_, 1061, _shon_, 2144, _clef_, 2643, _sau_, 2409, _grop_, 1965, _drof_, 725, _shof_, 892; pl.

_bigunnen_, 1011, _sowen_, 1055, _gripen_, 1790, _driue_, for _driuen_, 1966; also _bunden_, 2436, _scuten_, 2431 (spelt _schoten_, 1864, _shoten_, 1838), _leyen_, 2132, &c. Compare the past participles _boren_, 1878, _youen_ or _gouen_, _c.u.men_, 1436, _nomen_, 2265 (spelt _numen_, 2581), _laten_, 1925, _waxen_, 302, _drawen_, 1925, _slawen_, 2000, which two last become _drawe_, _slawe_ in ll. 1802, 1803.

We should also observe the past tenses _spen_, 1819, _stirt_, 812, _fauth_ for _faut_ or _fauht_, 1990, _citte_, 942, _bere_, 974, _kipte_, 1050, _flow_, 2502, _plat_, 2755; and the past participles _demd_ for _demed_, 2488, _giue_ for _giuen_, 2488, _henged_, 1429, _keft_, 2005.

_Imperative Mood._ Examples of the imperative mood singular, 2nd person, are _et_, _sit_, 925, _nim_, 1336, _yif_, 674; in the plural, the usual ending is _-es_, as in _lies_, 2204, _comes_, 1798, _folwes_, 1885, _lokes_, 2292, _bes_, 2246, to which set belong _slos_, 2596, _dos_, 2592; but there are instances of the ending _-eth_ also, as in _cometh_, 1885, _yeue_, 911, to which add _doth_, 2037, _goth_, 1780. Indeed both forms occur in one line, as in _Cometh swie, and folwes me_ (1885).

Instead of _-eth_ we even find _-et_, as in _herknet_, 1. These variations afford a good ill.u.s.tration 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 with _me dremede_, 1284, _me met_, 1285, _me inkes_, 2169, _him hungrede_, 654, _him semede_, 1652, _him stondes_, 2983, _him rewede_, 503. The present participles end most commonly in _-inde_, as _fastinde_, 865, _grotinde_ (? _gretinde_), 1390, _lauhwinde_, 946, _plattinde_, 2282, _starinde_, 508; but we also find _gangande_, 2283, _driuende_, 2702. Compare the nouns _tiande_, 2279, _offrende_, 1386, which are Norse forms, _tiindi_ (pl.) being the Icelandic for _tidings_, and _offrandi_ the present participle of _offra_, to offer. But the true Icelandic equivalent of the substantive _an offering_ is _offran_, and the old Swedish is _offer_; 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 _-ing_ as a noun-ending _only_, never (that I remember) for the present participle. Examples of it are _greting_, 166, _dreping_, i.e. slaughter, 2684, _b.u.t.tinge_, _skirming_, _wrastling_, _putting_, _harping_, _piping_, _reding_; see ll. 2322-2327. Such words are frequently called _verbal nouns_, but the term is very likely to mislead. I have found that many suppose it to imply _present participles used as nouns_, instead of _nouns of verbal derivation_. If such nouns could be called by some new name, such as _nouns of action_, or by any other t.i.tle that can be conventionally restricted to signify them, it would, I think, be a gain. Amongst the auxiliary verbs, may be noted the use of _cone_, 622, as the subjunctive form of _canst_; _we mone_, 840, as the subjunctive of _mowen_; cf. _ye mowen_, 11; but especially we should observe the use of the comparatively rare verbs _bire_, it behoves, pt. t. _birde_, it behoved, and _urte_, he need, the latter of which is fully explained in the Glossary to William of Palerne, s.v.

_ort_.

The prefix _to-_ is employed in _both_ senses, as explained in the same Glossary, s.v. _To-_. In _to-brised_, _to-deyle_, &c., it is equivalent to the German _zer-_ and Mso-Gothic _dis-_; of its _other_ and _rarer_ use, wherein it answers to the German _zu-_ and Mso-Gothic _du-_, there is but _one_ instance, viz. in the word _to-yede_, 765, which signifies _went 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 pa.s.sive signification, as in _he 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 should _now_ supply the word _men_, 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 consider _keste_, _late_, _sette_, to be in the infinitive mood. Such a construction is at once understood by comparing it with the German _er liess ihn binden_, he caused him to be bound. In l. 2352, appears the most unusual form _ilker_, which is literally _of 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 being _ei re_. In l. 2404, the expression _at er rette_, "that there threat," recalls a colloquialism which is still common. The word _rie_, 730, is, apparently, the O.E. adverb _thrie_, thrice; _liues_, 509, is an adverb ending in _-es_, originally a genitive case. _us-gate_ is, 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 to _proverbs_ current at the time of writing it. See ll. 307, 648, 1338, 1352, 2461.

[Footnote 33: "Cf. K. Horn, 1005, where _haue_ rhymes with plawe." --M. Mr A. J. Ellis would consider _slawen_, _knaue_, &c., as a.s.sonances-- "Do not think of the p.r.o.nunciation of modern _drawen_. Read _sla-wen_, _kna-ue_, an a.s.sonance. _Bee_ does _not_ rhyme to _reden_; it is only an a.s.sonance." --Ellis. On the other hand, we find the spellings _rathe_, _rothe_ instead of _rede_ in ll. 1335 and 2817.]

[Footnote 34: "_Qual_ = _quhal_, the aspirate being omitted; and _quhal_ = _whal_." --Ellis.]

[Footnote 35: The use of _th_ for _t_ is not uncommon. In the _Romans of Partenay_, we have _thown_, _thaken_, _thouchyng_, &c., for _town_, _taken_, _touching_; see Preface, p. xvi. In the copy of Piers Plowman in MS. Camb. Univ. Lib. Dd l. 17, I have observed several similar examples. Cf. Eng. _tea_, Ital. _te_, Span. _te_, with Fr. _the_, Swed. _the_, G. Du. Dan. _thee_.]

[Footnote 36: "Is _e_ for _o_ a mistake, or may it be compared with _preue_ for _prove_, &c.?" --Ellis. I would observe that _greting_ is the spelling of the _substantive_ in l. 166.]

-- 28. ON THE METRE OF HAVELOK.

The poem is written in the familiar rhythm of which I have already spoken elsewhere, viz. at p. x.x.xvii 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,[37] the two princ.i.p.al types being afforded (1) by the eight-syllable and nine-syllable lines--

(_a_) For hem ne ye de gold ne fe, 44; (_b_) It was a king bi a re dawes, 27;

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

(_c_) Herk net to me go de men, 1; (_d_) Al le that he micth e fynde, 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 of _syllables_, but of _accents_, that is essential. In _every_ line 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 ues, mayd nes, and al le men (_b_) Of a ta le at ich you wile telle[38]

(_b_) Wo-so 't wil' her' and er to duelle, &c.